This blog is mainly about the governance and future of policing and crime services. (Police & Crime Commissioners feature quite a lot.) But there are also posts about the wider justice system. And because I am town councillor and political activist, local & national issues are covered a little, as well.

Wednesday, June 5, 2013

iPad yes (TomTom no?)

Back in the middle of May I asked a series of questions of the Thames Valley Office of the Police & Crime Commissioner. Nothing stunningly new here - but for the record (my questions in italics - their answers in bold):

1. Has Mr Stansfeld ever been issued with a secure laptop?


2. If not, has this option ever been discussed with him sometime in the last six months?


3. If the option has been discussed and not pursued, why was this? If cost was a factor, what was it judged to cost to provide Mr Stansfeld with remote secure access to appropriate systems (including email)


4. Overall, what IT / communication equipment has been provided to Mr Stansfeld?

Blackberry and ipad only at his request

5. Was the option of home secure access (via landline) to Thames Valley police / OPCC systems ever discussed? What was the outcome?
6. If not, why not?
7. If it was discussed and not pursued, how come?

[together] In response to a previous request for information the operational reasons for the PCC to use the office at Hungerford Police Station and not using his home, is to provide him with local access to secure Force systems, equipment (including a printer). The PCC has stated that he does not wish to access confidential work-related information from, or store such information within, his home (which is not seen as an appropriate secure environment).  

No comments:

Post a Comment