PCC is not a mouthpiece Waterski day trip to for chief constables Bray is nigh

On February 18, I heard on BBC Radio Berkshire part of an interview with the

Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) for Thames Valley, in which he expressed his (unfavourable) views about so-called ‘Smart Motorways’, into which a lengthy stretch of the M4 is currently being made.

This minute, I cannot recall if the next edition of this series was to be an equally-riveting interview with the Reading Borough Rat-Catcher, to get their opinions on the same matter, or the equally-inconsequential views of the PCC on whether Don Revie or Brian Clough was the greater football manager.

At one point, the interviewer (Andrew Peach) even asked the PCC if he knew what the police force thought about the issue.

If radio broadcasters, or journalists of any kind, wish to know what the police think, they should approach chief constables or their staff.

The PCC is not the chief constable.

The electorate does not elect PCCs to act as a substitute or mouthpiece for chief constables.

Nor do council tax-payers pay substantial sums of money for the running of the office of the PCC, in order to hear the PCC engaging in pontification on random matters.

On the contrary, the role of the PCC is to do much more humdrum things such as hold the chief constable to account for their running of the police force, and to act as appropriate authority for complaints which may be made about the chief constable.

Unfortunately, of late many PCCs seem to think they are being paid their hefty salaries to engage in third-rate party-political broadcasting and commentary.

While the nitty-gritty of police spending and performance against priorities set out in Local Plans may be less exciting than going on radio shows, it is what PCCs are being paid for.

If PCCs do not want to hold chief constables to account, ought they to consider a change of career?

JAY FLYNN Moneyrow Green

Holyport