Okay, well, I'm going to be blunt about a few things that people probably one like. For starters I think the entire idea of a "police and crime commissioner" is absolutly ridiculous in of itself. It sounds like the kind of bureaucratic stupidity that the UK engages in mockery of itself for. Not to mention probably getting in the way of the real police doing their job. Of course give the US time and we'll probably one up it with something even dumber.
The idea of bringing kids into police to act as "ambassadors" is an old idea, but at the same time the purpose is typically to try and bridge a generation gap and address youth issues. This seems to be the basic idea behind the role Paris was doing. The thing is that she's supposed to be there to bridge a gap to help deal with so called "antisocial behavior" in her job description, not to act as a role model and paragon of virtue. The idea is to have someone that the police and the youth both trust. If she acts like a rowdy kid, that's kind of the point since that's who you want her to deal with. She's not supposed to be some kind of "model citizen" to parade around and show kids and say "be like her".
Let's be blunt here, anyone who has been on a message board or X-box 360 is going to hear comments just like what she made. It probably shouldn't be a news flash to anyone but homosexuals and illegal/poorly assimilated immigrants are not well loved, especially by the youth. Both represent contreversial issues that have most of the western first world divided 50-50. If you want her to be indicative of the youth, you have to expect her to have or at least reflect *gasp* the ideas of the youth. The big question in this paticular case is if you'd trust her to say go to the police if she ran into or heard about a group of other kids deciding to say beat a gay to brutally and record it on their cellphones to post on the internet, as opposed to leaving it at a verbal/attitude level. Perhaps even more importantly, does she have the abillity to perhaps intervene and defuse/keep an eye on the situation so the police don't have to get involved to begin with?
While the media of course glamorizes it, perhaps the best US "fantasy" examples of the type of job this seems to be from the description are things like say "The Mod Squad" or "21 Jump Street" albiet she's not undercover in the same way. The thing is you don't want a good two shoes doing that job because the idea is to build a bridge, not try and present a sort of role-model of your ideal youth in hopes others will emulate it, which is just going to continue to maintain a sort of barrier.
Speaking for myself, it seems like the people running the program haven't even read their own mission statement going by the information above. On the other hand if they believed they couldn't trust Paris to intervene or inform when nessicary, or doubted her abillity to do so, then that would be a reason to dump her. To be honest everything that's negative from her twitter actually kind of reinforces why she'd fit in with that job if she is trusted, because that's EXACTLY the kind of crowd she's in the job to build a bridge with.
I'll also add as an aside that the screwed up thing about any kind of police, or high end security job, is that it leads to the people doing those jobs having to quickly face reality and that generally means becoming exactly what liberal idealists try and avoid facing. In most of the western first world you hear about how cops are racist, "homophobic", politically incorrect, intolerant of immigrants (illegal or otherwise), etc... that has been an issue pretty much forever. The thing isn't that bigots gravitate towards police or certain kinds of security work, but that the job makes them what they are. When you have the authority, job, and resources to peak behind the curtain and see how people are when society as a whole isn't watching, it changes you. It's bad enough for regular cops and security, but really telling when you get involved in any kind of suerveillance. Your typical person sees what other people want them to see, even close friends, you generally don't get to dig through someone's stuff, observe them when they think they are totally alone, or eavesdrop on what they tell differant people at differant times. Having all of that information generally turns people into bigots for some very good reasons. Out in the world everyone puts on a face, even with their friends and family, and seems relatively safe, normal, and just trying to get along. Not many people ever get to see beyond that, snoop, interrogate, etc... Due to public perceptions though cops and such at least have to play the game of being fairly liberal, but talk shop on the inside, or really get to know them... all of them wind up incredibly jaded. When I took criminal justice I was warned about this. People on forums like this consider me a pretty hateful person today, but honestly, I used to be far differant.
The point of the above rant is that while she was 14 when she said a lot of this stuff, some of the bits that people think make her "unsuitable for the job" are ironically very close to what most police or security veterans tend to think like. The complaints mostly being politically correct, in a very literal sense, since it's probably citizens appealing to politicians that are the force behind wanting her gone.
A lot of this won't be popular on these forums of course, but on a final note I'll say that if I was called upon to assist with her review (I've been in similar positions before) I'd primarly be looking at how well she did her job and how well she got along with the people she was supposed to be working with on both sides. How many incidents was she involved in, how did they turn out, co-worker and youth relations, etc... things like that. Even in the worst case scenario the bottom line is someone hired her, and even in the UK there is a right to free speech, she has every right to be a reprehensible jerk when you get down to it, it's all about if she can do the job, and whether she's the kind of jerk that is effecting the functioning of the unit she belongs to. Once she has the job if the only ones that don't like her are outsiders of the sort she's not dealing with professionally, they can go pound sand. My major concern with that job description is whether I can trust her to do the job, and whether those anti-social youths she's there to deal with accept her... and note, I by definition expert her to be an anti-social jerk, after all the whole point of the job is because the "normal" people we keep around can't do it. Chances are if she pisses off the politicians, she's A-okay with the problem children who also piss off the politically correct politicians... see the common ground they have?
The idea of bringing kids into police to act as "ambassadors" is an old idea, but at the same time the purpose is typically to try and bridge a generation gap and address youth issues. This seems to be the basic idea behind the role Paris was doing. The thing is that she's supposed to be there to bridge a gap to help deal with so called "antisocial behavior" in her job description, not to act as a role model and paragon of virtue. The idea is to have someone that the police and the youth both trust. If she acts like a rowdy kid, that's kind of the point since that's who you want her to deal with. She's not supposed to be some kind of "model citizen" to parade around and show kids and say "be like her".
Let's be blunt here, anyone who has been on a message board or X-box 360 is going to hear comments just like what she made. It probably shouldn't be a news flash to anyone but homosexuals and illegal/poorly assimilated immigrants are not well loved, especially by the youth. Both represent contreversial issues that have most of the western first world divided 50-50. If you want her to be indicative of the youth, you have to expect her to have or at least reflect *gasp* the ideas of the youth. The big question in this paticular case is if you'd trust her to say go to the police if she ran into or heard about a group of other kids deciding to say beat a gay to brutally and record it on their cellphones to post on the internet, as opposed to leaving it at a verbal/attitude level. Perhaps even more importantly, does she have the abillity to perhaps intervene and defuse/keep an eye on the situation so the police don't have to get involved to begin with?
While the media of course glamorizes it, perhaps the best US "fantasy" examples of the type of job this seems to be from the description are things like say "The Mod Squad" or "21 Jump Street" albiet she's not undercover in the same way. The thing is you don't want a good two shoes doing that job because the idea is to build a bridge, not try and present a sort of role-model of your ideal youth in hopes others will emulate it, which is just going to continue to maintain a sort of barrier.
Speaking for myself, it seems like the people running the program haven't even read their own mission statement going by the information above. On the other hand if they believed they couldn't trust Paris to intervene or inform when nessicary, or doubted her abillity to do so, then that would be a reason to dump her. To be honest everything that's negative from her twitter actually kind of reinforces why she'd fit in with that job if she is trusted, because that's EXACTLY the kind of crowd she's in the job to build a bridge with.
I'll also add as an aside that the screwed up thing about any kind of police, or high end security job, is that it leads to the people doing those jobs having to quickly face reality and that generally means becoming exactly what liberal idealists try and avoid facing. In most of the western first world you hear about how cops are racist, "homophobic", politically incorrect, intolerant of immigrants (illegal or otherwise), etc... that has been an issue pretty much forever. The thing isn't that bigots gravitate towards police or certain kinds of security work, but that the job makes them what they are. When you have the authority, job, and resources to peak behind the curtain and see how people are when society as a whole isn't watching, it changes you. It's bad enough for regular cops and security, but really telling when you get involved in any kind of suerveillance. Your typical person sees what other people want them to see, even close friends, you generally don't get to dig through someone's stuff, observe them when they think they are totally alone, or eavesdrop on what they tell differant people at differant times. Having all of that information generally turns people into bigots for some very good reasons. Out in the world everyone puts on a face, even with their friends and family, and seems relatively safe, normal, and just trying to get along. Not many people ever get to see beyond that, snoop, interrogate, etc... Due to public perceptions though cops and such at least have to play the game of being fairly liberal, but talk shop on the inside, or really get to know them... all of them wind up incredibly jaded. When I took criminal justice I was warned about this. People on forums like this consider me a pretty hateful person today, but honestly, I used to be far differant.
The point of the above rant is that while she was 14 when she said a lot of this stuff, some of the bits that people think make her "unsuitable for the job" are ironically very close to what most police or security veterans tend to think like. The complaints mostly being politically correct, in a very literal sense, since it's probably citizens appealing to politicians that are the force behind wanting her gone.
A lot of this won't be popular on these forums of course, but on a final note I'll say that if I was called upon to assist with her review (I've been in similar positions before) I'd primarly be looking at how well she did her job and how well she got along with the people she was supposed to be working with on both sides. How many incidents was she involved in, how did they turn out, co-worker and youth relations, etc... things like that. Even in the worst case scenario the bottom line is someone hired her, and even in the UK there is a right to free speech, she has every right to be a reprehensible jerk when you get down to it, it's all about if she can do the job, and whether she's the kind of jerk that is effecting the functioning of the unit she belongs to. Once she has the job if the only ones that don't like her are outsiders of the sort she's not dealing with professionally, they can go pound sand. My major concern with that job description is whether I can trust her to do the job, and whether those anti-social youths she's there to deal with accept her... and note, I by definition expert her to be an anti-social jerk, after all the whole point of the job is because the "normal" people we keep around can't do it. Chances are if she pisses off the politicians, she's A-okay with the problem children who also piss off the politically correct politicians... see the common ground they have?
