Should be setting much better example...

I'M delighted to hear that the Crime Commissioner Matthew Grove is interested in hearing our views (Grimsby Telegraph, Monday, January 7, 2013).

Last month he appointed councillor Paul Robinson as his deputy, but hardly had the ink dried on his contract when Mr Robinson was seen using his mobile phone whilst driving, which has been an offence since 2003.

The penalty for this offence is a £60 fine plus three penalty points. Mr Robinson was far luckier than the rest of us would have been in similar circumstances, escaping with a ticking off by a senior officer. How magnanimous of him to apologise and to say "I have made a mistake and learned my lesson".

Now, I was brought up near a farmyard and I recognise that smell – the fact is that when Mr Robinson's mobile rang he picked it up on purpose, not by mistake.

Someone in Mr Robinson's exalted position should be setting us all a far better example.

What I find most worrying is that there appears to be a whiff of cronyism in the making here between Mr Robinson and the police when they decided not to prosecute him. I'm sure the readers will be delighted that Mr Robinson's £45,000 salary as a deputy, plus the small amount he makes as a councillor, won't be dented by a £60 fine.

Niels Volland, Mendip Avenue, Grimsby.

I NOTE that the deputy police and crime commissioner, Paul Robinson, was caught using his mobile phone on the Humber Bridge on November 29 2012.

He was contacted by the police and attended a police station where he was given suitable words of advice by a senior officer regarding the dangers of using a mobile phone whilst driving. In other words he was "let off".

Can you imagine for one minute that if it had been you or I using a mobile phone while driving that we would have got off scot free? Not in a million years would that have happened to us, old Joe public.

I misguidedly voted for Matthew Grove to be our new Police and Crime commissioner, more to keep out old "Two Jags Prescott" than anything else, but what a mistake it turned out to be for me.

Grove has ignored the objections of the independent Police and Crime Panel recommendations and appointed Paul Robinson as his deputy.

He stated that he knows that Paul's vast experience and deep understanding of community safety issues fits him for the role of deputy. Like hell it does. Paul Robinson has no idea of community safety if he blatantly uses a mobile phone while driving. Still, if you get away with it, what does it matter?

When we vote again for the role of Police and Crime Commissioner, I will definitely not vote for Matthew Grove. This time I would sooner vote for Prescott instead, who I cannot stand at any price!

Ian T Cartwright, Seacroft Road, Cleethorpes.

AFTER very little political news over the Christmas period it was good to receive the Grimsby Telegraph on Monday.

First of all there was an article on the new police and crime commissioner who stood his ground against an independent committee, and chose his own deputy.

It shows that he is his own man and I applaud him for that.

On the same page it mentions his deputy was seen talking on his mobile phone while driving, although not seen by the police he admitted the offence and was given a talking to by them. Now Matthew Grove should sack his deputy to prove he will not tolerate the arrogance that most politician's possess. A blue tooth system can be bought for as little as £25 and not using one is against the law, whether a person is caught by the police or not.

Another political row is the one in Great Coates where the village council continually ignores the will of the people of the village. The North East Lincs Council has the power to dissolve this council but refuses to do so.

Once again, is this a case of political arrogance.

The third item for debate is not so political but the parent in this article is a councillor which will always bring a political view to this kind of story. It is something that can affect a lot of parents. The debate is on fining parents who allow their children to miss school to go on holiday. In this case I think the school was wrong in fining the mother but should have brought the full weight of the law down on the father. The fine could be £50 per day, (not per holiday), and the mother is correct when she states that to have stopped the holiday herself would have probably alienated both her child and her ex husband. The school has put this mother in a very delicate position, which could have caused the pupil unhappiness which in turn would not have improved his attitude to his education.

This law will only be fair when private schools are banned from taking pupils, in term time, on educational trips which are in reality additional holidays. Once again this is an arrogance from people with money not only for private schools but for giving their offspring time off school which less well off parents would be fined for.

Sid, Scartho, Full address supplied.

The Telegraph Says

Remember our online debate with Matthew Grove – log on to www.thisisgrimsby.co.uk at 1pm tomorrow.