UKC

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/mar/02/police-privatisation-security-firm...

Now I know the Guardian isn't very pro Tory but this, if true, is just wrong on every level.

What I want to know is does anyone actually think this is a good idea?

In reply to KTT: I'm astounded that this has so little coverage and no response on here.

It's frightening

In reply to KTT:

what's wrong with it ?

In reply to Jim Hamilton:

I have no problem with any of the logistics of policing being carried out under contract, get oficers out of stations and onto the streets, but i think there are going to be some massive issues before this works well, hopefully thsoe issues will just be financial and no unavoidable deaths or wrongfull imprisonments

In reply to Daithi O Murchu: There have been plenty of wrongful imprisonments under the current system

In reply to KTT: i thought most of the dodgy stuff that the polis do is already privatised- having babies with eco-activists etc- no accountability and all that?

In reply to KTT:
It's going to be like having bouncers on every street corner.

In reply to Daithi O Murchu:

How on earth do you think this is ever going to work well?

In reply to birdie num num: wake up numnum- cctv..

In reply to KTT:

mmm, "Paycops" - have your wallet ready - just like the Quatermass series in the 80s - thought that was far fetched but obiously I was wrong

In reply to icnoble:

Perhaps you could clarify "plenty"?

For what it's worth privatising the police is crazy. Civilianising it is bad enough.

In reply to off-duty:

but why are the proposals crazy, wrong etc

In reply to icnoble:

Without having had time to discuss this in detail, imprisonment has nothing to do with the police. That's the job of the crown prosecution / procurator fiscal.

In reply to Jim Hamilton:

You'll find out. Try thinking: "industrial action" for starters...

In reply to Jim Hamilton:


erm ... to make a profit from a service draws money from the service.

In reply to KTT: At the moment (as I understand things) although there are plenty of issues we can criticise the police about, there is still a selection procedure,time spent at police cadet college etc.

Giving random civilians police powers and access to confidential information (something already abused under our present system) could lead to people who seek an unhealthy power over others through to plants from drug lords, gangsters ,big business and politicians, all seeking influence and confidential information.

I agree totally with you KTT - if the article is true and accurate then it is wrong on every level and a very scary prospect. I trust and have little enough confidence in the police as it is (although I do know some very intelligent ,good and commited officers) allowing the private sector in can only lead to more incompetence, corruption, abuse and misuse of powers.

Incredibly scary prospect.

In reply to muppetfilter: ps. look at how a company like Angard F**ked up the royal mail christmas logistics. Wrong shifts, pay etc etc. Imagine this level of incompetence during the riots.

In reply to muppetfilter: Privatising the police would be nearly as bad as privatising the NHS.

In reply to KTT:

As someone who is generally in favour of small government and slimming down the public sector I have to say that privatising the police makes me feel very queasy indeed.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

We can't just be 'queasy' about this outrageous scheme - we must stand up and shout against it. (If the worst comes to the worst, vote against it at the next general election.)

In reply to KTT:

I am guessing Capita is already making new mail templates:

"as you own a car that can go faster than the speed limit, you must pay these speeding tickets.
If you think you have not been speeding you can call us or go to this website to tell us you have not been speeding, we might still come and check your car though"

In reply to Al Evans:

I think you're wrong there. Privatising the police is far worse.

Maybe 'The Sun', or which ever news corporation you choose from which ever country has the most to financially or politically gain, could become a proud sponsor of 'Plod.PLC'?

Plod.PLC could even drum up riots just to keep business ticking over while the News Group of your choice gives a political spin to boost sales and revenue at the same time.

And obviously when it comes to re-negotiating contracts at Plod.PLC, staff could hold strike action. Can't see a problem their either.

Wonder which crimes are the most lucrative to prosecute and which are not?

I'm guessing that law abiding citizens such as drivers would be seen as Cash Cows to plunder while drug addled scrotes with nothing to their name would not be worth investigating as there would be no financial gain.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I think that the time is coming to stand.

In reply to confusicating:

Maggie had the Poll Tax.

Cameron can go quite a few better by privatising the police and the NHS. Maybe he has plans for the fire service and the armed forces as well.

In reply to confusicating:

Important that people don't just tell each other they should do on the internet though, and actually do.

Not aimed at you by the way.

In reply to KTT: And to think this was once a joke!

youtube.com/watch?v=vLfghLQE3F4&

In reply to 1100110:
Sickening at a most basic moral level. We're regressing to the 18th century.

Having said that where do I buy my shares in Britlaw plc?

In reply to trouserburp:


Try this link

https://www.conservatives.com/Get_involved/Join/Member.aspx

In reply to KTT:

This is bonkers. What do the police currently waste so much money on, that private companies are going to be able to satisfy their shareholders and give us a better service?

I can understand why very short-sighted people may support the privatisation of the NHS, but this is just unfathomable.

In reply to Timmd:

I know, I agree. (was just voicing my actions)

In reply to The Lemming:

don't forget that ACPO was privatised under labour- they're all singing from the same sheet..

In reply to KTT:

Whoa...
Heard rep from gs4 on r4 who says they have on interest and knows of no company that has interest in front line policing work. He doesn't believe this is on the table. He says they are interested in middle and back office work such as scene of crime forensics or specialist eg.financial investigation support.

"Well, he would say that wouldn't he?" I hear the UK's collective mutter. But being open minded and fair people I am sure you will await development s before condemning out of hand.

Interesting but not surprising that the Grauniad dont appear to have tried very hard to get the "whole picture".

Typical of the government to let the Grauniad and the unions to make all the running.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Really? http://www.policingsolutions.co.uk/

In reply to Paul F:

Just relaying his comments as I remember them. What do you see to contradict them?

In reply to KTT:


Well Surrey Police think so. Mind you, interesting comment on Police blog http://inspectorgadget.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/creeping-privatisation-of-t... Follow the money.

"Right, now let’s join up the dots. Mark Rowley, the Chief Constable who made Surrey the outstanding success it currently is (not), moves to the Met as Assistant Commissioner i/c Central Operations and Specialist Crime . He is ex-West Mids, a personal friend of the WMP Chief Chris Sims, and leads for ACPO on ‘modernising the workforce’. Prior to his appointment (as they all do) Rowley would have met recent Met Commissioners such as ‘Beaujolais Bill’ Lord Stevens, Lord Ian Blair (who invented PCSO’s and was Chief of Surrey), and that other great leader of men, Lord Paul Condon.

Now, where does Condon currently earn a crust to help out with his pension? As Senior Independent Director at G4S where he also chairs the Remuneration Committee. And where is G4S’s worldwide HQ? In Crawley. just 18 miles from Surrey HQ.

And which Chief HMI would have given the go-ahead for this announcement before the Home Secretary opened her mouth? Why, none other than Denis O’Connor, ex-Chief Constable of Surrey, and ex-Met Assistant Commissioner who worked with Paul Condon.

Watch this space. The privatisation process, which like all police initiatives, will never be evaluated and is therefore doomed to success, will start with WMP and Surrey next year. Shortly thereafter, with the Olympics out of the way, and ‘gongs’ all round for the Management Team, the Met will enthusiastically join in."

In reply to KTT:

Cr4p management is the same whether public or private. The only difference is that for private there are more snouts at the trough so to feed them all you pay more.

In reply to Jim Fraser: there's also the issue of unaccountability..

In reply to subalpine:

No, they will have to answer to the shareholders :0)

In reply to Paul F:

So,reading between the lines, you think this is a good initiative for the police?

In reply to KTT:

Why Don't they use some of the £25m they spend EACH day on aid to pay our own police? Oh because they prefer to build up someone elses services... i think i need a happy pill

In reply to RCJ:

The tax payer not subsidising bars in the House of commons to the tune of £6m a year, or expenses at £3.2m for the first two months of 2011. (and believed to exceed £47m so far for this financial year)

Even after the public reaction to the expenses scandal, I can't recall any 'independent' review into MP's pay and pensions, we're all in this together after all.

In reply to Paul F:
Watch this space. The privatisation process, which like all police initiatives, will never be evaluated and is therefore doomed to success, will start with WMP and Surrey next year. Shortly thereafter, with the Olympics out of the way, and ‘gongs’ all round for the Management Team, the Met will enthusiastically join in."

Some may say a little conspiracy theory rich but I am not one of those. I believe the phrase 'Its not what you know but who you know' was practically invented in by the police!

It only takes one and the rest will follow, like lambs to the slaughter...

In reply to David Hooper:

Whilst i respect your view, i'm not sure i agree with it. Why are you worried about incompetence, corruption, abuse and misuse of powers in the private sector, when it has been shown over the last few years that the public sector is rife with it? Why do some people view all that is the public sector as good and high faluting, and everything the private sector do as corrupt and selfish?

The public sector is a breeding ground for incompetence and corruption, with little or no oversight or control, so i'm not sure how contracting out some services to the private sector will see standards plummet overnight. If anything, at least if they provide a sh!t service, they can be let go...

In reply to monkeyboyraw:

Conspiracy theory? Here's one involving Lincolnshire police Chief Constable Richard Crompton and his director of resources Peter Steed who have just made a deal with G4S worth £200m.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-16409410
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-16391868
I wonder where they will end up ?

In reply to Paul F:
Yeah i read about that too, obviously not fishy in any way!
I'm sure that a little digging around in personal finances wouldn't uncover some interesting facts from these two!

More proof, not that any were needed, that The Guardian is becoming nothing more than a Daily Mail for the middle class lefty.


A 26-page "commercial in confidence" contract note seen by the Guardian has been sent to potential bidders to run all services that "can be legally delegated to the private sector". They do not include those that involve the power of arrest and the other duties of a sworn constable.

The breathtaking list of policing activities up for grabs includes investigating crimes, detaining suspects, developing cases, responding to and investigating incidents, supporting victims and witnesses, managing high-risk individuals, patrolling neighbourhoods, managing intelligence, managing engagement with the public, as well as more traditional back-office functions, such as managing forensics, providing legal services, managing the vehicle fleet, finance and human resources

All of which could be done by a private firm without intruding onto normal police duties.

In reply to stroppygob:

An interesting list of jobs.
Do you suppose that the increase in privatised "officers" will lead to an increase or decrease in the number of warranted police officers on the street, able to deal with whatever incident they come across?
Do you imagine that non-warranted non police officers investigating serious crime will be better or worse than detectives at analysing offences, suspects, witnesses and offenders "on the hoof" as well as equipped with the powers to deal with them?
Can you foresee any issues when dealing with recalcitrant witnesses in high crime areas who live cheek by jowel with the offenders, when a civilian turns up to conduct house to house or statement victims or witnesses?
When a major incident breaks and there is a requirement to stay on duty (again) for another 18 hour day, will there be an issue with civilian hours and terms and conditions of employment?

In reply to off-duty:
Well, it depends whether you believe the guardian or Gs4. The latter say the role of warranted police officers is absolutely sacrosanct and that the point of the strategy is to allow more of them to be "on the street". I don't claim to know the truth but I see no reason to disbelieve the gs4 line any more than disbelieving the Grauniad or the daily mail..

In reply to off-duty:
You seem very keen to believe that this is what will happen.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Not sure what you mean. I was responding to stroppygob's suggestion that non warranted non police from a private company could carry out the same "non front line" job as police officers.

In reply to off-duty:

Yes you Appear to accept the Grauniad interpetatiion of what his means. The GS4 argument is that it would never involve run of the mill investigations but eg. specialist areas in which the police cannot justify maintaining a full time team internally.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I'm not entirely sure what specialist investigations would benefit from the introduction of less experienced investigators.
As for the cost savings - we currently employ civilian investigators. The ex-police officers standing head, shoulders and buttocks above the non police.
I can't see how employing them on short term contracts via a third party private company would make things cheaper.

In reply to Postmanpat:

But then 20 yrs ago G4S was given the contract for transporting prisoners, taking over from HM Prison services. Despite Prison officers warning that it would mean redundancies for prison officers and a gradual privatisation of the service. Now G4S runs several of Britain's prisons.

In reply to off-duty:
>
Complicated financial investigations was given as an example. No reason why ex police officers can't work in the private sector and be outsourced. May make economic logic, may not. That, presumably is what they want to explore.

In reply to Milesy:

and who exactly collects the evidence?

In reply to Daithi O Murchu:


Curious to know where judges come in too!