Let's privatise the police! Page 5

  • Page

    of 30 First / Last

  • LeoliansBro 7 Jun 2012 13:14:12 44,505 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Sorry MD, all you're convincing me of at the moment is that 'privatisation' here is being mismanaged, not that it is inherently bad/wrong.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • MetalDog 7 Jun 2012 13:20:22 23,725 posts
    Seen 3 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    You're certainly welcome to that opinion, LB and in an ideal world I might even agree with you - however, it's not an ideal world and the likelihood of this going really badly and costing us more money in the long term, as well as delivering a shittier service is incredibly high.

    It is also very difficult to reverse this sort of privatisation and the additional structural changes they want to make, so 'wait and see' seems an absolutely unwise response to me.

    -- boobs do nothing for me, I want moustaches and chest hair.

  • disusedgenius 7 Jun 2012 13:22:53 5,405 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    Sorry MD, all you're convincing me of at the moment is that 'privatisation' here is being mismanaged, not that it is inherently bad/wrong.
    Another way of putting it is probably that privatisation is inherently mismanaged, rather than inherently wrong.
  • Mr_Sleep 7 Jun 2012 13:38:58 17,178 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    The argument against privatising the police should be a simple one; name another public-interest organisation/service that has been improved by privatisation. Go on, convince me.

    You are a factory of sadness.

  • kalel 7 Jun 2012 13:45:57 88,370 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Gas.
  • glaeken 7 Jun 2012 13:46:41 11,221 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    @MetalDog I think it's tricky to see how this will really play out. We see that article about cuts in officer numbers resulting in an increase in crime but then reading what is proposed in the changes it looks like some of those changes could free up officers from area's where you don't need a police officer to actually do something and shift them to doing things you do need a trained officer for. That sounds like we could end up getting more for our money and have more available police for the things we actually need them for.

    As for the private companies refusing to do certain things argument there will of course still be police officers as a final escalation of an issue. The guy on the blog posting is very much playing with the extremes of service. If the private elements can clear up 90% of what they are meant to clear up that is still saving resources probably overall.

    I am not saying I support the changes I am just not certain it will all be quite as doom and gloom as its being presented. It could well be a mix of good and bad from what I can see of it.

    Edited by glaeken at 13:47:39 07-06-2012
  • kalel 7 Jun 2012 13:46:57 88,370 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    BT.
  • MetalDog 7 Jun 2012 13:52:04 23,725 posts
    Seen 3 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    @glaeken
    I understand your position - I don't agree with you, but I do understand. Handled well, I think there /is/ a scope for private companies dealing with a lot of the backroom paperwork that otherwise ties up front line officers, but that doesn't seem to be the way it's going to go - too many attacks on the front line officers in other areas. Also, the private companies in question are very clearly pushing for front line contracts in the long term.

    I am very afraid we're going to end up in a situation where we didn't know what we had until it was lost.

    -- boobs do nothing for me, I want moustaches and chest hair.

  • glaeken 7 Jun 2012 14:04:49 11,221 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    I guess for someone who does not feel particularly strongly about the subject I just have two extremes being presented to me at the moment from the pro and anti groups.

    I think what we will end up with will be somewhere between the two extremes and some potential mish mash middle ground end result of what the pro's and anti's are telling me is not something I can feel much passion about.

    I am a terminal pragmatist though so getting me to commit passionately to any political argument is a non-starter. I can sometimes muster vague interest though. I now know enough about this issue to decide I am undecided.

    Edited by glaeken at 14:05:30 07-06-2012
  • MetalDog 7 Jun 2012 14:06:55 23,725 posts
    Seen 3 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Could you be persuaded to argue for closer commons scrutiny of the process than seems to be currently the case? =)

    -- boobs do nothing for me, I want moustaches and chest hair.

  • Mr_Sleep 7 Jun 2012 14:29:18 17,178 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    kalel wrote:
    BT.
    They are a hopeless company who overcharge for everything and are practically a monopoly.

    As for gas, can't necessarily argue against that one as I have no knowledge of the area and I do not know how it was previously to the breakup. Of course, that applies to a lot of the things that have been broken up, rail is one I can argue about though :-)

    You are a factory of sadness.

  • lucky_jim 7 Jun 2012 14:34:12 5,326 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    It's all rather hypothetical, as the way the UK's headed, you'll all be on the Dave Slave programme before too long.
  • kalel 7 Jun 2012 14:49:21 88,370 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    The rail thing has failed due to massive legacy issues dating back literally hundreds of years. Privitisation of rail may yet prove hugely successful but it needs some serious investment before it can work the way it needs to. Itís not really a fair example. There have been several examples of privitisation working both here and especially abroad (New Zealand weirdly have numerous success stories). It isnít inherently flawed.

    And it works best when weíre effectively talking about a business. Privitisation works then the motivation is quite simply to make money, because the most financially successfully businesses are the ones that also best serve the needs of their customers. Itís capitalism at its best. Privitisasion increases efficiency and makes everyone more accountable. Thereís every reason why it should make a business run better.

    The police force doesnít work that way though, or at least not as directly. It doesnít have ďcustomersĒ. Thatís what worries me about privitising the police. It just makes me think of bouncers outside of clubs or whatever. Private enforcement seems a scary thing.
  • Load_2.0 7 Jun 2012 15:07:09 19,442 posts
    Seen 7 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Privitisation in NZ is a massive issue.

    The railway system was sold by the Government in 1993, it fell apart and Government had to bail out the operator and in 2008 brought it back entirely. But the service now is non existant.

    Air New Zealand, then railways and ferries, Kiwibank, ACC (NHS style agency), and the Ports of Auckland have all been returned to SOE's after being privitised.

    Admittedly we are the minority compared to the rest of the world but the consensus with NZ political parties is that privitisation didn't work perfectly when we tried it.

    There were some succeses like Telecom and Petrocorp but the big crucial services were and I believe are much better being run by Government.

    Edited by Load_2.0 at 15:11:51 07-06-2012
  • LeoliansBro 7 Jun 2012 15:09:47 44,505 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Mr_Sleep wrote:
    The argument against privatising the police should be a simple one; name another public-interest organisation/service that has been improved by privatisation. Go on, convince me.
    US prisons. Cheaper for the state, better conditions for the prisoners.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • kalel 7 Jun 2012 15:10:27 88,370 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Oh, I take back that yours is a success story then. I had read that it was.
  • LeoliansBro 7 Jun 2012 15:16:45 44,505 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Also, early days yet but Dragon X and the cheaper solution to servicing the ISS.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • Deleted user 7 June 2012 15:18:55
    Putting aside whether or not privatisation would work, I'd always viewed the police as a core government part - the one there to uphold the 'protect life by maintaining order' thing, which is really the very heart of government. They are not public goods. In my mind, privatising them, or giving the responsibility of it over to a third party, is really no different than saying government has failed at its core concept.
  • glaeken 7 Jun 2012 15:20:08 11,221 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    @MetalDog Sure sounds sort of Ok. Not sure I would hold out to high hopes for politicians scrutinising the work of politicians but what the hell they may as well do something.
  • superdelphinus 7 Jun 2012 15:20:20 8,089 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Mr_Sleep wrote:
    The argument against privatising the police should be a simple one; name another public-interest organisation/service that has been improved by privatisation. Go on, convince me.
    Prisons
  • Load_2.0 7 Jun 2012 15:20:49 19,442 posts
    Seen 7 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    Mr_Sleep wrote:
    The argument against privatising the police should be a simple one; name another public-interest organisation/service that has been improved by privatisation. Go on, convince me.
    US prisons. Cheaper for the state, better conditions for the prisoners.
    Not sure about that one!

    GEO Group, Inc and the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) generated huge profits but are extremely active in lobbying for harsher sentences, changes to legislation on detaining immigrants and the staff have a 49% higher chance of being assaulted in a private prison as opposed to a state prison.

    Surely with prisons the focus should be on rehabilitation first and profit second, they should also not be pushing for there to be more people imprisoned!
  • MetalDog 7 Jun 2012 15:20:59 23,725 posts
    Seen 3 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Aren't Amnesty International investigating several practices of the US prison services?

    -- boobs do nothing for me, I want moustaches and chest hair.

  • mcmonkeyplc 7 Jun 2012 15:21:22 39,467 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    Also, early days yet but SpaceX's Dragon and the cheaper solution to servicing the ISS.
    Fixed.

    Come and get it cumslingers!

  • mcmonkeyplc 7 Jun 2012 15:23:38 39,467 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Telecoms, Gas, Rail are not directly related to morality or justice.

    The police are. We will need to have air tight incentives for private firms not to fuck us over for profit. Cause if they fuck up lives are ruined.

    Come and get it cumslingers!

  • glaeken 7 Jun 2012 15:24:12 11,221 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    @Load_2.0 I have heard similar things about the US prison system. I think with the US though their lobbying system has fucked up their democracy far beyond what we have managed.
  • Deleted user 7 June 2012 15:24:28
    British Airways.
  • Deleted user 7 June 2012 15:24:34
    The biggest complaints about the US Prison system is that the drive for profit has basically turned it into slave labour. Rehabilitation is put aside in favour of commerce, and the workline of convicts making uniforms, license plates, etc etc, to be sold for profit, is ultimately no different from chaingangs breaking rocks at the side of the road, or for a more modern comparison, chinese labourers.
  • Tom_Servo 7 Jun 2012 15:25:35 18,004 posts
    Seen 33 minutes ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    We could argue until the cows come home about privatisation in general (just for the record, I think it works in theory but not so much in practice), but privatising something like the police is a step too far IMHO. It's just a bit creepy. Makes me think of shadowy private mercenaries and things.

    As has been said, it's not like privatising something like water or the railways (just as I typed this, I remembered some interesting stuff from Will Self, the quotes of which can be found here), because there's no product at the end of it for people to buy. The police are there to protect civilians and it's not something that should be farmed out to a third-party corporation, really.
  • Load_2.0 7 Jun 2012 15:26:31 19,442 posts
    Seen 7 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Plus as part of the detail when looking to purchase public prisons from each state is that every prison has to achieve a certain percentage occupancy.

    There is only one way to achieve that target.
  • Deleted user 7 June 2012 15:26:32
    mcmonkeyplc wrote:
    Telecoms, Gas, Rail are not directly related to morality or justice.

    The police are. We will need to have air tight incentives for private firms not to fuck us over for profit. Cause if they fuck up lives are ruined.
    So they need to be run by a Government to have any sense of morals and there's no way of regulating them as a private company?
  • Page

    of 30 First / Last

Log in or register to reply