Ha! Beat me to it Load, was about to caveat about defining 'success' in this case.
LB, you really are a massive geek.
Let's privatise the police! • Page 6
-
Page
of 30 First / Last -
LeoliansBro 35,019 posts
Seen 16 hours ago
Registered 7 years ago -
LeoliansBro 35,019 posts
Seen 16 hours ago
Registered 7 years agoAnd also, the only problem I have with privatisation of the police is that it could lead to varying approaches / practices based on where you live.LB, you really are a massive geek.
-
Load_2.0 14,545 posts
Seen 6 minutes ago
Registered 10 years agoI find it weird that Canary Wharf had its own security force! -
glaeken 10,366 posts
Seen 1 day ago
Registered 8 years agoThat took me a while to realise as their uniform is very close to a real police uniform at a brief glance. Which I guess is the intension.
I would guess how they perform won't be a good indication of anything though in regard to privatisation as Canary Wharf must be a very low crime area.
Edited by glaeken at 15:35:50 07-06-2012 -
meme 15,313 posts
Seen 19 minutes ago
Registered 5 years agoSurely there are different approaches and practices based on where you live anyway? You don't have armed police walking down the high street in Southampton, but you do down Oxford Street in London, for example. Hampshire Constabulary had a big drive to heavily clamp down on speeding, whereas other constabularies didn't. So you're more likely to be prosecuted, rather than ticketed, for speeding in Hampshire, if caught. Unless you meant something else.GHOSTBUSTERS
-
glaeken 10,366 posts
Seen 1 day ago
Registered 8 years agoThe approach to policing in my area is once or twice a year I see a police car. There is a small police station in the local town but it closes at night. In fact I am not even sure its open every day. I have a feeling its only staffed a couple of days a week.
I believe the main form of crime in my area is lawn mower theft. That is one crime I think a private force would be able to handle easily given all they have to do is send someone to listen to the victim and tell them of course they will make finding their missing mower a top priority. Which of course is a joke as I am sure by that time it will have been resprayed and will have been shipped out to the middle east.
Edited by glaeken at 15:42:52 07-06-2012 -
mcmonkeyplc 35,774 posts
Seen 4 hours ago
Registered 10 years agoAargh. wrote:
mcmonkeyplc wrote:
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?
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."We will need to have air tight incetives for private firms not to fuck us over for profit"
Let me translate that for you.
It's possible but the regulations will have to very strict and very well thought out.
The government as a body acting in the interest of it's population has the incentives nailed to make it work. A private company that exists to make profit does not need to take into consideration the population at large.
The geeky term is they need to internalise externalaties and I don't trust private firms with morals. Profits don't give a fuck about morals or justice.Come and get it cumslingers!
-
LeoliansBro 35,019 posts
Seen 16 hours ago
Registered 7 years agomeme wrote:
It's the idea that more individualism will be permitted that I was driving at. But you are right.
Surely there are different approaches and practices based on where you live anyway? You don't have armed police walking down the high street in Southampton, but you do down Oxford Street in London, for example. Hampshire Constabulary had a big drive to heavily clamp down on speeding, whereas other constabularies didn't. So you're more likely to be prosecuted, rather than ticketed, for speeding in Hampshire, if caught. Unless you meant something else.LB, you really are a massive geek.
-
MetalDog 23,448 posts
Seen 1 day ago
Registered 11 years agoI think less individualism will be permitted, in the real sense of the word. The current police constables have a lot of self-discretion available in how they approach things. I suspect private officers will be held to a much more manager-led 'business' system - more letter of the law and less spirit of the law.
The police are there to protect lives and protect property - in that order. They're not there to turn a buck, please politicians or please shareholders.-- boobs do nothing for me, I want moustaches and chest hair.
-
kalel 76,424 posts
Seen 1 hour ago
Registered 10 years agomcmonkeyplc wrote:
Really? What about things like the expenses scandal?
The government as a body acting in the interest of it's population has the incentives nailed to make it work. A private company that exists to make profit does not need to take into consideration the population at large.
There is nothing inherently moral about the public sector, far from it. Anyone that has worked in the public sector in fact (as I have) will know that the comparative lack of accountability breeds immoral behaviour. People get away with stuff in the public sector that you'd never get away with in the private one. People have far less respect for tax payer's money than they do for money that if it were not wasted, could be going into their bonus or their wages. -
meme 15,313 posts
Seen 19 minutes ago
Registered 5 years agoI think it'd end up being less individualism and more elitism. I really can't remember the context or discussion that well, but several months back there was a discussion about something where private companies could effectively break the law by paying the fine they'd get in advance, or something. I may be totally misremembering that and talking shit, though.
But yeah, privatisation of the police would lead more to a plutocracy than anything.GHOSTBUSTERS
-
Aargh. 11,132 posts
Seen 1 hour ago
Registered 2 years agoThe argument that the public sector is some sort of bastion of morality and efficient at running anything is wholly baseless.
Regulation for a private company need be no different to a public company, the only difference needs to be in how their performance, and success, is identified.After chasing sunsets one of life's simple joy is playing with the boys
-
MetalDog 23,448 posts
Seen 1 day ago
Registered 11 years agoI don't think anyone in their right mind would argue that the public sector is free from corruption and stupidity. Neither is the private sector - there's no advantage either way with that argument.
One thing we know for certain is that private companies are based on amoral economic factors. Public services - like the police and the NHS - are generally based on sociological principles.-- boobs do nothing for me, I want moustaches and chest hair.
-
kalel 76,424 posts
Seen 1 hour ago
Registered 10 years agoMetalDog wrote:
Hang on, what?
One thing we know for certain is that private companies are based on amoral economic factors. -
MetalDog 23,448 posts
Seen 1 day ago
Registered 11 years agoThe whole point of a private company is to generate profit, isn't it? Amoral - not immoral.-- boobs do nothing for me, I want moustaches and chest hair.
-
disusedgenius 4,809 posts
Seen 58 seconds ago
Registered 6 years agoAargh. wrote:
The issue's more with accountability - i.e. to voters rather than shareholders.
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? -
cianchristopher 6,360 posts
Seen 10 months ago
Registered 4 years agoMetalDog wrote:
That's not always the whole point, no. It's one of the biggest factors, but not always the whole point.
The whole point of a private company is to generate profit, isn't it? Amoral - not immoral. -
glaeken 10,366 posts
Seen 1 day ago
Registered 8 years agoYeah the company I work for spends a lot of time feeding hungry dolphins. -
kalel 76,424 posts
Seen 1 hour ago
Registered 10 years agoMetalDog wrote:
The whole point of both private and public companies is to provide services. Take the Post Office and Federal Express. Essentially the same thing, but one is public and one is private.
The whole point of a private company is to generate profit, isn't it? Amoral - not immoral.
The difference is the way they are funded. One with public money (taxes), the other has to actually function as a business, and that's where the profit generation comes in, but that isn't the point of it. It's just a necessity of how it works.
And yes. That's where the problem with a nationalised police force is. How can a police force generate money? There may be a good answer to that question btw, I haven't done the reading. -
mcmonkeyplc 35,774 posts
Seen 4 hours ago
Registered 10 years agodisusedgenius wrote:
Bingo!Aargh. wrote:
The issue's more with accountability - i.e. to voters rather than shareholders.
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?Come and get it cumslingers!
-
disusedgenius 4,809 posts
Seen 58 seconds ago
Registered 6 years agokalel wrote:
It's a bit of a moot point though, no? If a service isn't profitable then a private company will just stop providing it - we've seen it in rural public transport and the Post Office and a couple more I can't quite think of. It's the way they're funded which can dictate the kinds of services they can provide.
The difference is the way they are funded. One with public money (taxes), the other has to actually function as a business, and that's where the profit generation comes in, but that isn't the point of it. It's just a necessity of how it works.
Edited by disusedgenius at 17:08:49 07-06-2012 -
kalel 76,424 posts
Seen 1 hour ago
Registered 10 years agodisusedgenius wrote:
I'm just arguing against the idea that the public sector is moral whereas the private one is amoral.kalel wrote:
It's a bit of a moot point though, no? If a service isn't profitable then a private company will just stop providing it - we've seen it in rural public transport and the Post Office and a couple more I can't quite think of. It's the way they're funded which can dictate the kinds of services they can provide.
The difference is the way they are funded. One with public money (taxes), the other has to actually function as a business, and that's where the profit generation comes in, but that isn't the point of it. It's just a necessity of how it works. -
disusedgenius 4,809 posts
Seen 58 seconds ago
Registered 6 years agoAh, fair enough. Was thinking in terms of actions rather than ethics. -
MetalDog 23,448 posts
Seen 1 day ago
Registered 11 years agoI don't think the public sector is necessarily moral - but I think it has more opportunity to be than the private sector because the basic drive behind a public service does not /have/ to be financially gainful to survive.
How moral our public services are is largely up to us, I think. We have to fight politically to make them that way and keep them that way and it will be our own damn fault if we lose them because we couldn't be arsed, or we don't see anything wrong with making everything about money.-- boobs do nothing for me, I want moustaches and chest hair.
-
mcmonkeyplc 35,774 posts
Seen 4 hours ago
Registered 10 years agoProfit is amoral a Vote is not?
I'm not sure what you're after. I don't know why you think the public sector is amoral. Yes it can be immoral as well but it's not supposed to be are you arguing that because of this the fact that profit is amoral is a moot point?Come and get it cumslingers!
-
MetalDog 23,448 posts
Seen 1 day ago
Registered 11 years ago@mcmonkeyplc
I genuinely don't understand your question the way you've phrased it - sorry.-- boobs do nothing for me, I want moustaches and chest hair.
-
kalel 76,424 posts
Seen 1 hour ago
Registered 10 years agoMetalDog wrote:
OK, I agree with that, or at least I agree that it’s a good thing that something beneficial that is publically funded can continue to survive even if it isn’t profitable. Not sure “moral” is quite the right word here, and I think that’s a slightly dangerous road to go down tbh. Makes the whole thing a bit emotive.
I don't think the public sector is necessarily moral - but I think it has more opportunity to be than the private sector because the basic drive behind a public service does not /have/ to be financially gainful to survive.
I realise this is probably a very stupid question, but how exactly will this privatised police force generate income?
Edited by kalel at 17:24:30 07-06-2012 -
whatfruit 402 posts
Seen 9 hours ago
Registered 2 years ago@LeoliansBro U.S Prison privatasion is the number 1 example of how not to implement privatisation. Undertrained staff held, prisons at over 100% occupancy, little to no rehabilative programmes. Active lobbying by prison companies and victim groups to increase prison population to increase labour pool with companies making massive profits. Unedible food removing good time(CCA have done this).
CCA recently won a contract in California to build a medium secuity facility with a contractual mandate that it remain at least 95% occupancy. -
Inertia 560 posts
Seen 39 minutes ago
Registered 3 years agoInterestingly would they be allowed to strike if the police were privatized? -
I think mcm is attempting to make a point against me btw. Failing abjectly sadly.
-
Page
of 30 First / Last
