Let's privatise the police! Page 4

  • Page

    of 30 First / Last

  • MetalDog 29 May 2012 11:51:38 23,697 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    We're not too late. Let's not be defeatist arseholes on the issue or we're screwed.

    I emailed the Met today enquiring as to whether protests were banned during the Olympics or not - they got back to me incredibly fast and say that they're not banned, but finding room to do it in all the events, mobs, tourists etc could be difficult.

    I am inclined to agree with the latter points and since I'm trying to raise awareness amongst people who live here, rather than people dropping by for the Olympics, I'm thinking I should concentrate on scheduling a static demo /after/ the madness of the Olympics rather than adding to the pain.

    A question for anyone thinking of pitching in - taking a weekday off or holding a demo on the weekend - which seems better for attending and for reaching the locals? Is anyone actually up for it, or am I going to be strapping on a depends and doing it solo?

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

  • disusedgenius 29 May 2012 12:06:04 5,359 posts
    Seen 32 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Aargh. wrote:
    Explain why privatisation is inherently bad.
    Conflict of interests between service and profitability, mostly.
  • MetalDog 29 May 2012 12:21:59 23,697 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    The police as they are, police with the consent of the public and are accountable to the public.
    A private police force with less training, staffed by people who may not have passed regular police recruitment standards, run for profit and with lots of money-ties to ministers in government is an extremely bad idea. Especially if the feature creep reaches the front line.

    @Madgod
    Quite short notice for a disorganised soul such as myself and disrupting Jubilee celebrations in any way shape or form is quite likely to piss off the people most likely to back the police, I would have thought?
    Although it's looking increasingly likely this is just going to be me with a placard and a bunch of leaflets anyway, so whenever I do this, I'm guessing disruption will be minimal!

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

  • MetalDog 29 May 2012 13:17:10 23,697 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    I'll have a look at leafleting laws in particular and printing costs with it in mind.
    If you do jack all else, pop on over and sign this.

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

  • glaeken 29 May 2012 13:31:08 11,197 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    I don't know I quite like the sound of it. Will there be some sort of premium police service for non pleb's? Some sort of ex-directory emergency number that gives you special service.
  • desirous 29 May 2012 14:23:52 85 posts
    Seen 2 years ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    MetalDog wrote:
    The police as they are, police with the consent of the public and are accountable to the public.
    A private police force with less training, staffed by people who may not have passed regular police recruitment standards, run for profit and with lots of money-ties to ministers in government is an extremely bad idea. Especially if the feature creep reaches the front line.


    I could see a lot of quite unpleasant features creeping in, in the future. For example traffic wardens are fairly well known for tactics such as waiting five minutes for someone to park illegally then issuing a ticket without warning. Taking advantage of poorly sign posted places and so on.

    With privitation there would obviously be more quoatas for arrests, more bonuses for numbers gained. Basically arrest someone and get a bonus - very open to abuse and a lot more sinister than road tickets.
  • Deleted user 29 May 2012 15:12:58
    disusedgenius wrote:
    Aargh. wrote:
    Explain why privatisation is inherently bad.
    Conflict of interests between service and profitability, mostly.
    Not really any different to being Government run and meeting budgets.
  • MetalDog 29 May 2012 15:23:19 23,697 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    I think there will be a considerable difference if it goes private all the way.

    At the moment they still have some power of discretion, so while they might get a bollocking from their supers for not meeting their 'targets', they can choose not to meet those targets and do something else, if it seems more important.

    I don't believe that sort of discretionary action will occur with G4S employees. What if the targets are a nonsensical box-ticking operation instead of good practice? What if meeting targets in anti-social behaviour statistics means road traffic accidents, domestic abuse and public order calls are slow to attend due to limited resources? Doesn't matter - miss the targets, get fired because you made your manager look bad.

    @edit
    Kant spel

    Edited by MetalDog at 15:32:48 29-05-2012

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

  • desirous 29 May 2012 15:51:39 85 posts
    Seen 2 years ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    Aargh. wrote:
    disusedgenius wrote:
    Aargh. wrote:
    Explain why privatisation is inherently bad.
    Conflict of interests between service and profitability, mostly.
    Not really any different to being Government run and meeting budgets.
    If you think about it rationally you'd have to say, yes what's the difference? They both would be set up in similar ways, with similar goals.

    In practicality it's a whole different story. At least in Britain I think every service that has been privatized has suffered in quality to costumers, in price or whatever - rail, post, electric. You name it. It's an unstopable depressing trend nowadays anyway, purely ideological imo, not even about money, even the holy cow - the NHS - has been altered maybe irretrievably now.
  • Khanivor 29 May 2012 15:55:14 40,850 posts
    Seen 12 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    MetalDog wrote:
    I don't believe that sort of discretionary action will occur with G4S employees. What if the targets are a nonsensical box-ticking operation instead of good practice? What if meeting targets in anti-social behaviour statistics means road traffic accidents, domestic abuse and public order calls are slow to attend due to limited resources? Doesn't matter - miss the targets, get fired because you made your manager look bad.
    Other than the last bit isn't that pretty much how things are at the moment?
  • AcidSnake 29 May 2012 15:57:23 7,282 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    I've always been of the opinion that basic life necessities should not be privatised...Gas, water, electric, police, fire department, education and healthcare...

    Though I can see an exception for groceries mainly because there's so damn many...

    AcidSnake - He can't see your sig, avatar, images or vids and talks about himself in the third person because he's proper old-skool...UID 24017

  • MetalDog 29 May 2012 15:59:33 23,697 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    There are a lot of stupid targets that are causing problems with the service, but they can and do ignore the targets where necessary and take the flack for it.

    The solution is to stop setting so much store by ridiculous targets that ignore a lot of good police work in favour of tabloid-friendly figures, not to make them unable to make a decision without fear of losing their job.

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

  • disusedgenius 29 May 2012 16:10:27 5,359 posts
    Seen 32 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Aargh. wrote:
    Not really any different to being Government run and meeting budgets.
    Sure it is.
  • Deleted user 29 May 2012 16:21:28
    Well I'm convinced.
  • disusedgenius 29 May 2012 16:27:57 5,359 posts
    Seen 32 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Well yeah, quite.
  • MetalDog 5 Jun 2012 11:57:40 23,697 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Went to see my MP about all this on Saturday. He did not seem to know a lot of what I told him - so I encourage everyone who gives a shit to speak to their MP about this issue.

    I am working on more action. I could do with some advice from anyone with solicitor knowledge and I could do with assistance from a graphic designer quite soon if anyone wants to PM me and offer - I'm currently being spammed with blocked PMs from someone who should speak to me on forum if they want to speak to me at all, so if I don't answer within a day or so, please resend, my inbox has gone all funny from the deluge of blocked messages.

    Also, I found something on the Police Oracle forums that deserves a wider audience.
    This is originally a post from an Inspector Gadget reader. 'The Job' is slang for the police force:


    Took yesterday as leave in order to attend a ‘getting to know each other’ three-day residential weekend at a hotel which I would not normally be in a position to stay at, (unless someone else was paying).

    My soon-to-be employers, (six weeks to my 30 and counting), are treating us newbies royally. We are all ex-Job (now or very soon) and I have already met two guys I was on courses with in the Met; an ex-colleague from GH, and a couple of county blokes I have run into over the years. I am impressed by the range of experience and rank (DS to uniform Chief Supt). This firm clearly know what they are looking for and it strikes me that the job will have real problems in a few years – it can’t afford to lose officers of the quality I see around me.

    Our training team-leader (ex-DCS who has been with the outfit for eighteen months) gave us a presentation on the ‘forward strategy’ last night over drinks after dinner. It’s everything that you posters on IG suspected, and worse. Here is a taste of what they see on the agenda.

    1) Lobby Home Office for Special Constable powers, (or at the very least PCSO powers), in order to get ability to detain.
    2) ‘Custom-built’ investigative teams of ex-tecs with HOLMES operators etc, that can be bought-in as a package by forces as and when needed. Major savings for forces because they won’t need to keep officers (other than SIO’s) on the establishment all the time when not needed.
    3) Package to take-over and privatise all POLSA searches on the grounds that specialist search teams do not need police powers, merely specialist expertise, which is trainable. Will return ‘hundreds’ of officers to front-line.
    4) Package to take over and privatise all Dog-Handling (other than General Purpose (Patrol) Handlers, and Public-Order trained officers).
    5) Package to take over and privatise ALL specialist training, (No function excluded! Not even CID training, Dogs, Horses, Firearms, Surveillance, and what remains of police driver training, etc, etc).
    6) Take over ALL case handling and file prep etc, (and TUPE all civilian staff employed in units).
    7) Present themselves as the ‘employer of choice’ for anyone who wants a career in policing and security, which gives ‘transferable skills’ and doesn’t rely on ‘out-dated obsession’ (ex- DCS’s words) with working your way through the ranks.

    This is just the beginning and two verbatim comments are worth noting. At the end of our chat our team-leader said, “We’ve got until 2015 to get the scaffolding erected around this structure – possibly longer, because we’ve got a following wind from the powers-that-be at the moment. After a couple of years the contract structure will ensure that none of this can be unpicked.” I then mentioned that I might post some of this on IG’s blog and ex-DCS was completely relaxed about it and said. “That’s OK, these aren’t state secrets, anybody with half a brain could work it out for themselves. Just ‘no names, no pack drill!’ ”

    So there you have it, my soon-to-be employers are thinking very strategically, and in some respects it’s quite impressive, but what are the PFEW and others doing to match them?
    Don't roll over quietly and let this happen - make some noise!

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

  • Layup 6 Jun 2012 04:02:07 25 posts
    Seen 2 years ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    desirous wrote:
    Aargh. wrote:
    disusedgenius wrote:
    Aargh. wrote:
    Explain why privatisation is inherently bad.
    Conflict of interests between service and profitability, mostly.
    Not really any different to being Government run and meeting budgets.
    If you think about it rationally you'd have to say, yes what's the difference? They both would be set up in similar ways, with similar goals.

    In practicality it's a whole different story. At least in Britain I think every service that has been privatized has suffered in quality to costumers, in price or whatever - rail, post, electric. You name it. It's an unstopable depressing trend nowadays anyway, purely ideological imo, not even about money, even the holy cow - the NHS - has been altered maybe irretrievably now.
    None of thoses things are really private though. they`re still caught up in old systems and government regulation.

    I`m all for privatisation, except when it comes to the police. The one things government should do is cover private property rights i.e crime, and fraud.

    Companies aren`t out to `get people` thats counter productive. And everytime a government moves away from economics things get better. Hence the US became such a power house and today China`s standard of living is improving.
  • SirScratchalot 6 Jun 2012 06:40:15 7,874 posts
    Seen 19 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Aargh. wrote:
    disusedgenius wrote:
    Aargh. wrote:
    Explain why privatisation is inherently bad.
    Conflict of interests between service and profitability, mostly.
    Not really any different to being Government run and meeting budgets.
    It tends to be very different, even just the self image of serving the public inherent in most public services makes a huge difference. Heck, even just having police accountable to a CEO and a board of directors seems dangerous as all hell to me.
  • MetalDog 6 Jun 2012 07:32:42 23,697 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    At present, politicians can point at people and call for their arrest and the police are in a position to say 'no, they're acting within the law'. Our police are also currently free to pursue politicians if they believe they have broken the law.

    If the police are run by companies with financial and personal ties to government ministers, I believe both of those things will be severely damaged. I think our existing force has already been significantly damaged by increasing politicisation of higher ranks.

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

  • MetalDog 6 Jun 2012 14:42:51 23,697 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Article on The Anti Winsor Network that adds to the arguments of why privatisation is such an awful idea.

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

  • MetalDog 7 Jun 2012 11:29:21 23,697 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    And now the the armed forces are getting hit with the 'partnership' spiel as well. Not big surprise.

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

  • gang_of_bitches 7 Jun 2012 11:39:34 5,623 posts
    Seen 3 days ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Well done MD for actually doing something.

    I find the whole thing pretty troubling and speaking to my cousin who's in the force does nothing to allay my fears. I can't see how there could be any public interest in taking this route.
  • glaeken 7 Jun 2012 12:07:43 11,197 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    I am not sure the things MD lists look that bad to me. Most of them just look like ways of making the police more efficient. I tend to think civil services can live in their own little world in comparison to private business and probably are very inefficient.

    I can see why members of the police would be against such things because obviously they want to protect themselves and don't see any type of change as being better for them. I am also always against efficiency drives in my company. They are never good news for the employee.

    Of course ultimately I am not qualified to know for certain how needed some of these changes are but on the face of it I am not seeing anything really alarming. It just does not seem that black and white to me that this is all some terrible nefarious plan.
  • MetalDog 7 Jun 2012 13:01:19 23,697 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    @glaeken
    Lunchtime lets me answer a bit. A hunt around the web will give you way more than I can over a sandwich, but I'm hoping to have a website will all info gathered in one place before too long.

    As pointed out in the link I provided yesterday, the police do a whole load of stuff that no-one else does - and they often do on their own discretion, rather than having to be told/forced to take over a situation.

    A lot of the stuff they do are not 'performance indicators'. So, according to the Home Office, if a constable spends the day dealing with the following things, they have not done anything useful that day.
    This includes:
    attending the scene of a sudden death and sorting out the coroner (after making sure the body has no obvious signs of foul play, which means turning it over, even if it falls apart in their hands).
    Attending Road Traffic Accidents, assessing the injuries, calling in ambulances, making the road safe for other road users if possible and cordoning if it off if not. Cleaning up any stray body parts. Calming the distressed witnesses. Informing any bereaved relatives of their loss - which must be easily the worst job on the planet.

    It also includes a bazillion other tasks that would take too long to list, but are easily looked up. Things that are of great value to us, but don't count towards the arrest and prevention statistics that the home office want.

    We also have the clear indications that what is being done, is nothing to do with the economy and everything to do with David Cameron's ideology, given that the Winsor Report appears to be a reflection of view expressed by Cameron as early as 2003.

    And we have stuff like this.

    It seems obvious to me that privatising our police force is not in the public interest, but it is in the interest of the private sector. There are huge amounts of money being made by private companies for taking over sections of the force.

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

  • Page

    of 30 First / Last

Log in or register to reply