[Closed] "Up for grabs..." - privatising the police

Is it any worse than giving any [url= http://www.policespecials.com/about.html ]Tom, Dick or Harry[/url] the right to arrest?

I suspect that they know exactly what they're doing. I also suspect that David Cameron sees Thatcher as a minimum standard that he wishes to meet.

What could possibly go wrong? 😯

I think I feels a little bit sick reading that.
but how much is scare mongering and how much is real fact?

Theresa May, who has imposed a 20% cut in Whitehall grants on forces, has said frontline policing can be protected by using the private sector to transform services provided to the public,

That capitalism really delivers

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

my boldand the only ones I would think where th eplod dont necessarily have the expertise

all this sort of privatisation does is reduce quality and pay less but we all know you get what you pay for

Not even SLX plod but Halfords 😯

Ah no worries

It worked out well with rail franchises and utilities, not like that ended if any kind of renationalisation or OFT inquiry into pricing is it?

Oh dear

Prepare for justice by numbers

Same is happening in NHS and education, first you privatise provision, set up a market to provide "choice" and then you start to look at what is state funded vs what people have to buy

What we consider std will soon be "nice to do"

🙁

is there anything the torries wont privatise?

I cant think of anything they give a stuff about enough to hang on to

Forgive me, I didn't actually read the Tory manifesto at the last election, so perhaps someone better educated could enlighten me: did it just say "Sell everything that's not nailed down" in it or something? And did people actually vote for Cameron's lot knowing that they were going to flog the local bobby to the highest bidder? I can't imagine even the most swivel-eyed Mail-reading nutjob buying the idea that a privatised police force is a good thing. It's so audaciously avaricious that I can barely credit it. Astonishing.

Friday night rhetoric aside, how can this be happening? Surely there needs to be an Act of Parliament, like the NHS one that's going through now like-it-or-not, before stuff like this can take place?

Have they privatised the armed forces yet?

well this must be next

[img] ?__[/img]

well this must be next

Ah, well if that's what they had in mind, no worries 😆

is there anything the torries wont privatise?

I cant think of anything they give a stuff about enough to hang on to

Why would they hang on to it? The interesting thing is the service, not who provides it. I break my leg, I need a hospital to treat me. Someone robs me, I need police to investigate it. Whether the service is provided by BUPA or the NHS, Aegis or the Met is academic, the important thing is that someone is there to provide the service I need. Of course, it may well be that a public company is the best way to provide this, but arguing that these service [b]must[/b] be served by public employees is an ideological position.

but arguing that these service must be served by public employees is an ideological position.

One of the biggest problems with privatising stuff is the 'fat cats' at the top of the company take all the dosh and the share price becomes more important than the service.

Yes, but isn't the crucial bit that privatisation of these services introduces the pursuit of profit? The civil service is non-ideological, and run for the good of the tax-payer and the country. Not shareholders.

Yes, but isn't the crucial bit that privatisation of these services introduces the pursuit of profit? The civil service is non-ideological, and run for the good of the tax-payer and the country. Not shareholders.

As opposed to the pursuit of votes. Not convinced. Set decent, reasonable and measurable targets and what's the problem? More to the point: what's the difference to the current situation? All those benchmarks, crime stats and what have you...

The Government should be directly accountable for failings in the police and judicial system. It's not school dinners. 'Outsourcing' certain parts of the public sector, as Junkyard says above, may bring benefits. Outsourcing the police is not efficient, it's reckless.

N.B. assuming, of course, that the article is accurate...

IMO

A country should have the following as a 'service' as minimum.

Water
Fuel (Gas,Nuclear and Electric)
Police
Fire Service
Air Traffic Control
Life Boat Service
Ambulance Service (inc Air Ambulance)
Rail Service
Bus service

That way at least the basic infrastructure is not profit driven.

I also think Health should be a service as well, but that is a different story.

That way at least the basic infrastructure is not profit driven.

So you'd argue against value for money when it comes to public service?

So you'd argue against value for money when it comes to public service?

can you put a monetary value on everything?

can you put a monetary value on everything?

So you'd argue against value for money when it comes to public service

2nd Kimbers response, plus

Since the gas, Electric, Rail service etc has been privatised I have not seen a reduction in price passed on to the public.

I have seen £1m plus bonuses paid to the CEO's though.

The Government should be directly accountable for failings in the police and judicial system. It's not school dinners. 'Outsourcing' certain parts of the public sector, as Junkyard says above, may bring benefits. Outsourcing the police is not efficient, it's reckless.

Accountability is not the same thing as providing the actual service: I break my leg I want someone to treat it, I couldn't care less if the doctor or nurse is paid by Bupa or the NHS or whoever. If there's noone there to treat it, it's a problem. I want the government to provide those services is the most beneficial way, maximising service and minimising cost. Personally I think the core of the NHS (for example) is best in public hands, the same as the core of the police, but I'm not convinced the rest needs to be.

[i]So you'd argue against value for money when it comes to public service? [/i]

How on earth can a service which has to pay shareholders and/or turn a profit, which is then taken out of the service possibly offer 'value for money'?

...and if it can, then it is by definition, not offereing 'value for money', because the cost of said service could be lowered by reducing the profit margin.

The idea that things like policing are 'services' is frankly bonkers. Window-cleaning is a service. Photography is a service. Doing obscure things with spreadsheets because your manager can't be bothered to is a service (that's me, by the way). Policing isn't a service, it's a fundamental structural part of a functional modern society.

Let me break this down for you. Imagine society is a house. Democracy is the foundation. The police are the walls, or the floors, or the roof. They're pretty important. Windowcleaning is maybe a side-table or something, and what I do is a small blob of bluetack in that bowl on the shelf over there. I'm doing a metaphor here, you see, to illustrate that, ultimately, what I'm saying is: the police are too * important to sell off, are you * mental?! You're effectively hiring stockbrokers to build your walls? Your house will fall down!

Since the gas, Electric, Rail service etc has been privatised I have not seen a reduction in price passed on to the public.

How about BT? British Steel? Leyland? You seem to be cherry-picking.

Policing isn't a service, it's a fundamental structural part of a functional modern society.

Of course it's a service! It's a public service. And successive governments have been (quite rightly) measuring its effectiveness: crime rates, public satisfaction, and so on.

So you'd argue against value for money when it comes to public service?

The problem is, that many working in public service are not money-motivated. They have a myriad of 'human' reasons for working in the jobs they do - perhaps they hold (or mostly held these days) a genuine and deep-rooted desire to 'do the right thing' and help out other humans.

Most would probably LOVE to give value for money, not least to safeguard their jobs but gross mis-management and shrinking funds have made this nigh on impossible in almost every sector.

Point taken with the phone, but I do not buy steel so i can't comment on that, Leyland (I assume you mean cars)has obviously gone to the wall.

I was using the ones out of the list. ie the ones I see as critical to keeping a country running.

Not every case of moving from Government run to private run is wrong.

It's one thing to expect better, more efficient public services; just because the private sector maximises profits, doesn't make it more efficient, and it doesn't mean that the public are getting the best service. Removing the expense from the public purse isn't the answer, surely, because only the elected government is directly answerable and accountable to the public. The police service may have its problems, but I don't see how this solution can achieve anything other than further distance us from the providers of a key public sector requirement.

EDIT: it's different from Leyland, and even the utilities. There's no need to be competitive, or even, really, cost-effective, the police just have to keep crime low. G4S running parts of the police service won't bring in billions from overseas. They'll be paid by the government. It won't save us money.

Of course it's a service! It's a public service. And successive governments have been (quite rightly) measuring its effectiveness: crime rates, public satisfaction, and so on.

That's rather my point. Viewing everything as a service is damaging. It means you can view it as an asset to sell off.

The problem is, that many working in public service are not money-motivated.

Most people working in the private sector aren't money-motivated, either. Give someone a salary rise and they'll be motivated for a month or two, for the rest of the year their motivation comes from the job itself. Much like the public sector, really. Or do you agree that the only reasons people work for the public sector are the pensions and the holidays?

How about BT?

imagine if 999 calls were handled by the same call centre that finally connected my broadband after 3 weeks of rining back, bullcrap excuses about engineers that never turn up etc........

That's rather my point. Viewing everything as a service is damaging. It means you can view it as an asset to sell off.

That's pretty much my point: automatically saying it can't be "sold off" is ideological, and not based on any kind of reasonable analysis of the situation. It may be that the service is best left in the public sector, or it may not... but everything should be assessed as a potential asset, and this analysis should be carried out.

imagine if 999 calls were handled by the same call centre that finally connected my broadband after 3 weeks of rining back, bullcrap excuses about engineers that never turn up etc........

You've forgotten what it used to be like! 3 weeks? <yorkshiremanvoice>Luxury!</yorkshiremanvoice>

automatically saying it can't be "sold off" is ideological, and not based on any kind of reasonable analysis of the situation.

No! There must be some functions of society that have to be controlled by the state (ultimately that's us, remember?) You can't sell [i]everything[/i] off. Otherwise you might as well dissolve parliament and just let the people with all the money run things for us. Oh, wait...

I've had too much wine, I'm off. Have fun!

The police are a ‘Crown’ service, like the armed forces they owe their allegiance to the Queen, NOT the current occupier of No 10.

I think Cameron read [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Government ]Jennifer Government[/url] and forgot it was satire

No! There must be some functions of society that have to be controlled by the state (ultimately that's us, remember?

Controlling a service is not the same as providing it: you hire me to build your house extension, do you really care who I hire to do it? Assuming the quality is acceptable, and the work is delivered on time?

you hire me to build your house extension, do you really care who I hire to do it?

Maybe not, but if I hire you to look after my kids, I'd want you to be the one showing up, not someone you met down the pub. I see your point, but just because you can subcontract these services, doesn't mean you should. Call me ideological if you like, but what's in it for me? Private security guards? A premium rate phone number?

And if the quality's not good enough I vote you out - what happens when this goes wrong?

Maybe not, but if I hire you to look after my kids, I'd want you to be the one showing up, not someone you met down the pub.

OK, but that's a one-off - how about a weekly service, like kindergarten for example? When I signed my kids up to the local group I checked the place out, spoke to the owner, and signed on the dotted line. I certainly didn't interview all the teachers personally.

[img] [/img]

Is this the start?

Hmmm. I think we've stretched the analogy a bit. For me it boils down to trust and accountability, both of which it seems we'd be risking by privatising these key public service functions. And both of which they rely on fundamentally to be able to work properly.

Hmmm. I think we've stretched the analogy a bit. For me it boils down to trust and accountability, both of which it seems we'd be risking by privatising these key public service functions. And both of which they rely on fundamentally to be able to work properly.

Completely agree they're both necessary, but would you have any problem being operated on, for example, by a private doctor? And if not, why would you not trust one to provide a service to a publically funded health service? And if that's reasonable, why not security?

Either way, enough arguing for one night... Night!

and if it can, then it is by definition, not offereing 'value for money', because the cost of said service could be lowered by reducing the profit margin.

Certain things should just be run by govt for accountability...what if the state order them to do something and the supplier rips up the contract and refuses...the workers go on strike etc
It may be political view but so is the view that private is best or it is just a service who ares who does it.

The profit motive isn't the only reason to be concerned

Private sector outsourcing soon leads to questions about what should be state provided vs what should be provided by the individual. Top "state funded schools" asking parents for a top up fee? NHS asking for co-payments for drugs?

Local Police asking for contribution from "high risk" communities in inner cities?

Believe me once the private sector gets its hands on the provision of services we all need they'll start to apply commercial modelling which requires differentials in quality to be paid by individuals

MC

I thought the Tories were supposed to be the party of law and order?

Hopefully this will be the straw that breaks the camel's back for their own supporters and exposes Cameron and his chums for the frauds they are.

time for the lib dems to MTFU at their spring conference and put an end to this tory government's fetish for selling stuff.

every day various films and computer games set in the future become more and more realistic.

Well there should be plenty of new jobs for the failed coppers who resign or get the sack for being incompetetent.

I wonder what incentive schemes a private Police force would have, arrest 2 get one free 😯 Chief Constables six figure bonus, payoffs to criminals to commit less crime 😕

May the farce be with us

and it is

Nationalised Service Cost = Privatised Service Cost + Shareholder Profit

Either:

* Overall costs go up
* Staff salaries/quality goes down
* Quality service goes down

Or all three. It's blind pursuit of an ideology over pragmatism, IMO.

Privatised fire service is next the only reason the private sector won't take it on now is the pension liability and the gov are doing their best to sort that now. It's already creeping in around the edges failing mind you but bieng bailed out.

buzz-lightyear - Member
Nationalised Service Cost = Privatised Service Cost + Shareholder Profit

+ costs of managing the contracts + disconnect between public parts and private parts (ohh er) + distrust

News International has done an amazing job of running the met for years. What could possibly go wrong with privatising the other police forces and letting some other corporations manipulate law and order for personal gain?

Nationalised Service Cost = Privatised Service Cost + Shareholder Profit

Either:

* Overall costs go up
* Staff salaries/quality goes down
* Quality service goes down

Or all three. It's blind pursuit of an ideology over pragmatism, IMO.

You're ignoring (hypothetical) savings that can be made by (hypothetically) more efficient private sector management. Whether these really exist is of course a different matter!

They are probably working on a way to privatise the air. That said, much of what the ConDems are doing merely builds on the dubious legacy of NuLav (especially in the NHS).

And it's no use preaching about the efficiency of the private sector, if the end result is blanket Crapita-isation of our infrastructure & services.... as is happening.

Good.

I for one am sick and tired of seeing tax payers money wasted on Sting and his self-indulgent life of tantric sex, bad acting and weekend breaks in the rainforest.

I shuddered when I read that article at the mention of G4S.

All my dealings with them through work have convinced me they only recruit 2nd rate estate agents as managers, never have I come across such a bunch of arrogant little twerps who lie at every turn and then try and charge for work not done!!

You're ignoring (hypothetical) savings that can be made by (hypothetically) more efficient private sector management. Whether these really exist is of course a different matter!

What this 'efficiency' usually boils down to is cutting corners, reducing ordinary staff pay and conditions, and taking a big slice for shareholders and executives.

You're ignoring (hypothetical) savings that can be made by (hypothetically) more efficient private sector management. Whether these really exist is of course a different matter!

Haha, you're really selling it ain't you?

+ of course there is the security of knowing that whatever performance targets that are set for a private company will be comprehensively gamed to ensure that the appropriate senior mangers will get their bonuses.

The thing about the efficiency argument is that it is stupid. First and foremost I want my public services to effective. Efficiency isn't about doing a job well, it is about doing a job in the cheapest possible way.

The thing about the efficiency argument is that it is stupid. First and foremost I want my public services to effective

There are lots of countries with privately run security forces already, so they at least have a model they can draw on. The good thing is they'll be able to apply the social enterprise model of a country like Afghanistan for example, where the policing is subsidised by the locally owned pharmaceutical industry.

The rich thing is that Cameron's concerned about letting Scotland have independence, while preparing to section up England and Wales back up amongst a group of suit wearing warlords.

davidjones15 - Member

At any cost or do you put a limit on how much tax you want to pay? Isn't there a relationship between cost/wastage when talking about efficiency?

CaptJon - Member
First and foremost

What I find interesting is how many G4S type cash holding lock ups have been done over by proper blaggers, and they had an "inside man". Look at that latest prison spring, lots of vans to choose from, no idea when it would be leaving, inside job? who was the contractor? oh yes, G4S. People like to moan about public sector pay and pensions, but for the majority of coppers, doing something silly like that you risk losing your pension. G4S will employ people and pay them peanuts while treating them like crap. Private security "checking" your garage is safe at night while clocking your lovely MTB collection? Lovely backhander from the well prepared burglars safe in the knowledge the local private "plod" is not around. Cats and dogs living together in harmony. The end of the world.

You've lost me CaptJon, effieciency, which you claim to be stupid, is not about being the cheapest, it's clearly about achieving the greatest return for the investment made with the least amount of wastage. And as soulwood has so kindly pointed out, we can see the problems of how inefficient low paid security services can be.

Controlling a service is not the same as providing it: you hire me to build your house extension, do you really care who I hire to do it? Assuming the quality is acceptable, and the work is delivered on time?

policemen dont make thier own uniforms or serve in the canteen so why do they have repair thier own vehicles, take finger prints, stand guard on the cells etc.
the more bobbies on the streets the better.
GMP have more coppers at work at 9 am on a monday morning than any other time.. crime hot spot.. not. the MET spend 15% of thier budget on paying pensions.. is that a best use of policing budget paying for 48 yr olds to be sat at home or playing golf for the rest of thier lives having had 4x thier annual salary upon retirement and index linked60% of final salary every year?

it isnt those drawing 25k benifits who are draining the economy its those on 30-40k drawing pensions and having jobs on the side..

take finger prints, stand guard on the cells etc.

PCSOs do that here.

I want high standards and integrity from my police force - not lowest bidder.

"48 yr olds to be sat at home or playing golf for the rest of thier lives having had 4x thier annual salary upon retirement and index linked60% of final salary every year?

it isnt those drawing 25k benifits who are draining the economy its those on 30-40k drawing pensions and having jobs on the side.."

WTF? Someone who has worked all their life is a drain on the economy? But not life long benefit claimants that have never contributed anything to society? I don't know many 48yr old coppers retired on £30-40k, that pension would only be for Chief Supers or Chiefs. But because their job is a bit more cushty, going to meetings in offices, they tend to stay in post until their late 60's. Normal coppers are still fighting with drunken teenagers when they are 55 yrs old. And then they will draw about £16k pension. Daily Mail muppet.

I want high standards and integrity from my police force - not lowest bidder.

Lowest bidder is the usual way hence filthy hospitals

Lowest bidder is the usual way hence filthy hospitals

Yes - experience says every privatised public service is more expensive with a worse service and more waste

Davidjones
I can assure you there is very litte slack left in the police
We are all working bloody hard with ever decreasing staff to do a good job
You will hear chief constables telling you that the cuts are hard, but the service to the public will stay the same
Don't believe that spin, the police service to the public will become a lot worse over the next 3 - 5 years because of cuts
If you think police are fatknacker wasters
Just wait till the money hungry smack heads are coming into your house unchallenged

... king hell - this is soul destroying.

I thought I'd become totally immunised to the bollox spoken on STW, but perhaps not.

I wonder at the credentials of some of you waxing hysterical on here and what you really know about the situation - which appears to be less than zero.

Everybody wants greater efficiency in the public sector, particularly the police, but I can tell you this is turning into a dreadful inversion of priorities.

We (the UK) have the best police service in the world - I have no doubt about that whatsoever, far from perfect but definitely the lead.

Be careful for what you wish. I have very real concerns that this could be profit over people and the erosion of accountability and expertise.

easygirl +1

Yes - experience says every privatised public service is more expensive with a worse service and more waste