[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.