WM Police Privatisation

gerry · **Joined:** 01 May 2011, 20:52 **Posts:** 1560

I am sure both Labour candidates at the Birmingham hustings tomorrow night will be asked probing questions on privatisation.

bunnyson · **Joined:** 01 Jul 2011, 23:05 **Posts:** 768

Written by a trade unionist with experience of WMP and my added emphasis in one place:

Quote:

Unite and Unison represent Police staff. We are frankly aghast that there is a serious discussion taking place about privatising our police force less than a year after the Home Secretary tasked HM Inspectorate of Constabulary to “[investigate] and consider instances of undue influence, inappropriate contractual arrangement and other abuses of power in police relationships” as a result of the recent spotlight placed on alleged police corruption.

West Midlands and Surrey Police forces have begun a process of privatising all of what they designate as ‘non-core’ services. These are services that do not require the office of constable, i.e. the powers of arrest. The privatisation would take place through two contracts; firstly, for custody, and the second contract covering all other service areas. It is essential to explain that many of these services are still roles which the public would regard as being, and are, central to the function of the police force and the exercise of their duties.

These roles include: Forensic scene investigators, contact centres (first point of contact for calls from the public), arrest drug referral workers, Police National Computer bureau (handles the updating of all Police National Computer records), analysts (analysis crime patterns to assist in the early detection and prevention of crime, for example, high volumes of burglary in an area), economic crime teams (police staff are employed as financial investigators to investigate high value crime) and 999 call takers.

In short, the services it is proposed to privatise cover:
• Dealing with confidential, sensitive information
• Crime prevention, detection and investigation
• Police response to 999 calls
• Victim handling and public safety
• Custody

On 13th March 2012 a bidders conference was held, bringing together interested companies. These included, amongst others; Amey, Accenture, Serco, G4S and many others. The conference also brought together other Police forces – the advert placed in the Official Journal of the European Union allows other police forces to join in with the privatisation process.

We believe this Business Partnership – the privatisation of parts of our police force – will be detrimental to the quality and functioning of those services. It threatens the transparency and accountability of local policing services – two key principles of the Police forces’ commitment to the public. This carries grave implications for the safety of the public and the future integrity of our policing system.

The HMIC report Without Fear or Favour highlighted several areas that police forces need to concentrate on to ensure the impartiality and honesty of policing. Most importantly it found that the public believe a service to have integrity not only with being treated fairly, but in also being absolutely transparent and being seen to be fair.

There is no business case that outsourcing will improve services or generate savings

The Home Office has refused to reveal its business case for privatisation; West Midlands and Surrey police forces have agreed to start the competition without seeing a proper business case either. In the case of West Midlands the privatisation is being justified on the grounds of needing to meet the financial reductions in the current Comprehensive Spending Review. However, they already have a budget plan in place to achieve these reductions without the need to privatise services. For the financial year 2011-12 West Midlands Police force has a planned under spend of £9million. In addition, the force has yet to submit their own detailed business case to the Police Authority about the benefits of outsourcing.

The economic case for outsourcing services on the grounds of efficiency has not yet been proven, nor has it been proven that as outsourced service would be of a higher quality or of a lower cost. Across the public sector the empirical evidence over many years does not show that the private sector is more efficient, and even the IMF admits that “the evidence is mixed”. There is evidence to demonstrate that in the long-run.

bunnyson · **Joined:** 01 Jul 2011, 23:05 **Posts:** 768

A briefing by an anti group, whose website states:

Quote:

West Midlands Against Policing for Profit has been formed by Birmingham Trade Union Council and supported by Birmingham Stop the War Coalition and campaigners for Palestine.

Link to the briefinghttp://westmidlandsagainstpolicingforprofit.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/briefing-on-police-services-privatisation.pdf

Guy The Mac · **Posted:** 13 Jun 2012, 06:56

bunnyson wrote:

A briefing by an anti group, whose website states:

Quote:

West Midlands Against Policing for Profit has been formed by Birmingham Trade Union Council and supported by Birmingham Stop the War Coalition and campaigners for Palestine.

That's beyond satire!

bunnyson · **Joined:** 01 Jul 2011, 23:05 **Posts:** 768

Two very different views. First courtesy of The Guardian, an article which appears based on an interview of the G4S boss:

Quote:

We have been long-term optimistic about the police and short-to-medium-term pessimistic about the police for many years. Our view was, look, we would never try to take away core policing functions from the police but for a number of years it has been absolutely clear as day to us – and to others – that the configuration of the police in the UK is just simply not as effective and as efficient as it could be.

I have always found it somewhere between patronising and insulting the notion that the public sector has an exclusive franchise on some ethos, spirit, morality – it is just nonsense. The thought that everyone in the private sector is primarily motivated by profit and that is why they come to work is just simply not accurate … we employ 675,000 people and they are primarily motivated by pretty much the same as would motivate someone in the public sector

Link:http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/20/g4s-chief-mass-police-privatisation

What I have yet to see is an answer to this. The advocates of privatisation maintain they can offer a better, cheaper service to staff being employed by the police; taking into account their profit margins, how can it be cheaper to pay G4S as an example?

From a rather unexpected direction comes OccupyPolice.org, which appears to be an Anglo-American offshoot of the Occupy protest movement. They have a video clip and a well-written report:

Quote:

into the people behind the worlds first attempt at Mass Police Privatisation

Link:http://www.occupypolice.org/2012/06/07/the-office-of-constable-will-rise-in-2012-the-police-are-the-public-and-the-public-are-the-police-part-4/

derogatory · **Joined:** 28 Sep 2010, 20:55 **Posts:** 3165

Guy The Mac wrote:

bunnyson wrote:

A briefing by an anti group, whose website states:

Quote:

West Midlands Against Policing for Profit has been formed by Birmingham Trade Union Council and supported by Birmingham Stop the War Coalition and campaigners for Palestine.

That's beyond satire!

Hmm, what does 'police privatisation' have to do with Iraq or Palestine?

What indeed is the point of the Stop the War Coalition now the Iraq War is quite definitely over and forces will quite soon be withdrawn from Afghanistan?

Also, do these people know what a 'dystopia' is? Their second slide suggests that G4S running the justice system would be some sort of dystopian scenario... hardly.

Andy Foster · **Posted:** 22 Jun 2012, 00:55

derogatory wrote:

What indeed is the point of the Stop the War Coalition now ... forces will quite soon be withdrawn from Afghanistan?

Er... some mistake surely?

derogatory wrote:

Also, do these people know what a 'dystopia' is? Their second slide suggests that G4S running the justice system would be some sort of dystopian scenario... hardly.

It seems exactly that to me.

Fearless Jones · **Joined:** 19 Feb 2012, 11:31 **Posts:** 1

That's beyond satire.

Handing over large amounts of public money to transnational Corporations who abuse the human and labour rights of people in other parts of the world is and should be our concern here.

How they treat citizens and their workers in other countries should tell us about the sort of businesses they are.

Indeed the EU procurement regulations require consideration of the human rights records of companies bidding for public contracts.

Why shouldn't we be concerned in the West Midlands about KBR subcontractors in Iraq being involved in human trafficking and the use of forced labour to the benefit of KBR's shareholders?

Would you really want West Midlands Police doing business with KBR with this track record: http://www.contractormisconduct.org/ind ... ranking=13

So by all means live in your safe European home and let G4S secure your world!

bunnyson · **Joined:** 01 Jul 2011, 23:05 **Posts:** 768

Cllr Bob Jones and the Labour Party's PCC candidate in along B'ham Post article:http://www.birminghampost.net/news/politics-news/2012/06/22/labour-s-west-midlands-police-commissioner-hopeful-to-campaign-against-cuts-65233-31227169/

One comment on privatisation:

Quote:

Coun Jones said: “We voted against this. It’s unethical having people making key decisions on criminal justice accountable to private managers and shareholders, rather than officers accountable to the law and community.”

But he said he would not rule out private companies coming in to run areas like IT as long as the chief constable maintained control over the implementation.

bunnyson · **Joined:** 01 Jul 2011, 23:05 **Posts:** 768

Reportedly comments made on Twitter by Neville Lawrence, whose son Stephen was murdered in London many years ago:

Quote:

It will be a disaster, I can tell you why it will be a disaster. If you privatise the police force, the government is no longer responsible. It won’t be about crime any more, it will be about making money. If you go to the police and they’re a private company, they won’t listen to you, just like if you go to a bank and ask for money – they can just say no. At the moment, the government is ultimately responsible. We want the police to be accountable to the public and not a fly-by-night private conglomerate. We’re going to fight [police privatisation] tooth and nail. Down to the wire. You and I together can make a difference.

For those with a strong tolerance, as it is humour in a strange setting:http://meemsy.com/v/2507 and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZtnnrRvFBU&feature=player_embedded

Fergus · **Joined:** 29 Sep 2010, 11:52 **Posts:** 834

bunnyson wrote:

Reportedly comments made on Twitter by Neville Lawrence, whose son Stephen was murdered in London many years ago:

Quote:

It will be a disaster, I can tell you why it will be a disaster. If you privatise the police force, the government is no longer responsible. It won’t be about crime any more, it will be about making money. If you go to the police and they’re a private company, they won’t listen to you, just like if you go to a bank and ask for money – they can just say no. At the moment, the government is ultimately responsible. We want the police to be accountable to the public and not a fly-by-night private conglomerate. We’re going to fight [police privatisation] tooth and nail. Down to the wire. You and I together can make a difference.

For those with a strong tolerance, as it is humour in a strange setting:http://meemsy.com/v/2507 and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZtnnrRvFBU&feature=player_embedded

It appears that Mr Lawrence is under the impression that police officers will be privatised. Equally, from your previous post, bunnyson, Cllr Jones appears to believe that the administration of justice will be privatised. I don't believe that anyone (except for scaremongering purposes) has actually made either of these proposals. Is there any actual evidence to support either of these views? I can't believe that Cllr Jones will have been misled as to the nature of the proposals, but I am fearful that Mr Lawrence has been.

bunnyson · **Joined:** 01 Jul 2011, 23:05 **Posts:** 768

Fergus,

Locally we await the actual proposals being prepared for the elected PCC, so it is unclear what administration of justice roles undertaken by WMP staff could be privatised.

The situation nationally is already quite different, unlike your post (in part):

Quote:

...the administration of justice will be privatised. I don't believe that anyone has actually made either of these proposals.

I am aware that private contractors, notably SERCO, monitor the community tagging system; electronic bracelets being fitted to those on conditional bail and more frequently when released early from prison on licence. In my view that is administration of justice. If you include jails we already have a number run privately, notably HMP Winson Green.

One known area for possible privatisation are the roles labelled "back office" and locally there are hundreds of staff employed in file preparation, witness warning and the like.

Fergus · **Joined:** 29 Sep 2010, 11:52 **Posts:** 834

Sorry, bunnyson, my comment was, on reflection, unclear. I meant "administration of justice" in terms of the decisions around prosecution and the actual court proceedings.

Not long to go now · **Joined:** 22 Jun 2012, 19:57 **Posts:** 76

As we know that it is not the core police function that will be privatised and any real attempt to move police officers into the private sector would not be acceptable and would require legislative changes, what other services apart from the back office ones such as IT would be acceptable to be privatised or for the employees currently undertaking these to set up their own company or co-operative to bid to supply those services?

I wonder does it matter who provides policing services as long as they deliver results, I am sure that a private company employing ex service personnel could do a splendid policing job in this city.

The Chief Constable is continuing with his A19 regulation enforcement, so many experienced officers booted out under this system could join a private police force.

How long will the people put up with the wooly left wingers and liberal heart string pullers that try to weaken policing in this country?
The conservatives often appear to be the only party that understand policing and support a strong policing ethos.

representingthemambo · **Posted:** 25 Jun 2012, 17:45

Not long to go now wrote:

As we know that it is not the core police function that will be privatised and any real attempt to move police officers into the private sector would not be acceptable and would require legislative changes, what other services apart from the back office ones such as IT would be acceptable to be privatised or for the employees currently undertaking these to set up their own company or co-operative to bid to supply those services?

I wonder does it matter who provides policing services as long as they deliver results, I am sure that a private company employing ex service personnel could do a splendid policing job in this city.

The Chief Constable is continuing with his A19 regulation enforcement, so many experienced officers booted out under this system could join a private police force.

How long will the people put up with the wooly left wingers and liberal heart string pullers that try to weaken policing in this country?
The conservatives often appear to be the only party that understand policing and support a strong policing ethos.

Thank you for giving me the best laugh I've had all day!

Lots of love from a woolly left winger and liberal heart string puller xx

Not long to go now · **Joined:** 22 Jun 2012, 19:57 **Posts:** 76

Not wishing to offend the above contributor, but when we are all living in fortified and barricaded homes to keep out the rioters and civil disorder johnies, you might just consider if we should have ensured a strong and enabled police force to stop the anarchists and litter droppers from taking over.

Andy Foster · **Posted:** 25 Jun 2012, 18:31

Not long to go now wrote:

As we know that it is not the core police function that will be privatised and any real attempt to move police officers into the private sector would not be acceptable and would require legislative changes, what other services apart from the back office ones such as IT would be acceptable to be privatised or for the employees currently undertaking these to set up their own company or co-operative to bid to supply those services?

Bunnyson upthread quoted these as follows:

Quote:

Forensic scene investigators, contact centres (first point of contact for calls from the public), arrest drug referral workers, Police National Computer bureau (handles the updating of all Police National Computer records), analysts (analysis crime patterns to assist in the early detection and prevention of crime, for example, high volumes of burglary in an area), economic crime teams (police staff are employed as financial investigators to investigate high value crime) and 999 call takers.

In short, the services it is proposed to privatise cover:
• Dealing with confidential, sensitive information
• Crime prevention, detection and investigation
• Police response to 999 calls
• Victim handling and public safety
• Custody

The idea of privatising most of that list is frightening. Almost as frightening as:

Not long to go now wrote:

I am sure that a private company employing ex service personnel could do a splendid policing job in this city.

clearly from someone who has never dealt with ex-service personnel.

I don't know if I count as one of

Not long to go now wrote:

the wooly left wingers and liberal heart string pullers that try to weaken policing in this country?

In the 1980s I was a consultative committee chair and tried to persuade a lot of my left colleagues that the police weren't agents of fascism, and that our people wanted them to stop theirs burglaries and car crime. But perhaps I am, because it concerns me that we lock more people up and for longer, size for size, than any other European country. And it doesn't work. We have a much "stronger policing ethos" than, say, forty years ago. Heaven knows what you want to make it stronger.

Not long to go now · **Joined:** 22 Jun 2012, 19:57 **Posts:** 76

I chanced to note in my Telegraph yesterday, that the Beeb on its ' Youth ' orientated channel was showing a documentary on the the perception that the police are no longer trusted.

I made the decision to have a peek at this work of a young London man. It was hard to make out much of what he was saying and I found the statistic quoted in the program that 1 in 4 people think that the police are corrupt and 1in 5 think they are dishonest.

My conclusion was that the Boys and Girls in Blue might need to get out and about a bit more and dispell the myth that they are not an integral party of daily community life. To do this they will need to have more time made available and being occupied with those tasks that could be easily done by the private sector inhibits their available time to chat to and reassure the public.

All this tough on the causes of crime mantra from the Left and Liberal lefties is nonsense and the answer is to be tough on crime and those that defile our society by breaking the law.

All good citizens should volunteer their fingerprints and DNA to help in the fight against crime and we should all volunteer for our Neighbourhood Watch, this will stop the anti social behaviour Johnies from getting out of line.

We should not irrationally fear all aspects of privatisation, now should we?

representingthemambo · **Posted:** 26 Jun 2012, 17:08

Not long to go now wrote:

I chanced to note in my Telegraph yesterday, that the Beeb on its ' Youth ' orientated channel was showing a documentary on the the perception that the police are no longer trusted.

I made the decision to have a peek at this work of a young London man. It was hard to make out much of what he was saying and I found the statistic quoted in the program that 1 in 4 people think that the police are corrupt and 1in 5 think they are dishonest.

My conclusion was that the Boys and Girls in Blue might need to get out and about a bit more and dispell the myth that they are not an integral party of daily community life. To do this they will need to have more time made available and being occupied with those tasks that could be easily done by the private sector inhibits their available time to chat to and reassure the public.

All this tough on the causes of crime mantra from the Left and Liberal lefties is nonsense and the answer is to be tough on crime and those that defile our society by breaking the law.

All good citizens should volunteer their fingerprints and DNA to help in the fight against crime and we should all volunteer for our Neighbourhood Watch, this will stop the anti social behaviour Johnies from getting out of line.

We should not irrationally fear all aspects of privatisation, now should we?

Well thanks for that brief but illuminating tour through the psyche of Britain's authoritarian right-wing, but I'm afraid if you think that privatizing so many aspects of policing is designed to free up time for dispelling the myths propagated by the Cultural Marxists hellbent on turning this green and pleasant land into a nation of hippies, beatniks, sexual deviants and vegetarians then you are slightly mistaken.

The objective is to save money, nothing else.

And the long-term consequences of making that the primary objective are obvious. Now it seems the policy is a fait accompli we just have to wait and see what happens.

It isn't an irrational fear of privatization. It is a perfectly rational fear I'm afarid.

Not long to go now · **Joined:** 22 Jun 2012, 19:57 **Posts:** 76

Cuba and North Korea are quite pleasant at this time of year and for those Marxist, Lenninist, Stalanist little Red Book devotees they can always migrate to a land that shares their view, but one slight caution mention your a left wing trendy in one of those countries and that you are a free thinker and you will end up with long term free accommodation, but don't expect a window in your Cell, I mean hotel room.

Andy Foster · **Posted:** 26 Jun 2012, 18:06

I think we have a little troll here again.

Not long to go now · **Joined:** 22 Jun 2012, 19:57 **Posts:** 76

So if anyone has a contrary view to Mr. Foster they must be guilty of some illegal or immoral action.

Would you like to control freedom of speech or just to ensure that this site only reflects one, politicaly motivated view point?

Would you like to elaborate on your use of the word "troll"?

Andy Foster · **Posted:** 28 Jun 2012, 18:17

Not long to go now wrote:

So if anyone has a contrary view to Mr. Foster they must be guilty of some illegal or immoral action.

Would you like to control freedom of speech or just to ensure that this site only reflects one, politicaly motivated view point?

Would you like to elaborate on your use of the word "troll"?

"One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument."
The Urban Dictionary.

Not long to go now · **Joined:** 22 Jun 2012, 19:57 **Posts:** 76

I think, anyone who has an understanding of current events can tell you what happens to free thinkers in North Korea.

I have followed your contributions and you always think you are right.

Andy Foster · **Posted:** 28 Jun 2012, 19:41

Not long to go now wrote:

I think, anyone who has an understanding of current events can tell you what happens to free thinkers in North Korea.

I have followed your contributions and you always think you are right.

Please explain what North Korea has to do with privatising the police force.

Not long to go now · **Joined:** 22 Jun 2012, 19:57 **Posts:** 76

We still have aspects of the police function that cover foreign enemies that might wish to spy on and in the United Kingdom.

We had attached to individual police forces Special Branch Officers, that served the function of providing support to our Secret Services, which did not have the power to arrest people.

Will the function provided by the police for such issues and Terrorism and Allied matters, ever be subject to privatisation. Would this impact on the efficiency of states such as North Korea to undertake spying activity?

May I be first to wish you a Merry Christmas.

Andy Foster · **Posted:** 29 Jun 2012, 09:34

Not long to go now wrote:

We still have aspects of the police function that cover foreign enemies that might wish to spy on and in the United Kingdom.

We had attached to individual police forces Special Branch Officers, that served the function of providing support to our Secret Services, which did not have the power to arrest people.

Will the function provided by the police for such issues and Terrorism and Allied matters, ever be subject to privatisation. Would this impact on the efficiency of states such as North Korea to undertake spying activity?

May I be first to wish you a Merry Christmas.

Please explain what this, or North Korea. has to do with police privatisation. Or alternatively just stop trolling this thread.

Not long to go now · **Joined:** 22 Jun 2012, 19:57 **Posts:** 76

I have asked the question how will potential police privatisation impact on the special branch function.

Andy Foster · **Posted:** 29 Jun 2012, 09:45

Not long to go now wrote:

I have asked the question how will potential police privatisation impact on the special branch function.

Assuming you have, I've no idea. What concerns me, quite apart from the principle of public service (which the police federation seem very concerned about) is the tasks which may be privatised. According to bunnyson, who is well informed, they include:

Quote:

Forensic scene investigators, contact centres (first point of contact for calls from the public), arrest drug referral workers, Police National Computer bureau (handles the updating of all Police National Computer records), analysts (analysis crime patterns to assist in the early detection and prevention of crime, for example, high volumes of burglary in an area), economic crime teams (police staff are employed as financial investigators to investigate high value crime) and 999 call takers.

In short, the services it is proposed to privatise cover:
• Dealing with confidential, sensitive information
• Crime prevention, detection and investigation
• Police response to 999 calls
• Victim handling and public safety
• Custody

All of which are more important than the Special Branch. As I said before, I find that frightening.

bunnyson · **Joined:** 01 Jul 2011, 23:05 **Posts:** 768

Not long to go now asked:

Quote:

how will potential police privatisation impact on the special branch function.

The Special Branch function in the West Midlands is now performed by the West Midlands Counter Terrorism Unit (WMCTU), which is a regional body led by WMP, although the smaller forces retain their own SB and for legal reasons the SB @ BHX remains.

The WMCTU is now a largely stand alone body, with its own buildings and back office staff. It is important to note it is mainly nationally financed.

If the various options for privatisation were pursued, notably back office civilian staff roles it is easy to see those at WMCTU being excluded. WMCTU does use WMP IT systems, so there could be some minor problems.

Until January 2012 WMCTU did employ a number of G4S contract staff, reportedly for reviewing material prior to disclosure in court hearings and like most WMP buildings the security staff are provided by a contractor.

Personally I think the impact of privatisation on WMCTU is minimal. Far more likely is that CT policing will be nationalised under the to be formed National Crime Agency, so WMCTU's stand alone status is kept under review nationally.

Re~Stirred Forum

WM Police Privatisation

Who is online