colhint

could be a new business to tender for. Sneaky Bastards.co.uk We don't care what your politics are we can stitch up anyone Complete discretion assured

blummin eck, I've been waitng here 18 months for you to reply to that, but I get your point and it is valid

They are as Fixed price as the PFI contracts. where the variables like cleaning and catering are dependent on volume

Thats at its very basic level but yes. More likely the tender process will be that that's our current throughput in this region, (or you could say drunks )this is our historical volume (or drunks) this is our projected volume (or drunks) allow for a 10% increase at peak periods allow for a 5% swing either way in these figures. Any increase of this swing above this 5% we will pay for equipment costs at £x rate per day and labour costs at £x per hour. Any of the increases will be balanced and paid quarterly

Again a false comparison. The spec will have covered the size, layout and very detailed description of the exact facilities to be provided. It's not "give us a fixed price for providing facilities for however many people fall ill in the next 30 years". Why is it false, I'm sure a spec will cover the size, layout and a detailed description exact facilities to be provided. Not a give us a fixed price for providing facilities for however many people get drunk in the next 30 years

The service would not be "Running Drunk Tank x located at y with a capacity of 15 inmates". That would assume telling the police they had reached their quota of arrests for the night. It would be "Receiving and monitoring people arrested by the police for being drunk". At least I assume so, from the scant information provided. Like when you tender for a care contract, it's not "Care for everyone assessed as needing care in the coming year", but "Care for the following 63 people in area x". Tesco's distribution is fixed on the basis of known delivery points, known goods, and known quantities. They don't ask firms to give them a price including deliveries of whatever goods they may decide to start stocking in outlets they have still to disclose. Yes they do. Unless you think they publish to all who tender all the new stores they are going to open and all the new lines they will stock, bearing in mind a distribution centre will last for decades. And as for known quantities, well there there was a 4% swing over the last 3 years

well were the PFI hospital contracts on a fixed price or a per capita base, after all why would the government pick up the cost

I do think it would be a fixed price contract. Quite clearly the facilities would have a finite size. So why would it be on a per capita basis. There are loads of companies which work on a fixed price contract. Tesco contracts out its distribution on a fixed price. I'm certain they don't over pay

So what you are suggesting is, based on a fixed price contract, that the company, would have the incentive to bribe the police so they could pay more money to the government

why. It depends on the contract. If its a fixed price contract which seems more likely, there is no incentive.

why will these proposals create incentive. You are assuming that it will be a price per unit contract, If its a fixed price contract that can't occur. Why is accountability reduced by giving public functions to the private sector?

So what your saying is, its OK for these corrupt policemen to look after the drunks but not the private sector

nor me to be honest

So is speeding but they let machines do that now

Why so. The chap who seems to be promoting it said Nor should the taxpayer have to pick up the bill for people's drunkenness, he said. "Why don't we take them to a drunk cell owned by a commercial company and get the commercial company to look after them during the night until they are sober? "When that is over, we will issue them with a fixed penalty and the company will be able to charge them for their care, which would be at quite significant cost and that might be a significant deterrent." Maybe its not me who is confused

No. Not at all. In my field we tender for work. In some cases they pay by the unit. In most cases they pay for the service at a fixed cost.

No Why? If the contract is for the service.

no I guess they don' t run for free, but I would imagine their Guests contribute significantly to the costs

Ok I read it again, I still cant see it

The idea is that the threat of a caution plus a night in a publicly funded police cell isn't a deterrent; whereas a guaranteed £400 charge and a night in your own expensive private cell might put off a chavvy retard who decides to have one too many bottles of VK in their local O'Neil's or Whetherspoons. The police will still be required to do the policing but it is hoped that they'll be called upon less with this policy in place. I haven't seen any mention of private companies being allowed to round people up on their own accord!?! So, in theory, it doesn't lessen police resource (at least initially). In fact, it may increase it, because instead of having a word with some drunks and telling them to go home or you'll lock them up for the night, the pressure is on the copper to 'nick' em, round em up into vans and get them to these private cells, wherre they can be 'processed'. I think this in fact could lead to more serious problems on the streets, as police try to arrest revellers and get them processed, and face resistance. If someone is sufficiently D & D to pose a threat or nuisance to themselves/others, they should be treated in the normal, legal way, and detained and her maj's pleasure. If not, then they're just bunging people who are a bit loud and lairy into private cells to make some dosh, surely? Either way, I can't see any way that this is going to happen. Not in the forseeable anyway. how is it any different to how it now, except that once they are handed they can carry on with policing. So I cant see how it would create more work for the police.

They don't call him Paddy Backdown for nothing. It's not just him, though, they're all at it. The annual conference denunciation of the tories, followed by another year of keeping them in power and meekly voting through everything they claim to be against. Lots of shite about how green they are, then vote for fracking and nuclear. Cable "letting it be known" all week that he's concerned about a house price bubble and (between the lines) wants a major change in econ policy, then crawls into the conference and votes for Clegg anyway. I liked the WATO interview. when Kearney read back to him the embarrassingly misdirected e-mail instructing him and others what to say when interviewed; some arse had sent it to the press by mistake, but shouldn't be criticised for that, as it's about the same level of competence as the Libdems show in anything else. Also liked when she put to him that his colleagues see a pattern of "will he, won't he" in his leaks and posturing, saying that he has "endless vanity". How ironic to see him in the interview claiming that his and his party's continual treachery towards their own history, values, and members, is "grown up politics". Smug, patronising, deceitful bollocks. Oh, the whole lot of them, really. An utter waste of space. Do you mean the Lib Dems are all the same, or politicians? The LibDems haven't been in power for decades, so yes they took whatever was on offer. Labour hadn't been in power for the best part of 20 years so Blair ditched everything Benn, Foot and Bevan stood for to get in power. The Tories hadn't been in power so they turned into Blair lite. They all change their colours just to get elected. They have no principles

I agree

Bill Bryson

I look at gambling from another point of view.Most people would think if you had a £10 stake and expected to win £50 that would be unlikely. But if you had £1000 stake and hoped to win £50 that would seem more realistic

But thats not what I said though. I said there were a lot more Italians playing top flight