Gringo Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 1) Today we are greeted with a suggestion from one the countries chief of police that neighbourhood watch members could become more active in policing 2) Last week. the discredited ronnie flanagan said that the current level of policing was neither required nor sustainable. 3) And in the background "project griffin" has been tooling up private security firms since 2004 to man the barricades when it all goes pop. So is this privatisation of the police force by stealth? Taking it point by point, 1) I find it sinister that neighbourhood groups are increasingly energised to monitor and inform on their next door neighbours. Does this not remind of us of anything? 2) People critical of flanagans report stated that reducing police numbers would leave the state exposed at times of crisis. Of course the curtain twitchers in point (1) will help resolve the day to day commitments, but if there are needs for a large deployment, say, another miners strike or riots across inner cities, then that's where they need (3) 3) Project griffin started a few years back (I have mentioned it here a few times), bringing together heads of private security firms - you know those really trust worthy people (and I've worked with some) who increasingly employ immigrants, and were recently shown to have thousands of illegals in their employ - and explaining to these bosses how, in a time of need, they were the ones best placed to secure the second line. This is of course all done under the banner of readiness for "terrorist attack" or maybe civil disobediancy. In the US they have blackwater and private armies, over here we're going with a part-voluntary, part-salaried and part privatised police force. Is this the way to reduce crime? Or does having a private internal army supported by curtain twitchers rather dangerous? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDon Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 Well most the police we have at the moment are already incompetant, I doubt it's going to make much difference Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted February 12, 2008 VT Supporter Share Posted February 12, 2008 I'll admit this is the first I've heard of any of this, but it is interesting... My immediate reaction would be it's an attempt to... pacify a public that increasingly feels unsafe everywhere. 'We want more bobbies on the beat' thinking is something the government can't really keep up with so they look for other solutions, get the Neighbourhood Watch sorting the petty stuff and the like. Add in the fact that policing these days is apparently (and annoyingly according to the police themselves) done with a pen and paper and filling out forms all day, and you stretch the useful of the force further. Flannagan appears to have a point. Kill 2 birds with 1 stone, drop the useless bureuacracy and help solve the first problem. Private security is a bloody terrifying prospect though. God knows how they are justifying that one. I'd rather not have safety in the event of a big incident put in the hands of the highest bidder... Interesting reading though. Worrying as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 Point 1 seems to be more about telling tales and monitoring your neighbours on behalf of the state. Whereas a neighbourhood watch should be about watching your neighbourhood for the benefit of you and your neighbours. I'll comment on points 2 and 3 when I know more about them. Have you got a link to any Project Griffin stuff? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 Private security is a bloody terrifying prospect though. God knows how they are justifying that one. I'd rather not have safety in the event of a big incident put in the hands of the highest bidder... They're not justifiying it though. Hvae there been any ministerial press releases or information programmes on "Project Griffin" to explain what they are doing. Search the internet and it will tell you how they are explaining to shopkeepers how to make their premises safer from terrorist attack. But that represents less than 5% of what they're up to. So far training has only gone as far as crowd control techniques, but the next step would be unthinkable. The war on terror reaches the high street. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted February 12, 2008 VT Supporter Share Posted February 12, 2008 Private security is a bloody terrifying prospect though. God knows how they are justifying that one. I'd rather not have safety in the event of a big incident put in the hands of the highest bidder... They're not justifiying it though. Hvae there been any ministerial press releases or information programmes on "Project Griffin" to explain what they are doing. Search the internet and it will tell you how they are explaining to shopkeepers how to make their premises safer from terrorist attack. But that represents less than 5% of what they're up to. So far training has only gone as far as crowd control techniques, but the next step would be unthinkable. The war on terror reaches the high street. Crikey. As I said I don't know anything about this, first I've really heard of it tbh. May have a mooch about, it sounds rather shady. The whole idea of private security firms is one that doesn't sit well with me anyway, doesn't seem that far removed from protection money tbqh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattster Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 Do you mean this Project Griffin - "Emergency deployments Considers the use of security personnel to assist police officers in cordoned off areas and other support functions in the event of a major incident." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 Do you mean this Project Griffin - "Emergency deployments Considers the use of security personnel to assist police officers in cordoned off areas and other support functions in the event of a major incident." Only read the first few lines so far but apparently their four hour awareness course is intense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 Have you got a link to any Project Griffin stuff?There's very little on the web about it. I would never have heard about it if I wasn't working with a security firm a few years back. The stuff listed on the net is to enlist security firms, and use quite sensitive language, whilst the view of the firm I was working with was they were to be the back up, secure areas when it kicks off. [edited] Do you mean this Project Griffin "Emergency deployments Considers the use of security personnel to assist police officers in cordoned off areas and other support functions in the event of a major incident." Yup that's part of, started in London and got rolled out araound the country In 2004, the City of London Police and the Metropolitan Police Service in conjunction with the security industry jointly launched Project Griffin.[/edited] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattster Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 How about this one, looks friendly! "Who needs to attend? The programme is designed for persons carrying out roles such as security guards, door staff, community protection officers and parking wardens." I knew those wardens were closet Nazis! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 If you're in Nottingham then there is Project Argus to go with Project Griffin. If you fancy a fun day away from the office, the first 'event' is in April. And, Gringo, thanks for pointing this out. It is, well, interesting.... It seems that we've 'exported' it, too. At least to the aussies. Perhaps we could tag it on to the worldwide expansion of the Prem? The globalisation of police sanctioned and secret emergency control measures. Just what we all need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpiderDijon Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 No heard of Project Griffin before. Very concerning. Could find nothing on it that wasn't from a police force or gov't site... which of course all suggest it is for counter terrorism only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 How about this one, looks friendly! "Who needs to attend? The programme is designed for persons carrying out roles such as security guards, door staff, community protection officers and parking wardens." I knew those wardens were closet Nazis! The UK is currently facing the most serious and sustained threat from International Terrorism ever known. The threat is real, ever present and enduring. Fear is the first weapon. But it's kind of getting off the main idea behind my post. The police are being downsized. the pen pushing to be taken over by civilians, the low level detection given over to neighbourhood watch schemes and at the other end of the scale, the crowd control by the private securities firms. So what does that leave the polce to do? Fighting organised crime? Becoming high level detectives. The govt sponsored report by (the discredited) flanagan envisages this downsizing, but does not explain how it will be achieved or what will be left. He thinks that only 10% of police activities require a trained polced officer. So is the force being downsized, or privatised? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 So is the force being downsized or privatised? Both but the former would be much more unpopular than the latter. I wonder how soon the reduction in bureaucracy (e.g. getting rid of the search form) will be used as an excuse to reduce numbers. Surely all police activities require a trained police officer. Perhaps they need to be trained in different ways for each of the respective duties? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 (e.g. getting rid of the search form) will be used as an excuse to reduce numbers.That's just a ridiculous idea - after all, the only parties advocating that are the blue and red ones. One party, two different colours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 1) ........ 1 & 2) He told the newspaper he was not looking for "policing on the cheap". First PCSO’s then this, basically joe public in hi-vis. Presumably they will all go through the proper psychological and legal education necessary to ensure they don’t break the law in the course of their “duty”? Plenty of well meaning but utterly useless - for this task - people will end up getting battered. 3) [rant]You could guess there is concern in Parliament that the public aren’t very happy with them at the moment... Now private armies to keep the constituents in line. Ban protests within miles the HoC; round up and detain for hours hundreds of peaceful innocent peoplein London; video every protester they can on peaceful non-violent demos; take your DNA following a stop and search and have it retained on a database for life; dracoinian anti-terror laws; wiping their collective arse on Magna Carta and Habeus Corpus and proposing to lock people up for 40, 42, 50 - Christ knows how many days without charge; ad infinitum. Anyone know a good reason why? [/rant]. Even if they were used purely as support for a terrorist incident, how could they all be mobilised and assembled quickly enough, briefed, equiped and moved to the incident in time to contribute in a meaningful way? In that event - as shown on 7/7 - the emergency sevices will inevitably be overwhelmed to a degree and it comes down to the public at the scene. I'm not being 'nationalistic' or being a HateHeiletc reader but ordinary Britons generally perform very well in those situations. IMO that effectively rules out this 'Force' as a tool in the box for any sort of terrorist incident. That only really leaves civil disorder. I know a fair few of these private security types and they are good blokes but I wouldn’t want them policing our streets, essentially as an affiliated paramiltary force. I say paramilitary because if they are intended to control large scale civil disorder - and it must be what is being planned for otherwise the Police would be able to cope - they will be armed in some fashion. Not a great idea imo. Edit: having read Matsey's link it is obviously not what I took from Gringo's post. Project Griffin seems very sensible, I had visions of the Baghdad bandits hairing around.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 Top post. Especially: [rant]You could guess there is concern in Parliament that the public aren’t very happy with them at the moment... Now private armies to keep the constituents in line. Ban protests within miles the HoC; round up and detain for hours hundreds of peaceful innocent peoplein London; video every protester they can on peaceful non-violent demos; take your DNA following a stop and search and have it retained on a database for life; dracoinian anti-terror laws; wiping their collective arse on Magna Carta and Habeus Corpus and proposing to lock people up for 40, 42, 50 - Christ knows how many days without charge; ad infinitum. Anyone know a good reason why? [/rant]. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ender4 Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 i haven't read the stuff about project Griffin.. but if i'm understanding it properly, this is only in the case of an extreme terrorist attack? in which case, normal rules go out of the window, and you need all thehelp you can get (just for the short period afterwards). if this is what i am reading into it, then i'm ok with it. Policing numbers - i believe they should double the number of police, not reduce them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted February 18, 2008 Author Share Posted February 18, 2008 I find it sinister that neighbourhood groups are increasingly energised to monitor and inform on their next door neighbours. Does this not remind of us of anything? i'm sure that when I said on another thread i wouldn't grass someone up if i saw a minor crime taking place (minor ,i'm not talking rape or murder etc) i got a lot of flack and the usual I'm alright jack and not on my street type replies thrown at me ...(must be something about what i post :-) ) but it would suggest that most on here are happy with grassing thy neighbour ? if you had more doctors and hospitlas would it result in fewer or more sick people ? same for the police i guess , would more police result in fewer murders taking place for example or just more being caught ? maybe tougher penalties is a better deterrent than more police ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ender4 Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 I find it sinister that neighbourhood groups are increasingly energised to monitor and inform on their next door neighbours. Does this not remind of us of anything? i'm sure that when I said on another thread i wouldn't grass someone up if i saw a minor crime taking place (minor ,i'm not talking rape or murder etc) i got a lot of flack and the usual I'm alright jack and not on my street type replies thrown at me ...(must be something about what i post :-) ) but it would suggest that most on here are happy with grassing thy neighbour ? if you had more doctors and hospitlas would it result in fewer or more sick people ? same for the police i guess , would more police result in fewer murders taking place for example or just more being caught ? maybe tougher penalties is a better deterrent than more police ? more docs & hospitals would mean same amount of illness, but better treatment. more police would mean more criminals would be caught, which in turn would lead to a drop in the overall amount of crime. But only if the criminals were locked up, and not just told not to do it again. so yes, tougher penalties are needed, along with an increase in the number of police. Then as crime falls, there would be less police needed in the longer-term. and yes, if i knew a crime was being committed which impacted someone else, then i would inform the police, whether it was my neighbour or a relative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts