Bolitics The New Condem Government

[AVFCforever1991]

Courts?

[Jon]

 

Yeah, the devil would be in the detail.

 

Who exactly would be doing the policing, and deciding who should and shouldn't be lobbed into these private 'drunk tanks'. Would that still be the police? (in which case, what resource is saved, other than them not being in put into 'normal' state police cells, for the genuine D & D?)

 

Surely then it is also in the interests of these 'profit making' drunk tanks to maximise client intake? Otherwsie they'd make a loss. So you'd want to round us as many 'revellers/troublemakers' as possible. Can people not see a massive pitfall here.

 

 

 

I was just about to write the same thing , so you've saved me the trouble

 

the interesting thing for me will be will these drunk tanks be cheaper than a hotel room or Taxi home  ... if so count me in and put me down for  a room every Sat night

 

 

Apparently they are going to have Geordie Shore showing every fri and sat night.

[tonyh29]

Jon, on 18 Sept 2013 - 11:09 AM, said:

 

tonyh29, on 18 Sept 2013 - 11:06 AM, said:

 

Jon, on 18 Sept 2013 - 10:54 AM, said:

Yeah, the devil would be in the detail.

 

Who exactly would be doing the policing, and deciding who should and shouldn't be lobbed into these private 'drunk tanks'. Would that still be the police? (in which case, what resource is saved, other than them not being in put into 'normal' state police cells, for the genuine D & D?)

 

Surely then it is also in the interests of these 'profit making' drunk tanks to maximise client intake? Otherwsie they'd make a loss. So you'd want to round us as many 'revellers/troublemakers' as possible. Can people not see a massive pitfall here.

 

 

 

I was just about to write the same thing , so you've saved me the trouble

 

the interesting thing for me will be will these drunk tanks be cheaper than a hotel room or Taxi home  ... if so count me in and put me down for  a room every Sat night

 

 

Apparently they are going to have Geordie Shore showing every fri and sat night.

 

 

I got that question wrong in the "youth " thread  , but at least have now heard of the show

[Morley_crosses_to_Withe]

Yeah, the devil would be in the detail.

Who exactly would be doing the policing, and deciding who should and shouldn't be lobbed into these private 'drunk tanks'. Would that still be the police? (in which case, what resource is saved, other than them not being in put into 'normal' state police cells, for the genuine D & D?)

Surely then it is also in the interests of these 'profit making' drunk tanks to maximise client intake? Otherwsie they'd make a loss. So you'd want to round us as many 'revellers/troublemakers' as possible. Can people not see a massive pitfall here.

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!?!

[Jon]

 

Yeah, the devil would be in the detail.

Who exactly would be doing the policing, and deciding who should and shouldn't be lobbed into these private 'drunk tanks'. Would that still be the police? (in which case, what resource is saved, other than them not being in put into 'normal' state police cells, for the genuine D & D?)

Surely then it is also in the interests of these 'profit making' drunk tanks to maximise client intake? Otherwsie they'd make a loss. So you'd want to round us as many 'revellers/troublemakers' as possible. Can people not see a massive pitfall here.

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.

[mjmooney]

Clegg: It doesn't matter who wins the election - I HAVE TO BE THE DEPUTY PM!!! 

 

[colhint]

 

 

Yeah, the devil would be in the detail.

Who exactly would be doing the policing, and deciding who should and shouldn't be lobbed into these private 'drunk tanks'. Would that still be the police? (in which case, what resource is saved, other than them not being in put into 'normal' state police cells, for the genuine D & D?)

Surely then it is also in the interests of these 'profit making' drunk tanks to maximise client intake? Otherwsie they'd make a loss. So you'd want to round us as many 'revellers/troublemakers' as possible. Can people not see a massive pitfall here.

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. 

[TrentVilla]

 

 

 

Yeah, the devil would be in the detail.

Who exactly would be doing the policing, and deciding who should and shouldn't be lobbed into these private 'drunk tanks'. Would that still be the police? (in which case, what resource is saved, other than them not being in put into 'normal' state police cells, for the genuine D & D?)

Surely then it is also in the interests of these 'profit making' drunk tanks to maximise client intake? Otherwsie they'd make a loss. So you'd want to round us as many 'revellers/troublemakers' as possible. Can people not see a massive pitfall here.

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. 

 

 

Then read his post again because he has already explained.

[Awol]

 

I haven't seen any mention of private companies being allowed to round people up on their own accord!?!

 

Mere facts....clearly this is all about privatising the Police force, not acting (as you rightly point out) as a deterrent to king size whoppers who cannot control themselves in public.  Describing some of the pond life inhabiting English town centres after dark as "revellers" is taking the piss. 

[colhint]

Ok I read it again, I still cant see it

[Jon]

 

 

 

Yeah, the devil would be in the detail.

Who exactly would be doing the policing, and deciding who should and shouldn't be lobbed into these private 'drunk tanks'. Would that still be the police? (in which case, what resource is saved, other than them not being in put into 'normal' state police cells, for the genuine D & D?)

Surely then it is also in the interests of these 'profit making' drunk tanks to maximise client intake? Otherwsie they'd make a loss. So you'd want to round us as many 'revellers/troublemakers' as possible. Can people not see a massive pitfall here.

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. 

 

I would imagine Private 'Drunk Tanks' don't run for free .....

[Jon]

Seems the police themselves are not in favour of this 'idea':

 

Steve White, vice-chairman of the Police Federation of England and Wales, which represents officers:

 

"Privately-operated drunk tanks are neither a viable nor long-term solution to binge drinking and merely represent a sticking plaster for the problem."

[colhint]

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

[Jon]

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

So, in order to maximise profits, then need to maxmise guests, yes?

[colhint]

No Why?  If the contract is for the service. 

[Morley_crosses_to_Withe]

Seems the police themselves are not in favour of this 'idea':

Steve White, vice-chairman of the Police Federation of England and Wales, which represents officers:

"Privately-operated drunk tanks are neither a viable nor long-term solution to binge drinking and merely represent a sticking plaster for the problem."

Have other senior officers said differently?

[blandy]

...I would imagine their Guests contribute significantly to the costs

 

 

 

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

So, in order to maximise profits, then need to maxmise guests, yes?

 

 

No Why?  If the contract is for the service. 

See your first comment - If you imagine the guests contribute to the costs, then more guests = more contributions. Many more guests = contributions exceed costs = profit. Your own logic says so.

[Awol]

 

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

So, in order to maximise profits, then need to maxmise guests, yes?

 

Only the Police can legally detain people.  They will not receive a financial incentive from the operators and therefore the people choosing who goes into these things will simply be performing their jobs as normal and the threshold for having your collar felt will remain the same, i.e. being a danger to yourself or others. The difference is that this way the Police wouldn't end up with their cells being full of drunken idiots, and the idiots will be hit with a fine likely to make them think twice about their future behaviour.

 

I don't agree with much the government do but this seems like a fairly obvious 'win'.

[colhint]

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. 

[tonyh29]

Jon, on 18 Sept 2013 - 1:34 PM, said:Jon, on 18 Sept 2013 - 1:34 PM, said:Jon, on 18 Sept 2013 - 1:34 PM, said:

Seems the police themselves are not in favour of this 'idea':

 

Steve White, vice-chairman of the Police Federation of England and Wales, which represents officers:

 

"Privately-operated drunk tanks are neither a viable nor long-term solution to binge drinking and merely represent a sticking plaster for the problem."

 

that is the government hating police Federation with their agenda though isn't it 

the word from the Fuzz itself has been different

 

 

 

QuoteHumberside Police and Crime Commissioner Matthew Grove also recently raised the idea of introducing drunk tanks.

 

 

Quote

Police chiefs have backed privately-run drunk tanks where intoxicated revellers are kept overnight and made to pay for their stay.

 

Chief Constable Adrian Lee, the national policing lead on alcohol harm, said drunken individuals should be held in "welfare centres" run by a commercial company.

Edited September 18, 2013 by tonyh29