Bolitics The New Condem Government

[peterms]

Only the Police can legally detain people.  They will not receive a financial incentive from the operators

The police force won't receive an incentive from the operators.  Individual officers will.  It's been going on a long time, cops taking money for abusing their position.  I think just about everyone in the world knows that.

 

What this proposal does is create a situation where a police officer, apparently in pursuit of his/her duties, is faced with a situation where he/she has to decide whether to book someone and hand them over to G4S or Serco to cream their £400 for doing nothing.

 

Aren't these the firms which have repeatedly had to cope with minor setbacks like losing prisoners, killing people they were supposed to be looking after and so on?  Aren't they being investigated for possible fraud in the performance of government contracts?

 

Is there a possibility that corrupt payments will start to happen?  Obviously.

 

Is it likely?  Given the past history of the police, their repeated behaviour of lying, fabricating evidence, destroying evidence, concealing evidence, using privileged access to confidential records for the pursuit of petty personal vendettas, selling access to confidential information to corrupt private detectives, you'd have to be either supremely trusting, or utterly unaware of large parts of police history and the conduct of the companies who will get these contracts, or preferably both, to think it won't happen.

[colhint]

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

[Jon]

Following Clegg's rather bizarre conference speech:

 

[tonyh29]

Only the Police can legally detain people. They will not receive a financial incentive from the operators

The police force won't receive an incentive from the operators. Individual officers will. It's been going on a long time, cops taking money for abusing their position. I think just about everyone in the world knows that.

What this proposal does is create a situation where a police officer, apparently in pursuit of his/her duties, is faced with a situation where he/she has to decide whether to book someone and hand them over to G4S or Serco to cream their £400 for doing nothing.

Aren't these the firms which have repeatedly had to cope with minor setbacks like losing prisoners, killing people they were supposed to be looking after and so on? Aren't they being investigated for possible fraud in the performance of government contracts?

Is there a possibility that corrupt payments will start to happen? Obviously.

Is it likely? Given the past history of the police, their repeated behaviour of lying, fabricating evidence, destroying evidence, concealing evidence, using privileged access to confidential records for the pursuit of petty personal vendettas, selling access to confidential information to corrupt private detectives, you'd have to be either supremely trusting, or utterly unaware of large parts of police history and the conduct of the companies who will get these contracts, or preferably both, to think it won't happen.

Wasn't that long ago (I.e Plebgate) that you were saying the police wouldn't lie and were trust worthy

Which one is it ?

[villaajax]

Got rid of a Tory so I'd consider those white lies

[Jon]

In his defence, I do not believe the Mountie has ever said that, unless you can find a post somewhere where he has, in which case, please ignore this post.

[mockingbird_franklin]

I am wondering how this is going to work legally, Only government organisations can levy fines on you, charges for goods and services in the private sector will always revolve around contract law, for a contract to be in place their has to be consideration and agreement by both parties, if someone is deemed so drunk to be unable to look after themselves, make decisions etc how can their agreement te a contract be said to have happened, How can I be deemed liable for a contract I never agreed to enter into and was actually incapacitated to such an extent i would be unable to agree to any contract. Are the government proposing rewriting the law so that one person working for an organisation can effectively grant themselves power of attorney over me to enter into contracts on my behalf which can carry financial implications. It would be a very then edge of a wedge and open up a whole new wealth of possibilities to fleece the public.

Edited September 19, 2013 by mockingbird_franklin

[peterms]

 

 

Only the Police can legally detain people. They will not receive a financial incentive from the operators

The police force won't receive an incentive from the operators. Individual officers will. It's been going on a long time, cops taking money for abusing their position. I think just about everyone in the world knows that.

What this proposal does is create a situation where a police officer, apparently in pursuit of his/her duties, is faced with a situation where he/she has to decide whether to book someone and hand them over to G4S or Serco to cream their £400 for doing nothing.

Aren't these the firms which have repeatedly had to cope with minor setbacks like losing prisoners, killing people they were supposed to be looking after and so on? Aren't they being investigated for possible fraud in the performance of government contracts?

Is there a possibility that corrupt payments will start to happen? Obviously.

Is it likely? Given the past history of the police, their repeated behaviour of lying, fabricating evidence, destroying evidence, concealing evidence, using privileged access to confidential records for the pursuit of petty personal vendettas, selling access to confidential information to corrupt private detectives, you'd have to be either supremely trusting, or utterly unaware of large parts of police history and the conduct of the companies who will get these contracts, or preferably both, to think it won't happen.

 

Wasn't that long ago (I.e Plebgate) that you were saying the police wouldn't lie and were trust worthy

Which one is it ?

 

 

My view is that it's a tough call to know which of them to believe, but that it was entirely credible that Mitchell would have done what was claimed.  I don't think I've ever expressed a view that the police were always to be believed, and it's certainly not what I think.  I don't honestly believe anyone could think such a thing, after decades of revelations about police corruption, lies, cover-ups.  That doesn't of course make Mitchell's account more credible, since lying and corruption are features of the police force, rather than every individual copper.

[peterms]

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

 

First, at present the police have no financial incentive to lock people away.  These proposals will create that incentive.

 

Second, accountability is always reduced by giving public functions to the private sector.  That's a bad thing.

[Jon]

 Are the government proposing rewriting the law so that one person working for an organisation can effectively grant themselves power of attorney over me to enter into contracts on my behalf which can carry financial implications. It would be a very then edge of a wedge and open up a whole new wealth of possibilities to fleece the public.

That's the (perhaps the main) worry, Yes.

 

The Police would be granted the power to round up 'troublemakers' (be interesting to know how they would make that judgement, and what evidence would be needed) and cart them off to drunk tanks. Consent of the person apprehended would not be required AFAIK.

 

An hugely dangerous move, and one that I can't see happening. This isn't even a proposal by the way. It's that pie in the sky that it's simply te musing of some at ACPO.

[colhint]

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?

[Jon]

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?

because each unit (person) locked up and processed will create money. That money either goes to the operator of the private cells, or the government.

 

Either way, there is a big incentive there to process the maximum amount of units, for maximum revenue.

[colhint]

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

[mockingbird_franklin]

 

 Are the government proposing rewriting the law so that one person working for an organisation can effectively grant themselves power of attorney over me to enter into contracts on my behalf which can carry financial implications. It would be a very then edge of a wedge and open up a whole new wealth of possibilities to fleece the public.

That's the (perhaps the main) worry, Yes.

 

The Police would be granted the power to round up 'troublemakers' (be interesting to know how they would make that judgement, and what evidence would be needed) and cart them off to drunk tanks. Consent of the person apprehended would not be required AFAIK.

 

An hugely dangerous move, and one that I can't see happening. This isn't even a proposal by the way. It's that pie in the sky that it's simply te musing of some at ACPO.

 

Actually, I've just read a report with quotes from Northamptonshire Chief Constable Adrian Lee, who is leads the issue of problem drinking for APCO, It's amazing and quite worrying that a chief constable is so ignorant of the relevant laws that would govern his suggestions. guess it's a sign of the times, many police officers seem to feel free to make up the law ad-hoc and as to their liking. Judging by Adrian Lee's comments the problem of ignorance of the law is a top down one. I suppose to be fair we are talking civil law, given that the police often struggle to know the criminal law they are enforcing, Ignorance of civil law is to be expected

[Jon]

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

eh?

 

the people they put into these cells have to pay for the privilege.

 

Where do you think that money goes?

 

It either goes to the private owners of the cells, or into the coffers of the government. The more people they apprehend, the more money they make.

 

To take it to the extreme, if they apprehend nobody, then these places would cease to exist, as they'd be running at a massive loss (a loss borne by either the cell or the taxpayer).

 

If the cell owners are paid on a flat rate fee by the government, then the proceeds of the 'fines' would feed back into the governments coffers. Again, the more people you apprehend, the more fines are levied and the more money the government makes

[mockingbird_franklin]

 

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?

because each unit (person) locked up and processed will create money. That money either goes to the operator of the private cells, or the government.

 

Either way, there is a big incentive there to process the maximum amount of units, for maximum revenue.

 

I would assume as it's a charge for a service, then VAT at 20% would be levied, plus corporation tax on the profits, so it could prove a nice little earner for the government, well that's assuming these private corporations will actually pay their tax!

[colhint]

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

[tonyh29]

Jon, on 19 Sept 2013 - 08:42 AM, said:

In his defence, I do not believe the Mountie has ever said that, unless you can find a post somewhere where he has, in which case, please ignore this post.

 

oh he did  .. just like the word of someone on twitter is credible when it comes to Train tickets or immigration checks at tube stations

 

 

 

peterms, on 24 Sept 2012 - 10:19 PM, said:

 

Exquisitely understated, while laying bare the depth of the political misjudgement, and the character of the man.

A stiletto to the heart. Though the bit about "the police service as a whole" suggests it's a put-up job - but fortunately I know the police don't go in for that sort of thing.

Mr Mitchell will soon be spending more time with his bike.

 

 

 

 

peterms, on 26 Sept 2012 - 8:53 PM, said:

The coppers have nothing to gain from telling this particular story. If they thought they had been too officious, too jobsworth, too inflexible, they could just say they explained the policy, Mitchell disagreed, seemed unhappy, and left. Inventing a story about the exact terms used, especially a term quite believably used by a patrician public schoolboy of his generation but not now in common use in the canteen, seems unlikely.

I can accept that people like the Mail, the Torygraph, Boris Johnson, the Police Federation all want to put the knife in for their own reasons to do with undermining Cameron. However, I have to say that the account given by the police seems infinitely more credible than that offered by Mitchell. I suspect he was still elated after his good lunch at the Cinnamon Club, and let slip a few thoughts he's only supposed to reveal once he'd reached his next destination in his long and arduous day, the Carlton Club.

 

 

 

 

he did then also link to an article that contained the words 

and we have no reason to doubt the integrity of the officers involved

, which whilst by itself may not be enough but in context of other replies adds weight to the case

 

would you like me to continue ???

[Jon]

errrrrr .....

 

 

Throw him in the drunk tank!

[blandy]

Not even close.

Sarcasm, plus quoting an article, hardly counts as evidence, to me (though it might be enough for tlaotl).