Bolitics The New Condem Government

[tonyh29]

blandy, on 19 Sept 2013 - 12:17 PM, said:

Not even close.

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

 

close enough  .. now get back to the outback and keep quiet

[peterms]

 

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 ???

 

 

Yes, please continue.

 

Do try to notice irony when it's used.  They say it doesn't work on the internet, but really, that should be obvious enough for anyone to understand.

 

Second, yes, their account does seem infinitely more credible than Mitchell's, not least because of his stonewalling, evasion, and changing his line.  Also because he had a very big and very clear incentive to lie (saving his job) while the police had no such obvious incentive (Spite?  Personal dislike?  When lying about this, if proven, would be a disciplinary offence?). 

 

So, yes, either party could have been lying and one clearly was, but my view was and remains that it's more likely Mitchell is the liar.

 

So, carry on.

[tonyh29]

ah yes , the old I was only joking defence  ..followed by a veiled attempt at an insult

 

nice try

 

carry on .....

[Risso]

That quote box has defeated me entirely.

[peterms]

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

 

I don't understand why you think it would be a fixed price contract.  Why would a company agree to undertake to provide a service for a fixed price when the volume of that service is completely outwith their control?  Unless of course the price of the contract was set at such a vast amount that it would outstrip any possible level of demand for the service.  Or perhaps where the contract involves running a facility with a finite capacity - but even then, the contract would state assumed upper and lower levels of capacity, with provision for adjusting charges outwith those levels.

 

Isn't it far more likely that the contract would either be per capita, or possibly with a core element plus a per capita charge?  And unless the firm is so bad at financial planning that it sets its charges at levels where more provision does not create more profit, there will be a financial incentive.

That quote box has defeated me entirely.

 

Sorry.  I usually edit them. 

[darrenm]

There's an example of the Police already using a private company to 'lessen their load' and that's the speed awareness courses. Instead of a fixed penalty of £60 and a 3 points that made them no money, you have the option of paying £80 and not having the 3 points. No brainer for most people. Where once before it was considered reasonable to let people off who were speeding to a small degree (ACPO guidelines used to say up to 10% + 3MPH), now there is no margin. Lots of people are given speeding prosecutions for doing 31MPH in a 30.

It seems there is a massive incentive for the police to get every person shipped off to these private courses as much as possible. I can only imagine that the police get a large proportion of that £80 per head for the 4 hour lecture, and a private company is funded in the process. Win-win.

[TrentVilla]

It is completely unthinkable for a number of reasons that such a contract would be agreed on a fixed price basis. Not just for the reasons stated by peterms but because to think the government would be willing to pay for this out of the public purse is simply ridiculous, fixed price or not.

[tonyh29]

darrenm, on 19 Sept 2013 - 1:30 PM, said:

There's an example of the Police already using a private company to 'lessen their load' and that's the speed awareness courses. Instead of a fixed penalty of £60 and a 3 points that made them no money, you have the option of paying £80 and not having the 3 points. No brainer for most people. Where once before it was considered reasonable to let people off who were speeding to a small degree (ACPO guidelines used to say up to 10% + 3MPH), now there is no margin. Lots of people are given speeding prosecutions for doing 31MPH in a 30.

It seems there is a massive incentive for the police to get every person shipped off to these private courses as much as possible. I can only imagine that the police get a large proportion of that £80 per head for the 4 hour lecture, and a private company is funded in the process. Win-win.

 

I thought the same but on my speed awareness course  they told us that has never been the case

 

on point blue ... it was also raised by some grumpy bloke ( not me )  and it was pointed out that EVERY speed camera in Surrey ,including the mobile ones , are logged on a map on a website for anyone to see , there are also signs on the roads warning you of cameras , not to mention the speed signs themselves   .... without wishing to sound like they brain washed me on the course , it would suggest that the motive isn't just taking your cash ...

[colhint]

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

[TrentVilla]

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

 

I think everyone is perfectly aware that fixed price contracts exist and are common, people just don't think there is any logic in your assumption that this would be one. It seems more logical for a whole host of reasons to think the opposite in fact when it would potentially be possible to pass the cost on to those thrown in the drunk tank as has been stated in just about every article on this. The idea the government would pick up the cost of this is completely illogical.

[colhint]

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

[Jon]

AFAIK, these 'drunk tanks' could not be used for anyone who has committed an actual offence. They would have to be arrested/processed in the usual way.

 

is that correct?

 

So, they you get onto the problem of who actually gets put into these things, and why.

 

'Tramps' - many permanently pissed - do they go in? They have no money ....

 

It's populist bollocks IMO that panders to the daily mail notion that our streets are awash with drunken louts causing no end of problems on Friday and saturday evening. Yes, some people are eeejuts, and drink too much and cause problems. So, deal with them in the usual manner. If you're the police, and they've committed no offence, tell em to go home. If they're a danger to themselves or others, go through the correct process and take them in.

 

The problem with this drunk tank thing is that, it seems, the police could be given carte blanche to apprehend anyone that 'they consider' to be 'drunk/making trouble' and lob them into a private cell, and fine them for the privilege. There needs to be detailed evidence process to do that IMO. otherwise these detentions could surely be challenged in court? As such, how does this lessen the police workload?

[Morley_crosses_to_Withe]

Aside from the paranoia about well behaved drinkers, who are only merry, being whisked off the street and banged up at a £400 charge, so that PC Plod and his mates down the station can take a pre-arranged cut with the person in charge of their local drunk tank, do people believe this will be a decent deterrent to people becoming D&D?

[peterms]

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

 

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.

[peterms]

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

 

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".

[colhint]

 

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

 

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

[colhint]

 

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

 

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

[snowychap]

...from the scant information provided...

Indeed.

A quick look on the ACPO website just gives a press release where he doesn't mention anything about drunk tanks, £400 or anything else from what I can see.

[peterms]

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

 

So you're saying that Tesco have contracts which require someone to distribute, for a fixed price, an unspecified amount of goods to an unspecified number of locations at an unspecified frequency?

[colhint]

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