105 replies to this topic

[Dave SYP]

When all the Constable has left is the power to arrest and all else is done by contractors, someone somewhere will come up with a truly smashing idea.. Why pay £25k for a body who's sole remit is to be directed to arrests when we've got people who do so many other tasks for less?

Remember there was a council a few years ago who employed (in a paid capacity) SCs to patrol in uniform around its markets etc and work along side trading standards. They got away with all the 'conflicts of interest' as forces/councils do when it suits purpose. Without scaremongering, I can at least foresee someone coming up the idea in the near future.. Attest a load of G4S staff, give them a couple of days paid leave on provision they do special duties. Lots of extra warranted staff at a fraction of the costs - they can even do there staff jobs when between arrests..

Waits for worms to get out of the can............

[Shogy1]

Clearly we have a difference of opinion and aren't going to agree. I have never been a fan of this 'handover' culture, nor will I ever be unless a job is specific or serious enough to require a specialist unit take it over. To you it would seem acceptable to put the responsibility of prosecution, detention, and a host of endless other roles into the hands of people whose sole purpose will be to maximise profit... I consider this unacceptable, however you obviously don't, which is your choice.

As to my sad comment at the end... their introduction is at the demise of my career, and I will defend my career and it's interests as best I can, only a fool would do otherwise.

Can I ask your experience of Policing to be basing your opinions on? Special, regular, etc?

5 years SC in Scotland, 11Years PC England.

[wanabe]

Am I missing something here? That video with the G4S working in custody has confused me. Is it suggesting that that job is done by police officers at the moment? It's just that we have custody staff at custody currently who are not police officers.

[Radman]

Am I missing something here? That video with the G4S working in custody has confused me. Is it suggesting that that job is done by police officers at the moment? It's just that we have custody staff at custody currently who are not police officers.

Yup,

But remember folks G4S can do it for cheaper at the cost of training and officer standards.

Look at the situation over at Lincolnshire Police - 60+ former staff members are now losing their jobs and will end up in the dole queue because G4S decided to 'trim the fat.'

Standards are slipping already, I dread to think what it'll be like in a decade.

The Tory lot are happy though because their shares are going up and up, after all its all about the profit isnt it? Since when did quality of service come into it?

Edited by Radman, 23 June 2012 - 10:49 PM.

[Sam Vimes]

Am I missing something here? That video with the G4S working in custody has confused me. Is it suggesting that that job is done by police officers at the moment? It's just that we have custody staff at custody currently who are not police officers.

I wonder what G4S staff do when an unsolicited significant comment is made during the custody process. Nothing I would guess.

[Shogy1]

Am I missing something here? That video with the G4S working in custody has confused me. Is it suggesting that that job is done by police officers at the moment? It's just that we have custody staff at custody currently who are not police officers.

Certainly not every custody suite I go into has DDO's or civillian custody staff. It's a rolling programme I believe.

(Edit foir spelling)

I wonder what G4S staff do when an unsolicited significant comment is made during the custody process. Nothing I would guess.

They should note it down like DDO's and Police officers would.

Yup,

But remember folks G4S can do it for cheaper at the cost of training and officer standards.

Look at the situation over at Lincolnshire Police - 60+ former staff members are now losing their jobs and will end up in the dole queue because G4S decided to 'trim the fat.'

Standards are slipping already, I dread to think what it'll be like in a decade.

The Tory lot are happy though because their shares are going up and up, after all its all about the profit isnt it? Since when did quality of service come into it?

Is it "trimming the fat" as you put it or is there a way that the private companies have found to do things more effectively and efficiently?

Can you show an example of how standards are slipping already? Is that from personal experience or the papers?

Edited by Shogy1, 24 June 2012 - 09:41 AM.

[Radman]

Is it "trimming the fat" as you put it or is there a way that the private companies have found to do things more effectively and efficiently?

Can you show an example of how standards are slipping already? Is that from personal experience or the papers?

So barely a month into the scheme and they are already sacking 60+ staff, do you think thats reasonable and fair? Do you think those 60+ staff that are gone arent going to have any impact on the way Lincs Pol operate?

Lets not forget that Lincs aint exactly a huge force to begin with.

After speaking to the DO staff in a Lincs Custody suite the other day the changes havent been for the better, they are working longer hours for the same pay.

Shogy1 theres one thing you cannot argue against here, a Police authority works to bring about a public service, their pay masters ultimatley are the public, G4S and other security firms simply aim to make a profit for their shareholders.

Thats it....

You CANNOT honestly sit here and argue that this wont have an effect on the quality of service that is brought before the public. Its the age old prisoner transport argument i've had or with the court security that G4S provide - on a day to day baisis its fine to stick a bloke earning minimum wage in these roles but when someone makes a run for it or an escape attempt is made these people can do NOTHING to prevent it, nor do they have the incentive or training to do something about it, so we have suspects at large out in the public who go on to commit further offences.

My argument has always been that the role profile for these jobs should reflect this side of the job and not the 90%+ that requires someone in a uniform to stand around and look pretty.

I'd personally have public services operated and accountable to the public, not some greedy private security company thats in it for the money - if you cant see whats wrong with that then I give up but we're on a slippery slope here and I dread to think what will happen to the service during the rest of my 32 years.

Edited by Radman, 24 June 2012 - 10:03 AM.

[Shogy1]

So barely a month into the scheme and they are already sacking 60+ staff, do you think thats reasonable and fair? Do you think those 60+ staff that are gone arent going to have any impact on the way Lincs Pol operate?

Lets not forget that Lincs aint exactly a huge force to begin with.

After speaking to the DO staff in a Lincs Custody suite the other day the changes havent been for the better, they are working longer hours for the same pay.

But that could mean that the Police were not utilising their staff in the proper manner.

As for the longer hours and same pay, I have little sympathy really. I know myself and alot of other people who have had to graft alot harder and more hours for the money that we get.

[MacGregor]

You CANNOT honestly sit here and argue that this wont have an effect on the quality of service that is brought before the public. Its the age old prisoner transport argument i've had or with the court security that G4S provide - on a day to day baisis its fine to stick a bloke earning minimum wage in these roles but when someone makes a run for it or an escape attempt is made these people can do NOTHING to prevent it, nor do they have the incentive or training to do something about it, so we have suspects at large out in the public who go on to commit further offences.

You bring this one up a lot and I've always been curious to ask something but have never done it.

Say Wee Mental Davey is sitting in the back of the prison van with two (unarmed apart from standard PPE) police officers sitting in the cab. Wee Mental Davey has a few dodgy pals who wish to spring him from the back of the van. They get hold of a couple of pistols from somewhere and hold up this van. What can a police officer do differently in that situation? You'll be sitting their like a lemon hoping they don't shoot you whatever uniform you wear. People will still escape from custody whoever is conveying them from place to place.

I've had a quick flick through your previous posts on the subject and can't find anything to suggest that such instances have increased since they were taken over by private companies. I don't doubt that they have if you say so but have you any official figures or such like for me to flick through?

[Radman]

But that could mean that the Police were not utilising their staff in the proper manner.

As for the longer hours and same pay, I have little sympathy really. I know myself and alot of other people who have had to graft alot harder and more hours for the money that we get.

Since when was a DO on amazing money?!

But this argument really grinds my gears, should everyone take a pay cut because the corporate heads don't like it?

This if anything should be an argument against privatisation not for...

"come transfer your staff contracts over to us where we'll pay them less but get them to work longer hours - because hey, if kids in china can do it for less then why can't they?"

After all lets just erode people's working rights and conditions for the good of the company - but ultimately that's what's wrong with the system - your lining someone else's pockets aren't you? You're no longer in it for the public good...

You bring this one up a lot and I've always been curious to ask something but have never done it.

Say Wee Mental Davey is sitting in the back of the prison van with two (unarmed apart from standard PPE) police officers sitting in the cab. Wee Mental Davey has a few dodgy pals who wish to spring him from the back of the van. They get hold of a couple of pistols from somewhere and hold up this van. What can a police officer do differently in that situation? You'll be sitting their like a lemon hoping they don't shoot you whatever uniform you wear. People will still escape from custody whoever is conveying them from place to place.

I've had a quick flick through your previous posts on the subject and can't find anything to suggest that such instances have increased since they were taken over by private companies. I don't doubt that they have if you say so but have you any official figures or such like for me to flick through?

You ain't going to like what I'm about to suggest CJM but I'd arm them just as they are armed in Canada and Australia. Why do we leave such an important task to contractors on minimum wage who are have no powers and are poorly equipped and trained to carry out such duties?

I'd also have proper court bailiffs sworn in as 'Special Constables' (the old jurisdictional definition of an SC that is) to protect the courts who are authorised to carry PPE including gas, baton and taser.

I can't see any cop in the country disagreeing with me on the court bailiff idea since Ive ended up locking up at court before, colleagues of mine have locked up at court and theres ALWAYS trouble taking place inside them, the very nature of the building.

Just ensure they receive appropriate training in-line with such duties.

The fact is in this country we rely far too much on people who are neither trained nor capable of doing anything should the situation go south.

Edited by Radman, 24 June 2012 - 10:50 AM.

[Shogy1]

Since when was a DO on amazing money?!

But this argument really grinds my gears, should everyone take a pay cut because the corporate heads don't like it?

This if anything should be an argument against privatisation not for...

"come transfer your staff contracts over to us where we'll pay them less but get them to work longer hours - because hey, if kids in china can do it for less then why can't they?"

After all lets just erode people's working rights and conditions for the good of the company - but ultimately that's what's wrong with the system - your lining someone else's pockets aren't you? You're no longer in it for the public good...

But the other question is that if the private sector can do things to the same standard but for less money then why isn't the public sector doing it? If they did then this arguement wouldn't be happening.

As for eroding the rights and conditions, if you ran a company and it wasn't performing as it should and not making money but the workers had the best pay and conditions going and someone said Well we can do the same job to the same standard for less money and you will be able to keep going which would you choose? Keep going or go bust?

there is only a limited amount of money and so people have to make the best of it and get as much out of it as they can.

[wanabe]

But the other question is that if the private sector can do things to the same standard but for less money then why isn't the public sector doing it? If they did then this arguement wouldn't be happening.

As for eroding the rights and conditions, if you ran a company and it wasn't performing as it should and not making money but the workers had the best pay and conditions going and someone said Well we can do the same job to the same standard for less money and you will be able to keep going which would you choose? Keep going or go bust?

there is only a limited amount of money and so people have to make the best of it and get as much out of it as they can.

It's a bit different though isn't it. I'll try and simplify this as much as I can. Say for example the budget for Cheshire Police was set at £50m for the year. If Cheshire only spent £45m then the £5m left will either be carried over to the following year or handed back to the government. If G4S get paid £10m for their contract they will try and do it with the least expenditure they can because if they can do it at a cost of £5m to themselves they keep the £5m as profit. They don't hand it back.

[Shogy1]

It's a bit different though isn't it. I'll try and simplify this as much as I can. Say for example the budget for Cheshire Police was set at £50m for the year. If Cheshire only spent £45m then the £5m left will either be carried over to the following year or handed back to the government. If G4S get paid £10m for their contract they will try and do it with the least expenditure they can because if they can do it at a cost of £5m to themselves they keep the £5m as profit. They don't hand it back.

But then it's a set budget. Thats what happens. It will be set for the life of the contract. You could also say that if The company saves 5 million as in your example it could plough some of that into better IT and and training leading to a more effective means of carrying out the job.

[MacGregor]

You ain't going to like what I'm about to suggest CJM but I'd arm them just as they are armed in Canada and Australia. Why do we leave such an important task to contractors on minimum wage who are have no powers and are poorly equipped and trained to carry out such duties?

I'd also have proper court bailiffs sworn in as 'Special Constables' (the old jurisdictional definition of an SC that is) to protect the courts who are authorised to carry PPE including gas, baton and taser.

I can't see any cop in the country disagreeing with me on the court bailiff idea since Ive ended up locking up at court before, colleagues of mine have locked up at court and theres ALWAYS trouble taking place inside them, the very nature of the building.

Just ensure they receive appropriate training in-line with such duties.

The fact is in this country we rely far too much on people who are neither trained nor capable of doing anything should the situation go south.

Not sure why you think I wouldn't like police officers being routinely armed, it is something I'm very much in favour of (and I've made my position on it very clear quite recently)!

Here in Scotland at least the people doing the job you suggest are given a range of powers, I'm not sure how different it is in England but it seems odd that they would not be afforded any powers.

[Shogy1]

You ain't going to like what I'm about to suggest CJM but I'd arm them just as they are armed in Canada and Australia. Why do we leave such an important task to contractors on minimum wage who are have no powers and are poorly equipped and trained to carry out such duties?

I'd also have proper court bailiffs sworn in as 'Special Constables' (the old jurisdictional definition of an SC that is) to protect the courts who are authorised to carry PPE including gas, baton and taser.

I can't see any cop in the country disagreeing with me on the court bailiff idea since Ive ended up locking up at court before, colleagues of mine have locked up at court and theres ALWAYS trouble taking place inside them, the very nature of the building.

Just ensure they receive appropriate training in-line with such duties.

The fact is in this country we rely far too much on people who are neither trained nor capable of doing anything should the situation go south.

Whats the point in that when the police are there to do that job? There are always police somewhere in a court building at least 99% of the time I would suggest. More money down the drain if they started to give court staff more powers. More powers = more training = more time away from the job = more staff to employ to cover the staff and so on. When I have been at court most things are sorted out by the current staff. Only seldom do I see police officers actually having to become involved and using the sorts of powers you would give to court staff.

[Radman]

Whats the point in that when the police are there to do that job? There are always police somewhere in a court building at least 99% of the time I would suggest. More money down the drain if they started to give court staff more powers. More powers = more training = more time away from the job = more staff to employ to cover the staff and so on. When I have been at court most things are sorted out by the current staff. Only seldom do I see police officers actually having to become involved and using the sorts of powers you would give to court staff.

You obviously aren't in the courts I go to, as I've previously stated I've been taken away from giving evidence in important trials simply because some idiot couldn't behave themselves.

The only reason cops are in court in the first place is down to them having to give evidence, having to make arrests pulls them away from this very important duty. At the end of the day it shouldn't be my job to look after the court when I have vital testimony to give to a court - my overall point is how much do the current useless G4S security get for these duties (who have no powers or training)

What service to these security guards actually provide when all they do when they encounter resistance is call for a cop? Why do we employ these people?

One thing I think we need to realise in this country is that you need to spend money in order to provide a half decent level of service, doing things on the cheap isn't the way forward.

Oh and CJM the reason why the people who do prisoner transport in Scotland have powers and PPE is because they are the police, or atleast I believe it's the police who conduct prisoner transports.

Edited by Radman, 24 June 2012 - 01:01 PM.

[Shogy1]

You obviously aren't in the courts I go to, as I've previously stated I've been taken away from giving evidence in important trials simply because some idiot couldn't behave themselves.

The only reason cops are in court in the first place is down to them having to give evidence, having to make arrests pulls them away from this very important duty. At the end of the day it shouldn't be my job to look after the court when I have vital testimony to give to a court - my overall point is how much do the current useless G4S security get for these duties (who have no powers or training)

What service to these security guards actually provide when all they do when they encounter resistance is call for a cop? Why do we employ these people?

One thing I think we need to realise in this country is that you need to spend money in order to provide a half decent level of service, doing things on the cheap isn't the way forward.

Oh and CJM the reason why the people who do prisoner transport in Scotland have powers and PPE is because they are the police, or atleast I believe it's the police who conduct prisoner transports.

But how many times do cops get called on to come out of actually giving evidence to deal with something? Not very often I bet. Maybe while they are waiting to give evidence mabe but not while giving evidence.

On your basis why dont the shop security deal with shop lifters?

The thing that we need to realise in this country is that you can't go on spending money that's not there other wise you end up having to make cuts, reductions in services etc.. Which is why this country is in the mess it is (not to mention the rest of the EU etc)

[Radman]

But how many times do cops get called on to come out of actually giving evidence to deal with something? Not very often I bet. Maybe while they are waiting to give evidence mabe but not while giving evidence.

On your basis why dont the shop security deal with shop lifters?

I'd consider a court which runs criminal trials with the potential for violence alot different to store dealing with shoplifters.

On one occasion I had a court cancelled because the defence solicitor was assaulted by his own client in a separate case - disturbances within courts cost the tax payer a fortune - I'll try and evidence this if I can but re-scheduling trials is a real bug bear of Magistrates and Judges.

As for getting called to court it happens more often then you'd think, you get called for all sorts of strange and mundane reasons - practically everytime someone goes 'not out' you're probably going to get asked to attend and give evidence if you were the arresting officer.

As with hospitals courts and their staff aren't well protected or looked after by society, they are vulnerable and exposed.

The thing that we need to realise in this country is that you can't go on spending money that's not there other wise you end up having to make cuts, reductions in services etc.. Which is why this country is in the mess it is (not to mention the rest of the EU etc)

But then you look at the millions forces waste on community out-reach schemes ect.

We need to get back to doIng what people expect of us - fighting crime and protecting people.

We've lost our way in my opinion.

[MacGregor]

Oh and CJM the reason why the people who do prisoner transport in Scotland have powers and PPE is because they are the police, or atleast I believe it's the police who conduct prisoner transports.

I'm not 100% sure about that, I've certainly never seen the police taking people to and from court but if you tell me it happens then I'm sure it does. I know Police Custody and Security Officers are often used for that but they aren't warranted officers (they have powers laid down by one of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Acts but I have no idea which one). I'm not sure if members of private companies can actually be designated a PCSO as all those I know are employed by the police directly although private companies do engage in the transport of prisoners.

[Radman]

I'm not 100% sure about that, I've certainly never seen the police taking people to and from court but if you tell me it happens then I'm sure it does. I know Police Custody and Security Officers are often used for that but they aren't warranted officers (they have powers laid down by one of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Acts but I have no idea which one). I'm not sure if members of private companies can actually be designated a PCSO as all those I know are employed by the police directly although private companies do engage in the transport of prisoners.

As I said I'm not 100% sure but I read a long time ago that transport duties are still carried out by the police north of the border.

[MacGregor]

As I said I'm not 100% sure but I read a long time ago that transport duties are still carried out by the police north of the border.

Reliance was awarded a contract for prisoner transport in 2003/4(?) at some point, G4S were awarded the contract last year. Not sure how much of a hand the police have in the whole thing.

[Shogy1]

I'd consider a court which runs criminal trials with the potential for violence alot different to store dealing with shoplifters.

On one occasion I had a court cancelled because the defence solicitor was assaulted by his own client in a separate case - disturbances within courts cost the tax payer a fortune - I'll try and evidence this if I can but re-scheduling trials is a real bug bear of Magistrates and Judges.

As for getting called to court it happens more often then you'd think, you get called for all sorts of strange and mundane reasons - practically everytime someone goes 'not out' you're probably going to get asked to attend and give evidence if you were the arresting officer.

As with hospitals courts and their staff aren't well protected or looked after by society, they are vulnerable and exposed.




But then you look at the millions forces waste on community out-reach schemes ect.

We need to get back to doIng what people expect of us - fighting crime and protecting people.

We've lost our way in my opinion.

Right so they could spend how many thousands of pounds on training staff just to save the off chance of an officer being called out of court while giving evidence? Good value for money? I think not. As for resheduling trials, Yes it's a bug bear but I've seen trial resheduled for alot less than your example. It's a fact of how the court sytem works.

Don't Shop lifter get violent on occasions? Why not give Store Security Asps, Hancuffs and CS just incase they get a violent one?

You seem to be arguing against an arresting officer being called to court to give evidence against someone they have arrested and put to court. Isn't it right that the defendant can ask for this? It can be irritating when you know they are guilty anyway however it is their right to ask you to attend and give evidence isn't it?

Reliance was awarded a contract for prisoner transport in 2003/4(?) at some point, G4S were awarded the contract last year. Not sure how much of a hand the police have in the whole thing.

They've done it for a few years now having private companies doing prisoner escorts. It's all done through the Justice Dept.

[Radman]

Right so they could spend how many thousands of pounds on training staff just to save the off chance of an officer being called out of court while giving evidence? Good value for money? I think not. As for resheduling trials, Yes it's a bug bear but I've seen trial resheduled for alot less than your example. It's a fact of how the court sytem works.

Don't Shop lifter get violent on occasions? Why not give Store Security Asps, Hancuffs and CS just incase they get a violent one?

You seem to be arguing against an arresting officer being called to court to give evidence against someone they have arrested and put to court. Isn't it right that the defendant can ask for this? It can be irritating when you know they are guilty anyway however it is their right to ask you to attend and give evidence isn't it?

Again a shop or store isnt running a criminal trial or is part of the justice system. I personally see a court as a somewhat sacred place that should be afforded protection from such behaviour. Countries around the world have court baliffs who provide security and police the buildings, why are we any different?

Personally its not a 'one off' occurance, people run from the court all the time, people fight in courts all the time, people disrupt and disturb hearings on a daily baisis.

Again I ask the question why are we paying for these second rate security officers who arent worth the money when we could have protection in place for WHEN a person decides to run, for when some bloke thinks its a good idea to assault his brief or when the dobba family Smith sat outside Court 3 think that its the ample time to square away some family troubles with their fists.

They've done it for a few years now having private companies doing prisoner escorts. It's all done through the Justice Dept.

What a good track record it has too:

http://www.bbc.co.uk...uffolk-16735942
http://www.bbc.co.uk...cester-16682569
http://www.bbc.co.uk...hester-17349687

We shouldnt be planning for the routine, we should be planning for the worst case scenerio, because when the worst does happen we have nothing in place to stop the bad guys from getting away with it do we?

Its alright shrugging your shoulders and saying "Well MOST of the time its fine" but that isnt what we should be about is it?

[Shogy1]

Again a shop or store isnt running a criminal trial or is part of the justice system. I personally see a court as a somewhat sacred place that should be afforded protection from such behaviour. Countries around the world have court baliffs who provide security and police the buildings, why are we any different?

It is afforded protection, police officers are there 99% of the time. That is why we now are allowed to wear our PPE etc in court. To deal with this sort of disruption. If court baliffs had the powers you suggest would they then be resposible for brining a criminal prosecution? going to investigate the reasons behind it all, getting statements? I wouldnt think so. It would be down to the police. So why create another layer of buerocrecy?

Personally its not a 'one off' occurance, people run from the court all the time, people fight in courts all the time, people disrupt and disturb hearings on a daily baisis.

Again I ask the question why are we paying for these second rate security officers who arent worth the money when we could have protection in place for WHEN a person decides to run, for when some bloke thinks its a good idea to assault his brief or when the dobba family Smith sat outside Court 3 think that its the ample time to square away some family troubles with their fists.

Again the police would be called to this anyway as no doubt there would allegations of assult flying about as well. Who do expect to deal with them?

What a good track record it has too:

http://www.bbc.co.uk...uffolk-16735942
http://www.bbc.co.uk...cester-16682569
http://www.bbc.co.uk...hester-17349687

We shouldnt be planning for the routine, we should be planning for the worst case scenerio, because when the worst does happen we have nothing in place to stop the bad guys from getting away with it do we?

Its alright shrugging your shoulders and saying "Well MOST of the time its fine" but that isnt what we should be about is it?

I would just like to point out that the post I was replying to in that scenario was about the prisoner transport being done in Scotland. I would like to point out the three you have found articles for were done in England. However, I digress... In those three scenarios I would suspect there was no intel to suggest these were going to happen. You cannot be suggesting for each time I have been on an un armed hospital guard post or escorted a prisoner somewhere there should be fire arms team backing me up? What do you think would have happened in a similar scenario with un armed police officers as was posted before?

It seems that spend millions (That we haven't got by the way) "just in case" is your way forward..

Edited by Shogy1, 24 June 2012 - 03:48 PM.

[MacGregor]

Rather odd choice of stories to highlight how things are done in Scotland...

Notwithstanding the fact that all three cases occured in completely the wrong country (Reliance haven't exactly done spectacularly in Scotland so you should be able to find Scotland specific stories) they are quite odd choices.

In the first case two prison officers were threatened at gunpoint. Whether they were employed by a private company or not isn't clear but two unarmed police officers aren't going to be able to do much either.
The second case is perhaps a better choice but would it have been prevented just by putting two coppers in the van? I suggest not.
The third case is much the same as the first, what chance would a couple of unarmed police officers have had in those circumstances?
Can you confidently assert that in any of those cases the offenders wouldn't have got away if police officers were conveying them (with present PPE)?

If you're going to get police officers to perform the role again then they might as well be given the tools they need to do the job (i.e. a firearm) because otherwise they will be about as effective as those they are replacing.