Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
Chief Police Officers say they are being forced to seek help from Private Companies due to the enormous
Financial`cuts`to their services..........
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
the subject of barry's blog currently.
this is the start of the slippery slope, private companies can carry out back office duties but it will not end there.
any private security company would have to show results and we know how that affects us with rogue clamping companies.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
What else can this be other than yet more off-balance sheet (or should that be;off balance-sheet?) financial trickery.
The job-specs for the police as a whole remain the same, the amount of money 'currently' needed to do the job has been drastically cut, yet there is no end of money to pay out to private firms to help fulfil meeting the criteria AND for them to profit.
Can it simply be that the wage bill for serving officers is so high that by employing 'lesser mortals' at a far lower pay rate yields both profit and savings??????
On the other hand had the police used DHSS snoopers to spy on bomb suspects instead of untrained and inexperienced squaddies JC D'Menezes would still be alive.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
You clearly didn't actually read my Blog Howard,
There is nothing new or wrong with this. Private security firms have been around a long time and have been playing more and more of a supportive role for the police for decades and we should welcome such developments.
Nothing 'off balance sheet' or any kind of financial trickery Tom - this is not a PFI scheme as abused by Brown but contracting and outsourcing from police budgets and it is a matter for individual forces. It is a simple fact that contracting out, something I have had considerable direct experience with, properly done can be a lot cheaper and can improve services.
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
I certainly do not support this but it has to said there are many ways in which these ideas may be applied in the future.
I think certain parts of the armed forces could surely be outsourced, especially those more concerned with ceremony.
Also many businesses working in war torn countries are using private protection to ensure their safety. Most of these positions are filled by british army trained ex-special forces and are paid far in excess of their army wage, so it seems that everyone is a winner?
It could be that we buy in extra man power when needed, without the costly contracts and associative pensions etc that go with it. Although I do not like it, it does seem to be the way things are going.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i did read your blog and the leaked report in detail barry, nobody is gullible enough not to see that this is purely about money.
it will start with the security people having no powers of arrest but able to issue on the spot fines.
when this is seen as accepted they will be given more powers.
I am not an expert on policing so won't comment on that. I will, however point out that "purely about money" could also be expressed as "value for money"............
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
You said it was the start of a slippery slope Howard - I made the point in my blog that the start was decades ago.....
I see no problem at all with it and with the huge deficit it does make financial sense as well. Indeed a win win. Bern - very true.
DT1 - even I draw some lines as to where privatisation should not tread. HM Armed Forces being the big one, though I do not have a problem with some things like gate security on UK bases or home-based catering services for instance. Operational duties are another thing. Good luck though to former SAS and other army personnel who do dangerous security jobs overseas when they leave the forces.
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
Here is a section of the Public Sector Executive newsletter...just in...
* *
The Police Federation, which represents rank-and-file officers, has called the proposal "extremely dangerous".
The contract has a potential value of £1.5bn over seven years, but could rise to £3.5bn depending on how many other forces sign up. This move comes in the face of financial pressure to police forces, as they must deal with 20% cuts to budgets over four years.
The Police Federation vice-chairman Simon Reed said: "This is an extremely dangerous road to take. The priority of private companies within policing will be profit and not people, and we must not forget, they are answerable to their shareholders and not to the public we serve."
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
the last paragraph sums it up perfectly, the same situation as the hospital up north handed over to a private company who admitted they had overstretched themselves and that patient care was likely to suffer.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
This is simply a vested interest who does not understand, or does not want to understand how contracting out works.
The Police Authority will decide on the contract specification and the level of contract supervision required. The contractor has to answer to the authority in fulfilling the terms of the contract before they answer to shareholders. If the company want to make a profit then they have to deliver on the contract and get their pricing right in a competitive tendering process.
Guest 683- Registered: 11 Feb 2009
- Posts: 1,052
Value for money? With all these moves towards better value we can expect to see our tax bills fall in the next few years.
A bit of honesty wouldn't go amiss. "We have no money so if you want this or that service this is what its' going to cost and this is how we propose to fund it".
Don't patronise us with meaningless management verbiage; the emperor has no clothes.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
been saying that for ages mark, why the cobbled together insist on treating us like children is beyond me.
we all know that there is a bit of a deficit to cut, the problem is that it is actually getting larger.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
"...how contracting out works"
http://www.european-services-strategy.org.uk/outsourcing-ppp-library/contract-and-privatisation-failures/
". If the company want to make a profit then they have to deliver on the contract and get their pricing right in a competitive tendering process."
...or shed tears and get more cash?
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Mark - oh really, do you not understand that the government is spending more than it has in income. All these reductions in spending are needed to cut that deficit. Much as I would love to see tax cuts as a result that will not happen soon. Mind you some taxes should be cut to help the other side of the equation, growth, the mad 50p rate which would benefit tax income and corporate taxes in particular.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
No Tom - that is utter rubbish and not how it works.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Subcontracting to the public sector has become such a gravy train because the people awarding the contracts don't know their arses from their elbows. Councils, the MoD and the NHS are a particularly soft touch. Projects grow like Topsy, client bodies don't define requirements tightly enough, resulting in ambiguous terms of reference, and cost overruns are signed off merrily on a daily basis. If the bodies awarding the contracts had the necessary knowledge and experience it just wouldn't happen.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 683- Registered: 11 Feb 2009
- Posts: 1,052
Barry
what I want is honesty (from ALL politicians) and not the pretence that by keeping council tax down or income tax down we can have all the services that we want.
What we get is an act of illusion (delusion) whereby the earth is promised but in reality less is delivered.
Mature debate at local and national level is required but sadly lacking.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
that is borne out by handing over local services to local people under the guise of more local control, very few people swallow it.
#17 says it. If you want value for money - not a meaningless phrase but a proper aspiration, yours and my taxes should be spent effectively - you have to have good management of contracts. If the public sector contracted out services are not delivering it is because the contracts are not managed properly. |It takes skill and effort to manage properly.
