We are currently experiencing network problems with the desktop version of Police Oracle. We hope to have these resolved as soon as possible.

No Arrests Says Private Firm

Guest (08/03/12 @ 08:37)

Has anyone ever defined what are 'back office,' 'middle office', and 'frontline' functions? They seemed to bandied around quite freely.

John (08/03/12 @ 08:45)

Methinks he doth protest too much. So, why was the patrol service included in the tender document? Does not say a lot for the quality of that document if it was a mistake - what other 'mistakes' to the benefit of the contractor?

Christopher (08/03/12 @ 09:01)

This is nothing more than a sales pitch for the gullible. When the seller uses the word 'unlikely' it means the likelihood and possibility is already written into the contract. How long before 'cheaper' patrols replace police officers who become fixed to living inside stations until the patrols identify then detain the 'criminal' Policing is for the public and not for profit.

Petemac (08/03/12 @ 09:06)

Not this year anyway!

oldcopper (08/03/12 @ 09:16)

I don't believe a word of it. These people lie routinely and I would not trust them one iota. They may not start out arresting/detaining people but those functions will eventually become part of their remit. Everything that is happening to the Police Service today is being done on a surreptitious `bit by bit' fashion and once the public and police officers become accustomed to seeing private security staff in certain roles it will be easier for their employers and HMG to gradually slide them into arrest/detention. roles. Most MOPs are very much against privatisation of the Police and I have not yet met one person who agrees with it. Most recognise it is nothing less than a money making opportunity for the pals of members of HMG and senior Police Officers to sit on the boards of the security companies who hope to take on the privatisation of the Police.

sykes (08/03/12 @ 09:28)

Someone else wheeled out to try and spin their way out of what is happening, you only have to look at what is happening with the political control of the service , the number of reviews taking place attacking the office of constable, i still say we need change but why were all the chief against mergers or A Royal commission but happy to jump in bed with a private contractor, basically the home office as got the puppet chiefs it wants in place, they have no interest in preserving the role of policing, they have a vested interest in securing their own futures though, this and previous governments have been shown to lie about almost every aspect of the public sector, this is the thin end of the wedge, more powers will be handed over, contractors will always want more, im afraid its the end of british policing

oldcopper (08/03/12 @ 09:52)

@sykes Agree with most of what you say but it will only be the end of British policing if today's coppers cooperate with the privatisation plans. I hope those currently serving are at last seeing the picture and have the measure of this HMG. and don't just follow the privatisation line as they have with such other matters as increased use of Specials and the introduction of PCSOs. Surely they now understand those `innovations' (amongst other things) have been detrimental to them and their pay and conditions and will see privatisation as not just the thin edge of the wedge but the wedge itself. I am pleased to see that the Police appear to have the have the public on their side with this one, so perhaps the FED and individual officers can build on that and see win the victory at the end of the day.

Craig (08/03/12 @ 21:41)

As a tax payer providing our money is spent wisely if G4S can do it more efficiently than the current people and there is a saving for the tax payer then what is there to lose with having them in admin roles and positions where the office of constable isn't needed. Sholdn't we have police officers out of the office and admin assistants inside?

Craig (08/03/12 @ 21:47)

As a tax payer I want my money spent as efficiently as possible, that means police officers outside and operational instead of in offices. Support staff are exactly that, so if that means G4S can do their roles more efficiently than the police (which Lincs seem to think is the case) then what is there to argue about?? there can be even less argument if they use retired cops. I have no issue at all.

Leave a Comment