Cuts have consequences!

PCSO stuff ONLY: Burning issues, high profile questions or cases that have been highlighted in national or local news, let's talk about them IN HERE! A link to the item would be great where possible.

Moderator: national-PCSOs

User avatar
powdermonkey
Committee Member
Committee Member
Posts: 462
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2013 9:07 pm
Location: West Yorkshire

Cuts have consequences!

Post by powdermonkey » Sun Jan 03, 2016 2:24 pm

I came across an interesting article in today’s edition of the Sunday Times which I found both worrying and shocking.

It concerns the extent to which various forces are using private companies for policing purposes. Some of this involves “back office” functions such as court liaison. However, other uses include witness interviewing and crime scene examination. Not what I would call “back office”. Thames Valley Police are quoted as saying they have used G4S and Serco for core policing duties to a cost of £3.5million over 5 years, although the nature of those duties is not detailed.

Forces have apparently turned to private companies to make up the shortfall in officers due to officers leaving or retiring because of the cuts.

I have no argument with forces outsourcing certain things such as vehicle maintenance, or cleaning and building maintenance for example, but to use private companies for what I see as policing is wrong. Not only do I have concerns over background checks on staff and accountability for any private company but the two companies mentioned, G4S and Serco, are both being investigated by the Serious Fraud Office for overcharging. G4S, people may remember, failed to provide enough security for the 2012 Olympics resulting the army having to be used.

I am worried as this undermines our job security and the quality of service received by the public and shocked at the extent to which private companies are used. As PCSO’s I’m sure we’ve all been on the receiving end of the comment from members of the public that we’re “not real police officers”. I wonder what their comments would be regarding being interviewed or having their burglary scene examined by an employee of G4S or Serco would be?

Here's the link for those who wish to read the full article :

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/new ... 651925.ece
I have seen the truth and it makes no sense.

User avatar
Bert Moffat
Elite Legion
Elite Legion
Posts: 1430
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 2:24 am

Re: Cuts have consequences!

Post by Bert Moffat » Sun Jan 03, 2016 4:08 pm

Looks like you have to pay to read the full article.

User avatar
falkor
Navigator
Navigator
Posts: 5061
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 11:39 am
Alignment: 'Xevious'
Location: Surrey
Contact:

Re: Cuts have consequences!

Post by falkor » Sun Jan 03, 2016 6:35 pm

yes you do
powdermonkey wrote: G4S, people may remember, failed to provide enough security for the 2012 Olympics resulting the army having to be used.
yes I remember that clearly but WHY did they fail to provide enough security? was a reason ever given?

good article PM
However, other uses include witness interviewing and crime scene examination. Not what I would call “back office”.
People like Theresa May have constantly lambasted senior officers with the cry "GET POLICE OUT OF THE BACK OFFICE!" this is what we have heard over and over again, as if Back Offices are full of PCs with a cup of tea and a doughnut with nothing to do

Going back years of course PCs certainly did witness interviewing and crime scene examination, both of these jobs ended up seeing civvy replacements coming in viz, IOs and SOCOs and both of these have been cut back in the face of Theresa May's CUTS! I know for definate that the loss of IOs meant CID doing the jobs that IOs were previously doing prior to the CUTS!!! and less SOCOs simply means that SOCOs are directed to less scenes :sloop:

User avatar
Bert Moffat
Elite Legion
Elite Legion
Posts: 1430
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 2:24 am

Re: Cuts have consequences!

Post by Bert Moffat » Sun Jan 03, 2016 8:50 pm

falkor wrote: yes I remember that clearly but WHY did they fail to provide enough security? was a reason ever given?
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2012/j ... ity-crisis

User avatar
powdermonkey
Committee Member
Committee Member
Posts: 462
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2013 9:07 pm
Location: West Yorkshire

Re: Cuts have consequences!

Post by powdermonkey » Mon Jan 04, 2016 1:16 pm

Bert Moffat : didn't realise that you had to pay to view the article. I read it in the paper edition and managed to access the on line version without paying.

falkor : Judging from the article that BM has linked, it sounds like they bit off more than they could chew. Going back to my comment on background checks etc, the article quotes one trainee, an ex police officer as saying "There were people who couldn't spell their own name." That poor quality of candidate may be due to the rushed nature of that specific recruitment drive. If it's indicative of the quality of the average G4S employee then it's disgraceful.
I have seen the truth and it makes no sense.

User avatar
falkor
Navigator
Navigator
Posts: 5061
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 11:39 am
Alignment: 'Xevious'
Location: Surrey
Contact:

Re: Cuts have consequences!

Post by falkor » Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:43 pm

Bert Moffat wrote:
falkor wrote: yes I remember that clearly but WHY did they fail to provide enough security? was a reason ever given?
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2012/j ... ity-crisis
crikey, what a read :sloop: just read it :slzz2:

somebody in G4S must carry the can for that surely

Three police forces who looked at handing over their 999 control rooms to the private sector have decided not to go ahead with a deal. BBC NEWS REPORT Dec 21st, 2015
Police in Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire and Northamptonshire will instead form a "strategic alliance" to coordinate their work.
A spokesman for the Unison union said the decision was "good news for our members and the public".
A full alliance, which was "not a merger", could be in place by 2020.
'No outsourcing'
A police spokesman from Northamptonshire said "a decision was made not to progress any further work by G4S across the three forces in this area".
Leicestershire Police and Crime Commissioner Sir Clive Loader said: "We'd prefer to be the masters of our own destiny."
A spokesman for the three forces said: "On 3 November, we announced that G4S had been asked to carry out a feasibility study into contact management.
"We are grateful to G4S for providing their report but although we have identified an urgent need to explore options... we can confirm at this early stage that this will not include outsourcing.
G4S spokesman John Shaw said the firm was "disappointed" that a deal had not been agreed.
"We firmly believe that we can help police forces unlock resources in their support functions to release money for front-line policing and keep more officers on the beat."
A joint statement from the three forces' police and crime commissioners said: "To be quite clear, the alliance is not a merger.
"It is all about protecting the quality of local policing services in each force area as a result of maximising efficiencies ... and each force will r

User avatar
powdermonkey
Committee Member
Committee Member
Posts: 462
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2013 9:07 pm
Location: West Yorkshire

Re: Cuts have consequences!

Post by powdermonkey » Mon Jan 11, 2016 5:58 pm

There's more reasons for forces to steer well clear of G4S :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-35260927

In fact, if you do an internet search on "G4S abuse" you'll get a plethora of reports from around the world.

Serco don't fare very well either :

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 07522.html

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/vide ... -out-video

It appears that no one in a number of police forces thought it'd be a good idea to look into these companies before entering into business arrangements with them.

And then there's the reports that Theresa May's husband, Philip, is a major shareholder in G4S which would explain why they get the big contracts despite their track record.
I have seen the truth and it makes no sense.

User avatar
Bert Moffat
Elite Legion
Elite Legion
Posts: 1430
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 2:24 am

Re: Cuts have consequences!

Post by Bert Moffat » Mon Jan 18, 2016 11:48 pm

powdermonkey wrote:And then there's the reports that Theresa May's husband, Philip, is a major shareholder in G4S which would explain why they get the big contracts despite their track record.
Urban myth is it not?

User avatar
powdermonkey
Committee Member
Committee Member
Posts: 462
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2013 9:07 pm
Location: West Yorkshire

Re: Cuts have consequences!

Post by powdermonkey » Tue Jan 19, 2016 2:31 pm

BM,

It might well be which is why I phrased it the way I did. The original rumour/report I heard was that he is a director of G4S. I couldn't find anything on the internet and later heard the rumour that he is a shareholder. From what I can glean from the internet it seems that Philip May is a small shareholder in the Prudential which in turn is a small shareholder in G4S. If G4S had increased profits from government contracts then their share price would rise and that may have a knock on effect in increasing Prudential's shares. Somewhat tenuous in my view and not enough to accuse Theresa May of being corrupt or having a conflict of interests.

One of the problems is that I don't know if the websites claiming such links are trustworthy or not.
I have seen the truth and it makes no sense.

User avatar
Bert Moffat
Elite Legion
Elite Legion
Posts: 1430
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 2:24 am

Re: Cuts have consequences!

Post by Bert Moffat » Tue Jan 19, 2016 2:52 pm

As I said - urban myth.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic