Do it right

Do it right
A while ago I was made aware of the Met Federations Do it right campaign. I have not read the fine print and, as I am not a Met officer, I don’t know too much about how it works in practice. But I think that it seems like an excellent idea. To some extent, we ourselves are the biggest Obstacle to the public becoming aware of the devastating effect of cuts to Policing. I will try to explain why I think this.
Police resources have already been cut too far. Yet we continue to operate. ‘Recorded’ crime continues to fall, or rise only marginally. We tell the public that the effects will be devastating. Yet the statistics and the evidence that the Public see are far from devastating. They are noticing dropping response times. Maybe being told a bit more often that no Police officer will attend their incident, but nothing along the lines of what has been predicted. So, are we wrong? Are we scaremongering? Is the government right?
The problem is that the Police officers and civilian staff that remain are bending over backwards to plug the gaps. They are not just working harder or a little bit smarter as claimed. It’s not the case that we have just got rid of a lot of people who were doing nothing. I accept that some changes and efficiency measures have worked. Some were needed. But I see on a daily basis officers working 2 or 3 hours a day and not claiming overtime. I see officers being kept on at the end of their tour of duty and claiming overtime but being told they’ll have to change their claim to time off. Time off that they rarely get the opportunity to take may I add.
People are coming in on their days off. Doing way more than they should. There are a number of reasons for this. Some people are doing it to further their own careers. To stand out. Some are doing it because they are afraid to say no to their bosses. Some are certainly being bullied or intimidated by senior managers into working excessive hours for no payment in order to avoid repercussions. 
The results of all of these extra hours, extra work rate, extra responsibilities, stress and intimidation at work are starting to show already! Sickness is almost universally up. Injuries on duty are rising. Complaints from members of the public are rising. Service levels are falling. This is now. There are more cuts to come. This is after a short period of time. The real results will come when we have been trying to cope for even longer. It is a ticking bomb.

Perhaps even more worrying is that staff are attending incidents and finding reasons not to record the incidents as crimes. I realise that it’s quite a contentious point but it’s true and we know it! To investigate a crime allocated to themselves takes time. Time that staff know they don’t have. So when there’s an incident that ‘may’ be a crime people are tending to go down the no crime route. When they attend fights or disorder in the street the tendency is to write it off. To gloss over the circumstances. To not record a crime because they know they don’t have the time to deal with the implications of another crime to deal with! Unfortunately a minority are going further. They are not recording incidents as crimes where a crime has clearly been committed. They are doing so ‘believing’ they are doing the right thing. They are not!
In addition there are less officers on the street to discover offences. Less stop searches being conducted. less officers to discover public order offences or find drugs. These are big factors in the drop in recorded crime. The main crimes that are falling are those that we aren’t discovering anymore. There is not less crime out there. This is a recession. The reverse is true. Crime is rising. We just don’t record it or discover it as much. This is not good. In such an environment criminals prosper and good people suffer.  
We feel that we are serving the public by papering over the cracks with our extra efforts. But these efforts are not sustainable long term. The government will use the evidence that we are providing with our short term efforts to justify further cuts. To say “we knew we were right.” they will cut further. We are leaving the public exposed. When the staff are gone they will not come back. The people leaving are not those with no skills or prospects. The people leaving are those that are being cherry picked. Well qualified and valued colleagues. I have seen some excellent colleagues take their skills elsewhere. They are getting more money and better hours etc. they will not come back! Lost forever. That is not to say that those of us remaining are not skilled or qualified. But any organisation would struggle to cope with such a talent drain. A drain that will be plugged with cheaper new recruits. Who will take years to be half as efficient as those leaving!
So what do we do? We need to “do it right!” it’s no good for one or two people to do this. They will be earmarked as trouble makers. Moved, bullied or even made redundant under new proposals. We all need to do it right. We need to record crimes properly. Let the media and the public see the real implications of cuts. We need to work according to the regs we have. If they want to cancel our rest days or change our shifts then tell them we want what regs say. Don’t just say times are tough. If you do that then you are letting others down. 
The fed in the Met (and others recently) are showing us what they want. They are not asking for work to rule. They are not asking us to be obstructive. Just do it right. If you go to a job. See it through properly. Crime it. Investigate it. Don’t cuff it. Don’t forget the extra hour you worked or the mileage you did in your own car. Don’t just pop in on your day off to do that bit of paperwork. If we all do it then the cuts will show. The cracks will appear. They will have to rethink.
Support your colleagues and the public. Do it right. Every time.
CynicalBobby

Help the heroes

Help the heroes

These are tough times. Of that there is no doubt. The evidence is out there. Nobody is arguing. Cuts have to be made. Things have to be changed. We must make plans to deal with the circumstances we find ourselves in. There are many conflicting arguments about the best way forward. I’m not an economist. I’m a Police officer. The are many out there who know more than me and can address the issue better than I ever could. The question I would like to pose is where do we draw the line when it comes to saving money?

I read the following article today about the revolting way that members of our armed forces are being made redundant days before their pensions are due to save money sickened me. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9337175/Soldiers-sacked-days-before-pension-date.html Men and women, who have put their lives on the line for this country, being thrown on the scrap heap to save what is, in the big picture, a small amount of money.

Clearly the AnitWinsorNetworks agenda is to prevent the unnecessary and incompetent changes to Policing proposed by the former rail regulator Mr. Winsor. To prevent this government from politicising and ruining the Police. because of this Iwehave started to take an interest in the activities of this government. I have to say that the more I have looked at this government and their policies the more shocked I have become. Prior to the Winsor report I was totally disinterested in politics. I just wanted to get on with my job and leave politics to people in suits. Yet, despite the high level of cynicism I have achieved since becoming involved,  even I was shocked that this government would sink this low to save a few pound. To throw dedicated people on the scrap heap while preserving and in some cases enhancing further their own cushy conditions.

 I do accept that tough decisions must be made but decisions like this are not made in my name. Nor will they be supported by anybody I know. I have attended memorial services for people who did not make it to get their pensions. The very least we can do is reward those who do make it. This government cannot be allowed to treat the members of our armed forces like this. Please protest. Speak to your MP’s. Let people know what their government is doing. Share the article. Shout about it. Stop this unfair treatment of our heroes.

That is all.

CynicalBobby

Great article By Sir Ian Blair

Image

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/politics/2012/06/regression-mean

I saw this article on Twitter this week. Written by Sir Ian Blair. The above link takes you to the article online. He raises some very good points. Clearly he has only spent his whole life in Policing and he has never been a rail regulator so this government will ignore his concerns.

This is of course the same government that have now performed U turns on a number of their budget policies. The same government who have been found to be riddled with corruption, nepotism and general incompetence. The problem with messing with Policing is that once you’ve made the experienced staff redundant, slashed the wages and lost the infrastructure you can’t just do a quick U turn. The organised criminals will be stronger, richer and more confident than ever. The cuts and radical reforms must be stopped now. Join in with the #AntiWinsorNetwork. Sign the E petitions http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/32177 and speak to your MP’s.

 

The Conservative-led coalition government has taken a series of connected decisions about the police. First, it has consistently rehearsed the view, returning to their 1993 white paper on the subject, that “the main job of the police is to catch criminals”. That is indeed a crucial part of policing but there are many others. By concentrating so narrowly on crime and detection, the Conservatives have inexplicably ignored the preponderance of criminological theory and professional police opinion across the world. This categorically suggests that crime can be best controlled through a wider approach by the police, attempting to interact with the whole community in order to build legitimacy and consent.

Second, the government has reduced funding for the police more severely than for most other parts of the public sector, requiring the service to eliminate 20 per cent of costs over the next four years. This will probably force the police to retreat to an outdated method of working, reacting to crime after it has occurred rather than trying to minimise what gives rise to it. The combination of the first two decisions will drive the service to reduce its involvement in neighbourhoods, take police officers out of schools and put most of them back into their cars responding to emergency calls.

Third, it has deliberately reduced professional police involvement in policymaking and the development of the doctrine of evidence-based policing. It openly criticises the Association of Chief Police Officers, to the point where coalition-run police authorities have begun to starve it of funds. For no coherent reason, the Home Office is scrapping the National Policing Improvement Agency, an organisation that was trying to do what it said on the tin.

Last, in their drive to roll back the state, the Conservatives have legislated to place chief constables under the direct control of individual politicians in a manner never seen in Britain. This will endanger the long tradition of operational police independence.

These four moves threaten with extinction the primary model of British policing – or, more correctly, of policing in England and in a very reluctant Wales, because Scotland has rejected the idea.

Over the course of nearly two centuries, Britain developed a new model of policing, usually described by criminologists such as Robert Reiner as social democratic. This may now be in its death throes.

Policing and politics are inextricably linked. In the end, both are about power and the use of force. Within all nation states, the police are the sole institution empowered to use force on free citizens without needing to seek prior legal permission. Even the words are linked etymologically, through the Greek polis, or “city”: consider politician, political, politic, politics, polity, policy, police and politicised.

Just as with the absence of the rule of law, the absence of an effective police service, as in post-invasion Afghanistan or Iraq, is an emblem of
a failed state. For the police to serve only one political party or politician is a symbol of dictatorship. Precisely because it is so important, policing is a political issue.

However, all democratic states go to great lengths to prevent policing from becoming politicised, especially by stopping one politician or ministry gaining sole control of the police. England and Wales have had (although only until this November) a balance of powers between the home secretary, 43 local chief constables and police authorities, which are made up of local politicians and independent members. Many other countries, such as the United States, Germany and Australia, divide control between federal and local jurisdictions. Others, such as France and Italy, have national forces that answer to competing ministries.

Dr Justice Tankebe, born in a police barracks in Ghana and now teaching at Cambridge University, has defined police legitimacy as depending on “the recognition by citizens of the moral rightness of the police’s claim to authority”. And, in Britain, home of the first force founded on such a principle, that position is in danger.

There is abundant research indicating that citizens grant their consent to the police on fulfilment of two conditions – that “the rules” are both fair and fairly enforced. Two aspects of that fairness are now under threat in the UK. First, there is copious evidence that policing is concerned with far more than crime-fighting, and yet that is how the coalition is defining its role. Second, the police should be independent of party politicians, a position that will be fundamentally altered by the first direct election of police and crime commissioners in November.

Not everything about British policing is in good shape. Moreover, it is a difficult business. Policing deals daily with confrontational and intractable problems; it is a necessary evil, concerned with some of the least pleasant aspects of human behaviour. Yet it is important to recollect that Britain created a style of policing widely copied and respected around the world.

In 2006, during the humanitarian crisis in Darfur, David Triesman, then a minister at the Foreign Office, visited Sudan. Hundreds of miles inland, in one of the world’s most remote and underdeveloped areas, he met a group of refugee women. When they found that he was from Britain, they asked him not only for medicine and blankets, but for British bobbies to protect them.

That single scene points up the extraordinary revolution in policing that Robert Peel achieved in 1829. Before Peel, all policing functions (usually military in nature) were designed to protect the state and its established leaders against peoples subjugated by aristocratic rule or by conquest. The police were concerned with maintaining order and not in any way with protecting the rights of individuals. In Ireland, India and their other colonies, the British already had such constabularies, armed, usually mounted, living in barracks, commanded by commissioned officers. They continued to develop such forces as the empire expanded. It was during Peel’s time as chief secretary for Ireland that the Royal Irish Constabulary was established; the RIC fitted this description exactly.

Safe, just and tolerant

What Peel and the first two Met commissioners, Charles Rowan and Richard Mayne, created in London was something different: an unarmed organisation, without military-style uniforms, low in powers and relatively low in numbers, living in the community and officered not by those who could buy commissions but by those who were promoted on merit. Nor did Peel interfere much in his creation, other than to insist that the primary objectives of the force were the prevention of crime and the maintenance of public tranquillity (not the detection of crime or punishment of offenders).

Four years after the establishment of the Metropolitan Police came the first big test of non-interference. In 1830, after the fall of the Tory government in which Peel served, Viscount Melbourne had taken up Peel’s old job as home secretary in a Whig administration. The Whigs disliked the new police force and were determined to clip its wings.

In 1833, a proto-Chartist demonstration was called in Cold Bath Fields in Clerkenwell, London. Melbourne ordered the commissioners to have it broken up. In the ensuing confrontation, a police officer was killed. The commissioners told the subsequent parliamentary inquiry about the home secretary’s orders and how they had objected to them. Melbourne denied this. The MPs believed the commissioners and backed their authority. A new, independent entity had appeared in the state.

Over the next 40 years, the London model of policing spread throughout Britain and to the large cities of the Anglo-Saxon empire and the United States. But the model also spread as an idea, through the novels of Charles Dickens and Wilkie Collins. In 1874, one of the foremost Royal Academicians of the day, Frank Holl, exhibited his painting Deserted – the Foundling, which shows two officers from the Met res­cuing an abandoned infant – probably the first depiction of policing concerned not with the requirements of rulers but the needs of citizens. And steadily, not without difficulties and false turnings, a benign and rather bucolic model of policing began to emerge.

The Met would be sent to break strikes in the Rhondda and Sherlock Holmes would mock Inspector Lestrade; but the British took to their police. The direction of travel was discernibly linear, developing away from control of disorder and crime towards the protection of the public from all manner of difficulties. Egon Bittner, the first academic to study policing from a sociological perspective, was surprised to find that it was concerned much less with crime control and much more with low-level main­tenance of order. He gave his landmark 1974 police study the title “Florence Nightingale in Pursuit of Willie Sutton” (a notorious American bank robber in the 1930s) to make the point that the role of the police in practice was enormously wide, and declared that “the police officer and the police officer alone is equipped, entitled and required to deal with every exigency in which force has to be used”. Bittner defined exigency as “something which ought not to be happening and about which someone had better do something NOW”.

This American analysis shows that common-law policing had moved steadily in the direction of helping the public, as the 1962 British royal commission on the police defined part of its task. Shortly afterwards, a new generation of police leaders became persuaded by the “broken windows” theory, put forward by George Kelling and James Wilson in 1982. This suggested that crime and antisocial behaviour occur most frequently in areas neglected by institutions and in physical decline. But doing something about this requires the police to be accompanied and supported by other agents and agencies of social cohesion – bus conductors and park-keepers, trade unions and housing associations. During the Thatcher years, these institutions began to weaken and disappear. The police would be alone.

In 1997, seemingly following this theory, the incoming Labour government declared that the task of the police was to “build a safe, just and tolerant society” and it passed legislation placing a duty of crime reduction on local authorities. Not only did this good intention fail to turn the tide, however, but it was rendered almost irrelevant by the impact of Tony Blair’s mantra “Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime”.

Blair understood that crime had most impact on Labour voters and so he wrested law and order away from the Conservatives. Successive Labour home secretaries engaged in political battle after battle to be tougher than their Conservative opponents and the police found themselves having to handle the rafts of new criminal offences which characterised policy by the New Labour government. Under these pressures, and acting largely alone, the police service decided that its main response should be to reintroduce an emphasis on neighbourhood policing.

The New Labour years coincided with the Macpherson report into the 1993 racist murder of Stephen Lawrence and then the emergence of Islamist terror. As after the Brixton riots of 1981, the police were pushed further to pursue a quest for renewed legitimacy. A witness at the Macpherson inquiry declared that African-Caribbean people in Britain were “overpoliced and underprotected”; the leaders of British Muslims described themselves as a “watched community”. The effort to overcome this distrust – to become more inclusive of diverse and challenged communities – is the epitome of social-democratic policing.

And this is what is now under threat. It had been hoped that “independent” candidates would run for election as the new elected police commissioners. No chance: these will be party slates. At the Conservative party conference in October, Theresa May, the Home Secretary, produced Colonel Tim Collins of Iraq war fame as the prospective Conservative candidate for commissioner in Kent. He received applause for his view that the police needed to be rat-catchers rather than social workers – although he abruptly withdrew from the race last month.

Not all commissioners will hold such views. But they will be elected on tribal lines and, seeking re-election, they will put continual pressure on the police to deal with matters of concern to their supporters, irrespective of where crime is occurring. How many times will a chief constable, with now almost no security of tenure, stand up to that pressure or insist on dealing with matters such as organised crime or forced marriage, about which the commissioners’ electorates do not care?

There is an old joke that describes how, in heaven, the administrators are Swiss, the cooks are French, the engineers German, the lovers Italian and the police British. In hell, on the other hand, the cooks are British, the Swiss are the lovers, the Italians run the place, and so on. Such jokes are not accidents. The British police do not have the qualities of a celestial constabulary, but something precious in the genetics of the nation is being lost under this government, perhaps irretrievably.

In policing, we are about to regress to the mean. It is particularly ironic that Peel’s own party is involved in driving the partial destruction of his greatest legacy.

Ian Blair was commissioner of the Metropolitan Police from 2005-2008 and now sits as a cross-bench peer. He gave a speech, based on this article, at How the Light Gets In, the festival of philosophy and music at Hay, on 9 June.

The Guv’s Announcement

Right listen up. I will say this only once!

If you dont like colourful language then read no further but typing this I will be trying to prevent myself from losing the plot. This is not good news.

As a youngster I was torn between a career in the police or running my own business. I had family who were police officers and friends who were also. As I got older a policing career seemed to be where I would end up.

I have never been one for sitting on my arse, which is why I get really pissed off with the Can Work Wont Work Brigade who suck millions of pounds in benefits from a already screwed up Government. (I do not include genuine people with genuine cases in this statement).

I entered the private security world and earned some very good money. I did this from school and worked on holiday parks gaining very good experience in dealing with people and a variety of different incidents (violence, domestics etc etc).

I joined the job and had a huge sense of satisfaction and pride. I was where I wanted to be.

Over the years I have worked in a variety of areas from response, neighbourhood, investigative teams including specialist task forces. I am good at what I do but with all of this nicey nicey shit that has been dumped on us I still maintain a firm but fair approach. Take the piss out of me and I will not let you forget it.

Enter Gene Hunt. Now I may not have a red Quattro when I am at work, and I may not be as foul mouthed as the legend himself but like him I wont take shit.

I have seen over the years the job I love go to rat shit!!! Budgets being cut, numbers falling (despite Government bollocks saying how they have not). Constables being replaced by uniformed civilians including Pcso’s (no offence to them but they are growing in numbers daily).

I am sick and tired of meeting colleagues who are “caught by the pension” who would leave tomorrow if they would not get arse raped for the honour.

I joined the AntiWinsorNetwork to try and make a difference, and some good that has done NOT!!!

We have gone from a select few to large numbers, we have attracted national attention from the media but yet the likes of Theresa May, Nick Herbert and that fucking idiot Tom Winsor refuse to engage us!

Now I accept that change is needed for a number of reasons, mainly financial. This Country has been bought to its knees by a banking crisis yet those responsible are still getting large bonuses for sitting on their arses, yet I get injured at work at work risking my life for a salary that does not touch the sides of a MP or banker.

I recently WITHOUT Taser etc has to get in the middle of a man armed with a knife who was high on drugs and trying to kill his wife. I did not have time to wait. I force entry and grab the bloke whilst the woman is screaming. I manage to disarm him and what do i get for my trouble? A slight slash wound to my arm but this could have gone well and truely tits up and i could have ended up in a morgue fridge.

Why did I do this? Because I care!!! Would a MP on three or four times my money do that? Would they bollocks!

Winsor under Theresa Mays wing has been allowed to compile a report that is as independent as Osama bin Laden’s relationship with the Taliban. Behind this “independent report” there are reports of undeclared business interests, direct quotes taken from a report written by that dickhead Cameron years ago, and oh yes the big one that has rattled my cage links between this report and privatisation with G4S sitting rubbing their hands together ready to cash in.

I just HOPE that the G4S staff have the same amount of pride and dedication as current police officers and staff. Having worked for G4S years ago I can tell you that this is GOING to go tits up!

Winsor has not only succeeded in pissing off every cop in the Country but his CLOSE relationship with the Government has put him in pole position to get him the top job as HMIC! What better way to be able to ensure that his independent recommendations get enforced!

This for me has tipped me over the edge! This CLEARLY demonstrates corruption at its best and what really pisses me off is that it is directly at the heart of the one organisation that should be open and honest.

Look at the principles of the Office of Constable! How can they be maintained when the heart of it is controlled by corrupt politicians. Many PCC candidates are liked with politics! Need I say anymore.

To say I am pissed off would be a understatement. We have been ignored, abandoned, shit on by those who should be fighting to keep us. Without Police there would be mayhem! People forget this. What will it be like when we have gone?

The very job I grew up waiting to join has been wrecked! What is happening goes against all of my morals and for this reason I am bowing out of the Anti Winsor Network. The Guv announces his resignation as of today.

I am sick and tired of fighting a losing battle. I have a personal life that is being made harder by work. I am getting sick of hearing how bus / tube drivers are getting bonuses through the Olympics whilst I cannot take any leave and have to work longer hours for the sake of it.

I have come to the conclusion that the Office of Constable is the new doormat for 10 Downing Street! Now more than ever i am looking at other careers and if they right things comes up then in the words of the Dragons in Dragons Den “I AM OUT”!

For those of you who are going to carry on campaigning I wish you the best of luck and whilst I consider my career options and Twitter presence all I can say is in the words of Sir Ian Blair “CARRY ON”!!!!!

 

Computer says no!

Computer says no! 

I think that the vast majority of the public have no idea about the range of tasks that the Police carry out. There are many possible explanations for this. The media coverage tends to cut out the majority of the mundane tasks we do when making fly on the wall documentaries. I can’t say I blame them. Paperwork and taking complaints doesn’t exactly make for riveting viewing. It could be that when people are talking about the Police they understandably tend to focus on the more spectacular incidents. The banner headlines. Or it could simply be that people just don’t think that a lot of the things we do have got anything whatsoever to do with the Police. This is maybe true. The problem is, if not the Police, then who will do these tasks.
Many people don’t realise that when an elderly relative dies unexpectedly the Police have to make arrangements for the coroner and family. Dealing with enquiries into people who are missing from home. Assisting social services or the NHS with vulnerable people and mentally I’ll people. Assisting the Ambulance service with calls where they have concerns for the safety of crews. Assisting the Fire service. Sitting by insecure homes or cars until the owner can be found or a boarding up service arrives. Preventing suicides/self harm. I really could go on for page after page.
The bottom line is when a task needs to be done and all other agencies have found a reason why it’s not their problem, when they’ve decided that its something that they can’t or wont do, it’s too dangerous for them, It defaults to us. The Police. We do not have the option of walking away until a task is done or it has been handed on to the correct agency to deal with it. We do not have the option of saying ‘thats too dangerous.’ once it’s with us we see it through no matter what. 
Every other agency has a safety switch. They have somewhere to go when it all goes wrong or it gets too dangerous. They have that final phone call to make. They can call the Police. They often do. Next time you see an ambulance flying past you watch for a bit. You’ll frequently see a Police car either following or in front of it. We aren’t being nosey. We don’t have time to be. The same is true if a Fire appliance passes you. The Police do not have that extra telephone number in our back pocket. The buck stops with us. We deal with it no matter what. We do ask for other agencies when it’s their job. But when nobody else will deal. We do.
Contrary to what the media and our government would have the public believe we’re actually good at it. Sure there could always be improvements. Anybody could do a little bit better. Times change and we must constantly change with them. We constantly have to learn new legislation and guidelines. Get updates on the latest interpretation of the law or a new partnership agreement etc. we do all of this. Admittedly We are pretty bad at telling people what we do. At sharing with the public the reason why they had to wait an hour after their shed was burgled. But, when we do explain, people ‘usually’ sympathise.
So, what will happen once large chunks of Policing have been privatised? What sort of service will the public get then? Private companies have contracts. Terms of reference. When the task doesn’t fit in with their cosy little contract they refuse. Wave the contract in your face. Its not their job. Or, to quote a well known sketch which sums it up nicely, “computer says noooo.” It’s not what they were contracted to do. There are already many examples out there. Privatised companies running custody blocks. Refusing to do certain tasks because it’s not in their contract. They’re the best placed people to do it. They’re on the spot and its certainly what it was anticipated that they would do. But, “computer says noooo.” So a Police officer gets pulled off the street to do the job we pay the private company to do. What will happen when there are even fewer officers available owing to these over the top cuts? Who will do the jobs that are not in a contract. The jobs that need to be done. Nobody. The public will suffer. Maybe we will even end up employing more Police officers once we realise nobody else will do these tasks but we will contractually be stuck with these white elephant private companies too! 
Who will find the missing person who’s drunk in a ditch somewhere? The contract says we don’t need to look for 48 hours but it just ‘feels’ like its not right. It’s out of character for him. You can usually tell by the families reaction. If the computer says wait 48 hours then wait 48 hours it is for the private company. He may be dead by then. But they were just following the rules. They have shareholders after all. Who will pop by and check on the 92yr old war veteran living on their beat and make him ‘think’ we’re just there because he makes a nice cuppa? Will G4S think that gives their shareholders good value for money? He probably spends all day waiting for that knock at the door. Makes his day. Who else will visit him? 
A murder costs a lot of money to investigate. An awful lot of money. By the time you get through court, appeals etc you could be talking millions. Would a private company be tempted to say its not suspicious? Would bosses put pressure on people to treat a missing woman, who’s been missing for 6 months, after a history of domestic violence as just missing? After all theres no body. No way of proving its a murder. Let’s not cost our shareholders all this money when we can just say she left him! Is that what we want? 
The Police service is made up of people from our own communities who hold the office of Constable. We do what seems right. What needs to be done no matter what. Sure we may get it wrong the odd time but we are also accountable and have a well used complaints procedure. We don’t do it to make profit for the force. We don’t get commission. We certainly don’t make a fortune. If it is so wrong right now then why do so many other countries spend so much time and money trying to recreate what we have now?
Forces do not want to privatise the Police. They have had such huge budget cuts that they are being forced to find cheaper ways to fill uniforms. Not better. Not more efficient. Cheaper. The cuts are so severe that there is no alternative. Get the private company to build the new station and fill it with their employees or dont get the new building! The only way to reverse these changes is to stop the cuts. Stop Winsor. Stop the loss of the British Bobby. Please do your bit and sign the Epetition.

 

CynicalBobby
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/32177