So [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17242956here[/url you go. I mean, people are complaining now about waiting 24 hours for the police to investigate crimes. They might as well not bother ringing if the private sector take over. Indeed, they'll probably be charged 118 118 rates for having the impertinence to pick up the phone.

I'm still waiting for the chief constable of West Yorkshire to be found dead in a ditch as he promised he would rather be if he ever cut front line services.

[urlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bradford-west-yorkshire-12006826[/url


Maybe he just meant that he'd sell them off to Reliance ?

Anyone know of any links from Theresa May to any of the companies involved?

The private sector will be rubbing their hands with glee. Once they get a foot in the door and set a precedent the push will begin for greater and greater encroachment into policing. The public then becomes the frog sat in a pot of water oblivious to the temperature being raised until it boils alive.

This report says as much about the non-neutrality of the BBC than anything else. Whilst it mentions the concerns of various parties there is almost no attempt made to substantiate them or consider the issue against the context of other public sector services farmed out to the private sector for reasons of economy (buses, directory enquiries etc.) which have subsequently proved far more expensive and a poor substitute for the original.

Judge Dredd/Robocop here we come.

Judge Dredd is not part of a private company. He is the law!

Iron Man is an example of successful private policing

No he's not. He's a successful businessman turned vigalante. Or was, I'm only just up to speed with The Ultimates.





LOL, but fair point.

I wonder if cost savings could be made by outsourcing the justice system.

Obviously the actual provision of policing needs to be done in the UK but once arrests have been made could the detention and incarceration be done overseas? It would cost us a lot to build new prisons here but if there was say capacity in China could there not be a market for offenders where we pay the Chinese a rate to take say our juvenile offenders, serve their sentence in Chinese prisons? If we pay the Chinese a rate cheaper than it would cost us to provide for the prisoners here then its a better deal.

The private sector does this type of thing all the time by outsourcing different parts of a production process, we could say carry out the policing in the UK, then once arrests have been done other parts of the system could be done overseas. Eg if there is a long time waiting for a hearing in a UK court why not make use of courts overseas? In the UK the cost of a criminal case is very expensive because of the need to pay for expensive lawyers but there are some countries that don't require lawyers to be present and could fast track from arrest to punishment in much quicker times than we saw under the past Labour government.

Christ. Is there anything the Tories won't privatise?

Oh yeah. Religion must be safeguarded by the state but health, education and policing obviously aren't as important.

These sorts of privatisation, like rail, are not about the private sector being better, more efficient, etc. They are about breaking up national, unionised monopolies, which can disrupt democracy. In this case they will also be a way, over time, of reducing the unreasonable cost of pension provision relative to the overall police budget. From these perspectives, breaking up these sort of organisations makes sense. From the publics point of view, like rail privatisation, they will be a retrograde step.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

I fail to see how elected politicians abdicating their responsibilities to the private sector (as is the case with the utilities and rail already and will be soon with health, education and policing) is anything but a huge disruption of democracy.


What level is unreasonable? There was a new pension scheme introduced by the wasteful, tax & spend crazy Labour government that significantly reduced the pension available in the Police.


No they don't make sense to anyone except the shareholders and senior management of a few private companies who will make millions if not billions of profit.
To the public it is yet another public service being privatised and as we all know when public services are privatised, the poorest in society are hit hardest. I would expect nothing less from a Conservative government.

Would it be cynical of me to wonder if should there be more rioting, just who the Police would be told to defend? And this in the wake of anti-corporation demonstrations? That's potentially an interesting concept too

Privatised policy?

Worked well for News International.





And to answer just one of Dally's latest stupid comments, he might want to remember that unions were banned from News International and replaced with the in-house staff association. Perhaps that's partly why such a culture of bullying and corruption could exist unchallenged for so long.

Because, well ... yes - selling elements of policing out to corporate robber barons, putting £9k on tuition fees and privatising the NHS, which practically every British citizen considers non-negotiable is the will of the people.

People moan, but there is no collective will to stop any of those things. People have become selfish - which happens when their standard of living is anything but impovershed - and so can't be bothered to stand united. No significant political party wants to oppose any of this either. So, like it or not, until people are moved to stand up and be be counted all these things become the [ide facto[/i will of the people. The get what they deserve.

Quite apart from the idiocy of this comment given what you'd previously posted, I've corrected this to make some more coherent sense.

Look at the facts rather than making silly, personal comments. The facts are as I said. Where is the "Labour Movement" in all this? Answers: Nowhere; it doesn't care sufficiently to be bothered; it's members (such as they are) are even less bothered; it isn't capable of co-ordinating a tipple in a distillery. Face facts, the world ain't as you'd like it to be or think it ought to be.

Which is factually incorrect. As usual.

You're right. I can hear the crowds outide now, Cameron and Clegg are resigning, they're saying they got it all wrong and the people have spoken.............

Dream on Minty.

You said: "Look at the facts rather than making silly, personal comments. The facts are as I said. Where is the "Labour Movement" in all this? Answers: Nowhere; it doesn't care sufficiently to be bothered; it's members (such as they are) are even less bothered; it isn't capable of co-ordinating a tipple in a distillery. Face facts, the world ain't as you'd like it to be or think it ought to be."

What you said was factually incorrect. You claimed that "the labour movement" (it does not require capital letters) was nowhere on the issues.

There are unions that have been trying to tackle the coalition's privatisation plans for the judicial services since they were announced well over a year ago. They have been warning about this and they are now facing a further struggle over it.

But obviously I don't have a clue about some of the work I've been involved with over the last year or so ...

"Dream on" that you have a clue.

In essence you have agreed with me. The point I was making (capital letters were deliberate) that resistance is fragmented just like every other response has been since Thatcher broke the miners' union members' wills. It was a case then, as now, of "divided we fall." As I said, there is an insufficient number of people prepared to stand together and battle.

It wasn't just Thatcher's taking-on of the unions that has emasculated the British workforce. Her "right to buy" policy had far more to do with producing mortgage slaves than it ever did allowing people to become home-owners. The vast majority of the workforce are too cowed to even contemplate industrial action or civil disobediance. It's a situation that won't last forever because as more people realise that they'll never join the band of home owners, they'll come to realise that they've little left to lose anyway.

Can't really disagree with that.

Although, I would have thought inability to cover the rent was just as risky as inability to cover the mortgage now council housing is scarce and councils are more strict at collecting rent.