Private Policing

[hope]

Now that Britain is set to "privatise" their police force I wonder what others think of such a move? I wonder how Britain can ensure the standards of these private groups and how they might convince the public this is a good move?

 

[toyomotor]

hope: Would you please elaborate on the "privatisation" of British police. I don't quite see what you mean, policing of a countries laws is always the responsibility of the police as an arm of government.

 

[Thulean]

Now that Britain is set to "privatise" their police force I wonder what others think of such a move? I wonder how Britain can ensure the standards of these private groups and how they might convince the public this is a good move?

As an expert in administrative law, and from a decade-long experience of (although partial) privatisations in Italy, I can tell you the "privatisation" of the police would be an awful mistake.
If a public service/institution, any of them, does not work properly, the solution is to make it work as it should. It's not privatisation. Privatisation is just a cheap shortcut to much worse problems.
Britain please don't do that!

 

[LeBrok]

As an expert in administrative law, and from a decade-long experience of (although partial) privatisations in Italy, I can tell you the "privatisation" of the police would be an awful mistake.
If a public service/institution, any of them, does not work properly, the solution is to make it work as it should. It's not privatisation. Privatisation is just a cheap shortcut to much worse problems.
Britain please don't do that!

Twenty years ago we had to political blocks in the world, one with everything run buy government and one with almost everything in private hands. A big competitive race between socialism and capitalism for good half century. Guess who won, and that should tell you something about who was more efficient and better organized.

 

[Aberdeen]

Twenty years ago we had to political blocks in the world, one with everything run buy government and one with almost everything in private hands. A big competitive race between socialism and capitalism for good half century. Guess who won, and that should tell you something about who was more efficient and better organized.

Capitalism wins because it's more ruthless, but that doesn't make it good for the ordinary citizen, IMO. I'd much rather live in a social democracy like Sweden than in a laissez faire capitalist country like the U.S.

 

[hope]

hope: Would you please elaborate on the "privatisation" of British police. I don't quite see what you mean, policing of a countries laws is always the responsibility of the police as an arm of government.

Well toyomotor, as I understand it, because of pressure to meet financial budgets, the police force are finding that "outsourcing" to the private sector is a way of "balancing" the books.
Certain roles that would normally be undertaken by trained police officers, will now be performed by security firms..it will go out to "tender".
I had to search these links out but you might like to give them a read for fuller insight.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/privatisation-of-our-frontline-services-how-police-1385838

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/jun/20/g4s-chief-mass-police-privatisation

 

[LeBrok]

Capitalism wins because it's more ruthless, but that doesn't make it good for the ordinary citizen, IMO. I'd much rather live in a social democracy like Sweden than in a laissez faire capitalist country like the U.S.

Ruthless? You haven't lived in real socialist country. Go to Cuba, Venezuela or North Korea (the most socialistic countries at the moment) for a while and you see how ruthless socialism is. And yes, don't forget to tell these poor and almost enslaved citizens how great socialism is.

For your information Swedes romance with socialism didn't turn the way they envisioned. Swedish government run sectors of economy are sold on free market these days.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/05/business/worldbusiness/05iht-private.4807230.html?_r=0


Capitalism wins because it produces goods and services most efficiently. If it produces more than any other system the citizens have more to enjoy, share, buy, and country is stronger and more secure overall. That's why capitalism and free market wins, it produces, produces, produces.

 

[Aberdeen]

Ruthless? You haven't lived in real socialist country. Go to Cuba, Venezuela or North Korea (the most socialistic countries at the moment) for a while and you see how ruthless socialism is. And yes, don't forget to tell these poor and almost enslaved citizens how great socialism is.

For your information Swedes romance with socialism didn't turn the way they envisioned. Swedish government run sectors of economy are sold on free market these days.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/05/business/worldbusiness/05iht-private.4807230.html?_r=0


Capitalism wins because it produces goods and services most efficiently. If it produces more than any other system the citizens have more to enjoy, share, buy, and country is stronger and more secure overall. That's why capitalism and free market wins, it produces, produces, produces.

First of all, some basic information for you about political systems. In a socialist system, the people own the means of production, often in a direct manner through workers' co-operatives. Communist countries such as Cuba and North Korea are pretend socialist systems where the means of production is actually owned by the state on behalf of a narrow elite, the communist party members. A purely capitalist system is one where the means of production are privately owned. A socialist democratic country such as Germany or Sweden combines some of the best features of capitalism and democratic socialism, in that the supply of such things as health care, education and infrastructure is controlled by the state on behalf of the people, while still allowing plenty of scope for individual initiative in other areas of the economy. And social democratic countries tend to have strong health and safety regulations, a progressive tax system and some mechanism for controlling housing costs, such as a system of housing co-operatives. Although a centrist liberal coalition replaced the Social Democratic Party and its coalition partners a few years ago, Sweden would still be considered a social democratic country. And much of the apparent "shift to the right" can be explained by concerns about immigration.

Canada is also perhaps still closer to social democracy than pure capitalism, although Harpo is trying to change that. And the American golden age in the 1950s and 1960s was a time of strong unions, a progressive tax system, a good publicly funded education system and a willingness to use public funds for building infrastructure. Too bad they moved away from that towards a more purely capitalist system with the so-called "Reagan revolution". It's left many Americans living in poverty.

However, if you're committed to a system of weak government and strong individual initiative, maybe you could consider moving to a country that's really embraced that idea, such as Somalia.

 

[Aberdeen]

To return to the actual topic of this thread, I think that privatizing any aspect of policing creates far too many opportunities for corruption and obstruction of justice. Even in countries where the official police forces haven't been privatized, I think we need to look carefully at the impact of private security firms and how they affect communities. Of course, as long as we have excessive levels of immigration that are designed to keep wages down in developed countries, governments that are unwilling to spend money on integrating immigrants and other disaffected groups into the mainstream and a judiciary that's been instructed to limit the incarceration of offenders because of costs that a damaged tax system can no longer cope with, a lot of businesses will feel the need to continue to depend on private security firms, but I wonder about their impact on a supposedly democratic society.

 

[toyomotor]

hope: I see what you mean. And the points made by Aberdeen are very relevant. I was a police officer for more than thirty years in Tasmania, and in the past twenty years or so we have had no real privatisation, but there are some jobs that aren't policed now like they used to be, such as sporting events. Some of the mainland Australian states have privatised such things as their communications centres but I don't know of any operational police/ambulance/fire service roles which have been privatised. I note that the press clipping was dated Dec 2012. Have there been any further developments?

 

[Thulean]

I am not socialist at all, but capitalism is no better when it comes to law and rights. Instead of enslaving individuals to some ideology, it enslaves them to money. What good is that? It's just about time to stop this myth of production: law cannot be subdued to economic-biased ways of thinking. As a citizen, and as a judge as well, I am horrified by the perspective that the enforcement of law can be tied to private (=profitable) logics - so one day certain parts of the country, certain sectors of human activities will be left unguarded, just because the cost/benefit balance is not "productive". A citizen's rights are not for sale!

 

[LeBrok]

First of all, some basic information for you about political systems. In a socialist system, the people own the means of production, often in a direct manner through workers' co-operatives.

Thanks for your basic knowledge, but actually it is not a good definition of socialism, and more about economy than political system. You can have Co-operation with profit sharing and operating in capitalist free market economy. What makes company socialistic is that they don't supposed to have a profit. They should produce at cost without any profit. Also not knowing how much to produce (no free market there) the production quota need to be set by government. Wages need to be regulated and also prices of products. In this scenario government needs to take a role of capital bank, and decide what is needed and what factories to build.
To make the story short, economy of millions of people is extremely hard to figure out on a fly, what is needed, how much to produce, what prices to set, and where to invest capital. Giving the fact that with absence of real owners nobody really cares and responsibility is low, that's a recipe for disaster. Real socialism was tried in many countries, it either collapsed by itself like soviet block, or some smart countries moved away from it, selling state run companies like England or Sweden.
Look at real life and learn. Socialistic economy doesn't work! It was experimentally proven on real people in real time. What else do you need?

Communist countries such as Cuba and North Korea are pretend socialist systems where the means of production is actually owned by the state on behalf of a narrow elite, the communist party members.

Actually they are. Production is not for profit, no private owners, planned economy, set prices and production quota, government is the banker. It looks like a pig, it smells like a pig, it's a pig!!! I guess, this is not what you envisioned as socialism, sorry to disappoint you. Democracy is not a prerequisite for socialism, neither for capitalism. Look at China.
You see if something doesn't work, like socialism, people get unhappy. People want to change the system but government won't budge, therefore you will end up with dictatorship, either of one party or one leader.
I'm glad European communist leaders finally understood the shortcomings of socialism and gave away power in bloodless way, well almost.

A purely capitalist system is one where the means of production are privately owned.

Sorta, it has more to do with profit, capital and free market than with private ownership, numbers of owners, shareholders, co-operators, directors, etc.

A socialist democratic country such as Germany or Sweden combines some of the best features of capitalism and democratic socialism, in that the supply of such things as health care, education and infrastructure is controlled by the state on behalf of the people, while still allowing plenty of scope for individual initiative in other areas of the economy.

I'm also for implementing some features of socialism into capitalism in some sectors and giving helping hand to unfortunate.

And social democratic countries tend to have strong health and safety regulations, a progressive tax system and some mechanism for controlling housing costs, such as a system of housing co-operatives.

Sorta again. USA have one of most stringent safety and health regulations on this planet, and still it lags behind others in socialistic values. It is more about country being rich, richer the country the more money is spent/allowed for these services, same goes to environmental regulations. Go in time to socialistic countries like India or China years ago and check their safety regulations or pollution regulations, then you learn that it is not about socialistic values.

Although a centrist liberal coalition replaced the Social Democratic Party and its coalition partners a few years ago, Sweden would still be considered a social democratic country. And much of the apparent "shift to the right" can be explained by concerns about immigration.

What are you implying emigration has to do with swing to the right? Are all emigrants the same in their convictions and beliefs?

Canada is also perhaps still closer to social democracy than pure capitalism

It shows you're from BC, lol. What would you do without billions coming with immigrants from Asia? It is easy to be a socialist when money is flying in with rich. You don't need to produce much to be well off, do you?

And the American golden age in the 1950s and 1960s was a time of strong unions, a progressive tax system, a good publicly funded education system and a willingness to use public funds for building infrastructure.

And it brought US to economic stagnation of 70s and 80s till Reagan fixed it. Too much socialism kills economy quickly.

It's left many Americans living in poverty.

I'm pretty sure you realize that no matter what there always will be less off people in any country, and they will be called poor. To really know what that means I'd advise you to check what services poor people get in US these days, plus their health or length of life, and compare their situation with poor Americans of 1913 for example. Later for fun you can compare poor in America to middle class in Cuba.

However, if you're committed to a system of weak government and strong individual initiative, maybe you could consider moving to a country that's really embraced that idea, such as Somalia.

Wow, from left field, and since Somalia represents capitalistic free market economy which I'm a fan of? I would guess you send me to Singapore lol, today's Mecca of capitalism.
Embrace good ol' capitalism and from rugs to riches in 30 years. But I guess real life examples of success don't register in your romantically socialistic mind.

 

[Aberdeen]

Well. LeBrok, if you have your own set of definitions, and your own private set of facts, I see no point in trying to discuss this to you. In any case, our discussion was taking the thread off course. How do you feel about the privatization of police forces? Do you think big corporations should decide what laws should be enforced?

 

[LeBrok]

How do you feel about the privatization of police forces? Do you think big corporations should decide what laws should be enforced?

On what grounds you assumed that private police force will be also a judicial or law making body? The hatred of private enterprise makes you lose concentration to say the least.
Either public or private police force is to uphold already decided set of rules, isn't it. The only conundrum is to figure out the system to make them more efficient, to get a better bang for our money. If they can better function as a privately run company then be it. However I'm not sure if it was ever done in the past, so who knows how this experiment would pan out. I wish there was already a real life example to tell you better.
Contrary to what you think capitalism is not a free for all wild west. Capitalism operates in environment of consumers and governmental regulations. We learned from the past that it works the best in environment of competition. Once monopoly of market is reached by any company it stops being efficient and doesn't benefit society much. The famous case of AT&T monopoly in US, when telephone calls were expensive and all phones were only in black, lol. The reason I mentioned this is that when privatization of police force happens and one company wins the bid, it is unlikely that it will end up being run better than in public hands, in both cases in monopolistic style.
Perhaps best solution would be to split bids for every city district being run by different companies? After few years make statistics and kick out under-performers, replacing them with new ones. Who knows? Sometimes we have to experiment and see what works what doesn't. How else we are going to know, from books?


To understand my point better, I have to mention that I'm not pro capitalism because of my traditions, upbringing, education or just because I like the name. If I knew life only from books I definitely were communist. The hunter-gatherer instinct is strong in me and I would love nothing better than share equally with all my tribe members and be inclusive and equal class. But at the end of the day, no matter what I feel, the real life shows what works and what doesn't. The environment is so complicated that it is impossible for human mind to create best system without running the "experiment" on real human beings. That's why Marx and Engels failed, although their ideas are very noble and smart on paper.
Capitalism and free market economy on the other hand wasn't created as a complete system by a person or even a group. It started slowly 500 years ago in England with help of growing modern banking system from Italy, Banci - Banchieri. It grew, it evolved, it adapted till today's form. It is an evolutionary system therefore quite flexible. When you look around you will notice that most prosperous countries in today's world got to this point using this system in their economies. It had beat the feudalism and socialism, and it is still here not because of its pretty eyes. China switched to it, and so did India in last decades. Together they pulled over 500 million people from poverty to the middle class in just last decade. That's how you measure benefits to society.

 

[Thulean]

On what grounds you assumed that private police force will be also a judicial or law making body? The hatred of private enterprise makes you lose concentration to say the least.
Either public or private police force is to uphold already decided set of rules, isn't it. The only conundrum is to figure out the system to make them more efficient, to get a better bang for our money.

LeBrok, it seems you don't get it - we have no hatred towards private enterprise. Our point is different. Civil rights are not goods, they have nothing to do with production, with your "bang-for-money" logic. Nobody is saying that police shouldn't be efficient; on the contrary, we all want that. But for sure privatization is not the right solution, because it would bring money-related mechanisms where money cannot count at all - on the matter of your own civil rights.
Your tendency in favour of marketism - the reduction of all aspects of human life to sheer market, to "bang-for-money" - has nothing to do with liberism or socialism or capitalism, with right or left or whatever. Marketism has no political colour, it's a venom that's gradually poisoning all governments, no matter communist or liberal or whatever, by substitution of money and economics in place of principles and ideas. Again, we are not against money and economics, but the tendency - which you clearly display - to reduce ALL to money and economics cannot be accepted. Nothing strange that Jesus cleansed the temple from the merchants: let them make money wherever they want, but NOT in the very heart where human values are kept.
Btw - since you seem so proficient on the subject, could you please explain me who are those Marks and Angles guys that you quoted?

 

[Aberdeen]

.............
Btw - since you seem so proficient on the subject, could you please explain me who are those Marks and Angles guys that you quoted?

I believe they're a subsidiary of Marks and Spencers.

 

[hope]

But for sure privatization is not the right solution, because it would bring money-related mechanisms where money cannot count at all - on the matter of your own civil rights.

Yes, but there are those who could likewise argue the financial cuts and pressure to keep on budget placed upon the police force in the first place, has brought such money related matters where money should not count. Therefore this observation is akin to bolting the stable door after the horse has bolted.

Btw - since you seem so proficient on the subject, could you please explain me who are those Marks and Angles guys that you quoted?

Seriously, you have never heard of Karl Marx or Friedrich Engles regardless of the spelling? You will have to acquaint yourself with the various ways our European members may have of spelling.

Btw..love your use of the majestic plural "we" throughout your post, are you royal, a bishop, the pope? Or perhaps you have simply decided to include everyone who has posted here into your group.

 

[hope]

hope: I see what you mean. And the points made by Aberdeen are very relevant. I was a police officer for more than thirty years in Tasmania, and in the past twenty years or so we have had no real privatisation, but there are some jobs that aren't policed now like they used to be, such as sporting events. Some of the mainland Australian states have privatised such things as their communications centres but I don't know of any operational police/ambulance/fire service roles which have been privatised. I note that the press clipping was dated Dec 2012. Have there been any further developments?

There have been continued debates regarding the subject toyomotor, but nothing more recent I could link to.
There is this news from one district where the police, through outsourcing have made quite a financial saving. However, this is only one area and it is early days.
http://www.thisislincolnshire.co.uk...tory-19376094-detail/story.html#axzz2kfSFFf00

I personally am not sure this is the right way to go yet I understand financial climate may call for changes.
However I wonder, if an outside firm can deliver efficiently yet at less cost and still make profits, where are they making the saving ? I fear one way may be at the expense of their workforce...

 

[Aberdeen]

There have been continued debates regarding the subject toyomotor, but nothing more recent I could link to.
There is this news from one district where the police, through outsourcing have made quite a financial saving. However, this is only one area and it is early days.
http://www.thisislincolnshire.co.uk...tory-19376094-detail/story.html#axzz2kfSFFf00

I personally am not sure this is the right way to go yet I understand financial climate may call for changes.
However I wonder, if an outside firm can deliver efficiently yet at less cost and still make profits, where are they making the saving ? I fear one way may be at the expense of their workforce...

Ah, yes, the financial climate. Taxes are slashed for the rich and unions are weakened in order to stimulate the economy, then the economy slows down because ordinary folk have no money to spend, so we decide to cut government spending, outsource jobs to the third world and reduce taxes for the rich in order to stimulate the economy. And things slide even further.

Here's an idea: let's outsource policing entirely by hiring police officers on contract from Pakistan or Afghanistan. I imagine that they'd work cheaply, and it's not as if those countries have any problems with corruption or civil disorder.

 

[hope]

Here's an idea: let's outsource policing entirely by hiring police officers on contract from Pakistan or Afghanistan. I imagine that they'd work cheaply, and it's not as if those countries have any problems with corruption or civil disorder.

Many police officers from Northern Ireland have been employed by private security firms in Afghanistan. Perhaps if the powers that be decide to act on your idea, we might get some of them back.