The day the Union died(at least for me); UK Tories to privatise the Police

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Hey Alec, stick a fork in me; I'm done. Tuition fees was bad enough, the NHS reforms were really pushing it, but now a document leaked to the Guardian newspaper details the new 1.5 to 3.5 BILLION pound contract which will be put out to tender with private security companies like G4S, including;

The breathtaking list of policing activities up for grabs includes investigating crimes, detaining suspects, developing cases, responding to and investigating incidents, supporting victims and witnesses, managing high-risk individuals, patrolling neighbourhoods, managing intelligence, managing engagement with the public, as well as more traditional back-office functions, such as managing forensics, providing legal services, managing the vehicle fleet, finance and human resources.

Yep, that's right, the Conservatives are turning England and Wales into a corporate-police state. Virtually every duty currently undertaken by the publicly funded police force is up for grabs, with pretty much only testifying in court and the actual legal power of arrest being held back. There were enough issues with the privatisation of "support" services like prisoner transport and call centres, how the fuck do they come up with this shit?!

Yeah yeah, "private sector efficiency" blahdy blah; mark my words, six months after this bullshit goes into effect -if not before- we'll find out they're having the same over-corp that was beating up mentally disabled people in their care home running the rape-victim support teams, or something equally batshit-insane and tragic. I can't wait for the mistrials to start rolling in after these cost-obsessed gimps start cutting corners to save money on DNA testing.

Seriously, I'm sorry Reasonable Northerners and Marginalised Reasonable Southerners, you're going to have to deal with these cuntmonglers alone, we're aff.

Holy *shit*! Even with as far toward this as the US has gone with prisons, even our Republicans haven't done this. I can't imagine how this could possibly be seen as a good idea. Where's the *oversight*? Where's the accountability? If the police doesn't work for the people, how can their abuses be managed?

It's not like policing itself isn't inherently shot through with problems. Cops in general are seen by society as separate, admired and loathed in equal and odd ways, and there's the whole "blue wall" problem with abuses of authority (i.e. that no matter what the problem is, it's for the general fraternity of the police to handle internally, it's a violation of that bond to bring public authority into it). Then there are the pressures from above on line officers to bend the statistics so that the city looks better off both as a place to live and as a recipient of grant money-- "The Wire" seasons 3 and 4 are a brilliant deconstruction of this. "Juking the stats. Robberies become burglaries. Rapes disappear." Add in the increasing militarization of police, that intensifies all of these problems.

But this? Take everything I just said, and now it's *that much worse* because it's privatized. I can't imagine how that won't magnify the blue wall problem a hundredfold-- now it's not just a psychological imperative to cover up crimes, but the corporation is going to want to so they can keep the contract. There's not even the fuzzy feeling of "serve and protect", now it's sheer "serve and get paid". How does the judiciary tie into this? What relationship do they have with a corporation to get cases made that can stand up to prosecution? Without violating citizens' rights? How soon before abuse of power turns into questioning that goes way the hell beyond "questionable"? I keep going back to this, but I can't imagine why turning over such an essential societal function to a corporation would ever look like a good idea, and I'm horrified on your behalf.

*sigh* Times like this I really wish I knew a foreign language so I had more options available to me.

This is a terrible idea and anyone who supports it is a terrible person.

Meaning no disrespect, but there are a few things off with what you're trying to put across, Magichead.

(1) The story is from The Guardian, a widely known left wing paper. I'm not saying that they are unreliable, but they have damn near always found ways to pick at any potential right wing policies (Something that Tony Blair would find out). Until the story gets picked up and confirmed by a more central paper (The Independent, for example), I would take it with a pinch of salt.

(2) If the story is to be believed, while the Home Office has backed the proposals, it was not a policy created by the Coalition ("It has been pioneered by the West Midlands chief constable, Chris Sims, and Mark Rowley, who has just moved to the Metropolitan police from the post of Surrey chief constable"). The Lib Dems, despite their new found love of the Conservatives, would never, ever, let this proposal get through and I doubt Cameron would either (electoral suicide).

(3) While this doesn't negate the seriousness of the proposal, the story states that this is only being trialed by West Midlands and Surrey Police Service, therefore not the whole UK.

Despite those points, I do concede that should this be adopted, there would be very serious repercussions.

Amnestic:
*sigh* Times like this I really wish I knew a foreign language so I had more options available to me.

This is a terrible idea and anyone who supports it is a terrible person.

You could go to Ireland, or Australia or the good old US of A :D

Vedrenne:
Meaning no disrespect, but there are a few things off with what you're trying to put across, Magichead.

(2) If the story is to be believed, while the Home Office has backed the proposals, it was not a policy created by the Coalition ("It has been pioneered by the West Midlands chief constable, Chris Sims, and Mark Rowley, who has just moved to the Metropolitan police from the post of Surrey chief constable"). The Lib Dems, despite their new found love of the Conservatives, would never, ever, let this proposal get through and I doubt Cameron would either (electoral suicide).

(3) While this doesn't negate the seriousness of the proposal, the story states that this is only being trialed by West Midlands and Surrey Police Service, therefore not the whole UK.

Despite those points, I do concede that should this be adopted, there would be very serious repercussions.

Only real feel points 2 and 3 are valid.

To add to the above it would also have to be given the go ahead by the elected police authority person at the end of the year. There is no doubt that anyone who wanted that job would easily get it by campaigning against this and such it won't actually happen.

Magic, read your articles before you post them.

While I can't comment on the individual case as I lack local knowledge what I will say is that privatizing police is making the law voluntary. If such a thing was implemented nationally I'd support kicking the UK out of the EU and have it referred to as "Bananistan" in official documents until it brought its house in order. What an absolute joke.

So, they were tired of being ignored in favour of more exciting politicians in the US?

Vedrenne:
Meaning no disrespect, but there are a few things off with what you're trying to put across, Magichead.

(1) The story is from The Guardian, a widely known left wing paper. I'm not saying that they are unreliable, but they have damn near always found ways to pick at any potential right wing policies (Something that Tony Blair would find out). Until the story gets picked up and confirmed by a more central paper (The Independent, for example), I would take it with a pinch of salt.

(2) If the story is to be believed, while the Home Office has backed the proposals, it was not a policy created by the Coalition ("It has been pioneered by the West Midlands chief constable, Chris Sims, and Mark Rowley, who has just moved to the Metropolitan police from the post of Surrey chief constable"). The Lib Dems, despite their new found love of the Conservatives, would never, ever, let this proposal get through and I doubt Cameron would either (electoral suicide).

(3) While this doesn't negate the seriousness of the proposal, the story states that this is only being trialed by West Midlands and Surrey Police Service, therefore not the whole UK.

Despite those points, I do concede that should this be adopted, there would be very serious repercussions.

To your first point, your doubts can be easily assuaged by reading the article I linked to, which includes a link to the two relevant pages of the document for you to read yourself. I would also contend that the Guardian, while evidently having a left-leaning editorial team, IS the centrist paper in the UK; the Independent hasn't been that for quite a few years now, they're merely a less alarmist version of the Daily Fail(and the Times a more eloquent version). Multiple sources are always welcome, but this is hardly an opinion piece, it's a sourced expose featuring the core evidence for every reader to check themselves.

To your second point, frankly, same difference. ACPO has always been in cahoots with the government of the day, doubly so since Blair gave them so much additional authority. If not for everything else, I might be more charitable, but this is a government which has trebled tuition fees, is attempting to privatise the NHS, and which has made the ludicrous cuts to police funding which resulted in these proposals even being considered in the first place; I'm inclined to believe ACPO members are proposing these measures precisely so that Cameron doesn't have to, especially considering the immediate and unflinching support from the Home Office and Theresa May.

Your third point fails to account for the three other forces already considering implementing similar systems, and that this number will doubtless grow considering aforementioned government support.

If anyone seriously has any doubts about how disastrous this is going to be I invite you to read this piece(also from the Guardian, but also on tonight's BBC and Channel 4 News shows); this is what happens when you privatise vital services.

and now you know why they've slashing police budgets...

on top of this the police will be politicized through the elected police chiefs and a new border police force set up to deal with immigrants will be directly under the control of ministers.

i dunno how much people know about the history and ethos of policing in Britain but there's a reason the police are supposed to be independent and apolitical.

Lacking any actual details and with source that biased, there's not much that can be said on the subject. Private security have been succesfull in some police roles though. For instance here, they patrol problematic neighbourhoods and for instance pester groups of kids hanging around, some of which are nearly or pretty much turned into street gangs.

The police doesn't have nearly the manpower to do that sort of thing, and doesn't wield any authority for those kids. It's not so much policing as just bothering them and letting them know someone's watching, and listen to what people there have to say about their neighbourhoods.

Another example is for instance collecting parking fines and other minor, often traffic-related offenses. Why bring in a fully trained policeman for that.

Just avoid making those security people, or city guards as we called them in the Netherlands, a bunch of longtime unemployed given a badge and too much power. That turns out badly. Train them decently and it could save the police a lot of money.

supporting victims and witnesses, patrolling neighbourhoods, managing the vehicle fleet

The above are conceivably things that could be privatized, or rather in the case of patrolling partially privatized, the rest however go in the category of fuck no.

Hmm yeah police I can imagine are one thing you dont want to privatize. Firefighters and Medical First Responders sure but police are charged with enforcing the law so you kind of want them to be answerable to a government executive and not a corporate one. Now police agencies might liase with private firms to do things like book keeping or tasks that dont involve going out and enforcing laws but the actual men and women and uniform I kind of want to be public employees (though on the understanding that public employees shouldnt be able to strike, at least essential ones anyway).

By the way I am talking in general, I have no idea how valid the story in the OP is nor do I have much interest in the internal politics of the UK.

Magichead:

Seriously, I'm sorry Reasonable Northerners and Marginalised Reasonable Southerners, you're going to have to deal with these cuntmonglers alone, we're aff.

Speaking both as a) a British centre-lefty and b) as somebody unfortunate enough to live in Gove's constituency, of all hellholes, permission to hop across the Tweed and never go back?

Sigh, Tory scum. I'd come north of the border and join you in your shangri-la but I'd get my windows potted for being English. Shame.

...what?

Detaining suspects? Responding to and investigating incidents? Managing high-risk individuals? Those all sound very much like functions that at their core require the possibility for exertion of physical authority, and can hence never be left with anyone who doesn't have democratic legitimacy.

Sounds like the UK is messing with stuff at the core of the social contract it really shouldn't be.

***

Oh, you might want to clarify that "union" doesn't have anything to do with the EU here.

Well that's pretty fucked up.

And people say America has it bad...

OT: Sorry to hear that. No doubt Corporations are gonna make you pay to arrest someone who's burglarized you (Although Taxes do the same thing, Corporations are gonna make you pay way more and out your bum). You should probably move somewhere else.

Given that we are the country that say you can't be trusted to own a gun unless you put a uniform on (which somehow gives you permission to blow people away if they are armed...maybe), this crap doesn't really shock me anymore. =/

I think Theresa May has been playing too much Deus Ex: Human Revolution (and completely missing the point).

Other than that, somewhat lost for words.

...And Labour are still struggling to get ahead in the polls...that's just simply ineffable, UK citizens I am dissapoint.

Trying to privatize the NHS was at the very least UNDERSTANDABLE but this is just plain ridiculous.

If you are unhappy with the police service you've got, can you switch over to another company with a better plan?

I've been using private police in the UK for decades now.

They do what you ask them to do. They don't arrest you and when you call them in an emergency, they turn up (GASP!) and sort it out for you (LOUDER GASP!).

It's important to have a service you can rely on and a service that you broadly trust to be on your side.

And guess what? They don't charge the earth either.

I'll take my private security over the UK state police force any day of the week. Scrap them completely if you ask me. The country would be a safer and more crime free place without them.

I'm tired of having to fend off criminals first and then fend off the police trying to jail me for doing so straight after.
Not fit for purpose.

evilthecat:

Police in a silly baseball cap, why do you expect me to take you seriously? :P

Now I pronounce thee, knight of the parking meters and doughnuts. :P

O_O

!

METAL GEAR!

OT: Even Libertarian me has to question this choice. Laws should be limited, sure, but should apply to everyone equally and you shouldn't be immune just because you literally own the police department.

Kind of reminds me of this:

I wouldn't object to some aspects of policing being outsourced to private companies, such as HR or Public Relations. And, if the private company is appropriately licensed with trained personal,police intelligence analysis and street patrols. I would however object to the private sector in having any role in making arrests and responding to high risk incidents. Whilst the private sector can help the police uphold the law, it must be the actual police themselves who really uphold the law.

Next slogan for the Tories general Election campaign: Delivering a Dystopian Cyberpunk nightmare by 2014!

Too all the hacks decrying the Guardian as an untrustworthy source: stop being so dumb, all the Broadsheets are trustworthy; they just spin things to their political leaning. The Guardian is one of the most respected news papers for it's investigative journalism, they alone perused the phone hacking scandal when all other papers stopped investigating after Glenn Mulcair was nicked and the Screws said it was a 'lone, rouge jurno'.

Hookah:
Too all the hacks decrying the Guardian as an untrustworthy source: stop being so dumb, all the Broadsheets are trustworthy; they just spin things to their political leaning

You mean like when the Guardian called Greece, Spain, Italy and Ireland a bunch of pigs?

In this case they aren't trustworthy at all, because the conveniently left out crucial details. "Private security will be detaining suspects" could also mean that police cells will be administered by guards instead of full police officers. Yet they remove such details, to make it look like that police chief wants to give private security guards all the powers of a policeman.

And that's called lying, even if it's short of the Fox News-style of just totally making stuff up.

Blablahb:

Hookah:
Too all the hacks decrying the Guardian as an untrustworthy source: stop being so dumb, all the Broadsheets are trustworthy; they just spin things to their political leaning

You mean like when the Guardian called Greece, Spain, Italy and Ireland a bunch of pigs?

In this case they aren't trustworthy at all, because the conveniently left out crucial details. "Private security will be detaining suspects" could also mean that police cells will be administered by guards instead of full police officers. Yet they remove such details, to make it look like that police chief wants to give private security guards all the powers of a policeman.

And that's called lying, even if it's short of the Fox News-style of just totally making stuff up.

Either you don't understand what the PIGS group is, or you better provide me with a source. Since the Guardian has all it's articles published online, that shouldn't be too hard for you. Of you pop then.

How do you know what's been omitted? Since this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/interactive/2012/mar/02/contract-note-bidders-police-services

Is all that's available to the public, you are patently making claims without evidence to support your argument. Unless you already have access to the document, in which case please post excerpts to support your argument. All this document says is that one of the possible areas for Private Companies to take over is to 'Detain Suspect'.

Hookah:
How do you know what's been omitted? Since this:

Actually your wrong: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/interactive/2012/mar/02/contract-note-bidders-police-services

And why do they only publish two pages out of the 26 in their possesion, and exactly the ones without details? Inconvenient facts on the other pages?

So there's what I meant. They lie by painting the image they want instead of giving us facts.

So let's compare how the Guardian lies by having two news broadcasters who have seen the same documents, how they write the story:

BBC: "They [private security] could provide services such as victim support but not making arrests"
Guardian: "The breathtaking list of policing activities up for grabs includes investigating crimes, detaining suspects,"
Ironically they even contradict themselves by writing that because they speak of the power of arrest earlier. So according to the Guardian, they will definately arrest people, just not arrest people. Isn't that just the pinnacle of clarity?

BBC: "Private security firms could investigate some crimes and patrol neighbourhoods under plans being drawn up for police in England and Wales."
Guardian: "Private companies could take responsibility for investigating crimes, patrolling neighbourhoods and even detaining suspects under a radical privatisation plan"

Note the subjective term radical, adding the detaining which they later denied, and conveniently omitting "some" and thus implying all crimes will be investigated privately.


BBC: "They emerge at a time of 20% cuts to police budgets over four years, with Home Secretary Theresa May suggesting forces could protect "front-line policing" by delegating some work to the private sector."
Guardian: "The home secretary, Theresa May, who has imposed a 20% cut in Whitehall grants on forces, has said frontline policing can be protected by using the private sector to transform services provided to the public, but this is the first clear indication of what that will mean in practice."

Note the word imposed, while it's her job to manage the budget. Also note that the BBC speaks of suggestions, because this isn't a reality yet, and the Guardian writes like this has already happen. Also note the negative end of the sentence.

Blablahb:

Hookah:
How do you know what's been omitted? Since this:

Actually your wrong: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/interactive/2012/mar/02/contract-note-bidders-police-services

And why do they only publish two pages out of the 26 in their possesion, and exactly the ones without details? Inconvenient facts on the other pages?

So there's what I meant. They lie by painting the image they want instead of giving us facts.

So let's compare how the Guardian lies by having two news broadcasters who have seen the same documents, how they write the story:

BBC: "They [private security] could provide services such as victim support but not making arrests"
Guardian: "The breathtaking list of policing activities up for grabs includes investigating crimes, detaining suspects,"
Ironically they even contradict themselves by writing that because they speak of the power of arrest earlier. So according to the Guardian, they will definately arrest people, just not arrest people. Isn't that just the pinnacle of clarity?

BBC: "Private security firms could investigate some crimes and patrol neighbourhoods under plans being drawn up for police in England and Wales."
Guardian: "Private companies could take responsibility for investigating crimes, patrolling neighbourhoods and even detaining suspects under a radical privatisation plan"

Note the subjective term radical, adding the detaining which they later denied, and conveniently omitting "some" and thus implying all crimes will be investigated privately.


BBC: "They emerge at a time of 20% cuts to police budgets over four years, with Home Secretary Theresa May suggesting forces could protect "front-line policing" by delegating some work to the private sector."
Guardian: "The home secretary, Theresa May, who has imposed a 20% cut in Whitehall grants on forces, has said frontline policing can be protected by using the private sector to transform services provided to the public, but this is the first clear indication of what that will mean in practice."

Note the word imposed, while it's her job to manage the budget. Also note that the BBC speaks of suggestions, because this isn't a reality yet, and the Guardian writes like this has already happen. Also note the negative end of the sentence.

Could you address the issues I've raised in my previous post, rather than ignoring them, and going on a minor tangent.

It's called spin, genius. The facts are the same in both excerpts you posted. The BBC has to be neutral, it's in its founding statement. The Guardian does not, and is of a notably left/liberal leaning, hence why it spins news such as this, like it has. You can hardly complain about the Guardian doing it, when pretty much every media source in the world does it. If your trying to argue that the Guardian is an untrustworthy source, you're pretty much failing if all you can come up with is the difference between a relatively neutral BBC article, and a slightly more alarmist Guardian one.

I do not know what is on the other pages of that document, and neither do you, but you continue making assumptions about them without any evidence. Changing your tune from 'they defiantly have left out details to 'they probably left out details' really doesn't support your case. If anything, you are the unreliable party, ignoring questions and changing your tone. I am looking purely on the evidence to hand. If there was anything that did contradict the current reports, that would be lying. For which The Guardian could be taken to the PCC, with further possible legal repercussions. It's really not in there interest to lie about such things. For all we know these could be the most important pages, and the rest just be dull pages of Civil Service-speak. However, I would not claim as so.

As a Policing student this concerns me. Currently in my local constabularies G4S (a private security company) pretty much runs Custody Suites. There are still Custody Sergeants who's legal responsibility is to maintain the law and the welfare of prisoners. The Security staff take the prisoners to court & generally do the day to day running of the suite, Which officers now dont need to do.

Imagine the thought of when that first came in: PRIVATE firms running custody suites?!?!

Im not going to say if this was wrong or right, BUT the system works. Custody suites are ran effectively by civilian staff.

---

Im not sure what role they are trying to fill, Could it be a PCSO or Perhaps CIS role? In the UK a PCSO is written into law with set powers, but a CSI doesn't really need to be on police books.

The police have a LOT of expertise in the CSI areas, But if they outsource their CSI's they'll lose control over them, which could be an issue for the future.

----

Im concerned to say the least (considering Im aspiring to be a police officer), So we should watch these pilot constabularies closely - It shouldn't be rolled out nationwide until all the bugs have been ironed out.

Hookah:

Blablahb:

Hookah:
How do you know what's been omitted? Since this:

Actually your wrong: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/interactive/2012/mar/02/contract-note-bidders-police-services

And why do they only publish two pages out of the 26 in their possesion, and exactly the ones without details? Inconvenient facts on the other pages?

So there's what I meant. They lie by painting the image they want instead of giving us facts.

So let's compare how the Guardian lies by having two news broadcasters who have seen the same documents, how they write the story:

BBC: "They [private security] could provide services such as victim support but not making arrests"
Guardian: "The breathtaking list of policing activities up for grabs includes investigating crimes, detaining suspects,"
Ironically they even contradict themselves by writing that because they speak of the power of arrest earlier. So according to the Guardian, they will definately arrest people, just not arrest people. Isn't that just the pinnacle of clarity?

BBC: "Private security firms could investigate some crimes and patrol neighbourhoods under plans being drawn up for police in England and Wales."
Guardian: "Private companies could take responsibility for investigating crimes, patrolling neighbourhoods and even detaining suspects under a radical privatisation plan"

Note the subjective term radical, adding the detaining which they later denied, and conveniently omitting "some" and thus implying all crimes will be investigated privately.


BBC: "They emerge at a time of 20% cuts to police budgets over four years, with Home Secretary Theresa May suggesting forces could protect "front-line policing" by delegating some work to the private sector."
Guardian: "The home secretary, Theresa May, who has imposed a 20% cut in Whitehall grants on forces, has said frontline policing can be protected by using the private sector to transform services provided to the public, but this is the first clear indication of what that will mean in practice."

Note the word imposed, while it's her job to manage the budget. Also note that the BBC speaks of suggestions, because this isn't a reality yet, and the Guardian writes like this has already happen. Also note the negative end of the sentence.

Could you address the issues I've raised in my previous post, rather than ignoring them, and going on a minor tangent.

It's called spin, genius. The facts are the same in both excerpts you posted. The BBC has to be neutral, it's in its founding statement. The Guardian does not, and is of a notably left/liberal leaning, hence why it spins news such as this, like it has. You can hardly complain about the Guardian doing it, when pretty much every media source in the world does it. If your trying to argue that the Guardian is an untrustworthy source, you're pretty much failing if all you can come up with is the difference between a relatively neutral BBC article, and a slightly more alarmist Guardian one.

I do not know what is on the other pages of that document, and neither do you, but you continue making assumptions about them without any evidence. Changing your tune from 'they defiantly have left out details to 'they probably left out details' really doesn't support your case. If anything, you are the unreliable party, ignoring questions and changing your tone. I am looking purely on the evidence to hand. If there was anything that did contradict the current reports, that would be lying. For which The Guardian could be taken to the PCC, with further possible legal repercussions. It's really not in there interest to lie about such things. For all we know these could be the most important pages, and the rest just be dull pages of Civil Service-speak. However, I would not claim as so.

The hilarious part is, he admitted they didn't leave out the details he claimed they did in his original objection. Look Blab, I'm very very sorry the nasty-wasty Guardian used an acronym(which is in common use even in Europe) that upset you, but apart from Channel 4's Dispatches, the Guardian is the only trustworthy source of investigative journalism left in the UK, so get over it and stop acting like I'm sourcing my points from Glenn Beck.

Insanum:
As a Policing student this concerns me. Currently in my local constabularies G4S (a private security company) pretty much runs Custody Suites. There are still Custody Sergeants who's legal responsibility is to maintain the law and the welfare of prisoners. The Security staff take the prisoners to court & generally do the day to day running of the suite, Which officers now dont need to do.

Imagine the thought of when that first came in: PRIVATE firms running custody suites?!?!

Im not going to say if this was wrong or right, BUT the system works. Custody suites are ran effectively by civilian staff.

---

Im not sure what role they are trying to fill, Could it be a PCSO or Perhaps CIS role? In the UK a PCSO is written into law with set powers, but a CSI doesn't really need to be on police books.

The police have a LOT of expertise in the CSI areas, But if they outsource their CSI's they'll lose control over them, which could be an issue for the future.

----

Im concerned to say the least (considering Im aspiring to be a police officer), So we should watch these pilot constabularies closely - It shouldn't be rolled out nationwide until all the bugs have been ironed out.

Crime Scene and forensics services are already outsourced and privatized.

Magichead:
but apart from Channel 4's Dispatches, the Guardian is the only trustworthy source of investigative journalism left in the UK

That doesn't refute what I said. They're not always right and objective, because they may have occasionally done something right.

Even The Sun has also on occasion reported correct stories. Does that make it a trustworthy source?

Magichead:
The hilarious part is, he admitted they didn't leave out the details he claimed they did in his original objection. Look Blab, I'm very very sorry the nasty-wasty Guardian used an acronym(which is in common use even in Europe) that upset you,

You might want to reread my previous post before trying to talk down to me. I pointed out the people raging about this suggestion by a police chief, are being mislead into being upset about it because of how your link exagerates and assumes things to paint a completely incorrect message.

Wait and see how it unfolds and what the details are first.


By the way, they did leave out the details of which crimes will and won't be investigated by private security according to that proposal, something the BBC noted by writing that 'some crimes' would be. The Guardian lied by removing 'some' and implying it was all crimes, while they have in their possession a document that says otherwise which they claim to use as a source.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked