Bye Bye ACPO you will not be missed.

Bye Bye ACPO you will not be missed.

Author
Discussion

Scuffers

20,887 posts

274 months

Monday 7th April 2014
quotequote all
Long overdue.. and good radiance


davepoth

29,395 posts

199 months

Monday 7th April 2014
quotequote all
10 Pence Short said:
If he replacement is a public body, at least the individuals involved and the decisions the organisation take would become accountable.
Absolutely. It was a scandal that so much of police policy was set by a for-profit organisation.

Mojooo

12,707 posts

180 months

Monday 7th April 2014
quotequote all
Is there any will in Goverment to pay for a replacement for ACPO - wouldnt they just be a QUANGO?

After all, ACPO were to some extent doing something that should have been paid for by public funds. Ironically, many public services are being farmed out to private organisations, so it wouldnt surprise me if some private body ended up doing it anyway.

Martin4x4

6,506 posts

132 months

Monday 7th April 2014
quotequote all

They probably assumed they were safe from the Tory austerity dogma because of their historical support. I doubt the Police will be quite so keen to break strikes for them in future.

Scuffers

20,887 posts

274 months

Monday 7th April 2014
quotequote all
Way i see it, its the home offices job, period.

No quango ir the like required.

Countdown

39,820 posts

196 months

Monday 7th April 2014
quotequote all
Scuffers said:
Way i see it, its the home offices job, period.
In my experience Central Govt don't know their arses from their elbows. They need appropriately qualified and experienced people advising them on policy matters.

Red 4

10,744 posts

187 months

Monday 7th April 2014
quotequote all
Countdown said:
In my experience Central Govt don't know their arses from their elbows. They need appropriately qualified and experienced people advising them on policy matters.
Correct.

You'll just get another ACPO under a different guise.

Plus the fact that many senior officers associated with ACPO won't give up without a fight. They won't want to see their empire crushed.

We'll see ...

Scuffers

20,887 posts

274 months

Monday 7th April 2014
quotequote all
Countdown said:
Scuffers said:
Way i see it, its the home offices job, period.
In my experience Central Govt don't know their arses from their elbows. They need appropriately qualified and experienced people advising them on policy matters.
Well, as they already employ ??? How many police, that's hardly going to be a problem us it?

Derek Smith

45,613 posts

248 months

Monday 7th April 2014
quotequote all
Martin4x4 said:
They probably assumed they were safe from the Tory austerity dogma because of their historical support. I doubt the Police will be quite so keen to break strikes for them in future.
I'm not sure there was ever any historical support other than the Thacher era before the miner's strike. And even then that was to continue with a labour pay increase and to fund more officers.

The tories have pulled some dirty tricks in the past and these have only been ignored because they have been duplicated by labour.

There is something much more targeted in this government. At the moment there is pressure on taking away any pretence of the Federation being anything other than a 'management' tool. There's talk about cutting its funding (from officers who have a perfect right, at the moment, to opt out of paying subs if they wish) for no reason. That said, the government can do what it likes as the Federation is just part of the police, controlled and dictated to as much as, for instance, a police station.

It is good that the police do not pick and choose, other than on an individual officer level and this is gradually being eroded, what they do and do not do.

And from what I remember, police officers were not that keen with regards the miners strike either. Whilst there was resentment against the brutal miners that were specifically picked to go from colliery to colliery to stir up trouble, from my experience there was a great deal of sympathy for the plight of those who would lose their jobs, and their community.

Whilst there is little support, at least in county forces, for a union, if Cameron persists in emasculating and already scandalously limited in power representative Federation then I could see some of the more militant forces going to Europe for the authority to form a union. The ECHR has already hinted that it would be viewed favourably, although, of course, that's not to say the police would have, for instance, the right to strike, by free association seems to be likely to be nodded through.

Whilst ACPO was hardly the friend of the working officer, if it goes then there will be no experienced voice to put counter arguments other than CCs, and there are few who put their heads above the parapet. If they did, then now, of course, they will be sacked. Winsor is nothing more than Camerons fag (in a pretty uniform) and PCCs are, in the main, just politicians, either in the making or failed.

The independence of the service has been largely eroded under Cameron. He's having a go at the press. Next? There's only the judiciary left.

Rovinghawk

13,300 posts

158 months

Tuesday 8th April 2014
quotequote all
XCP said:
Rovinghawk said:
How did things work prior to ACPO Ltd.?
That was 1947.
Companies house says it's an awful lot more recent than that.

anonymous-user

54 months

Tuesday 8th April 2014
quotequote all
ACPO press release said:
We're disappointed that the Telegraph has not published our response to a misleading comment piece by Douglas Carswell MP 'It's game over for the Association of Chief Police Officers. Thank God for that"

Douglas Carswell’s assessment of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) offers an object lesson on the value of primary sources. General Sir Nick Parker’s independent review of ACPO, commissioned by Police and Crime Commissioners, is well worth a read, and has set Chief Constables and Police and PCCs together on a path towards a modernised and simplified national body.

Its first recommendation is that there is a requirement for a Chief Constables’ Council: to conduct operational and managerial coordination between independent Chief Constables, act as the focus for command and leadership, maintain links to inform policy and implement practice, and speak with a coordinated and independent voice on operational policing.

Falsehoods such as data being sold from the Police National Computer have long been discredited and we will have no hesitation in referring repeats to the Press Complaints Commission.

Everything we do should be about better protecting the public from crime. In a system of independent local police forces, an element of national coordination at a leadership level helps us do that.
Derek Smith said:
Do Home Office Guidelines still exist? They issued all sorts of missives in my day, <10 years ago, on, inter alia, firearms and my specialty, ID parades. These were virtually requirements. In those days HOG were far superior in influence to ACPO. Indeed, currently ACPO guidelines are ignored by some forces but it would be a brave CC who decided that the Home Office didn't know what it was talking about.
Most obviously when there's a new law that requires some interpretation and theoretical examples.

Dwight VanDriver

6,583 posts

244 months

Tuesday 8th April 2014
quotequote all

rewc

2,187 posts

233 months

Tuesday 8th April 2014
quotequote all
Dwight VanDriver said:
I prefer the PCC to the faceless Police Authorities they replaced.

Derek Smith

45,613 posts

248 months

Tuesday 8th April 2014
quotequote all
rewc said:
I prefer the PCC to the faceless Police Authorities they replaced.
Why? Do you think they are doing a better job? That they respond to local rather than national political requirements? Do you reckon they are cheaper? Do you think that they will not abuse their position for a little nepotism? Do you think they are a safeguard against political influence in local policing? Do you think that we now will have someone in charge of the police in your area who knows a lot about what's going on and the realities of policing?

And do you reckon that they will not be able to sack chief constables for political and/or personal reasons?

XCP

16,909 posts

228 months

Tuesday 8th April 2014
quotequote all
Rovinghawk said:
Companies house says it's an awful lot more recent than that.
ACPO was founded in 1948. The fact that it was a limited company in later years is largely irrelevant. Be very careful what you wish for.

Rovinghawk

13,300 posts

158 months

Tuesday 8th April 2014
quotequote all
XCP said:
The fact that it was a limited company in later years is largely irrelevant.
I think it's highly relevant- why did it need to be a limited company, apart from evading FOI requests?

Cat

3,019 posts

269 months

Tuesday 8th April 2014
quotequote all
Rovinghawk said:
I think it's highly relevant- why did it need to be a limited company, apart from evading FOI requests?
ACPO has been subject to the FoIA since 2011.

Cat

Rovinghawk

13,300 posts

158 months

Tuesday 8th April 2014
quotequote all
Cat said:
ACPO has been subject to the FoIA since 2011.
Thank you. Prior to that it wasn't subject to FoIA, though.

Cat

3,019 posts

269 months

Tuesday 8th April 2014
quotequote all
Rovinghawk said:
Thank you. Prior to that it wasn't subject to FoIA, though.
Indeed. Perhaps can you explain why it was incorporated as a limited company in 1997 in order to avoid obligations under the FoIA which didn't exist until 3 years later?

Cat

Rovinghawk

13,300 posts

158 months

Tuesday 8th April 2014
quotequote all
Cat said:
Perhaps can you explain why it was incorporated as a limited company in 1997 in order to avoid obligations under the FoIA which didn't exist until 3 years later?
I'd love to know why it needed to be limited company at all. Would you know the answer?