Bye Bye ACPO you will not be missed.

[Cat]

No idea but the timings would suggest that your claim it was to do with the FoIA is incorrect.

Cat

[FiF]

A question. Does anybody anywhere support the limited company malarkey?

[Rovinghawk]

Cat said:

No idea but the timings would suggest that your claim it was to do with the FoIA is incorrect.

Just an interesting by-product of a an inexplicable decision by ACPO to form a commercial arm, then.

[Mojooo]

Ltd does not always mean profit making aim as such.

If the association is made up of officers from 50/100/200 organisations, being a Ltd company allows it to have a single seperate entity and trade/operate on its own name rather than liability/linked to the 50/100/200 organisations.

Some Councils also have Ltd companies so that they can buy goods in bulk and it makes it easier to do via 1 Ltd company.

[Cat]

Rovinghawk said:

Just an interesting by-product of a an inexplicable decision by ACPO to form a commercial arm, then.

Quite possibly. To me it seems a little far fetched to suggest that it was done avoid an obligation which didn't exist until 3 years later.

Cat

[XCP]

Mojooo said:

Ltd does not always mean profit making aim as such.

If the association is made up of officers from 50/100/200 organisations, being a Ltd company allows it to have a single seperate entity and trade/operate on its own name rather than liability/linked to the 50/100/200 organisations.

Some Councils also have Ltd companies so that they can buy goods in bulk and it makes it easier to do via 1 Ltd company.

I have been a director of 2 not for profit limited companies. It felt safer knowing that my personal liability, particularly when it came to such things as employing staff, was limited.

[Scuffers]

Rovinghawk said:

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?

so it can have share holders and pay dividends?

[Rovinghawk]

XCP said:

I have been a director of 2 not for profit limited companies. It felt safer knowing that my personal liability, particularly when it came to such things as employing staff, was limited.

It would seem reasonable for the various chief constables to attach members of their respective forces to a joint team for ACPO purposes rather than set up a company capable of removing their actions from accountability to police authorities.

I've never understood the need for a commercial wing of the police and would really appreciate it if anyone could explain the reasons.

[XCP]

Being a limited company does not make it commercial. In any case the police have involved themselves in commercial activity for as long as I can remember.

Hiring out officers to outside organisations and making a goodly profit would be one well known and obvious example.

Edited by XCP on Tuesday 8th April 17:10

[Scuffers]

XCP said:

Being a limited company does not make it commercial.

no, it doesn't

however, are you going to tell use that ACPO is non-profit making and that no dividends have ever been paid?

(and I include in this consultancy fees, salaries to serving officers, ex officers, contracts with external service providers, etc etc.)

[Rovinghawk]

XCP said:

Being a limited company does not make it commercial.

It has income, it has expenditure. In many circles this is called commerce.

If the purpose of this business isn't to be 'in business', then what is its purpose?

[XCP]

Scuffers said:

no, it doesn't

however, are you going to tell use that ACPO is non-profit making and that no dividends have ever been paid?

(and I include in this consultancy fees, salaries to serving officers, ex officers, contracts with external service providers, etc etc.)

I have no idea. Perhaps a look at the accounts would tell us, but I can't say I am that interested.

[XCP]

Rovinghawk said:

It has income, it has expenditure. In many circles this is called commerce.

If the purpose of this business isn't to be 'in business', then what is its purpose?

Policing?

[Cat]

Rovinghawk said:

If the purpose of this business isn't to be 'in business', then what is its purpose?

This may answer your question:-

http://www.acpo.police.uk/documents/FoI%20publicat...

Cat

Edited to correct typo in link

Edited by Cat on Tuesday 8th April 20:31

[Mojooo]

Bear in mind of course even if it has generated income that income may have benefitted Police/public if it has been used for things such as guidance/best practice etc.

[Rovinghawk]

XCP said:

Policing?

They need a limited company for that? I thought that policing was within the remit of the police.

[Rovinghawk]

Cat said:

This may answer your question:-

I notice they drop the word 'Limited' ASAP.

Again- why is it a limited company? Why does it need to be so?

If there's a good answer I've yet to hear it.

[anonymous-user]

Scuffers said:

XCP said:

Being a limited company does not make it commercial.

no, it doesn't

however, are you going to tell use that ACPO is non-profit making and that no dividends have ever been paid?

(and I include in this consultancy fees, salaries to serving officers, ex officers, contracts with external service providers, etc etc.)

So when you say "dividends", which are quite specific, you actually mean, "have they ever had an expense?", which is quite general.

[Scuffers]

La Liga said:

o when you say "dividends", which are quite specific, you actually mean, "have they ever had an expense?", which is quite general.

OK, let me put it this way.

as all Chief Police Officers are employee's of the crown, I would find it hard to see any justification for them supplementing their income from work that is part of their job.

Now, if you use the Local government model for what is considered to be a bribe/incentive/etc. then I think that would just about cover it, however, I bet that ACPO is nothing like that transparent.

for example, just how many 'acquaintances' gain financially from 'contracts' with ACPO?

I wonder just how much money is paid from the makers and distributors of speed monitoring systems etc?

I wonder how many 'all expenses paid' fact finding holidays there have been?

if ACPO has a serious purpose, then it should have been formed under the umbrella of the Home Office, to have it run as a (private?) limited Co. is unacceptable IMHO

[anonymous-user]

It's a ltd company by guarantee, so there are no share holders as there are no shares. It's a non-profit structure.

The 'full' accounts are on the Companies' House website. Although they are only general e.g. £5.3 million on project expenses, £1.8 million on staff etc.

The Memorandum and Articles of Association are linked above are quite comprehensive about what the company does.

Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 9th April 09:23