Bye Bye ACPO you will not be missed.

[Rovinghawk]

La Liga said:

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

Do you have any idea as to why it's a private limited company rather than a Home Office type arrangement?

[Cat]

Rovinghawk said:

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

The ACPO website, gives their, all be it brief, reason as below:-

As the demand for central support continued to grow, ACPO became a company limited by guarantee in 1997. This was a pragmatic step taken to maintain independence from Government while enabling ACPO to fulfil its support functions, such as the employment of secretariat staff, and allow for transparency in publishing accounts.

http://www.acpo.police.uk/About/History.aspx

Again no mention of the FoIA as you originally claimed.

Cat

[Rovinghawk]

Cat said:

This was a pragmatic step taken to maintain independence from Government

Should policing not be under the control of democratically elected representatives?

Cat said:

while enabling ACPO to fulfil its support functions, such as the employment of secretariat staff

Could police officers/employees not be allocated to policing needs?

Cat said:

and allow for transparency in publishing accounts.

Could they not be transparent whilst still a public body?

Cat said:

Again no mention of the FoIA as you originally claimed.

They'd hardly refer to a useful by-product such as that.

[Snowboy]

Cat, seriously you've explained it very well.
Now you're just being trolled.

[Cat]

Rovinghawk said:

Cat said:

This was a pragmatic step taken to maintain independence from Government

Should policing not be under the control of democratically elected representatives?

Cat said:

while enabling ACPO to fulfil its support functions, such as the employment of secretariat staff

Could police officers/employees not be allocated to policing needs?

Cat said:

and allow for transparency in publishing accounts.

Could they not be transparent whilst still a public body?

You have mis-attributed the above quotes to me they were a lift from the ACPO website in response to your question. It is not an expression of my opinion - I have already stated I have no idea why ACPO was incorporated as a Limited company. I had thought your questions were genuine however given the ease with which answers to them can be found on the internet it would appear that they are merely rhetorical and you have no interest in the answer. This is reinforced by the fact that when you get an answer to a question e.g. - "If the purpose of this business isn't to be 'in business', then what is its purpose?" - you simply ignore the response and move on to repeat earlier questions - "why is it a limited company? Why does it need to be so?"

Rovinghawk said:

Cat said:

Again no mention of the FoIA as you originally claimed.

They'd hardly refer to a useful by-product such as that.

As has been explained, the timing of events suggest that your original claim that ACPO was incorporated as a limited company to avoid FoIA obligations is simply incorrect. You have attempted to move the goalposts and obfuscate to deflect from this in subsequent posts but the original fact remains.

Cat

Edited by Cat on Wednesday 9th April 11:21

[Rovinghawk]

Cat said:

You have mis-attributed the above quotes to me they were a lift from the ACPO website in response to your question.

Not my intention. Apologies for any apparent intent.

Cat said:

It is not an expression of my opinion - I have already stated I have no idea why ACPO was incorporated as a Limited company.

Fair enough.

I genuinely wish to understand why it was formed as a private limited company as I cannot see any good reason why it could not function as a Home Office 'department'.

In the apparent absence of good reason, a presumption of bad reason can be made.

[anonymous-user]

Rovinghawk said:

In the apparent absence of good reason, a presumption of bad reason can be made.

Only if you're biased to one side. You could as easily flip that statement.

Their statement says they wanted to be independent of the Government as one of the reasons they created a separate legal entity. If it suited you, you could easily praise political independence.

[Mill Wheel]

Derek Smith said:

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?

The PCCs seem to be under a lot more scrutiny than the Police Authorities were - hence the number of revelations of dodgy expense claims etc.!
In Cumbria the PCC is an ex magistrate, and except for a couple of administrative wobbles, generally seems to be doing a good job - forcing through a small increase in the police precept to enable the CCTV systems to be sustained in a workable fashion - as requested by the public in numerous surveys.

[Mill Wheel]

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.

Really? Then why have they employed somebody with close links to a speed camera company to rewrite the "guidance" on using speed cameras?

If it is all above board, why are the speed camera company involved removing his endorsements for their products, and pictures of them entertaining him at Bruntingsthorpe from their web site?
Are THEY shy of his connection to them, or is it the otherway round?

And I wonder if he has overcome the problem of his membership to the professional body he claimed to be a member of in court, despite their having ejecting him?

[Cat]

Rovinghawk said:

In the apparent absence of good reason, a presumption of bad reason can be made.

It is flawed logic to state - I can find no evidence of X therefore Y must be true.

Cat

[Rovinghawk]

Cat said:

It is flawed logic to state - I can find no evidence of X therefore Y must be true.

I didn't say true, I said it could be presumed.

[Cat]

Rovinghawk said:

Cat said:

It is flawed logic to state - I can find no evidence of X therefore Y must be true.

I didn't say true, I said it could be presumed.

It is still flawed.

Cat

[Derek Smith]

Rovinghawk said:

Cat said:

This was a pragmatic step taken to maintain independence from Government

Should policing not be under the control of democratically elected representatives?

Is this a serious suggestion? Do you realise what you are suggesting? Jeez!

[Rovinghawk]

Derek Smith said:

Is this a serious suggestion? Do you realise what you are suggesting? Jeez!

Who actually creates statute law? Parliament?

I think it possible to remove political interference without creating private companies.

[anonymous-user]

Rovinghawk said:

Cat said:

It is flawed logic to state - I can find no evidence of X therefore Y must be true.

I didn't say true, I said it could be presumed.

The only thing you should presume in such circumstances is you need further information about that what you are trying to judge.

[Rovinghawk]

La Liga said:

he only thing you should presume in such circumstances is you need further information about that what you are trying to judge.

In fairness, I have asked for that information quite a few times, tried to find it myself, but it doesn't appear to be available.

Edited by Rovinghawk on Wednesday 9th April 13:42

[Cat]

Rovinghawk said:

In fairness, I have asked for that information quite a few times, tried to find it myself, but it doesn't appear to be available.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (even it where it wouldn't make your presumption anymore valid).

Cat

[Derek Smith]

Rovinghawk said:

Who actually creates statute law? Parliament?

I think it possible to remove political interference without creating private companies.

You suggested that:

Rovinghawk said:

Should policing not be under the control of democratically elected representatives?

The simple answer is: No.

A more sensible answer would be:

No, of course not.

An informative answer would be:

This would remove a fundamental protection of the population.

There are enough countries around the world where there is political control of the police to show that our model is vastly superior. Indeed, you can look at the enforcement and surveillance bodies that are under political control in this country to see what could happen if it was.

This government [and the previous one] seems intent on lowering the protection of the public with regards independence of the judiciary, the police and the press. We have, at the moment, pressure to limit how much individual officers can pay into the Federation.

No as a reply to your rather wild suggestion could probably be changed to:

It'll happen.

And then there will be lots of people wanting to criticise the government and the police of these forums but they'd have to be brave to do it. I hope you enjoy your dream.

[Rovinghawk]

Derek Smith said:

We have, at the moment, pressure to limit how much individual officers can pay into the Federation.

That well-known bastion of truth which firmly believes in the separation of policing & politics?

Their idea of utopian freedom & independence for the police possibly differs from mine.

[Derek Smith]

Rovinghawk said:

That well-known bastion of truth which firmly believes in the separation of policing & politics?

Their idea of utopian freedom & independence for the police possibly differs from mine.

Utopian freedom? It can't exist.

However, I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that your idea of the police is way, way different to mine. After all, all I've had is 30 years of experience.