Bye Bye ACPO you will not be missed.
Discussion
I've always been sceptical of the private activities, but the writer of that article doesn't really know what he's talking about, which is why he's tried to attack and turn the positive side into the negative side. He's trying to pitch a typical-Troy 'bloated state vs local power' argument by misrepresenting a few aspects.
Do commissioners now design best practice / guidelines? Are they to look out on a national scale in every area of 'business' and have to skills to judge who is doing what best?
Article said:
The real problem with Acpo was that the policing “guidelines” they issued had a habit of becoming hard and fast rules. Acpo did more than any other organisation to promote a culture of centralised policing – one in which compliance with procedures coming from on high determined how a local community was policed. “It’s Acpo guidelines” I kept being told.
Rigidity is related to seriousness. Take firearms. Do we have every force finding their own way to deploy armed officers or do we take the best practices nationally and spread that? It's smart to have a single senior officer having an individual portfolio. If a police force is dealing especially well with victims of sexual offences, I want that spread to other forces. Article said:
With Acpo's demise, your locally elected Police and Crime Commissioners ought to have a far greater say in deciding how you are policed where you live. “Stuff Acpo, it’s what the locally elected Commissioner has decided” is what I want to hear.
He's again confusing (or doesn't know the difference between) best practice and guidelines with priorities. ACPO have little say in the latter. That's what dictates policing activity and is set on a force-by-force basis, and even on more micro levels such as BCUs and SNAs. Do commissioners now design best practice / guidelines? Are they to look out on a national scale in every area of 'business' and have to skills to judge who is doing what best?
10 Pence Short said:
What are we going to get in their place?
Any Tom Dick and Harry outside the Force that has no experience (or Nouse) on Policing with instant promotion and posting to Acpo rank so that in accordance with current thinking they will run Officers who have more experience of Policing in their little toes.
PCC's will then be Kings of the Castle and know as much as they ones they have just employed and Tom Windsor (Ex Br).
DVD
(Cynical moi?)
Dwight VanDriver said:
Any Tom Dick and Harry outside the Force that has no experience (or Nouse) on Policing with instant promotion and posting to Acpo rank so that in accordance with current thinking they will run Officers who have more experience of Policing in their little toes
.
PCC's will then be Kings of the Castle and know as much as they ones they have just employed and Tom Windsor (Ex Br).
DVD
(Cynical moi?)
Correct..
PCC's will then be Kings of the Castle and know as much as they ones they have just employed and Tom Windsor (Ex Br).
DVD
(Cynical moi?)
And more politics involved in policing (which is what PCCs are really all about).
La Liga said:
I've always been sceptical of the private activities, but the writer of that article doesn't really know what he's talking about, which is why he's tried to attack and turn the positive side into the negative side. He's trying to pitch a typical-Troy 'bloated state vs local power' argument by misrepresenting a few aspects.
Do commissioners now design best practice / guidelines? Are they to look out on a national scale in every area of 'business' and have to skills to judge who is doing what best?
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.Article said:
The real problem with Acpo was that the policing “guidelines” they issued had a habit of becoming hard and fast rules. Acpo did more than any other organisation to promote a culture of centralised policing – one in which compliance with procedures coming from on high determined how a local community was policed. “It’s Acpo guidelines” I kept being told.
Rigidity is related to seriousness. Take firearms. Do we have every force finding their own way to deploy armed officers or do we take the best practices nationally and spread that? It's smart to have a single senior officer having an individual portfolio. If a police force is dealing especially well with victims of sexual offences, I want that spread to other forces. Article said:
With Acpo's demise, your locally elected Police and Crime Commissioners ought to have a far greater say in deciding how you are policed where you live. “Stuff Acpo, it’s what the locally elected Commissioner has decided” is what I want to hear.
He's again confusing (or doesn't know the difference between) best practice and guidelines with priorities. ACPO have little say in the latter. That's what dictates policing activity and is set on a force-by-force basis, and even on more micro levels such as BCUs and SNAs. Do commissioners now design best practice / guidelines? Are they to look out on a national scale in every area of 'business' and have to skills to judge who is doing what best?
ACPO were influential rather than directive. There was on bloke, once CC of North Wales, who issued guidelines with regards speeding, reducing it from the 10mph over the limit to the current, although often ignored, 10% +2mph. Many forces just ignored it but then the HO decided to issue guidelines on the matter and then all CCs decided it was the thing to do, especially those with an inspectorate visit coming.
Despite the tone of my OP I'm a little bit torn on this.
I will mourn not one second for getting rid of all the limited company malarkey. It always seemed wrong and inappropriate.
Clearly there needs to be someone to do the ACPO role which was through guidelines :cough: get some uniformity throughout the nation. That has to be a good thing frankly.
Who can do this in future. PCCs? nah, rolls about on floor holding sides.
Home Office is the next other possibility, but need continuity and independence regardless of governmental changes.
So the only place to go is the very first recommendation of the review which was a Chief Constable's council to co-ordinate policy etc. Which sort of leads one back to thinking it would make sense to have an individual lead officer responsible for particular topics. Which sort of leads one back to ACPO rev 2 without all the limited company b-s.
What we may get is what we so often get when new govts come to power and start meddling. This organisation XYZ is no good / failing / not doing as it's told so we will close it down, reintroduce our new reinvented organisation xYz but with more political control. Many examples can be immediately brought to mind.
I will mourn not one second for getting rid of all the limited company malarkey. It always seemed wrong and inappropriate.
Clearly there needs to be someone to do the ACPO role which was through guidelines :cough: get some uniformity throughout the nation. That has to be a good thing frankly.
Who can do this in future. PCCs? nah, rolls about on floor holding sides.
Home Office is the next other possibility, but need continuity and independence regardless of governmental changes.
So the only place to go is the very first recommendation of the review which was a Chief Constable's council to co-ordinate policy etc. Which sort of leads one back to thinking it would make sense to have an individual lead officer responsible for particular topics. Which sort of leads one back to ACPO rev 2 without all the limited company b-s.
What we may get is what we so often get when new govts come to power and start meddling. This organisation XYZ is no good / failing / not doing as it's told so we will close it down, reintroduce our new reinvented organisation xYz but with more political control. Many examples can be immediately brought to mind.
FiF said:
So the only place to go is the very first recommendation of the review which was a Chief Constable's council to co-ordinate policy etc. Which sort of leads one back to thinking it would make sense to have an individual lead officer responsible for particular topics. Which sort of leads one back to ACPO rev 2 without all the limited company b-s.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.ACPO Mk2 is inevitable. (Re-branded, obviously).
Mojooo said:
Person A in Hampshire whinging that they were treated differently to person B in Thames Valley?
That's an issue. As is the cost of individual forces formulating their own ad hoc guidelines.If he replacement is a public body, at least the individuals involved and the decisions the organisation take would become accountable.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff