|
veryRS
409 posts
14 months
|
Pothole said: No examples, then? DYOR if you want to refute it, this is an internet forum not a court of law. You're lazy as well as sanctimonious so you're even more perfect for the job than originally thought. Well done.
|
|
|
aw51 121565
2,706 posts
102 months
|
I saw a possible future for policing in this country last night. Dog the bounty hunter. I hope I am utterly wrong in thinking that this is where we are potentially heading with policing in the near future (just change bandanas and leather for grey shirts & black trousers  )... 
|
|
|
10 Pence Short
27,632 posts
86 months
|
veryRS said: Honestly I dont give a flying one what it appears to you as.
The majority of people who seek positions of power for the sake of having power over people are in my general experience tossers. Mostly they seem to be driven by a strange and warped pleasure in being able to tell others what to do and revel in enforcing petty and beaurocratic rules. Are you in that camp then? You seem defensive enough to be so. I don't sit in any camp, as you put it. It is obvious that some regulations are required, and that continuous enforcement of those regulations is also required. Parking and Planning would be two good examples. The simplicity and monotony of the former and the specialist nature of the latter make them unsuitable roles for a Police Officer. If you approach people in such roles with a prejudiced, demeaning opinion, you are a long way towards a self fulfilling prophecy in the liklihood that you're going to find conflict. Is mine an unreasonable point of view?
|
|
|
mph1977
4,810 posts
37 months
|
Pothole said: veryRS said: Pothole said: Well done on the dictionary consultation, now how about those examples?
ETA: Two references to 'little'. Do you have a size envy issue? Sanctimonious little prick confirmed. You would make a great G4S plastic plod/Council employed official. No examples, then? of course not ... do you actually think someone like that would be able to go beyond recycling the rhetoric of others ?
|
|
|
Pothole
18,075 posts
151 months
|
mph1977 said: Pothole said: veryRS said: Pothole said: Well done on the dictionary consultation, now how about those examples?
ETA: Two references to 'little'. Do you have a size envy issue? Sanctimonious little prick confirmed. You would make a great G4S plastic plod/Council employed official. No examples, then? of course not ... do you actually think someone like that would be able to go beyond recycling the rhetoric of others ? Not really, I'm just a supercilious, sanctimonious, 'little' prick (allegedly) who likes to give people every chance to redeem themselves.
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
La Liga
766 posts
25 months
|
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
|
|
|
andy_s
8,467 posts
128 months
|
The police aim is to provide a service. G4S's aim is to provide profit for share holders. And therein lies the rub.
|
|
|
Derek Smith
16,055 posts
117 months
|
Can we stop the personal stuff? Why not continue your own arguments on PMs and leave the thread to those who want to contribute? It is irritating.
|
|
|
With these feet
3,711 posts
84 months
|
Looking at the mess G4S are making of the Olympic security, they should be kept well away from the Policeforce.
|
|
|
andy_s
8,467 posts
128 months
|
|
|
ClaphamGT3
3,369 posts
112 months
|
With these feet said: Looking at the mess G4S are making of the Olympic security, they should be kept well away from the Policeforce. You cannot, in fairness, blame them for the fact that the Home Office & LOCOG got their estimated security requirement so far out.
|
|
|
Elroy Blue
5,682 posts
61 months
|
ClaphamGT3 said: You cannot, in fairness, blame them for the fact that the Home Office & LOCOG got their estimated security requirement so far out. No. They've been a bastion of efficiency and have performed brilliantly with limited resources. But then we can get back in the real world, see how every cynical decision they make is based on profit, look at their working practices and decide THEY ARE responsible for this debacle. It's only the likes of you and the other usual suspects who sit with their fingers in their ears going 'la la la'.
|
|
|
ClaphamGT3
3,369 posts
112 months
|
Elroy Blue said: No. They've been a bastion of efficiency and have performed brilliantly with limited resources. But then we can get back in the real world, see how every cynical decision they make is based on profit, look at their working practices and decide THEY ARE responsible for this debacle. It's only the likes of you and the other usual suspects who sit with their fingers in their ears going 'la la la'. If you think that they are responsible for the fact that the Home Office & LOCOG specified less than half the requirement that they now acknowledge is needed, then I'd suggest you're the one not living in the real world.... Their performance against their contract is what is relevant here not the fact that they haven't magic'd thousands of skilled resources that they were never contracted to provide out of thin air
|
|
|
XCP
10,496 posts
97 months
|
Good job that the services can do that then.
|
|
|
ClaphamGT3
3,369 posts
112 months
|
XCP said: Good job that the services can do that then. I'd agree. One of the issues outsourcing faces is that the client side does need to be able to articulate what they want. Very often they cant
|
|
|
Derek Smith
16,055 posts
117 months
|
ClaphamGT3 said: Their performance against their contract is what is relevant here not the fact that they haven't magic'd thousands of skilled resources that they were never contracted to provide out of thin air They are in something of a mess, if what I've been told by a couple of ex bobbies is the norm. Both put their name forward some time ago so are nothing to do with the recent request. One is not sure wheher he's resigned or has been sacked. Going by the reports I've been reading their experiences are unique in the sense that at least they had contact with the company. It seems as if the mess has been blamed on a convenient scape-goat.
|
|
|
Elroy Blue
5,682 posts
61 months
|
Police produced 16000 extra Officers in three days during the riots. G4S have deliberately delayed employing staff to save money. They have deliberately falsified ekplosive searches by dog handlers. They HAVEN'T suddenly been asked to provide thousands of extra staff.
Their staff recruitment process is a shambles. Their vetting procedures are a shambles. Their depolyment of staff is a shambles(only 3 of their 'guards' were told to turn up in Warwickshire yesterday. There should have been 150. Guess who had to fill the void...yes, your overstretched Police)
G4S have failed to train people how to use x-ray machines, but deployed them to operate the machines anyway.
The only thing G4S ARE very good at is ensuring their profit margin stays high. The company is one of the biggest private employers on the planet (with crap wages and conditions). They have tried to use the same business model they use in the thirld world.
But GT3. You will ignore all this and continue to push the line that G4S is a great company that is hard done by.
Please
|
|
|
ExFiF
18,406 posts
120 months
|
mph1977 said: i just hope you never encounter any of the following people
a VOSA vehicle inspector
a Highways Agency Traffic Officer
a HMRC officer with 'customs officer' powers
a UKBA officer with powers of detention
an EHO
a HSE inspector approved to issue Prohibition notices
an Approved Mental Health Practitioner ( what replaced ASWs = as it allows RMNs, Mental Health OTs and Practitioner Psychologists access to the powers under the Mental health act that were previously restricted to Social workers ) Agreed, and some of those have greater powers than a sworn police constable. For example, it's not advisable to really pee off a factory inspector, as they were known in old money. Likewise HMRC.
|
|
|
ED209
2,930 posts
113 months
|
Elroy Blue said: Police produced 16000 extra Officers in three days during the riots. G4S have deliberately delayed employing staff to save money. They have deliberately falsified ekplosive searches by dog handlers. They HAVEN'T suddenly been asked to provide thousands of extra staff.
Their staff recruitment process is a shambles. Their vetting procedures are a shambles. Their depolyment of staff is a shambles(only 3 of their 'guards' were told to turn up in Warwickshire yesterday. There should have been 150. Guess who had to fill the void...yes, your overstretched Police)
G4S have failed to train people how to use x-ray machines, but deployed them to operate the machines anyway.
The only thing G4S ARE very good at is ensuring their profit margin stays high. The company is one of the biggest private employers on the planet (with crap wages and conditions). They have tried to use the same business model they use in the thirld world.
But GT3. You will ignore all this and continue to push the line that G4S is a great company that is hard done by.
Please
16000 extra officeres were not produced, they were taken from other duties all over the country leaving short falls everywhere else.
|
|
|
Elroy Blue
5,682 posts
61 months
|
I won't argue with that. And when G4S fail again, Police will be expected to do exactly the same thing. We can never say no, nor do we worry about profit margins.
|
|
