Matters relating to the Winsor Report are becoming rather fragmented and so, to keep all related issues in one thread, please use this one for all future discussion. I will be closing all other Winsor threads and providing a link to this thread.
As a starter I am copying this thread from Picard999:-
A sticky to keep track might be a nice idea. The views expressed are not mine, but a collection of the thoughts and reposts of others elsewhere around the Internet. No offence is intended to anyone. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. I remain hopeful that the constructive suggestions made by Winsor will be shaped and moulded so as to produce a service fit for purpose, taking us forward in partnership with the public - our customers - for the next thirty years....which could be how long we are all in service for!
1: Tom Winsor is asked by Teresa May, our beloved Home Secretary, to conduct a review of policing. The result is a two part report that kills rainforests and the contents of which are deemed 'not nice' by some, but I'm fine with it, really.
2: Some people suspect that Winsor 'cribbed' his thoughts and conclusions off David Cameron, because Winsor's review reaches virtually the same outcomes as those offered in speeches made by David Cameron and Nick Herbert in 2006 (What are the chances? Find out in a future episode......)
3: Teresa May says the review was 'independent' . We don't like the review, but have to admit that it seems impartial and independent, but then we might be in the dark about a few things
4: It turns out that May is very busy and has other interests including holding, (or did hold) shares in Prudential. That might cause you to ask 'why is that relevant'? And a good question it is too.....
5: It happens, by chance, that Prudential own a slice of Group 4, now known as 'G4S'. Again you say, this is a slow moving soap opera, where is the drama?
6: Patience, young Jedi, the forces are with you...
7: 'G4S' is a company that some (not me) think has fallen in love with (owning / wiping out) the police service / force by privatising most policing roles and functions
8: 'G4S' recently won a 200m contract to privatise certain sections of Lincolnshire Police (can you believe you are getting this timely update for free along with all Police Oracle users who are late to the party?)
9: 'G4S' needed a solicitor to get their takeover pushed through, because buying a Police Force, or any part thereof, is not as easy as doing the weekly shop, you see. By coincidence / chance, call it what you will, they ended up using 'White and Case', a firm of solicitors to do the boring technical bits of the deal.....
10: Here's interesting. It turns out Tom Winsor, he of spectacles, no smile and puveyor of an independent two part police review, is a partner at 'White and Case' (As in he's a 'big cheese' there).
11: Enquring minds stop. And think. And start investigating. You see, all of Winsor's potential victims are trained investigators, as luck would have it. So they start excitedly forraging for information. Because this incident involves politicians and solicitors some see the potential for scullduggery having occurred as being huge, wide and deep (not me)
12: We are relieved to be told by 'White and Case' that Winsor wasn't involved in the Lincolnshire affair, because if he had been it may have caused a 'conflict of interest'. We were all especially relieved when Teresa May confirmed the 'White and Case' story and added that Winsor's review was completely independent too. He worked solo, detached from 'White and Case'. On his lonesome, but definately not for or on behalf of 'White and Case'. I was cheered to hear this. Come on, admit it, so were you....
13: It seems that some folk were hoping to escape Winsor's clutches and they became depressed (not me), despite press interest giving hope that a 'conflict of interest' might be revealed to discredit Winsor and his report.
14: And then a response from the Home Office came through as a result of a Freedom Of Information request. It made it clear that Winsor didn't get paid for his work on parts one and two of his report, but instead 'White and Case' were paid....
14B: This causes much confusion - why would 'White and Case' be paid when Winsor was working for himself, not on their behalf. Suspicion had been roused that he had acted rather less than impartially because two press releases were seen on the 'White and Case' website heraldeding the start and end of his work for the Home Office doing his review. How rude, you might think
15: In other news, we took another look at Part 1. In it, there's reference to a group called 'Reform' being consulted and we understand that's a think-tank with the sole stated aim of 'improving public sector performance by engaging with the private sector'. Which is nice. We need to know if its founder was paid for being consulted by Winsor, or if he earns any money from the think tank. We think either scenario would be 'naughty' because Winsor and friends don't really want us to have two jobs and we know that the founder of 'Reform' has or had at least two jobs because he's our policing minister Nick Herebert. Which is nice.
16: Meanwhile, West Mids and Surrey were queuing up a 3 billion partnership tender for some of their policing services to be taken over by private companies like 'G4S'. Most other forces in England and Wales are 'non committed' interested parties.
16B: Scottish police forces meanwhile describe themselves as 'looking on in horror from the sidelines, because we are completely safe north of the border, though no one really knows why'. It's true that they are safe, but it is only fair to admit the quote is made up, but I can assure you that is exactly what they would say (in a Scottish accent, if asked). Anyway, we see the West Mids / Surrey document and it creates much fear because the only thing ruled out from the tender is 'arrest' as far as we can see....I remain unconcerned because a 'go live' date of Feb 2013 for this partnership stuff is just a weird coincidence, coming as it does just weeks before Winsor's proposed compulsory redundancy for police officers, which is due to hit in April 2013. Nowt more than coincidence...
17: Politicians and ACPO look on, favouring Winsor initially, but then becoming anti-Winsor, some say. I don't comment. Keith Vas favours Winsor, but then goes for a walk with 35,000 police officers around London. That changes his mind, which is nice. Mr Vas runs a committee that oversees some people, and thankfully that incudes Tom Winsor, though no one really understands why. Anyway Vas can and does call Winsor to a meeting to explain stuff, though that get together has yet to take place. We know Winsor will get tea and biccies, which we hope are plain digestive because times are austere, old boy.
18: Teresa May goes to the Fed conference and has a rough time of it, which I did not like, much.
19: It hits the press that there may be an issue around Winsor's impatiality or non impartiality, and who did what to whom and when. Confusion brings fear and a scenario unfolds that reminds me of rats, ships and the like. Everyone runs for the hills, which is mixing metaphors, I'm fully aware, but what do you want? I'm doing this for free...I don't go anywhere on account of my dodgy legs which mean hill climbing is an non-starter and wifi reception is poor up there anyway.
20: In connected news, though I believe it to be unconnected, Surrey stall their rush to privatisation for whatever reason (each individual chooses to believe what they will, I believe Surrey, though can't remember their story). West Mids essentially do the same, which is right or wrong depending on who you talk to.
21: For a short demolition of Winsor 2, go here
22: For a read of the original Home Affairs select committee meeting with Winsor 2011
What's interesting here, in response to Q 452 from Steve McCabe MP, Winsor explicitly states that he is NOT proposing compulsory redundancy, yet when Part 2 appeared it was the foundation of his recommendations. What changed, when and why?
23: This? Well this just beggars belief. A FOI reqest asked: 'Who has access to PNC?'. What follows is the obvious list of public bodies, and guess who? G4S....