Sign in to follow this  
Y0d4

May be savings

Recommended Posts

I am inherently nervous about this, but:

 

Go back far enough, and all the offices and control rooms were staffed by a significant majority of police officers. They have been largely handed over to police staff (this some of you will recall was the end of the world as we knew it) and the system mostly works. Assuming the selection processes and training are adequate, and wages remain at par, what difference does it make if those staff are paid from a different pot and get new epaulettes?

 

Where things can go wrong is in the unpredictable and ever changing nature of police work and the difficulty of  writing a contract that is sufficiently flexible to require the bidder to do anything that is asked of them, often at short notice, in response to unforeseen operational requirements. Commercial  organisations will take on any risk, but charge for it, and that adds cost, or if it's not paid for, additional requirements create a need for costly and time consuming Contract Change Notices. This can be exacerbated by senior officers with no commercial background being involved in the negotiations with battle hardened business development managers. A bit like dropping a lion in a shark tank, both have sharp teeth but one's way out of it's comfort zone.

 

Ironically, a direct entry Superintendent with a business degree and enough operational experience to 'get it' may be what's needed at the negotiating table! 

Edited by Cosmo Smallpiece
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a business they could also take bids from the highest bidder as to where they prioritise dispatching units.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed. Why not subscribe to our 999 Platinum service? For only £2 a month we'll guarantee a 4 minute response from a security guard with no useful powers who will stay with you repeating 'Tut Tut this is awful' until the beat officer for your NPCC region can attend ..  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed. Why not subscribe to our 999 Platinum service? For only £2 a month we'll guarantee a 4 minute response from a security guard with no useful powers who will stay with you repeating 'Tut Tut this is awful' until the beat officer for your NPCC region can attend ..  

 

Can they wait that long?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The definition of Nepotism is:-

 

Definitions
noun...................favouritism shown to relatives or close friends by those with power or influence

This fits the bill exactly

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12234988_1516592451972525_46868909270078

Nice to see this has popped up again. Complete and utter load of rubbish, but hey - why let the truth get in the way of a good picture.

They possess a small number of shares in the Prudential, (as do many people along with virtually every private pension in the land) which they obtained in 2002, which in turn have a small stake in G4S - 5-6%. So they probably have a 0.00001 % stake in G4S.

If that's a major shareholder of G4S then I stand corrected, but I'd say they are an extremely minor shareholder of G4S.

This has been doing the rounds on the Pension Challenge FB thingy. All I can say is that if cops do this little investigation into stuff then they are probably in the wrong career.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12234988_1516592451972525_46868909270078

Does anyone have any evidence of him being a major shareholder in G4S?

This photo has done the rounds on Facebook, and folks just share it.

Remember the social media storm concerning Lord McAlpine? He threatened to sue all those Twitter users who had shared a tweet that contained information that wasn't true. Be careful what you share on social media and if you do, check it has some basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ImaPleb in light of your narrative it was probably best not to republish the actual photograph, particularly as you have not supplied any info that refutes the allegation! Just sayin'...

 

As it happens, I agree it's a lazily 'shared' item which has  shall we say questionable veracity. We can do better than this surely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ImaPleb in light of your narrative it was probably best not to republish the actual photograph, particularly as you have not supplied any info that refutes the allegation! Just sayin'...

 

As it happens, I agree it's a lazily 'shared' item which has  shall we say questionable veracity. We can do better than this surely.

Yep should have removed it or said I refute it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it matters whether she has G4S shares or not - it is clear Mrs May has some sort of "agenda" for the way she treats the Police - maybe it is even more sinister than personal commercial imperative - perhaps we will never know? :tongue_cheek:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.