Police raid activist’s home for ‘criminal’ posts on Facebook. China? No – Wales

At first reading I found this story absolutely atrocious, and if accurately reported it is atrocious. Politicising of the Police, exactly what we have been predicting and fighting against. Do not forget though, that we have only heard one side of the story so far, to carry out this kind of operation at midnight seems to me like there was a specific reason for it. The register of premises searched (if the premises were searched)., the search warrant(if one existed) and the authority for obtaining the warrant may all throw more light onto this situation., but as reported this is a situation that is not in anyone’s best interests and I for one would like to hear the whole story, not just one side of it.

Pride's Purge

(Not satire – I’m sorry to say.)

A female disability activist had her home raided yesterday by South Wales Police who attempted to intimidate her into stopping posting comments on Facebook critical of government cuts and specifically the Department of Work and Pensions and their attacks on the rights of disability claimants.

In her own words:

I’ve just had the police forcing their way into my flat near midnight and harrassing me about my “criminal” posts on Facebook about the DWP, accusing me of being “obstructive”. I didn’t know what in f**k’s name they were on about. They kept going on and on at me, it was horrifically stressful, and they only left after I started crying uncontrollably.

Interestingly, the activist says the police where informed about her activities by a leading member of the PCS union which represents DWP staff.

The police officers did not charge her. They clearly were just…

View original post 165 more words

A Warm Hello to Everybody at Policy Exchange

Hi there, we don’t actually know each other but I know you’ve read at least some of my blogs.  I know these things because I get the logs and I actually read them.  So I feel like we’re almost friends now.

You’re in good company, some of my blogs have been read by A4e, G4S, a certain London law firm and even the Houses of Parliament.

So I’d just like to thank you for reading, you keep doing what you do and I’ll keep doing what I do.

Until the next time, adios

G4S Just Keep Growing and Plotting World Domination

In a move that I confess to having missed G4S bought up part of a company called Guidance Monitoring about 18 months ago.  Under normal circumstances I wouldn’t worry about it, and that’s probably why I missed it.

Who are/were Guidance Monitoring?  They are a company formed in  the early 1990s by Malcolm Roberts and John Potter, the company’s current managing director and product director respectively.  They are/were suppliers of offender tracking technologies to governments across the world (Tagging).

After the deal was complete G4S CEO David Taylor-Smith (he’s since resigned after the Olympics debacle) said “We believe their market-leading technology provides the best platform for future global expansion in the offender monitoring marketplace, and we look forward to working with them to build this business in the UK and overseas.”  Malcolm Roberts said “The opportunity to work with G4S teams around the world on introducing this cost-effective and proven technology into new markets is an extremely exciting prospect.”

Just last month G4S won a lucrative £13 million contract to take on Tagging in Scotland for 5 years using this very technology.  Their stated aim is to expand this arm of their business globally.  They took on too much for the Olympic Games 2012, or so it would appear.  They took on too much with Cheshire Custody Services and the Police Authority took it back in house.  Is this another step too far?  According to a recent article in the Daily Mail the existing system – operated by G4S and Serco – is outdated and expensive.  My old friends Policy Exchange are even advocating giving Tagging back to the Police in order to save £70 million.  “Policy Exchange said the current arrangements were too expensive and had failed to cut re-offending. It says £70m would be saved if tagging were done by police or probation officers instead of private firms.”

So the government’s favourite Think Tank thinks it’s too expensive and out-dated but G4S want to buy up a company and expand globally.  Who’s right?  I don’t know, you decide.

A4e Claims Success In Getting Taxpayers Money Off Benefits & Into Its Own Pockets

Yet one more company riding the ConDem Gravy Train to Bankruptcy Junction

Pride's Purge

(satire)

Emma Harrison, the woman appointed by David Cameron to help get tax payers’ money off benefits and into her own pocket, has issued a statement explaining why she has decided to pay herself a dividend of £8.6m siphoned off from her firm’s lucrative “workfare” contracts with the government.

Ms Harrison is the chair of A4e, which specialises in that very modern practice known as “welfare to pocket”, in which private companies are paid to reduce the amount of money the government spends on jobless people by diverting it to themselves instead.

But after officers from Thames Valley police raided A4e’s offices in Slough as part of a fraud inquiry, the company was forced to defend its record.

Ms Harrison explained:

A4e has always taken very seriously the very important role we have been given of making sure the millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money we have been trusted with is effectively used…

View original post 140 more words

David Hanson MP: Theresa May is being completely dishonest about police numbers

David Hanson MP: Theresa May is being completely dishonest about police numbers.

 

David Hanson, Shadow Policing Minister, said:

“Theresa May is being completely dishonest about police numbers. She claimed, extraordinarily, that frontline police are being “protected”. But the Home Office’s own figures show nearly 7,000 frontline police officers have already been cut in the first two years of the Tory-led Government. This loss is even worse than the experts predicted.

“She also tried to claim there were more neighbourhood police, but in truth many forces have redefined and merged existing units of officers. For example in Gloucestershire they count 537 officers as neighbourhood, but just 27 as 999 response. The previous year, however, they had 450 described as 999 response, the majority of which have now switched to being counted as neighbourhood. In reality forces are being forced to double up the jobs and merging responsibilities to cover for the cuts.

“According to the Home Office’s own figures the total number of neighbourhood police, response unit police and traffic cops has fallen by 7,500 since the general election.

“The measures on restorative justice that Ed Miliband called for in April will be undermined if there aren’t enough police officers to enforce them.

“And if she wants more action on organised crime, she should support the plans set out by Yvette Cooper to get back more of the cash they have stolen.

“And she failed to apologise for the behaviour of Conservative Chief Whip Andrew Mitchell, who insulted the police officers she is supposed to be backing in the fight against crime.

“The Home Secretary announced no new action to reduce crime, support the police or meet her immigration target. Despite all the government’s tough rhetoric they are cutting 15,000 police and undermining their work – this is a government that is weak on crime and weak on causes of crime.”

An Open Reply to @321bin

Dusty, you have inspired me.  I have spent literally….well minutes,   thinking whether or not us chaps would be better off single or wed (other forms of partnership are available).

Whilst I must declare that I am a long time member of the married fraternity, heaven only knows how, just for today I will attempt to redress the balance and outline some of the benefits you may have in your ‘single’ life

Spa Bath, Rifle and Beer – Perfect

First there’s the spa bath.  What woman is going to feel safe with you relaxing in your nice new spa bath with a rifle and a supply of beer?  Being single you can ‘the guys’ round, soak, drink and shoot.  What could be better after after a hard day’s graft.  Definitely won’t be happening with a woman in the house.

Boys and Their Toys

Secondly, what woman do you know that would let you service your motor bike in the lounge and then take it for a test drive?  If it’s raining outside you don’t want it getting wet once you serviced, cleaned and polished it do you?

Surf Boarding

So you want to go boarding with the guys?  Can’t be doing with all that wetsuit malarky, boards are too expensive and it costs a fortune to go to a proper facility.  A wife would want to go and hang out with the girls and make sure you were doing it properly and not showing her up.

Take Christmas, wives like to have nice sparkly Christmas Trees in the corner bristling with fairy lights, chocolate coins and all sorts of unnecessary things that just take up space and stop you putting the important things for Christmas on the tree.

Then there’s Christmas decorations.  Paper Chains, gold and red stars, little baubles, that’s what women want around the house.  Well let’s have some Man Decorations I say, get up on that roof and let’s have a Pissing Santa, why-ever not?  Perfectly tasteful I say, acceptable in any neighbourhood.

Christmas Decorations

Finally Cooking, what makes women think that men can’t cook?  I’ve got my power tools, I can mix a cake just as good as a Magimix or whatever they’re called.  I think I’ve proved my point Dusty, there is absolutely nothing wrong with being 40 and single.  I’m older than you and I can see me being single some time soon. Enjoy it mate.

A Man’s MagiMix

Policy Exchange – How It Works

I recently became aware that I had written the words Policy Exchange more times in my blogs than I thought would have been average.  So I set about trying to find out how Policy Exchange works and set out my personal thoughts on said observation.  I will not be quoting the names of any companies/businesses unless it is a direct lift from another document, you will have to fill in the gaps yourselves.

WHAT IS POLICY EXCHANGE?

Policy Exchange is a neoconservative orientated think-tank with close ties to David Cameron.  It was launched in April 2002 by two former Asda executives Francis Maude and Archie Norman with Nicholas Boles as its founding director.  It is part of the Stockholm Network  a working group of European market-oriented think-tanks.

In 2011 Tim Montgomerie (founder and editor of the website ConservativeHome.com) wrote, ‘the old rightwing thinktanks weren’t particularly helpful to the Tory modernisers and so they built their own. Policy Exchange helped Michael Gove develop his schools agenda. The Centre for Social Justice gave Iain Duncan Smith his poverty-fighting plans.’  In 2012 he described the two think-tanks as having ‘been the most influential centre right think tank of the last decade.’

Already we are seeing some current, prominent names.

WHAT DO THEY DO?

This is what their website says they do “As an educational charity our mission is to develop and promote new policy ideas which deliver better public services, a stronger society and a more dynamic economy. The authority and credibility of our research is our greatest asset. Our research is independent and evidence-based and we share our ideas with policy makers from all sides of the political spectrum”

They then go on to say this “The authority and credibility of our research is our greatest asset. Our research is independent and evidence-based and we share our ideas with policy makers from all sides of the political spectrum.  Our research is strictly empirical and we do not take commissions. This allows us to be completely independent and make workable policy recommendations.”

And this is where my problems all begin.

• Charitable Status

Registering as a charity can provide numerous tax breaks for think-tanks. Charities do not normally have to pay corporation tax, capital gains tax, or stamp duty, and gifts to charities are free of inheritance tax. They can also pay significantly reduced business rates (e.g. council tax) on the buildings they occupy.  They are also immune to requests made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Why do they need charitable status?  Are they really so pious that they actually believe that they are better-educating the British public?

• Where does their money come from?

Like all charities, they receive a large proportion of their income in the form of charitable donations.  Don’t get me going on the tax benefits of charitable donations, that’s a whole new arguement for another day.  Policy Exchange are particularly reluctant to disclose the identities of their donors  George Monbiot wrote a very interesting article on Think Tank Funding last year which you will find here.  However, I have come across a 70 page report from only last year entitled The Cold War On British Muslims.  Don’t be put off by the title, follow the link, download the report and take a gander at pages 53-60, too lengthy to reproduce here.  These pages contain the identities of some of Policy Exchanges donors, private and corporate.

They include

Colin Barrow, a millionaire Hedge Fund Manager.  He is known to have funded both Policy Exchange and Localis. I still don’t know what a Hedge Fund is never mind how to manage it, but maybe this is why government don’t want to tackle the real problem – financiers, bankers, hedge fund managers.

The City of London Corporation

Westminster City Council

Lord Ashcroft, who has also donated large sums to the Conservative Party.  Ashcroft was approached by Francis Maude for financial support in early 2003.  After meeting Michael Gove for lunch in the House of Lords, Ashcroft agreed and was subsequently invited to join the think-tank‘s board – an offer he declined. It would appear from this incident that individuals who donate large sums are typically invited to join the board of trustees.

Perhaps other wealthy members of Policy Exchange’s Board are also donors?

The identity of a number of other individual donors to Policy Exchange is known because their support is acknowledged in Policy Exchange publications.  These include John Nash, the chairman of the private healthcare company Care UK, and Henry Pitman, an old Etonian and founder of Tribal Group plc.  Henry Pitman‘s Tribal Group makes its money by providing outsourced public services and giving what it calls ‘advice and change management support‘ to the public sector.   In its 2010 accounts Tribal reported that 90% of its £202 million revenue was generated from the UK public sector.  The company commented that: ‗We see major opportunities to grow the business as the NHS accelerates the pace of reform to meet rising demand in a sustained period of funding constraints.‘  In February 2011 it announced that it had signed an agreement to ‘to assist the UK Government further in the delivery of efficiency savings‘

Another private company which stands to make substantial sums from the public sector reforms long advocated by Policy Exchange is Care UK, whose chairman John Nash was personally thanked in the same report as Tribal Group‘s Henry Pitman. Like Tribal Group, John Nash‘s Care UK makes the bulk of its money through outsourced public services. It is optimistic about the future of UK public policy and noted in its 2009 accounts that ‘public sector commissioners are increasingly turning to the independent sector to drive efficiency and reform.‘  John Nash is also a Tory donor and in November 2009 donated £21,000 to Andrew Lansley, who was the Secretary of State for Health

Another questionable source of funds for Policy Exchange‘s health research is Merck, one of the world‘s largest pharmaceutical companies which in May 2009 gave £17,500 to Policy Exchange to support research into drugs pricing.  I thought that was the responsibility of N.I.C.E

So, as you can see, the waters of public reform have once again become murky.  Before we leave this section I have a few thoughts of my own about ‘Charitable Status’  If you have read other of my blogs you will know that I hold reservations about senior Police Officers (amongst others) accepting the gift of a dinner at a Policy Exchange event.  Chief Constable Smith is invited to attend a dinner at Policy Exchange, or a restaurant of their choosing.  Mr Smith accepts the invitation, attends the dinner and subsequently registers this dinner in his Force’s Hospitality Register.  We know this much happens because Hospitality Registers are published documents and such events have been recorded therein.  If Chief Constable Smith wanted to attend a normal seminar on Policing for example he or his Force would have to pay for his attendance.  Why does no-one raise an eyebrow when Mr Smith is invited out to dinner by a Registered Charity with a political agenda?

Finally, let us return to the paragraph above which I have reproduced in red, particularly this bit  Our research is strictly empirical and we do not take commissions. This allows us to be
completely independent and make workable policy recommendations.

In their own Financial Statements Policy Exchange state that the object of their charity is

The non-partisan advancement of education of the public in the economic, social and political sciences and their effect on public policy and the policy making process in the UK and the promotion and publication of objective research.

If that’s not bad enough, they go on to say that their income falls into one of 3 categories;

1. Unrestricted Funds – these are available for use at the discretion of the Trustees in the furtherance of the charitable objectives of the Charity.
2. Designated Funds. – If part of an Unrestricted Fund is earmarked for a particular project it may be designated as a separate fund …….blah blah blah
3. Restricted Funds – are funds subject to specific restricted conditions imposed by donors of those funds, such as donations given to the charity for specific research programmes and/or projects.

It’s number 3 that bothers me.  How does that co-exist with “We do not take commissions” and “this allows us to be completely independent”?  It seems to me that we can’t believe a single word of the psycho-babble on PX’s website, as the truth is obviously hidden elsewhere.

I’m sick and tired of sitting on the fence, think tanks such as Policy Exchange, and they are not the only think tank, don’t do anything to help educate me as a member of the public.  They do influence political policy, but that’s not what their charitable status states that they are about.  They have already been subject of one Charity Commission investigation about their funding and whether their charitable status was appropriate.

Maybe it’s time for the Federation or one of the Health Service Unions to take the matter up with the Charity Commission again.  I for one don’t think that what’s happening is correct on any level.

Lord Z makes donation to Policy Exchange and/or Conservative Party>>>>>>>>>>>>Policy Exchange produce a report promoting privatisation of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>>>>>>>>>>>Goverenment debates and a reform Bill drawn up recommending privatisation of xxxxxxxxxxxx.>>>>>>>>>>>>>Privatisation of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx is put in place by ConDems or whoever>>>>>>>>>>>>Lord Z sits back and rakes in the profits as his company bids for, and is awarded, contract for xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.  Fact or Fiction?  Is this how it is to be from now on?

If you agree with this message PLEASE pass it on to anyone else who has an interest in the perils of privatisation and think tanks.  Not for me, I don’t get, nor want,. a penny out of it, but to try and get this crazy helter skelter to grind to a halt.

It may be useful to read my previous blog on Think Tanks here

The Front Line is being protected?

1st hand observations of a Front Line Response Team officer. Highly recommended reading

Steelriverboy

Well, that’s good then. We can all go about our daily business and sleep safely in our beds at night.

Except that’s not really accurate is it? Let me explain.

I work on a 24/7 Response Team, and if we turn out ten PCs on shift, I consider that we’re flush. Now ten PCs to cover the area that we have to cover aren’t really enough. In fact, on some days (or nights), if you doubled that number, we’d still struggle with demand.

So, working on the fact that we can turn ten PCs out of briefing, we all think that we’ve enough numbers to cope with the day’s events. But, to start with, we lose two of those PCs to go and patrol our areas of high crime. Now, that area of high crime may, or may not be within the areas that we cover from our police station…

View original post 571 more words

@craig2383 meets the Home Secretary

Reblogged from Nathan Constable. A letter from a serving officer who went to see his MP about Police Reform, and his local MP just happens to be Theresa May. Somewhat enlightening.

Cheshire Custody Services Revisited

I feel I must begin this blog with an apology.   It has not been easy to write, I suspect it won’t be easy to read, and I’m not convinced that it will be easy to understand, but please try and stay with it, it might be worth it.

 

You may find it useful to read my previous blog on Cheshire Custody Services if you haven’t already.

It’s been a while, much confusion along the way, but I’ve finally got some answers out of Cheshire Police Authority about their failed privatisation of Custody Services.  I will attempt to make some sense of it.  The documents they sent me have been redacted in part, but at least they’ve provided me with something to work with.

All the way back in 2001 a Business Case was put together advocating Custody Services on a PFI basis, and this was a revised Business Case, the original plan obviously commenced some time prior to that.

The research project had identified the following weaknesses in the existing regime;

• Inadequate of inappropriate accommodation

None of the current facilities complies with the Home Ofiice Police Buildings Design Guide or Health and Safety at Work regulations. During busy periods, there are too few cells and interview rooms for the number of prisoners.

• Inadequate use of resources-

Staff numbers are poorly matched to the number of detainees, requiring a high rate of temporary abstractions of officers fiom other duties to assist. Custody Officers frequently have too many detainees to deal with safely or efficiently.

• Lack of a single process owner

Custody facilities are the responsibility of the local divisional commander. There is no single point of accountability for the delivery of custody throughout the Constabulary, leading to poor consistency in performance.

• Inadequate performance management regime

There is a lack of consistency in performance management and little targeted analysis aimed at improving performance or value for money

• Inadequate support for strategic aims

The location of the cells within police stations makes disposal and purchase more difficult, reducing both the flexibility of the estate strategy and the ability to make organisational changes

• Supports development programme

The implementation of centralised custody facilities will allow construction of Chester and Ellesmere Port divisional headquarters without the significant capital cost of including custody facilities within it. No allowance has been made in the Medium Term Financial Scenario for the building of custody facilities for Chester and Ellesmere Port Division (estimated as £2m). should the custody PFI project . not be progressed.

As for the future;

The review confirmed that the three-site option represented the most effective solution. It identified that the one and two site configurations had the following ‘ significant operational weaknesses:

• The increased transport time would significantly impact upon the safe transport of violent detainees.

• From the research undertaken the potential locations for the two site configuration meant that large areas of arrest concentrations were a considerable distance from the facilities.

• The distances and availability of public transport with the one and two site options  would have a severe impact on detainees and their families.

• Reducing the number of facilities fiom six to less than three would seriously ‘ impact upon the resilience of the Constabulary.

•  The ability to isolate and deal with high risk/high profile detainees would be reduced.

•  These configurations would not as effectively facilitate the investigation of serious crime.

•  Such configurations would have an adverse impact on other agencies involved in the criminal justice process.

The review also confirmed the previous evidence that a four site option and enhanced status quo would not deliver all the benefits of a more compact configuration whilst  materially exceeding the  affordability parameters.

I am not going to pretend that I understand every word of the Business Case that I have been sent as it is full of OBCs, ITNs and NCAs, and I don’t live/operate in that sort of world, but it is clear that the Police Authority genuinely thought that there were significant savings to be made by privatising their Custody Services and freeing-up front line officers for other duties.  If any of you understand these things I will gladly let you have a copy to interpret for us.

The full range of services included in the PFI contract were;

• Custody Support

•  Detainee Transport

• Interpreters

• Medical Services (including non-custodial services)

•  Laundry

• Cleaning, Waste Management & Pest Control

• Catering

• Security & Reception

• Building Maintenance and Utilities Provision

•  Grounds Maintenance

• Contract Management

The Business Case does not identify the identities of the short-listed bidders, but it tells us that there were 3 bidders on the short list and we know that the successful bidder was Global Solutions Ltd.   Global Solutions Limited (GSL) was formerly the section of Group 4 covering prison and court services, immigration detention centres, education contracts, meter readings and ‘outsourced services’.

Now I start getting confused, as far as I can establish, and all documentation points towards it, the PFI contract was awarded to GSL.  It doesn’t take long before GSL has been sold to Englefield Capital / Europa Electra Partners,  and the Police Authority are now dealing with a company called Cheshire Custody Services Ltd.  In 2008 GLS were sold to G4S.  I have been unable to find out anything useful about Englefield Capital and Europa Electra but I have discovered that one man has been a Director at GLS, Cheshire Custody Services Ltd and various arms of G4S.  He is a man called Christopher Elliott, and he has had a total of 60 various directorships, a lot of them involving G4S in its assorted incarnations.  A newspaper article states that Cheshire Custody Services Ltd was set up by Global Solutions before its sale, so that probably explains the transitions of the various companies, with Mr Elliott providing some continuity.

Where it starts to get interesting, in my opinion, is that Cheshire Police Authority entered into this PFI contract in 2005.  It was apparently a 25 year contract, which I personally find alarming, but maybe there were sound reasons for it at the time.  However by the 1st quarter of 2007 the Police Authority were already having meetings, concerned about the performance of Cheshire Custody Services and the contract, in fact serious concerns were being raised as early as July 2006., less than a year after this 25 year contract began.  By 2007 more meetings were being called and by March 2007 a decision was taken to convene a Special Meeting of the Police Authority to discuss the future operation of the contract.  This meeting took place on 24th April 2007 but amazingly the minutes of that meeting are not included in the Police Authority’s archive, but the meeting is referred to in the minutes of the Service Improvement Panel on 8th May 2007

On 28th November 2007 a Default Notice was issued to Cheshire Custody Services Ltd.  This was intended both a means to prompt an improvement of services from CCSL but also to begin a process for termination of the contract.

By 20th December 2007 we have a report noting that services were falling well  behind the requited standards, particularly in the ares of transport, medical and interpreters.  It was commented upon that these services would NOT be improved by throwing more money at it, and that the contract looked increasingly unaffordable from December 2010 onwards.  This is a contract that is 2 years into a 25 year period.

On 1st May 2008 Cheshire Police Authority regained ownership and responsibility for Custody provisions.

The previous dates are quite interesting in a mischievous sort of way because Policy Exchange published a report on 15th January 2008 called Footing The Bill.

On page 36 of this austere document it says this;

“GSL has delivered custody services in Cheshire, replacing 11 outdated city centre stations with three new custody suites. GSL was required to reduce the length of time taken to arrest a suspect. Cheshire police authority also made getting more officers on the beat an explicit goal of using privately run custody centres. GSL was able to deliver on both counts: using specialised software to deploy police vans more efficiently it has saved time and human resources”

Clearly this is a success story, except that it isn’t.  If you follow the link above you will see that cracks are already appearing in July 2006.  What does that tell us about the integrity of Policy Exchange reports and recommendations?

The Policy Echange report goes on to say

As they establish how to best use private providers, the Home Office (specifically the NPIA) must establish a consistent and effective approach to procurement of private
services and outsourcing contracts. If the police service is to incorporate cost-saving outsourcing successfully into a programme of modernisation, it must lay the groundwork. First, it needs to develop easily replicable models of outsourcing. Contracts which are negotiated independently without any proven framework can
produce poor outcomes for the police and the public. Such a framework of best practice in contract management and procurement will have to be developed by the
NPIA.
Once a reliable and successful model has been agreed forces will need to establish exactly what functions are carried out by support staff through activity-based costing
analysis. Then they can determine which tasks can be outsourced, and whether or not this should be done in collaboration with other police forces.  Pensions and payroll administration are  examples of back office support functions that could be outsourced. The final prerequisite for successful outsourcing is to strike a balance between local
control over procurement and driving best practice from the centre. The NPIA needs to take responsibility for driving the development of contract negotiation frameworks,
while building in a system for effective local control and accountability.
Lessons for contract procurement
A significant amount of time and effort must be invested in preparation for an outsourcing contract. Before possible suppliers are even contacted police forces must determine and clarify the objectives of an outsourcing contract, which should equate to improved efficiency and costsavings. They will also need to outline their expectations of service delivery, their strategy of implementation and the level of investment required in any outsourcing deal.

When you take into account the comments from p36 of Policy Exchange’s report and the dates of the various sets of minutes from Police Authority meetings it is obvious that not only was this project failing, it was beginning to fail spectacularly, and these failings were known prior to the publication of this report.  The private company concerned was G4S under one guise or another, and leaving the Olympic Games saga out of this just for a moment,  they have experienced failure at PFI ventures with one Constabulary.  The Cheshire Federation must have known about this project and its failings, and UNISON most definitely knew about it.  Neither of these organisations have been heard protesting about future privatisations, at least not by me, and privatisation is being lauded as the way forward.  Why?  What has changed since this project and the current/future  ones to make them a safer bet?

As you might expect I have submitted FOI requests in an attempt to obtain the missing documents.

Watch this space.

Privatisation?  Based on the Cheshire experience, good or bad?  You decide.