UK Plans Private Police Force 252
An anonymous reader writes "'Private companies could take responsibility for investigating crimes, patrolling neighborhoods and even detaining suspects under a radical privatization plan,' The Guardian reports. 'The contract is the largest on police privatization so far, with a potential value of £1.5bn over seven years, rising to a possible £3.5bn depending on how many other forces get involved.' A worrying development in a country with an ever-increasing culture of surveillance and intrusive policing."
Great... (Score:5, Insightful)
RoboCop!
Re:Great... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd buy that for a pound sterling!
I'll buy that for 10 Euros in a couple of years.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd buy that for a pound sterling!
I'll buy that for 10 Euros in a couple of years.
Actually in a couple of years a pound sterling will be about fifty Euro cents. Or perhaps 10 pfennig in New Deutschmarks.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd buy that for a pound sterling!
Peel of a few Bob.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Your Move, Boyo"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
is that what Dubai is suppose to be?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Great... (Score:5, Interesting)
Snow Crash! (A science fiction novel by Neal Stephenson; it did a good job forecasting this trend...and satirizing it.)
The Israeli military historian, Martin Van Creveld [wikipedia.org], also noted the trend toward privatization of state functions in the early nineties. (See for example, the The Transformation of War and the somewhat ponderous The Rise and Decline of the State.) As he predicted, the European-model nation-state continues to decline; as it weakens, it transfers its powers to private entities, and its sovereignty to more nebulous institutions that are not nation-states at all (such as the European Union, NATO, the UN, etc.) This in turn leads to a loss of faith in the nation-state by its citizens, until the state's government is no longer seen as legitimate. Not surprisingly, van Creveld is a fan of Snow Crash.
This has also been happening in the U.S., most prominently during the recent Iraqi Infelicity. As you may remember, the U.S. State Department outsourced its security operations to The Company Formerly Known As "Blackwater" during this time. This led to a fiasco in which a team from said organization—which was "protecting" a State Department delegation—shot up a crowd of harmless civilians with automatic weapons fire from armored vehicles, causing numerous death and mild embarrassment to the U.S. State Department. They should have been much more embarrassed, of course—official heads should have rolled—but such actions no longer have their just consequences. The U.S. Army also worked with TCFKAB and similar organizations with names like Triple Canopy, Executive Outcomes (I think that's defunct, actually), and companies smarter than TCFKAB who don't try to get business through publicizing their names. Of course, TCFKAB is still in business, under another name that I can't at the moment recall, probably because that name was designed to be impossible to remember. In addition to outright combat, other civilian agencies pretty much have taken over the role of providing the U.S. Army's infrastructure, and the entire "re-construction" of Iraq was handled by large corporations in a most unseemly manner.
So why is everyone surprised when the Brits want to outsource a bit of policing?
Re:Great... (Score:4, Informative)
Of course, TCFKAB is still in business, under another name that I can't at the moment recall, probably because that name was designed to be impossible to remember.
Blackwater was renamed Xe. However, it is important to note that the founder and CEO during the Iraq war sold off the company and is no longer involved.
Re:Great... (Score:5, Insightful)
Blackwater was renamed Xe. However, it is important to note that the founder and CEO during the Iraq war sold off the company and is no longer involved.
I have to ask why you think that is important. To my mind, the important issue lies in the fact that companies like Xe exist and are contracted by the U.S. Government at all; the personal culpability of the former CEO of the Company Formerly Known As... is, to me, relatively trivial.
The proper generic name for such corporations is, by ancient usage, "mercenaries" or perhaps "mercenary contractors". The fact that modern States now once more employ mercenaries signifies a distinct decline in the State as an institution, because one of the essential characteristics of a State is that it holds a monopoly on violence. By hiring mercenaries, states essentially solve short-term problems (inability to sustain a war through conscription, direct responsibility for atrocities, etc.), but create another set of problems the extent of which is not immediately obvious. One such problem is that once the State becomes reliant on mercenaries, it is at their mercy—something Machiavelli understood quite well.
Re: (Score:3)
Private military contractors are not mercenaries. If they were, they would be called mercenaries. In reality they can't be used to do anything other than DEFEND things.
There are many private interests in Iraq that need protection. There are legal and logistical problems involved in defending them.
So unless you want US forces defending every company building both infrastructure and retail, then private security forces are a helpful addition.
They are literally security guards for high risk targets. THAT IS IT. They cannot legally accept anything other than security contract. They will be booted from the country if they accept anything else. So it is not only legally the only contracts they can accept, but financially the only ones which make sense.
Using companies like Blackwater/Xe is cost efficient over a short-term period (as was demonstrated by using Executive Outcomes in Angola/Sierra Leone). Over a long-term, it is much more efficient to use the US (insert nation) army forces.
Re: (Score:3)
Private military contractors are not mercenaries. If they were, they would be called mercenaries. In reality they can't be used to do anything other than DEFEND things.
When you ATTACK other countries, it stands to reason that your logistical lines are exposed and need DEFENDING - hiring mercenaries for that purpose lets you bring other troops elsewhere.
Besides, we can always place semantic games with words. As far as Soviet Union was concerned, what it was doing in Afghanistan back in 80s was defending the "legitimate government" of the country - at its explicit request! - from Islamist insurgency. Times change, and today, US troops defend the "legitimate government" from
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And now Academi
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204319004577089021757803802.html [wsj.com]
Have a nice day
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Fascism (Score:5, Insightful)
And so Britain sinks further into Fascism.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But it would be totally different in a western country. They would be liable for any damage they caused. You could report them to the local poli..... oh, well,... you could still report them to themselves! I'm sure they'd give a very stern talking to themselves, then make themselves promise to NEVER do it again. Then charge the taxpayers a few million for the service.
Re:Fascism (Score:5, Insightful)
Arguably, placing one's faith in guns as an antidote to policing is like expecting the widespread availability of strong cryptographic algorithms to protect internet privacy: Architecturally it might be within the realm of the plausible; but it's behaviorally absurd.
Re: (Score:3)
Regular citizens with guns was how the USA liberated itself from British tyranny.
However, the problem these days is that the portion of the American population that's well-armed is also the same portion of the population that's in favor (judging by how it votes) of steady expansion of police power and militarization. The gun-owning Americans of today are not the same kind of people as the gun-owning Americans of the 1770s.
Re:Fascism (Score:4, Insightful)
Give me a break, Internet Tough Guy.
A hillbilly with a .22 won't even see the SWAT team coming in their armored personnel carrier in the middle of the night with night-vision goggles, air-support from helicopters, flash-bang grenades, and heavy weapons. They'll hit him with a dozen tasers until they see the .22 then they'll fill him full of holes and drop a joint on him to validate their enthusiastic response.
In the rare case they get reprimanded by the police's lawyers if there is a lawsuit from his now destitute wife, they will pick a scapegoat who will get a week's leave with pay.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
and that's why you have the lowest crime rate of the modern world.
I'm sure it doesn't help that we have nonsensical laws (such as anti-drug laws).
Re: (Score:2)
See my post above about SWAT teams equipped with military level gear and think again about how the right to bear arms will defend our rights.
Re: (Score:2)
that is the original intent.... but then the modern gun lobby moved the goal posts.
Re:Fascism (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm so glad Scotland controls it's own Law budget.
One more reason to vote for independence though.
Re: (Score:2)
I expect if Scotland does vote for independence, there will be quite a lot of English people moving there.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm so glad Scotland controls it's own Law budget. One more reason to vote for independence though.
aye our own legal system and also from speaking to a local SNP MSP, Marco Biagi, about this i gather it's NEVER going to come to Scotland.>br> G4s or group 4 security will only ever get to be "turn keys"(ie the guys in charge of police cells) and also prisoner transport.
And yes.. all power to the independence movement and can't wait till 2014 to vote for it!
Re:Fascism (Score:5, Insightful)
And so Britain sinks further into Fascism.
Take an honest look at what has happened in the US/UK since the early 1980's. We have seen a steady erosion of democratic state involvement in the economy, and a massive migration of money away from the control of the state and into the hands of a few very well monied private interests. When those monied interests successfully cause your taxes to be lowered, what has really happened is that the money that you would have paid in taxes now remains in private hands. In effect, instead of you paying taxes to build roads, you pay your money to the private interests in exchange for some other service. In other words, your lower tax rates result in an increase in wealth and power for the organizations that sell you goods.
Also, the educational system has been fundamentally altered in the past few decades. University degrees in fields that are concerned with the general public interest have largely disappeared, replaced by degrees that are glorified exercises in job training. The broad liberal arts education that was the foundation of the development of our democratic institutions has been made an expensive and disappearing luxury. Education that causes a person to question, to think, to understand our history and culture doesn't exist in a meaningful way in our civilization any more. If you want political power today, you seek your training in administration, in business methods, instead of in philosophy, history and other humanities. Money is the lingua franca, the ultimate justification for all activities. Education itself is now treated as an economic good, something to improve the GDP instead of a good in and of itself. Greed and selfishness, once generally thought of as negative characteristics are now glorified in our money based brave new world.
Do not rebut my arguments by stating for example that "arts students don't get jobs", or that "you cannot afford to spend money on a degree that doesn't pay". I am fully aware of this reality. I ask you to step back outside these statements, to look at the changes of the last 30 years in terms of the health of our civilization, morally and ethically. Is the wide stratification of wealth that has developed recently a good thing for society? Must it be this way? And are the above mentioned developments a symptom of a gradual slide into what might be recognized as fascism?
Re:Fascism (Score:4, Insightful)
We have seen a steady erosion of democratic state involvement in the economy, and a massive migration of money away from the control of the state and into the hands of a few very well monied private interests.
While I agree that is what has happened I think you are perhaps reading a bit too much into the reasoning. The basic Conservative philosophy is that any service provided by the government is a lost business opportunity. Someone could be making money out of society's need for road maintenance, healthcare or policing. Since the Tory party is funded by wealthy people who want to provide these services for a profit they naturally serve them by privatising them and then claiming to have got the tax burden down, which is false economy for most people since they just pay (more) for the services directly.
University degrees in fields that are concerned with the general public interest have largely disappeared, replaced by degrees that are glorified exercises in job training.
Those courses have not gone away, and if anything are a bit more popular now. What has changed is that instead of I ask you to step back outside these statements, to look at the changes of the last 30 years in terms of the health of our civilization, morally and ethically.
We have improved a huge amount in that time, I can't imagine why you think otherwise. Racism has become unacceptable, the influence of the Church has declined, our ethics have continued to evolve to the point where we can offer proper sexual health care to young women... In fact there were statistics out only last week showing that teenage pregnancy was at the lowest level since the 60s. There is no moral decline.
Re:Fascism (Score:5, Insightful)
You act like money didn't control everything from the beginning.
That's how it's been since the very introduction of money and an economic system based around the collection of as much as money possible, and will be until it's eventual abolition.
I disagree. The ancient Greeks invented what we know as money, money as a universal medium of exchange. At the same time however, the ancient Greeks developed a culture that expressed deep ambivalence about greed and money and its influence on people. In the myth of Erysikhthon [theoi.com], the king is cursed with insatiable hunger that causes him to consume everything around him. In the end, he ends up consuming his own flesh. The myth of Midas is also an obvious example. In Sophocles' writings, money "creates friends, honours, tyranny, and physical beauty"; money is said to "destroy cities, drive men from their homes, transform good men into evil-doers, and to cause men to know every type of impiety". And yet it was also obvious to the ancient Greeks that money increased their standard of living.
There is a difference between a society that worships money and its accumulation, versus a society that remains wary of money but that also uses it as a means to improve material well being. In the last 30 to 40 years, we have clearly moved from the latter and towards the former. Just because we use money doesn't mean we must worship it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The State has dramatically increased its spending for decades, gobbling up the advances in the private sector... and for what? Most of it has gone to waste feeding the political power structure, buying votes with destructive social welfare programs, crony capitalism corporate subsidies, and making war.
Your chart gives a list of debt to GDP ratios for the US government. I would argue that the growing debt to GDP ratio over the last few years does not necessarily indicate a massive surge in government spending, but instead a massive decrease in tax revenues. I would speculate that that decrease is in large part due to a massive decrease in tax rates on the most wealthy. As anecdotal evidence, I give Warren Buffet's statements that he pays 17% income tax while the tax rate on his secretary is 35%. As fu
Re:Fascism (Score:5, Insightful)
'Privatization' almost never means "The state is going to abandon function X and leave people to figure it out on their own initiative." It means "The state is going to retain function X, and function X will continue to be taxpayer funded; but the execution of function X will be delegated to FooDyne LLC. who will now have access to the public purse and some measure of state power."
This isn't 100% certain to go badly; but it doesn't reduce the state's role(it just moves some of the state's role 'off the books' and into opaque contractual lumps, rather than those much-demonized public sector employees) and it tends to feed a class of contracting corporations that become essentially obligate parasites of the government, ever more efficient at landing juicy contracts, if not necessarily actually delivering on them...
It is a huge problem. (Score:5, Insightful)
Because you will have TWICE the ability to obscure any abuses.
Was it the government oversight bureau that was responsible? (no)
Was it the private company that was responsible? (no)
Because the company will have been found to have been acting on guidelines from the government that were written with incorrect input from the company that was based upon a faulty understanding of the government's requirements. Systemic errors were found that will be addressed at the next board meeting with the government regulators.
Meanwhile, the company hires lobbyists to ensure that no matter who is voted in they will still be dependent upon the "campaign contributions" of the company.
Re:It is a huge problem. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds strange. You mean you can't get monetary compensation in the US if a government agency, such as the police or social services, make a mistake, or even break their own rules?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which would disappear in a corporate run police system.
Re:It is a huge problem. (Score:4, Informative)
It won't, agencies working for the government almost always retain Crown Immunity, they cannot be sued, and contracts details are usually kept secret even from parliament. It's the worst possible combination. Go UK PLC!
Re:It is a huge problem. (Score:5, Informative)
Private Police Forces in the US are a nightmare, I hope they don't become common in the UK and then in the US...
2 of my local colleges use "Private Police Forces" who, among other duties, also issue tickets. Unfortunately as a private business they are issuing these tickets out of the state capitol 3 hours away. If for some reason you want to challenge the ticket you have to drive 6 hours round trip just to be told the officer is not in attendance at the court, and you'll have to come back another day...
So $70 in gas round trip, twice in order to actually get to challenge the ticket... Missing 2 days of work... they force you to pay, one way or another!
------------------
Now, if the above case HAPPENED 3 hours away from my home and I had to return to the area the crime supposedly happened -- that's different. This is simply "the only reason you have to go 3 hours is because that's where the private police business is based out of"
Re: (Score:2)
what are you talking about? Police departments are routinely sued in the US and the specific infringers get punished if the evidence of abuse exists....why do you think there is so much hoopla about recording police in public right now?
Re:It is a huge problem. (Score:4, Interesting)
It's called pyramid contracting http://labor.net.au/news/1113193724_8739.html [labor.net.au]. What happens quite simply is company A puts in the lowest bid knowing full well they will never pay out one cent in liabilities, they do this by subcontracting to company B. Company B then arranges all the labour contracts through subsidiary company C. Company C now contracts out upon an individual basis to each and every company that represents each individual employee who must take full liability for all the actions of the individual employees company.
So no training trigger happy thugs are given free licence to go 'individually' bankrupt without affecting the profit of the head company in the slightest.
Now that can even be further manipulated into the corporations advantage. The worst, the most egregious and violent individuals will be reserved for revenge attacks upon the enemies of the corporation (whether direct or temporarily paid to be), they will be let loose upon those enemies to kill, main and brutalise. For which they will be convicted but there are plenty more where they came from and it won't cost the corporation one cent.
Guess who ends up paying, c'mon guess who foots the bill when those individual labour companies go bankrupt on the very first civil suit, your guessed it, the people who let the contracts. Privatisation of profits equals socialisation of losses.
Re: (Score:2)
It is 100% guaranteed to go badly if the UKers allow this to go forward. Kiss whatever meager right you thought you had goodbye.
Re:Fascism (Score:5, Interesting)
Back in the day, Medicare payments came out of my income taxes. Then, they set aside a new specific Medicare tax. Then under Bush II, Medicare went private. Now they withhold Medicare premiums from peoples' Social Security checks to pay for private health insurance tarted up to look like Medicare. Back in the day, Medicare's paperwork costs were 2% of every healthcare dollar, while private insurance ran up to 30%. Then they passed HIPPA, the Healthcare Information Portability and Privacy Act, to bring private insurance paperwork practices in line with Medicare and make the data easily transported between the systems. Now that Medicare is private, healthcare costs are soaring, nobody gives a shit about the 'portability' portion of HIPPA, they just fine and/or sue about any percieved breach of the 'privacy' aspects of the act. Paperwork costs under the 'new' Medicare are climbing through the roof and will soon reach that 30% mark. And this is progress?
So now Britain has private police. Do they have private prisons like they do here in the US? How soon until the court system there goes private as well?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
You end up with bureaucrats behaving how they think private enterprise is run based on what they've seen in movies.
Also you still have government interference at the level of board appointments, which leads to really weird shit like Australia's Telstra - third rate idiots with political connections that decide a Nuclear Scientist would be good as CEO (if one can be US President they can do anything can't they?) and a "rock star" reject from Pepsi. From the two large ones I
Re: (Score:3)
The best argument against privately run jail is the potential for collusion of the company that runs them with judges. If your contract says you'll be paid for each incarcerated prisoner, you have an incentive to bribe judges to impose custodial sentences.
Re:Fascism (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Sometimes, a minute with Google can keep you from saying dumb things.
"...In 1998, when American prisons held 1.3 million prisoners, there were only 59 inmate-on-inmate homicides. That's a rate of one murder for every 22,000 prisoners. The homicide rate in Wackenhut's New Mexico facilities in thos
Re: (Score:2)
You mean, escapes from modern day communists.
Out of the frying pan, into the fire?
Well maybe you can cancel the contract? (Score:5, Interesting)
The story lists the tasks that might be taken over by private companies:
The breathtaking list of policing activities up for grabs includes investigating crimes, detaining suspects, developing cases, responding to and investigating incidents, supporting victims and witnesses, managing high-risk individuals, patrolling neighbourhoods, managing intelligence, managing engagement with the public, as well as more traditional back-office functions, such as managing forensics, providing legal services, managing the vehicle fleet, finance and human resources
That seems like pretty much the entire job description short of actual Arrest. (The Detaining Suspects bit may mean running the jail, or arrest, its unclear).
The good side of this is you might have more luck suing a corporation than the constabulary. (No clue about UK law here, just a guess). And when the public becomes unsatisfied its much easier for city government to cancel the contract and find a new firm. The new guys will probably be on their best behavior for a few months at least.
Its not unheard of to find private police forces employed by some jurisdictions in the US. And its not unheard of the have entire companies fired. An incident in a Seattle transit hub [securitymanagement.com] eventually lead to fines and term termination of their contract.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The actors in the story you linked to weren't really a 'private police force'.
True, but the point was that it was fairly easy to get them ousted. One egregious incident was all it took.
Had they been city employees or actual police, there would be nothing that could be done. You'd be stuck with them.
This may be an offsetting factor to consider when evaluating the idea of private sector police contracts. The citizens (and other government agencies) may actually have more control over a private contractor than they do over their own police force.
In fact, the Sheriff stepped in right
makes it easier to F*up the chain of evidence or b (Score:4, Insightful)
makes it easier to F*up the chain of evidence or brake the law in investigating the courts may throughout evidence or the full case.
Now what if on of there rent a cops in the act of detaining and interviewing suspects keeps them from attorney under the thinking that we are not real cops and so you don't have the right to one.
Or
a very guilty rapist is set free as this private companies did not comply with the Rules of evidence. Lets say they dumped parts of forensics on a contractor and they used a subcontractor who did not have the right certifications.
This a is a very bad place to be playing the blame the contractors game.
WARNING! SOULSKILL POSTED THIS ARTICLE! (Score:5, Informative)
As usual, Soulskill has posted yet another article pushing nonsense gleaned from a quick look at a headline.
"The UK" is not getting a private police force. Two small police forces in England are planning on contracting out patrolling some areas like city centre shopping districts to private firms.
As it turns out, it's not actually legally possible for them to do this, so it's unlikely to happen any time soon.
Re:WARNING! SOULSKILL POSTED THIS ARTICLE! (Score:5, Informative)
I do support the use of private security guards to wander around in places where all that is needed is a biped capable of moving while wearing a uniform. There are many places that don't need police patrols. However, I am very much opposed to going any further than that into real police activities. Investigating crimes is something that only real trained and authorised police officers should be doing. These proposals do include that.
Re: (Score:2)
I do support the use of private security guards to wander around in places where all that is needed is a biped capable of moving while wearing a uniform. There are many places that don't need police patrols. However, I am very much opposed to going any further than that into real police activities. Investigating crimes is something that only real trained and authorised police officers should be doing. These proposals do include that.
What are they allowed to do? Can they step in and have rights of cops? Are they allowed to touch you if you don't touch them? Can they be videotaped?
Or do they just basically have citizens rights, and that's enough for their work?
Re: (Score:2)
Are you saying that where you live, police are immune from the laws against assault, and that while in public, where they have no expectation of privacy, they cannot be photographed (which is to say, one cannot capture an image in a public place if police will be visible in it)? If so, then your country not merely in practise, but formally, is a police state.
Re: (Score:2)
?????
No I am not saying that. In fact I was wondering if those private security guards are harder to hold accountable as public servants than cops.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't about saving money. It isn't about some pro-business ideology. It's about "legitimate businessmen" collecting protection money via the tax system.
Mob guys want to be legit.
Re: (Score:3)
"The UK" is not getting a private police force. Two small police forces in England are planning on contracting out patrolling some areas like city centre shopping districts to private firms.
And also other police duties such as investigation of crime. In what way is this NOT privatisation of the police? This is exactly the way that privatisation that are contrary to the will of the people are done. Piecemeal.
As it turns out, it's not actually legally possible for them to do this, so it's unlikely to happen any time soon.
Anything is legal if the government pass a law to make it legal. Unlike the USA, Britain doesn't have a written constitution to limit what legislators may do.
Re: (Score:2)
And not only that, the main bidder will be G4S, which has already killed an innocent man unlawfully and so far managed to get away with it with all parties being released under bail. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/jimmy-mubenga). Worse, his death has not changed any policies and more killings are bound to happen.
And the Tories want to give more power to these clowns.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, the constitution can be ammended. But that needs a much higher degree of approval than merely creating a law.
Re: (Score:2)
In the USA, it requires a significant number of states to agree to the amendment (don't know how many).
I don't know about the UK, but in Sweden, a change to our "constitution" (Grundlag) only requires two successive governments, with an election in between, to approve the change. Moreover, courts can only strike down a law if it is in obvious violation of the Grundlag - i.e, the party who wants to overthrow a law has a much higher burden of proof than their opponents.
Re:WARNING! SOULSKILL POSTED THIS ARTICLE! (Score:4, Interesting)
In the USA, it requires a significant number of states to agree to the amendment (don't know how many).
I don't know about the UK, but in Sweden, a change to our "constitution" (Grundlag) only requires two successive governments, with an election in between, to approve the change..
In the UK they can just change it. Want to change the house of Lords ... just pass a bill. Want to change to fixed term elections ... just a bill. Want to abolish elections altogether because we all love "mein Führer" ... well our supposed safeguard is that the monarch will refuse consent to the bill ... but promise them a few more powers and who knows.
Really despite them teaching us that we have an unwritten constitution the truth is we haven't got a constitution, and we are always potentially one election away from losing democracy.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Of course, prior to mid 1800s (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Of course, prior to mid 1800s (Score:5, Funny)
Well in some ways it might be good to return to that kind of an arrangement for a few days each year. Just long enough to lynch the outgoing politicians on the day after elections. Now that would be a pretty good motivator to stop pissing voters off.
Re:Of course, prior to mid 1800s (Score:5, Informative)
Witch hunts were also common back then. Real ones, where they'd take women who'd committed no crime and burn them at the stake.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Witch hunts were also common back then. Real ones, where they'd take women who'd committed no crime and burn them at the stake.
No crime except witchcraft.
Re: (Score:3)
If that a question? Yes, burning at the stake was worse.
Though I agree the current laws to punish people for consuming herbal products are not so dissimilar from punishing women as "witches" because they made herbal remedies.
Re: (Score:2)
The person I was replying to was talking about PRIOR to the mid 1800s. Which is when the Met Police started. At time when "Law was generally enforced (in the Anglosphere anyway) by citizens"
The witchhunts were indeed prior to the Met Police in a time when law was enforced by citizens. Including witchcraft law.
What I said was correct. You seem to have confused it with a claim something like: "the state police started at a time when there were witch hunts". And that's not what I said, nor meant.
Re: (Score:3)
I see several trends of going backwards in the world. That makes sense given that the energy supply cannot sustain societal complexity any more. Can't cross the Atlantic at supersonic speed, can't go to the moon any more... I think we've already seen Peak Civilization.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not that we can't, it's that we don't want to. The practical use of going to the moon was very small. It only happened because the USA needed to make a show of force towards the USSR.
Consider all the other things we do today which were inconceivable in the era of the moon landings, such as information technology, which have a much greater impact on people's lives. We've also made substantial progress towards eliminating disease and hunger across the globe.
Re: (Score:2)
More precisely, we can't afford to. Of course we could but the cost would be more than society can bear.
Re: (Score:2)
Sad (Score:5, Informative)
The Metropolitan Police Force was one of Sir Robert Peel's (an actual real Tory, and not just the fake post-Thatcher kind) greatest achievements, and a model for police forces the world over. It was precisely because of fragmentation that Peel went this route, producing a stunningly effective law enforcement agency.
Re: (Score:3)
Yep - it sad when the Tory party can even do Tory-stuff. Their are something where is it more efficient to do a group purchasing (i.e. The Government), then the waste of Tendering.
As a left-winger is sad. I always apply the Thatcher test - was it even crazy enough for her to do ?
Privatising the Post office - Nope
Privatising the Police - Nope
Privatising the NHS - Nope
Re: (Score:3)
Discworld readers, yes it is Peel that Night Watch pays a heavy homage to.
Allready Happend (Score:3)
A Bit of Fry and Laurie: Prescient (Score:4, Funny)
OCP (Score:2)
Occupy Corporate Police!
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Look at the positive side (Score:4, Interesting)
Instead of catching small time thieves, they could go after the bankers.
One can dream
Odds are that they'd be a direct subsidiary of the same shadowy holding company that the finance company you'd want investigated is. And I'm sure that their commitment to the enforcement of the law would trump concern for shareholder value.
Re: (Score:3)
Instead of catching small time thieves, they could go after the bankers.
One can dream
Who do you think would own the private police forces?
Anyone remember (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I could go for some Roundup Chili right about now...
Get hooligans off the streets of Britian . . . (Score:5, Funny)
. . . and into private police uniforms where they belong!
Bobby Helmets, the new look for Hoodies, Next Generation.
Dim: Well. Well, well. Well, well, well, well, if it isn't little Alex. Long time no viddy, droog. How goes?
Alex: It's... it's impossible. I don't believe it.
Georgie: Evidence of the old glazzies. Nothing up their sleeves. No magic, little Alex. A job for two, who are now of job age. The police.
off load the pensions (Score:3, Interesting)
Just like every other privatization plan -- the goal is to offload the pension and health care. It won't save any money now, but it limits liability in the future. Often plans like this cost more in the present. If there were sane pension plans offered in the private sector then they couldn't do this -- but the private sector doesn't reward employees for faithful service beyond giving them two kicks in the hind quarters when they get to old (expensive) and are sacked. When private sector workers feel like fodder for businesses it's natural for them to think public sector should be too. Long ago, public sector jobs used to pay less than private sector but the benefits were better --- then somewhere when the public sector had to pick up a significant IT presence they wanted to get talent and had to pay for it. Because IT folks typically work on a short time horizon and retirement benefits didn't matter (moreover, they were sure they could do better than the market, better than the housing market etc because they are arrogant and just smart enough to be stupid) -- so public sector had to compete on salary and now they have to cut the long term benefits to fund the shift. Workers want money now at the expense of benefits later -- privatization is an easier way to that compensation configuration than changing contracts etc.
What Next - Healthcare? (Score:2)
And in the not too distant future... (Score:3, Funny)
Dispatch: Hello, what is the emergency?
You: Someone is breaking into my house!
Dispatch: I see. Please hold while I lookup your account.
You: What? Hurry, I think he's inside!
Dispatch: Okay, it looks like you have our Basic State protection. We can dispatch an officer within 20 minutes. If you upgrade now to our RapidResponse plan for only 10.99 a month for the first year, we can dispatch an officer immediately.
You: Yeah, whatever, just send them now!
Dispatch: I'll be glad to ma'am. May I please have your credit card number?
You: No, it's in the room with the robber.
Dispatch: I understand. I'll go ahead and send out our standard officer. You should expect one within 25 to 30 minutes. You can call back at anytime to upgrade to our RapidResponse plan. Don't forget to ask about our low crime rate discount.
You: He's got a gun!
Dispatch: Have a good day, ma'am!
So, all of you (Score:2)
Ah The Guardian (Score:2)
Hugely out of context quotes, calls for people to resign on a daily basis (usually for petty issues), an insane amount of spin on almost every domestic political article. They've become a parody of them
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like the Neocons in their relentless pursuit of Obama. Hardly a day goes by without some Neocon nutjob or wannabe claiming El Presidente's birth certificate is forged, no matter how much proof you show them. Hell, they wanted to open impeachment hearings on him the minute the polls closed the
I'll just leave these here: (Score:2)
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-02-23/justice/pennsylvania.corrupt.judges_1_detention-judges-number-of-juvenile-offenders?_s=PM:CRIME [cnn.com]
http://archive.feedblitz.com/715643/~4042404 [feedblitz.com]
This is just the tip of the iceberg.
Re: (Score:2)
These lack State power, and here in San Diego if you don't want one, you can certainly pick a region without one. God help you if you do, though. Then if your neighbor paints his house pink and parks his pink plumbing company truck in the street every day, your SOL.