Feral Jundi

Monday, June 25, 2012

Industry Talk: G4S Chief Predicts Mass Police Privatization

“We have been long-term optimistic about the police and short-to-medium-term pessimistic about the police for many years. Our view was, look, we would never try to take away core policing functions from the police but for a number of years it has been absolutely clear as day to us – and to others – that the configuration of the police in the UK is just simply not as effective and as efficient as it could be.”

I have seen this quote and others in several places and it is causing a little bit of a stir. But along the lines of what I was talking about with my prior post, there is some serious cost saving and efficiency benefits by privatizing this stuff. The problem is explaining the process to the public, and battling biased media or unions that only benefit from the current system.

This quote was the other one that I liked.

Taylor-Smith said “budgetary pressure and political will” were driving the private-sector involvement in policing but insisted that the “public sector ethos” had not been lost.
“I have always found it somewhere between patronising and insulting the notion that the public sector has an exclusive franchise on some ethos, spirit, morality – it is just nonsense,” he said. “The thought that everyone in the private sector is primarily motivated by profit and that is why they come to work is just simply not accurate … we employ 675,000 people and they are primarily motivated by pretty much the same as would motivate someone in the public sector.”

That is awesome he said this, and as a security contractor, I feel the same way. I am sure other contractors out there feel the same too, and bravo to Taylor-Smith for speaking his mind on this. –Matt

 

G4S chief predicts mass police privatization
Private companies will be running large parts of the police service within five years, according to security firm head
Matthew Taylor and Alan Travis
Wednesday 20 June 2012
David Taylor-Smith, the head of G4S for the UK and Africa, said he expected most UK police forces to sign up to privatisation deals. Photograph: Guardian
Private companies will be running large parts of the UK’s police service within five years, according to the world’s biggest security firm.
David Taylor-Smith, the head of G4S for the UK and Africa, said he expected police forces across the country to sign up to similar deals to those on the table in the West Midlands and Surrey, which could result in private companies taking responsibility for duties ranging from investigating crimes to transporting suspects and managing intelligence.

(more…)

Thursday, June 7, 2012

Military News: Private Contractors Key To UK Army, Says Philip Hammond

The same thing that applies to the US, is being applied to the UK. Contractors are an essential element to raising an army quickly, or maintaining the one you have. It ensures that the soldiers you do have, are in fact fighting forces and not just cooks or range maintenance folks. You can also build up that support force, or quickly tear it down, and there is no legacy costs like pensions to worry about.

Now the thing that I am curious about is the ‘inherently governmental’ debate happening places like parliament, think tanks and committees. How much will the British allow contractors to actually do when it comes to the gun related contracts in the future?

One thing that is definitely giving a good show as to the effectiveness and capability of armed security contractors is the anti-piracy efforts of the companies right now. Armed guards on boats, along with the history of British contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, are all experiences that are adding to the debate of what contractors are capable of.  Interesting stuff and we will see how the British military and leaders navigate this aspect of force. –Matt

 

Private contractors key to Army, says Philip Hammond
7 June 2012
The British army will have to rely more on part-time reserves and private contractors, Defence Secretary Philip Hammond is expected to say later.
In a speech to military experts, he is due to say the future will involve “thinking innovatively about how combat service support is provided”.
Under the Strategic Defence and Security Review the Army will shrink from 102,000 to 82,000 troops by 2020.
Mr Hammond says there will be “difficult” decisions ahead.
BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner said the speech at the annual Land Warfare Conference in London will give some clues as to how this rebalancing will be achieved, ahead of a full announcement later this month.
Mr Hammond is expected to tell an audience at the Royal United Services Institute there will be a need to use “more systematically the skills available in the reserve and from our contractors”.
Our correspondent says: “A total of £1.8bn is to be invested in the reserve forces, with a focus on certain niche areas such as cyber warfare, medical and intelligence.”

(more…)

Tuesday, April 10, 2012

Maritime Security: The Insanity Of ‘Catch And Release’

A EU NAVFOR spokesman was unable to provide Sky News with a figure for how many suspected pirates had been returned to Somalia without charge.
“I don’t have the number for those returned to Somalia – a number of reasons but largely because it was not initially considered important to maintain the number,” the spokesman told Sky News. -Link to quote here.

This is the part of our global anti-piracy campaign that absolutely kills me. It’s as if these navies are sport fishermen, and they are releasing their catch so it can grow bigger, and spawn more fish, so they have more fish to ‘catch and release’ in the future.

Now of course we are dealing with the legal mechanisms, or lack there of, of each country that has laws that deal with piracy.  So when a navy captures a pirate or suspected pirate, those navies are operating under the guidelines of those laws. Because these countries have not implemented sound anti-piracy laws, we unfortunately see pirates captured and then release because of some legal mistake or loophole. Or, those that did the arresting of the pirates did not capture and detain properly, or properly document or obtain witnesses, etc.

So who are the worst offenders of ‘catch and release’?  That is a good question and I tried to do a little search for any comprehensive reports on this problem. Below, I have found a few recent articles on Canada and the UK, and their deficient legal mechanisms in place for prosecuting pirates. Here is a sample for the UK.

Fewer than one in every five suspects picked up around the Horn of Africa over the past four years have been prosecuted for piracy-related offences, the Ministry of Defence has admitted. The figures will fuel growing criticism of Britain’s involvement in the anti-piracy operation.
Official MoD figures obtained by The Independent on Sunday show the Royal Navy has boarded 34 vessels suspected of piracy in the Indian Ocean since volunteering to lead Operation Atalanta, the EU’s first naval mission, in 2008. However, on all but six occasions, the gangs rounded up were taken to the nearest beach and released – despite often being caught with equipment including guns and ladders. A list of boardings since November 2008 shows that the navy has detained a total of 279 likely pirates but allowed 229 of them to go free, some in groups of up to 17 at a time. Fifty more were sent on for prosecution in Kenya, the Seychelles or Italy.

Amazing. This is just insane, and this practice of catch and release must end.  Also, I wanted to mention that all the nations involved have had similar catch and release stories, so the UK or Canada are not the only ones. I have been documenting this for awhile now, and it is very frustrating.

I also wanted to mention that we are missing opportunities of detention by not allowing private security companies to detain and arrest these pirates. Every engagement could turn into an arrest and a removal of these criminals off of the high seas. By issuing Letters of Marque to PSC’s or the captain on these boats, nations could give them the same arresting powers that their navies currently have.

Within the terms of the LoM, you can define exactly how arrests are to be done and the specific rules for detention and transportation of prisoners. A country can also offer bounties for each pirate that was legally detained and prosecuted. We have GPS and video filming capability, and these can all be tools required under the terms of the LoM in these modern times.

As it stands now, security companies are executing the ultimate in extreme justice on the high seas. That would be actually killing pirates during the defense. So the question I have is why is killing pirates more appropriate than detaining them? If anything, a security company should have the option of capturing those pirates instead of just killing them. It would also take a load off of the larger navies who are tasked with anti-piracy.

So why capture them alive? Well, for intelligence purposes, a pirate that is alive and talking, is far better than a dead one. Also, by capturing them, we take them out of the game.  Of course killing them takes them out of the game permanently, but sometimes killing these pirates is not feasible within the course of current rules of engagement.

In one scenario, what if the pirates attacking the ship decided to stop their attack and just give up for whatever reason? Or during their attack, their engine fails and they get within killing range–so they raise their white flag right there. Does an armed guard execute these pirates who are trying to give up, or do they detain them? Or do we just let them go?  And also, if that pirate vessel is no longer sea worthy because armed guards made it so, and now pirates are sinking, is there any obligation at all to save and detain those pirates? These are all questions that could be answered with an effective Letter of Marque regime and bounty program, that makes capturing pirates something of interest to security companies on these vessels.

I mention bounty, because even with a LoM, security companies will not be entirely motivated to detain. An effective bounty or reimbursement program would be necessary to make up for the costs of such an offense industry. You must also incentivize the process in order to create a vibrant offense industry. A company would be risking life and limb to go that extra mile to capture a pirate crew, so companies must have some mechanism in place for compensation.

So those are my thoughts on the whole thing. The laws dealing with piracy need to catch up, and we also must look at legal mechanisms that will help to make the elimination of piracy more efficient and effective. –Matt

 

Navy frees four out of five suspected Somali pirates
Britain criticised for ‘particularly poor record’ in international crackdown on Indian Ocean piracy
Brian Brady
Sunday, 8 April 2012
Hundreds of suspected pirates arrested by the Royal Navy off the coast of East Africa have been immediately set free – to continue threatening merchant vessels in one of the world’s busiest shipping lanes. Fewer than one in every five suspects picked up around the Horn of Africa over the past four years have been prosecuted for piracy-related offences, the Ministry of Defence has admitted. The figures will fuel growing criticism of Britain’s involvement in the anti-piracy operation.
Official MoD figures obtained by The Independent on Sunday show the Royal Navy has boarded 34 vessels suspected of piracy in the Indian Ocean since volunteering to lead Operation Atalanta, the EU’s first naval mission, in 2008. However, on all but six occasions, the gangs rounded up were taken to the nearest beach and released – despite often being caught with equipment including guns and ladders. A list of boardings since November 2008 shows that the navy has detained a total of 279 likely pirates but allowed 229 of them to go free, some in groups of up to 17 at a time. Fifty more were sent on for prosecution in Kenya, the Seychelles or Italy.
The Government has acknowledged the “catch and release” strategy is often an “unsatisfactory outcome”, although ministers also maintain it helps to disrupt pirate networks.

(more…)

Tuesday, March 13, 2012

Law Enforcement: Dozens Of Firms Register Interest In £1.5bn UK Police Support Contracts

Chris Sims, the West Midlands chief constable, said: “This is not about taking away the core responsibility for policing away from officers. I want to be clear that where a police power is needed a police officer will carry out that duty.
“The backbone of the service will remain unchanged but we are committed to finding a long-term transformational solution that is more cost-effective and improves the service we deliver,” said Sims.
“Our values remain at the heart of the service and our priority is to put the public first in everything we do.”

I will have to warn you that this is a Guardian article. lol But if you can look beyond that, this is interesting news. There is much debate going on about this, and it is a classic public versus private debate. You can also see that the unions are rallying around how dangerous of an idea this is and really pushing the narrative of that.

Personally, I think it is a great idea. Because this looks more like a public private partnership than a complete privatization of police work in the UK. The duties these companies will be performing are totally in line with what private industry can accomplish and accel at. Just look at what Bruce Power SWAT accomplished?  Look at how massively large and successful G4S is?  In both cases, private security and related administrative duties can definitely provide value to the client.

Best of all, these police departments can fire a company if it is a poor performer or if they violated the contract. A private company has incentive to do well in that kind of environment and they will fight to do it better/faster/cheaper than the next guy. That versus a government force who has no ‘real’ incentive to perform well–because there is no one that competes with them. Check it out.

My one bit of advice for these police departments is to ensure they have a strong contracting officer corps that can monitor and manage these contracts to the fullest extent. A contracting corps armed with a contract and policy that answers as many of the issues of principal agent problem as possible. That means having folks dedicated to holding these private companies accountable and ensuring the tax payer and local community does in fact get a good value for their pound sterling. –Matt

 

Police privatisation: dozens of firms register interest in £1.5bn contract
Surrey and West Midlands forces invite bids for services including investigating crimes and detaining suspects
By Alan Travis
Tuesday 13 March 2012
Delegates from private security companies were attending a “bidders’ conference” on Tuesday for a £1.5bn contract to run a wide range of policing services in the West Midlands and Surrey.
The contract notice drawn up for the groundbreaking contract invites bids from the private sector for services that include investigating crimes, detaining suspects and managing high-risk offenders.
The widely drawn West Midlands/Surrey contract notice says that all those services that can “be legally delegated to the private sector” have been put on the table while “preserving the integrity of the office of constable”.
The West Midlands police authority says there are “many household names” among the 64 firms but has declined to name any of them. Potential bidders will hear both chief constables and the outgoing chairmen of the West Midlands and Surrey police authorities detail the procurement process and outline what they hope to achieve from the “business partnership programme”.

(more…)

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Law Enforcement: G4S To Run First Private Security Police Station In Britain

During times of cut backs and austerity, these are the things that communities do in order to save. I have talked about such moves in the US, and it is interesting to see the same thing happen in other parts of the world.

Now what I would be curious is to see how much was saved, and what problems came up, a year from the implementation of the contract? This is a ten year deal, but the cost effectiveness should present itself within the first couple of years. Interesting stuff and we will see how it goes. –Matt

 

G4S to run first private security police station
20 Feb 2012
Private security company G4S is about to sign a deal which would see it building and staffing the first British police station run by a private security contractor.
The deal with Lincolnshire Police Authority – expected to be signed within days – represents the most radical outsourcing of law enforcement so far, according to a report last week in the Financial Times .
The contract will see G4S take over jobs previously handled by police officers including custody and ID duties (but with custody sergeants still on hand), control room staffing, town enquiry officers, the crime management bureau, the criminal justice unit and firearms licensing.
But Simon Reed, vice-chair of the Police Federation, told the FT that he had some reservations about the scheme, as private employees may not have the same enshrined sense of public duty as police officers.
“Our concern is the resilience of the companies doing this,” he said. “When we have national emergencies or unforeseen events, will they be able to bring their staff in to work long hours, regardless of what their contracts say?”
The police station move is part of a £200m contract with G4S over 10 years. Other police forces are said to be considering similar moves.

(more…)

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress