You guys will get used to it. This is more indication of governments and law enforcement hemming and hawing about the monopoly on the application of the use of force. I think there is plenty of room on the stage for private industry and the state to share.
If anything, I think folks are just worried about competition, and that is what really drives these other conversations about ‘pushing the boundaries’ or whatever. It would be like the US Postal Service freaking out about Fedex or UPS, two private shipping companies who directly compete with the US government services. There is plenty of work for everyone, and both sides are still in existence. Both sides have their place, and likewise for the private security industry and law enforcement. –Matt
—————————————————————–
Unease as security groups take police roles
By James Boxell
December 14 2009
Private security companies have started “pushing the boundaries” of frontline law enforcement and are becoming involved in highly charged areas such as the policing of protests, the Financial Times has learnt.
G4S, the FTSE 100 security group, has provided mobile custody cells and detention officers at two recent environmental demonstrations. It has also begun to supply full teams of investigators on complex criminal cases, another area that will prove contentious with some chief constables.
In an FT interview, John Shaw, who recently took charge of the G4S policing business, said: “We have a team of 30 of our guys in one force on a major investigation right now, practically doing all of the roles except that of the senior investigating officer.”
Mr Shaw conceded that the push by the private sector into areas once deemed off-limits would be resisted by some officers and needed to be done in collaboration with forces. But he argued the squeeze on law enforcement budgets meant all police roles were “up for grabs” except those requiring powers of arrest.
“The timing is right for an honest debate about what really constitutes front-line policing,” he said.
G4S estimates it could quadruple its revenues from policing activities within the next few years, but such a rapid expansion would worry civil rights campaigners.
Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, said there were “considerable legal, constitutional and public confidence issues when what many of us see as core policing duties are farmed out to unaccountable private security firms”.
The G4S comments come at a moment when Alistair Darling has promised to “ringfence” spending on front-line policing, even though the Home Office has asked for £545m of annual cost savings from chief constables within five years.
In spite of the misgivings of some colleagues, Peter Fahy, chief constable of Greater Manchester police and spokesman for the Association of Chief Police Officers, was relaxed about the private sector’s deeper involvement as long as it respected that “the dividing line is the policing of public space”.
He said the formation of private-sector investigation teams, to be parachuted-in when needed, seemed a “logical extension” of the current practice of using civilians on large cases. “After the arrest . . . much of the work is admin,” he said. “It depends on the . . . case, but many murders are not that complex.”
Police forces have for years used civilian and freelance staff – mostly retired officers – to take statements, analyse crime scenes and help manage cases.
But Mr Shaw conceded his investigation teams would be “difficult for some chief officers – because clearly it is no longer them controlling the environment”, even though sub-contractors would always report to a senior uniformed officer.
Reliance Security Group, G4S’s main rival in the policing business, is also to consider setting up large teams of ex-officers. That could allow commanders to maintain smaller standing forces.
Julian Nicholls, managing director of Reliance, agreed that there would be some resistance. “You will always have early adopters and late adopters,” he said. “Every police service will take a slightly different view.”
Story here.