To privatise the police is an act of treason.

  • 5 Replies

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 4128
  • +75/-0
To privatise the police is an act of treason.
« on: October 17, 2012, 12:58:26 PM »
Hi All,
 I have just posted this comment on Police Oracle.


 To privatise the police is an act of treason. Why? It is treason to do anything that would compromise the security of the country's population. Although there is no specific law that applies to the police it is a Common Law principle that existed before the formation of the police. To constrain the police by imposing targets and satisfying company shareholders would greatly undermine security. The police need to be independent from commercial and political interference.

If you want to protect yourself and the country from such a scenario then you should help us to bring the traitors, who are doing this, to justice. We have supplied the evidence to every police force in England. Nearly 25% have passed the allegations on to the MET. We need the other 75% to do the same. In short if the police do their job they will help us and themselves. Remember you are just as much a victim of treason as the rest of us!


Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 4128
  • +75/-0
Re: To privatise the police is an act of treason.
« Reply #1 on: October 19, 2012, 10:40:59 PM »
Review of "The Rest is Silence" by James Patrick

By Sandsfoot


James Patrick is a serving police officer with London's Metropolitan Police Service. During the summer of 2012 his blog, The Police Debating Directive, revealed to an ever-increasing audience the challenges facing modern policing at a time of unprecedented austerity and in the face of controversial political and organisational change. The blog posts were sometimes caustic, sometimes heart-rending but always disconcerting and thought-provoking. Now collected into one volume, "The Rest is Silence" exposes the corrosive nature of the creeping corporatisation of a once-proud public service and its devastating impact on the good-will and morale of the courageous officers who form the thinnest of blue lines.


Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 4128
  • +75/-0
Re: To privatise the police is an act of treason.
« Reply #2 on: October 19, 2012, 10:44:51 PM »

This entry was posted on October 15, 2012 at 6:31 pm and is filed under comments, politics, prognostications, things I'd like to see. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.  read Officer James Patrick?s ?The Rest Is Silence? a fully documented background to police reform in the United Kingdom, the G4S scandal around the Olympics 2012 and a detailed exploration of the next political scandal waiting to happen: think tanks and ministers. ? All proceeds go to the UK Cops Foundation for families of fallen officers.

Excerpt: ? I?d never really been involved in any type of group, movement or activism before but, I suppose, I became part of something. I still don?t really know what! This dawned on me when Occupy Police, based in the US, picked up the YouTube video and posted it to their web site.

I felt a bit rebellious when this happened, like a naughty school kid, but I really just thought, ?crickey, now there?s a breakthrough?. You see, if an international movement like Occupy, very often pitched against the police, could see something that we could all work towards, legally, ethically. Peacefully. Then, maybe, something really special could happen. ? ?

Get the full 380 Page Book or a full preview here Here

You can also follow James on Twitter Here


Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 4128
  • +75/-0
Re: To privatise the police is an act of treason.
« Reply #3 on: October 19, 2012, 10:53:38 PM »

June 29, 2012 Category: Occupy Police UK 1 Comment

News broke the day Tom Winsor took his new position as Chief Consabulary that the Lincolnshire Mounted Unit may be scraped this week, also many regions are warming up to G4S -


THE former chairman of Notts Police authority says it would be disastrous if the force sold its horses.

Notts Police has proposed closing the mounted unit as part of its bid to find savings of 42.3m.

It would save 93,000 a year, and raise an extra 20,000 from the sale of horses.

But ex-police authority chairman John Clarke is opposing the move and has urged people to attend a meeting at County Hall at 10.30am on Wednesday, where he and other members of the authority will meet to decide whether to approve the proposal.

?I think it will be a disaster for Notts Police,? he said.

?The horses have proved their worth year after year, and to see them taken away for such a small amount of money compared to the police?s budget is the wrong move.

?The horse is amazing in areas that are difficult to police and even people who break the law tend to start talking to the horses, which helps build bridges between officers and the public.

?I?ll be very disappointed on Wednesday if the police authority decided to dispense with the services of the mounted division.?

During 2011, the mounted unit took part in 252 ?reassurance patrols?, 27 public disorder patrols and 22 football matches.

It was also present at eight demonstrations, nine parades, six open-country searches and 12 community events.

If the unit was closed, horses would be rented from other forces when required.

A police spokesman said the force had other options for policing large crowds if the mounted unit was closed.

He said he could not say how long it would take for a horse to be sent to Notts from another area if required.

?The force has a full range of tactical options available to officers for the policing of public order situations,? he said.

?It would be inappropriate to discuss the use of resources belonging to other forces before any decision has been made on this issue.?

Staff in the mounted unit would be used elsewhere in the force.

Two grooms would be made redundant if no other suitable post was vacant. The cost of this would be 5,000.

Mr Clark added: ?If a person in the street is being a nuisance, they tend to back off from the horses, like they do with the dog, but if you have one or two cops, they are less likely to do so.

?Horses can do the job of 20 officers and I hope that is demonstrated to the meeting.?

Police authority chairman Jon Collins declined to comment on the proposal before the meeting.

He added: ?I think we should have a discussion on Wednesday and make a decision then in light of evidence and the advice of the Chief Constable.?


Via Reuters Today

(Reuters) ? G4S is in line to win more British police work this year after an alliance between Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire forces commissioned a report into which services they could outsource to the world?s biggest security firm.

All three police authorities this week backed a move to join an outsourcing framework agreement established by G4S and Lincolnshire police authority last year as they look to tackle government budget cuts and find total savings of 73 million pounds ($113 million) by 2015/16.

Many of Britain?s police forces are considering letting private sector firms run non-core operations like finance, IT and HR as they aim to save front-line policing but reduce costs.

G4S started a 200-million-pound, 10-year contract in April to build and run a police station for Lincolnshire as well as provide services such as IT, fleet management, firearms licensing and training. It says it will save the force 28 million pounds over the duration of the deal.

A report by Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire police authorities, expected in November, will now establish which services they too could outsource to G4S as the forces prepare for more budget squeezes beyond 2015/16.

Any contract would not begin before April 2013.

Seven other UK police authorities are also attached to the original Lincolnshire framework and have the option to take up similar service agreements in future.

West Midlands and Surrey police have also shortlisted six bidders, including G4S, for a contract worth around 1.5 billion pounds to deliver a wide range of services to them and other British forces including guarding crime scenes, patrolling neighbourhoods and collecting CCTV footage.

An update on that deal is expected in the autumn.

My Odd Theory On Saving The 99% | The Global 99′s First Real Logical Demand? →← Founder of Occupy Police Responds To the #BPPA Pax Centurion | UPDATED: Veteran Boston Police Officer Speaks Up

One Response to ?The Lincolnshire Mounted Unit Walks Off Into The Sunset, G4S to Take Over Everywhere..??
Does anyone reading this need a wake up call? Try this.
During the student demonstrations I was probably the most outspoken youtube critic making harsh comments about the way police horses were used in Manchester and London.
Now I say this.

As for private security being given the opportunity to play at being police. Here?s a recent comment on conservativehome?..?I don?t want G4S Police on my streets. If you want to see what that will look like the next time you go to a big concert or event, spend ten minutes observing the private security (badly dressed, thuggish, on min. wage, couldn?t care less) and then imagine that patrolling our streets. When this happens and we have another riot, you can expect them all to run.?

#occupy unite to protest totalitarianism but prepare some sleepers, just in case.

I?ve just been reading James Patrick?s?The rest is silence? and it occurred to me that he was a prime mover. As such he is acting as a focal point and engaging other people (mainly coppers) to step forward to be counted.

We do need the silent majority to become vocal.

Additionally the phrase that keeps being tweeted is true: ? for evil to win, it only requires good men to stay silent? (or some version thereof).

However what caused me a twinge of panic is the awareness that all of this happened in Hitler?s Germany.

Good men did speak out: They spoke out, they united, they marched and their names were noted.

Groups that could provide a focus for dissent were targetted. Church leader?s, Trade?s unionist?s, and any other large grouping?s which could provide a nucleus for dissent, such as Freemason?s and Rotarian?s.

Many such ended up spending time in Concentration camps, or were murdered.

Similar happened in Stalin?s Russia, Allende?s Chile and various S.American neighbours. It probably had a similar pattern in Indonesia and other countries, where the rich and/or powerful wished to micro manage the lives of the populace.

Those, who spoke out, disappeared.

In the modern Hi-tech world it may not be necessary to kill people to silence them (although that is always a danger, when control is absolute).

With systems like Trapwire, Echelon, the national database, HD-CCTV, ISP data harvesting, fast DNA profiling, mobile phone and cars fitted with chips for GPS tracking etc. and combined with our reliance on electronic communications and credit cards, we could easily be individually isolated and ostracised.

With the ?anti-terrorist? laws that have come into operation and the repeal of established laws protecting individual rights (e.g. Habeas Corpus and Double Jeopardy), anyone can be arrested under a warrant sworn out in another part of the World, without need for a judicial review.

Anyone could become a non-person, without any means of proving their identity, unable to access bank accounts etc.

In these circumstances, we need to have some good men keep quiet.

Everyone who has already spoken out will already be on file. Even those who have merely downloaded James Patrick?s book will possibly be on file.

We have enough of a cohort now to recommend the newly politicised to hold their tongues and bide their time.

This may be crucial in preserving Democracy.

Melodramatic as that idea may seem we have already witnessed the use of moles and agent provocateur?s in gathering information, not just on enemies of the people but on political activist?s such as those in the Occupy movements.

A point to bear in mind is that the likes of Occupy were crushed by the state in Germany, Russia, Chile etc.

In all modern cases of destabilising such regimes, actions have been caused by external enemies or by whistle blower?s. One person, thought to be harmless, in a position to disclose information that was thought to be safe can be more beneficial than an army of protestor?s. I?m thinking Watergate?s deep throat, wikileaks, The exposure of MP?s expense?s details and so on.

We need a few sleeper?s and we need a few network?s such as wikileaks.

Those with the know-how should be working singly or in small groups to set up an email/twitter/facebook style version of the chain reaction in an atomic bomb.

The ability to disseminate an action faster than the authorities can quash it.

What we have now can?t be directly compared with previous moves towards a totalitarian state but it may be worthwhile thinking on possible parallels.

I?m most familiar with the rise and fall of the Third Reich, so that?s where I pick my parallel?s from and in this case I?m thinking of how resistance groups around Europe were primed for action with a key phrase, broadcast by the BBC, such as that used for the D-day invasion. Suggestion?s for action were sent out from a trusted source to unnamed potential activists.

James Patrick mentions wheel-greasers.

Some, of these, will be people, who are simply amoral (e.g. Himmler), or even sociopathic (Goebbels), but some will be basically moral people, who have convinced themselves that connivance at a corrupt regime is a social necessity. These people may be our saviour?s. People such as Von Ribentrop were career soldier?s, who may have detested the plebian upstart but were happy to ride his coat-tails and call it patriotism. When he saw the approaching train crash, he and his co-conspirator?s tried to remedy matter?s by assassinating Hitler. Unfortunately he failed and paid the price of his earlier betrayal of his people but at least he was placed where he could have achieved this end.

Betrayal was always the biggest problem in the War and the only answer, for dissident?s, was to keep contacts as few as possible; being prepared to sever links with anyone tainted with suspicion, not entirely trusting anyone, especially those with whom you share emotions, or strong links such as childhood friends.


Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 4128
  • +75/-0
Re: To privatise the police is an act of treason.
« Reply #5 on: October 21, 2012, 09:34:30 PM »
This has been kept quiet, only 370 signees

lets get on to it please...Petition to Abandon the formation and appointment of Police and Crime Commisioners.......k
 Just look WHO is funding him! M.

 The secret US lobbyists behind Police and Crime Commissioner election
A high-profile candidate campaigning to become one of the Government?s new elected Police and Crime Commissioners is being secretly backed by American neo-conservative lobbyists and companies pushing for (global) police privatisation.

Mervyn Barrett describes himself as opposed to 'party politics' <<<<<>>>>>>DONT THEY ALL ?

By Andrew Gilligan
9:30AM BST 21 Oct 2012

Mervyn Barrett has flooded Lincolnshire with expensive leaflets, free DVDs and full-page newspaper adverts in his bid to be elected as its policing supremo next month.

Unusually for a rural local election, he has employed professional campaign staff, commissioned weekly opinion polls, opened ?field offices? and is driven in a chauffeured Mercedes.

He has poured tens of thousands of pounds into the elections, far more than any other candidate anywhere else in Britain.

Mr Barrett describes himself as an ?independent?, opposed to ?party politics? in policing. He has refused to disclose who is funding him, despite widespread local suspicions generated by the intensity and professionalism of his campaign.
Related Articles
Controversial police candidate's video
21 Oct 2012
MoD lobbying claims: The muck and the top brass
15 Oct 2012
Elected police commissioners: a criminal waste
18 Oct 2012
The extraordinary challenges that will face newly elected Police Commissioners
15 Oct 2012
Half of voters think elected police chiefs will make no difference to crime
05 Oct 2012

However, it can now be revealed that it has been run by a team from a US-based neo-conservative think tank, the Fund for the New American Century, funded in part by a variety of corporate donors with an interest in public-sector privatisation.

The entire campaign team resigned yesterday within hours of being contacted by The Sunday Telegraph.

Lincolnshire may have been chosen because the county?s police are already ?outsourcing? pioneers.

The troubled firm G4S has recently taken over key functions at the force, including its custody suites, central control room and firearms licensing department. G4S also plans a new central police station in a village outside Lincoln, with the existing city centre station closed and sold for housing.

After G4S?s security failures at the Olympics, Mr Barrett strongly backed the company, saying that the Lincolnshire deal was ?working well.? He attacked his rival candidates, who suggested cancelling the deal, for making ?bankrupt promises? and ?playing politics?.

Investigation of Mr Barrett?s campaign website reveals that it is registered to a New York and Washington-based ?political action committee?, MatthewPAC, part of The Fund for the New American Century, whose website says it is ?dedicated to building America?s future by supporting candidates who share our vision for reform and innovation?.

The fund is expanding in Europe and is advertising for a UK-based ?assistant to the executive chairman? on a salary of up to ?55,000.

Mr Barrett?s campaign has also advertised for staff, speaking of the ?sophisticated and wide-ranging support available from our US and UK-based consultants?.

The Sunday Telegraph has established that Matthew de Unger Brown, Mr Barrett?s ?special adviser?, campaign manager and press spokesman until yesterday, is also chairman of the Fund for the New American Century.

?We support Republican candidates. It is a centre-Right organisation,? Mr de Unger Brown said. ?I don?t think that neo-con would be an unfair description.?
One of Mr Barrett?s opponents in the election, David Bowles, another independent and former chief executive of Lincolnshire county council, said: ?It is a very slick campaign but it appears that Mervyn is no more than a puppet.
"Every time I have tried to contact him, the response has always come back from Matthew and every time I?ve tried to meet him it?s been Matthew I?ve met instead.?

Mr Bowles claimed that last week Mr de Unger Brown asked to meet him to discuss the possibility of an electoral deal, with Mr Barrett becoming his deputy.

?Matthew told me that the funding for Mervyn?s campaign was coming from people with an interest in police sector privatisation,? Mr Bowles said.

?I was told that any deal including Mervyn would be conditional on that funding continuing, and I made it clear that I was not prepared to accept a penny.?

Mr de Unger Brown said that his organisation was also backing other Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) candidates elsewhere in England, Mr Bowles added.
Directly elected PCCs, one for each force area outside London, were part of one of the Government?s flagship policing reforms, intended to ?sweep away? police bureaucracy and ?give people real control? over their force.

The commissioners, paid up to ?100,000 a year, will replace unelected police authorities and control police budgets and strategy, though ?operational matters? will remain in the hands of the local chief constable.

Some analysts have long feared that a low turnout in the November 15 elections could hand ?Trojan horse? candidates power and control over policing with only a few thousand votes. The Electoral Reform Society warned last month that the poll could become a farce, with turnout of just 18.5 per cent.

Mr de Unger Brown said last night: ?The Fund for the New American Century takes, both in the UK and the US, funding from a variety of corporate donors.
?Mervyn Barrett for PCC has not taken ? directly ? any money from organisations that have any interest in commissioning outsourced services.? He refused to deny that money had been supplied via the fund.

Mr de Unger Brown said his campaign would comply with all disclosure requirements of electoral law, but under a loophole in Electoral Commission rules, independent candidates do not have to publish details of their donors until after the election. He declined to say which companies were providing funding, but said the campaign envisaged spending almost ?100,000 by polling day.

A few hours after being contacted by The Sunday Telegraph, Mr de Unger Brown and his campaign team resigned.

Shortly after announcing his candidacy, Companies House records show, Mr Barrett established a new company, Trinity Advisory Ltd, based at his home.

It is not clear what the purpose of the company is or what advice Mr Barrett is offering and no accounts have yet been filed.

G4S said that it had not funded any PCC campaign.

Critics of the PCC elections have raised fears over the democratic accountability of candidates elected on very small turnouts.
?The focus on turnout could make us miss a real opportunity to debate the liberal consensus on how to tackle crime,? said Sam Chapman, a former police officer and unsuccessful candidate for the Conservative PCC nomination in Lancashire.

?There are police and other interests who don?t want PCCs and want to make this election unsuccessful. Some of the Government?s decisions have played into their hands.?

During the passage of the legislation, the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), which represents chief constables, pushed hard for drastic restrictions on candidates. Any conviction for a criminal offence carrying a potential prison sentence is a bar to standing, even if the person was not themselves imprisoned and even if they were a juvenile at the time.

One of the best-known figures to consider standing, the Falklands war hero Simon Weston, fell foul of the rule.

In the mid-1970s, as a 14-year-old, Mr Weston, who is now 51, was fined ?30 and put on probation for riding in a stolen car, though he did not know it was stolen. Another well-qualified candidate, Bob Ashford, a former senior executive in the youth justice system, was forced out because of a minor conviction in 1966, when he was 13.

Other rules include a strict residential qualification which bars many potential candidates, such as the broadcaster Nick Ross, who do not live in the county where they want to stand.

The depth of the candidate problem is shown by the fact that virtually the only prominent figure left in the race is Lord Prescott, who is standing in Humberside, one of 41 police forces in England and Wales to be holding elections. ?Some of the candidates are quite good,? said Mr Chapman. ?But some are mediocre placemen, councillors and police authority members who are being very conventional.?

So what? many voters may say: policing should be left to the police. But with the scandal of Hillsborough fresh in the mind ? and five chief constables, in the last six months alone, sacked, suspended, forced to resign or placed under investigation ? it appears hard to believe that police leadership cannot be improved.

?The police have essentially been unreformed for a long time and chief constables are used to doing what they want,? said Mr Chapman.

?The pity of these elections is that there could have been a real debate about crime and policing, but we haven?t got it yet.?

Share this topic...
In a forum
In a site/blog

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk