Corruption, Political Agenda & Money – OCPO’s 40 Page Report on The Worlds First Attempt At Mass Police Privatization
It wasn’t long ago that we brought you news of a police march in London, a march that contained over 35,000 officers from all over the UK. Officers marched through the city on May 10th, in protest against cuts in pay, cuts in personnel, and the greater of both evils, privatization. May 10th was the largest police protest in world history, but officers weren’t the only ones there protesting against Tom Winsor’s suggested cuts in pay, and sneaky attempt to privatize a large chunk of the police force ..a hand full of occupiers were there as well. Yes you heard me right, occupy was there to support that day, as they should be and officers were in awe over the show of solidarity. One officer told us seeing occupy there was â€œthe highlight of the marchâ€, another said he will â€œnever forget this show of solidarityâ€ a very many thanks poured in from officers around the UK after the march. Although you canâ€™t tell from the picture below, there were scores of people lined up to take pictures of occupiers who showed up to support officers, many of the cameramen, were officers themselves. Seeing this play out reminded me of the way occupiers jumped on Captain Lewis when he first set foot in Zuccotti Park last year, many occupiers had lined up in front of the Captian, in awe, to take his picture. Watching the scene unfold in London was like Zuccotti, except in reverse, this time is was occupiers supporting police, such a rare sight for police who were overjoyed to see the solidarity.. That should tell you something -
Occupy London live streamer Naffy was there that day making her way through the crowd talking with officers about their reasons for the march, and informing them about Occupy Police. Some officers we’re nervous when Naffy talked about OcPo with them, understandably, being on camera talking about certain things can get you fired, which is one reason OcPo is building Op Spartacus, we’ll show you just how un-free officers are to really say what’s on their mind, in private, let alone on camera. Here’s what can happen when an officer speaks their mind in private, we shared with you this petition over the winter in an attempt to fight against lack of free speech, and thank you for the support, to date it’s had over 17,000 signatures.
When it comes to major issues, and how they’re tackled, Occupy and Police haven’t seen see eye to eye in quite some time. While both are wanting and needing to be supported, both have yet to find mass approval for it from their internal communities, but, as the global economy weakens, and money continues to dry up we find that our issues, and futures, are more closely tied to each others than we once thought. The time to assist each other is at hand -
In a conversation a while back I asked a friend, how does the system work, we have police, civilians, and politicians, and we’re all tied together, my friend responded, “It’s easy, it’s rock, paper, scissors, rock being the police, paper being the politicians, and scissors being civilians” ..if you’ve ever played that game, you’ll get it right off the bat. I remember thinking despite the differences in the way we think, rocks and scissors need to be on the same side, because it would be here on this “same side” we would hold the collective power to make real change where and when needed. When on the “same side” with our differences cast aside, there is no corporate or political agenda that can weigh itself down on us, because the people united can never be defeated.
Madison Wisconsin is a prime example for this. The Police Union in Madison decided to joined forces with protesters to first keep them safe, and second, to fight a corrupt governor, and they’re winning, together …peacefully.
Madison Police are an example for the world when it comes to making change together, ..but what if there was no Madison Police Union? What if instead there was a private corporate security firm in it’s place, one which is not accountable to the public, does not have to answer to the freedom of information act, and can generally do what it wishes despite public scrutiny, while still calling itself a Police Department. Sounds fascist right? It’s about to happen in Britain, Scotland, Ireland and Wales. The entire transition is being put forward by a few who not only have a political agenda, but sit on the board of corporate security firms who stand to gain massive contracts should Tom Winsor’s recommendations be put into action, very similar to the way Dick Cheney was with Haliburton when the US invaded Iraq. Are bells going off yet? Occupy Police UK has put together an extensive initial report broken down into 2 parts detailing the people involved with attempting to mass privatize the police,Â how they interconnect with each other, and are positioned to make millions while enhancing their private and political careers. Is this in the International publics’ interest? It should be ….
In The Public Interest?
An Initial Exploration of ‘Police Reform’ and Why a Full and Immediate Public Inquiry is Absolutely Necessary.
In Parts 1 and 2 we will introduce you to all the players, show you how they’re interconnected with each other and positioned to make millions while enhancing their private and political careers. Before we continue on to the report, we’re going to share with you a Q&A (below) between Occupy Police US and Occupy Police UK – If you’re not familiar with the situation, this should bring you up to speed before you read the report and equally, if you’re unfamiliar with a person or organization mentioned in the report, refer back to this Q&A. Following each individual section in parts one and two we have posted obvious conclusions over the information you will read. Following each of the 2 parts of this report, we have included 5 recommendation which we hope will be taken seriously and considered by leaders of the UK government in light of the information set forth – Thank You and if you have any questions please forward them to email@example.com or contact us here
Pre-Report Q and A
What is ACPO and what is their actual function in cutting pay/pensions/personnel and privatizing the police force? Are they corrupt?
Current and former chiefs sit on the board and each have portfolios of specific strategic activity to look after. They work with government actively to make sure strategies for the future of police are put in place. They advocate privatisation as a method of financial control, members have told people to SUMO (shut up and move on) over crime commissioners as they support politics in policing.
They are also increasingly corrupt, with questions as to large consultancy payments to former officers being made. The organisation has also been shielded from freedom of information legislation. They have stayed quiet on all issues raised by cops and refused to support officers on the ground. They are stripping officer numbers to the bare bones and that is one reason why the riots lasted 6 days as they couldn’t effectively claw back enough officers to duty because of what they had done, ultimately this cost 370 million and people died, no senior officer has been held to account and they distracted by talking about water canons and plastic bullets instead.
After the Olympics they are ready to get rid of 16000 officers immediately, the same number it took in the streets to get London back under control. They also have courted very close relationships with the media, Murdoch, and accepted huge gifts and hospitality which lead in part to the Leveson phone hacking inquiry. Often they retire to consultancies and now lead private sector firms like G4S and Serco. The implication is that they are in the government pocket, the media’s pocket and each others pockets to drive privatisation forward.
What is Bluelight Global Solutions, and their actual function in cutting pay/pensions/personnel and privatizing the police force beyond Lord Blair advocating for it if any? Do they have ties to ACPO?
How do ADS and G4S Corporate Security Firms connect to ACPO, Tom Winsor and Bluelight? Does anyone in ACPO or parliament sit on these company boards, if so who, and what is/was their title/rank?
Lord Paul Condon sits on the board at G4S and was a former commissioner if the Met Police, also ACPO lifer. Also sits in the upper house of parliament. Other former ACPO work on the same board. They have a 200 million contract with Lincolnshire Police and are bidding for the Surrey and West Midlands contracts to the tune of 1.5 billion despite public protest. They were legally represented in the Lincolnshire deal by White and Chase, where Tom Winsor is a partner but no conflict was declared and this was released by the company in February as he completed his ‘independent review’.
Bluelight I’ve just covered, Blair was commissioner of the Met Police.
Francis Maude comes up numerous times in our research, what is/was his official title and function as a Member of Parliament? Also, does he currently sit on any boards such as or in relation to ACPO, G4S, Bluelight, ADS, Police Commissions of any sort? The Policy Exchange, Adam Smith Institute, Institute of Economic Affairs, Institute for Humane Studies, Claremont Institute, International Policy Network, Conservatives For Change or The Stockholm Network?
What is the neoconservative group 'Conservatives For Change'? Does it have a board, if so are any of their board members, a Member of Parliament, or on the board of any company mentioned in question 5? If so, which company and what is their official title/rank?
What is the London School of Economics and The Stockholm Networks actual function in cutting pay/pensions/personnel and privatizing the force and how do the people within these 2 organizations connect to the board members of either ACPO, Members of Parliament, or any other 'public' service member including upper rank police/officials. Briefly, how are the LSE and Stockholm Network connected to G4S, ADS, and or Bluelight?
Finally, and this may not be appropriate for this 'initial' article, how does any one person in public office, or on the board of these companies stand to make a large sum of money, or seize any sort of position from the reform agenda put forth by Tom Winsor, and what is their name, position/rank?
Winsor introduces compulsory redundancy to cops for the first time, which they can’t fight due to lack of rights and a whole host of other measures to get them out if injured or pay less for office roles. This means chiefs can reduce the officer workforce and replace more cheaply with privatised functions.
The private security firms headed by ex ACPO stand to make huge sums of money like the 1.5 billion deal with west mids / Surrey alone. There are 40 other forces to consider.
ACPO stands to start another private company, the police professional body which will have monopoly over training and strategy, they will also make a lot of money.
… Part 1 of The Report
- We could personally attack Tom Winsor, or his recommendations in response to the proposed police reforms, but why? He wrote a report of incredible detail, based on extensive consultation, on a topic of which he is no expert. He relied on the input of all of us to draw his conclusions. He relied on the experts assigned to assist and, he acknowledges this in the opening pages of Winsor Part 2.
- We could Talk about people like former Assistant Commissioner Ian McPherson QPM, ‘The Freebie King‘ described by the Daily Mail, who went openly to KPMG for a private consultancy job. But why do that, it’s been documented.
- We could point out that the cost of the London Riots in 2011 were life and Â£370 million, because it took so long to mobilise a freshly ‘transformed’ workforce. Still, why would we do that, the fact that no senior police officer has been held personally accountable speaks volumes.
- We could talk about recent promotions of officials like Lynne Owens to Chief Constable, and her cards for privatisation going straight on the table at Surrey. But why? The information is already out there and there is room for privatisation of many functions; IT, PR, Administrative Support, Vehicle Fleet Management, to name but a few. None of this affects sworn officer numbers.
- We could pursue concerns that even Parliament Members like Baroness Dee Doocey have voiced in talking to Elizabeth Filkin; that the the culture at the top of the police is where the problems lie. But why talk about that? Just read up on the Leveson Inquiry Page 39
- All of these are things, which we are all aware or could easily find at the click of a mouse; there is no excuse for not knowing. If, however, you are staring blankly I’d suggest a good half hour with a cup of tea and a well known search engine. These are all factors impacting police reform that are readily available and yet ones that we haven’t seen put into the context of the independent review, yet, these factors are ones which have significant financial impact. Look no further than the three MPS Enquiry teams into Phone Hacking, expected to exceed Â£40 million by 2015. Read Here
- All we will say is, that it would be nice to have all of this laid out in one place and examined properly for all of us to see, this is why we’ve conducted an initial investigation into the people, politicians and corporations behind police reform, and we’ve come to the conclusion that a full public Inquiry must be conducted before any official changes to the service occur.
In researching this we have found only questions that need to be answered and they are well beyond us alone, so, there is only one thing that can resolve this and that is a full and open public inquiry, as called for in the foreword.
- ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officers) -
ACPO appears to be a base form of ‘Quango’ but was left out of the widely reported ‘bonfire’, by the generally much more astute Cabinet Office Parliament Member Francis Maude, on the following grounds: â€œI don’t believe ACPO is a public body in that sense“.
ACPO is a voluntary association of chief police officers. Kind of a trade body that then attracts some public funding because of functions that are delegated to it, by the Home Office.
ACPO describes itself as “an independent, professionally led strategic body.” It operates as a private company limited by guarantee, governed by a board of directors. This status has given rise to some criticism given the Association’s strategic role. For example, the Guardian’s Henry Porter has written:
â€œdespite its important role in drafting and implementing policies that affect the fundamental freedoms of this country, ACPO is protected from freedom of information requests and its proceedings remain largely hidden from public view. In reality ACPO is no more troubled by public scrutiny than the Freemasons.â€
Bringing this up to the present date, if you were to visit the website for Julian Smith MPÂ you would find that ACPO have been causing some form of FOI problems for the Yorkshire Post newspaper and, as a result, the accountability of ACPO is being discussed in parliament.
Julian has highlighted in Parliament the unaccountability and need for greater transparency at the Association of Chief Police Officers.
He focused on the future of the organisation and urged Ministers to ensure they brought about reform during the debate at Westminster Hall. ACPO has launched an inquiry into the hiring of consultants following an investigation by the Yorkshire Post newspaper and pressure from Mr Smith. However, the MP has called for full details to be released as soon as possible. In a letter to the President of ACPO Sir Hugh Orde, Mr Smith said:
â€œI am concerned that avoiding responding in full to the Yorkshire Postâ€™s Freedom of Information request, and then not providing this information requested by a Member of Parliament but instead tasking one of your own team to look into matters, lacks the transparency and accountability which
has already concerned me and other Members of Parliament and the public about your organisation. I would have expected that on an ongoing basis ACPOâ€™s lead on professional standards, and the Directors of the company, would have been conducting regular rigorous reviews of procurement, and of these issues, as would be usual in any normal organisation.â€
The MP has also called for more accountability over companies affiliated to ACPO but run as separate entities. Mr Smith said:
â€œIn those companies, which all make use of their close links to the police, directorships and jobs are provided for former senior police officers who have left forces across the country, and the crossovers in what are, supposedly, separate limited companies, are clear to see. I have written to Sir Hugh Orde to ask for a list of every individual who has been a director at an ACPO-related company over the past three years and whether they were also working in any capacity with ACPO or with a police force at the time. I want to know what projects they were working on and how much they were paid. I have also asked Sir Hugh for copies of the full accounts of every ACPO related company and not just the redacted small company version that appears at Companies House.â€
The company, which charges manufacturers to approve their crime-prevention products such as burglar alarms and blast doors, had a turnover of Â£981,500 last year. The firmâ€™s accounts show that it made a healthy surplus of Â£225,000 on that income and paid its directors Â£107,000.
The firm issues Secured by Design licences and advertises the approved firmsâ€™ telephone numbers and other contact details on the ACPO website. Quick internet searches via mainstream search engines produce quick results.
ACPO Crime Prevention Initiatives Limited is a not-for profit company and was established in 1999 to manage Secured by Design and similar crime prevention initiatives at a national level. It is entirely owned by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) with chief police officers
on the Board of Directors.
The company is funded through partnership with companies whose products meet technical standards identified by ACPO CPI. In return, the licensed company is able to utilise the Secured by Design logo and, on those products which meet the technical standard, the title ‘Police Preferred Specification’ in accordance with the terms of our licence agreement.
The website itself features a direct link, by logo, to Perpetuity Research.Â Perpetuity describe themselves as â€œa leading provider in research and consultancy in the areas of crime reduction, community safety and securityâ€.
They state they provide bespoke services to national and international companies, central and local government, public services, private business, charities and voluntary organisations. Heading up perpetuity research is Professor Martin Gill, an expert in the field of crime, security and policing and has published nine books, and over fifty journal articles, with a wide range of experience in relation to security, the fear of crime, and crime prevention and is presently involved in a range of research projects.
Gill is a fellow of the Security Institute, the Security Guild (and therefore a Freeman of the City of London), the ASIS International Business Strategies Council, an overseas representative on the ASIS Academic Programs Committee and the ASIS Security Body of Knowledge Task Force. He is also a co-editor of the Security Journal and founding editor of Risk Management: an International Journal.
He also appears to be a member of the Risk and Security Management Forum (RSMF) a nonpartisan, non-profit making organisation established in 1990 with the aim of promoting professionalism in risk and security management and to provide a forum in which members can discuss problems in an atmosphere of confidentiality (all meetings are held under the Chatham House Rule).
It consists of some 60 senior security practitioners and risk managers drawn from a wide range of commercial and industrial organisations, government departments, the armed forces and the police. There are, in addition, a number of academics with an interest in such things as crime prevention and public order.
Membership is by invitation only and most have a background at a fairly senior level in the police, armed forces or other public sector departments. It meets four times a year to discuss topics of mutual interest and to exchange ideas and information. The aim of the RSMF is to advance the effective management of risk in all areas of security and to bridge the gap between the public, private and government arms of the security profession.
â€œIn the public interest and, in equal and active partnership with Government and the Association of Police Authorities, ACPO leads and coordinates the direction and development of the police service in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. In times of national need ACPO coordinates the strategic policing responseâ€.
It seems, on the face of it, that part and parcel of this is direct links with the private security industry via an established, private business. This clearly needs to be explored in more open depth, giving particular consideration to the level of Freedom of Information immunity which has been afforded until very recently.
Source Document: Appendix 1
- Links to the Private Security Industry -
Bill Hughes CBE QPM
Former Chief Executive, Serious Organised Crime Agency
November 2011 (Date of approval)
Mr Hughes sought retrospective approval to set up, with others, an independent consultancy firm (Bluelight Global Solutions), providing advice on law enforcement and policy transformation. The Committee wrote to the Prime Minister noting its concern that the employment had been taken up before approval had been sought and that, on leaving the Civil Service, he had not been reminded of his obligations under the Rules.
The Prime Minister accepted the Committee’s recommendation that the application be approved retrospectively subject to the condition that, for two years from his last day of service, he should not become personally involved in lobbying UK Government Ministers or Crown servants, including Special Advisers, on behalf of any of his or Bluelight Solutions’ clients. December 2010 Took up new employment: Independent consultant (Bluelight Global Solutions) August 2010 Retired from Crown service.
Group 4 Falck A/S is the worldâ€™s second largest security services provider. The company has more than 230,000 employees in more than 85 countries, making it the worldâ€™s largest employer in the security sector. It has, since 2002, with its acquisition of the Wackenhut Corporation, increased its profit margin by 40%, almost doubled its number of employees and increased its market share dramatically, however SecuritasÂ still claims to be the largest security company in the world.
Currently sitting at director level at G4S is former Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Lord Condon. Lifting direct from the website (www.g4s.com) his position is listed as follows:
- Non-Executive Director
- Senior Independent Director
- Chairman â€“ Remuneration Committee
- Member â€“ Audit and Nomination Committees
- Key strengths and specific G4S role: Extensive experience of high profile security issues, the workings of the public sector and law making. Has broad involvement with the UK businesses within the group, particularly those serving public sector customers. Has particular focus on the groupâ€™s involvement with sporting events. Leads the Nomination Committeeâ€™s exercise for the recruitment of a new chairman of the board.
- Joined G4S board: May 2004
It also lists his history as follows:
Previous experience: Senior appointments in the police force, including Chief Constable of Kent and Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, as well as at the British Security Industry Association and the International Cricket Councilâ€™s anti-corruption unit.
G4S are currently getting heavy media coverage due to their contract for privatised functions with Lincolnshire police. The most recent article is only a few weeks old.
Campaigners fear crime will increase if security firm G4S is allowed to build and run a police custody suite. The custody suite would be built at the Lincolnshire Police headquarters, which are next to the village of Nettleham. The group Save Our Local Village Environment (SOLVE) formed after villagers heard of the plans at a meeting of Nettleham Parish Council. Police and G4S are reassuring residents at two consultation events about the proposals this week
The Lincolnshire deal required the provision of a legal contract and in this case that was provided by White and Case (Legal home of Tom Winsor â€“ Independent Police Review), who represented G4S in regards to the privatisation contract. On the 29th of February White and Case released a brief statement on their website. It included this phrase: â€œthe project will deliver new and improved infrastructure and free up officer time for front line duties. The investment of Â£200 million will make a saving of Â£28 million over ten years.”
Bluelight Global Solutions current board is made up of:
Lord Blair (Former Metropolitan Police Commissioner), Bob Quick (Former Assistant Commissioner Specialist Operations), Bill Hughes, Paul Hancock (Former Chief of Bedfordshire and ACPO Lead for Finance and Resources) and Harry Hickinson (Former Chief of Surrey and ex Chief Superintendent of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate or Constabulary) In describing the company, their site states:
â€œwe provide the full spectrum of operational and business support to police forcesâ€ and â€œWe also assist high quality commercial suppliers supporting these organisationsâ€. â€œOur aim is to transfer our knowledge into our clients to enable them to meet customer requirementsâ€.
Lord Blair was recently featured in The Guardian on the 4th March 2012 and in the article he talks exclusively about privatisation, making this statement at the beginning:
â€œThe first, a mistake in the face of looming cuts â€“ 20%, more than almost any other service â€“ was to ask Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary to determine which police officer jobs could be classified as back- and middle-office tasks so as to protect front-line services. That rather pointless inquiry, which inevitably found most of the jobs could not be separated by that terminology, hasdelayed the impact of the second and much more important decision: that the political shibboleth of officer numbers would be abandoned and police numbers would be allowed to fall. That is what lies behind the tenders put out by West Midlands and Surrey police forces, central to the claim that the police are being privatised.â€
He goes on to say:
â€œOnce the straitjacket of officer numbers is removed, police forces can modernise their budgets in the way any other institution would do, namely by reducing unit costs.â€
This makes for interesting context, especially when read in conjunction with Winsor Part 2, which essentially provides fixed term ‘unit costs’ and, crucially, will provide compulsory redundancy. Without the latter the ‘strait jacket of officer numbers’ cannot be shed. This seems to point to a direct link between Winsor’s recommendations and the facilitation of wider privatisation, intended or otherwise, but of course this would need to be subject to further investigation.
ADS has offices in England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, France and India with new offices planned in China and the Middle East. ADS formed from the merger of the Association of Police and Public Security Suppliers (APPSS), the Defence Manufacturers Association (DMA) and the Society of British Aerospace Companies (SBAC) in October 2009. ADS also encompasses the British Aviation Group (BAG).
Together with its regional partners, ADS represents over 2,600 companies. Within it’s operations ADS has two groups of interest in the ‘security’ context:
The Security Export Focus Group (SEFG), now in its 12th year, was created to help ADS members export more widely across world markets. Their website states:
â€œthe UK is regarded as a centre of excellence in the field of police, military and security products, as well as in consultancy and training, and a world leader in many of these areas. The SEFG provides those companies interested in exporting, with the opportunity to further enhance the UK’s exporting capability to positive effect.â€
The purpose of the group is stated to be,
â€œto enhance the export performance of member companies by providing a forum to assist in all export matters, introduce companies to new markets and develop our international events programme. The group also provides excellent international networking opportunities through a programme of invited stakeholders and is vital in assisting UK companies to maximise the effectiveness of UK Trade & Investment support.â€
The SEFG is stated to haves over 50 members, claims to meet every 4 months and has Sir Edward Crew (an ex-Chief Constable of West Midlands Police) as its Patron. Sir Edward Crew was a principle advisor to Tom Winsor on the Independent Review of Police Pay and Conditions. Other than this he is not frequently mentioned, even under direct name searches, other than a defunct management company under his own name. Further searches find a further listing for him.Â Team Assure states:
â€œAssure consultants are recognised by their peers as leaders in their sector of security, risk and resilience.â€
The executive team includes former military personnel, Sir Edward Crew and former Assistant Commissioner Specialist Operations Peter Clarke. However the top result that is returned on search of the name Sir Edward Crew, is from BBC News in 2001 The article opens as follows:
â€œPolice officers’ leaders in the West Midlands have passed a vote of no confidence in their chief constable, Sir Edward Crew. Leaders of the West Midlands Police Federation say he has failed to consult with them properly on a range of issues. In a statement the federation said it is now looking for “meaningful” consultation to restore the broken relationship.â€
At the time Crew refused to engage with the Federation and in the article the reply came from his deputy:
â€œI would challenge anybody to go to a comparable police force and find as many ways officers have access to management to air their grievances. Consultation is not about ‘I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine’ it’s about running a police service to suit public concerns and public demands.”
It is quite conceivable, due to business propositions that G4S and Bluelight, amongst other companies, may have some interest in ADS Membership. Due to the opportunities it appears to provide. Of secondary interest is the ADS Security Sector Board (SSB), made-up of individuals from companies of all sizes who operate within the national security, resilience and policing markets created to shape the direction of the Security pillar within ADS. The purpose of the group is stated to be
â€œto represent the interests of member companies and set the strategy for ADS to pursue on behalf of the UK security and resilience industries. The Board works closely with the UK Security & Resilience Industry Suppliers Community (RISC) and other relevant stakeholders such as the ADS Defence Sector Board. In addition to policy direction, the SSB acts as a focus for all security activity within ADS, including Boards, Committees and Special
Interest Groups that have a security interest.â€
The chair is Shaun Hipgrave who on 4th February 2010 was appointed MD at the UK-based digital forensics company Forensic Telecommunications Services (FTS) Ltd.Â He was to â€œlead a significant restructuring programme to ensure the company is better placed to meet the future needs of customers in the UK criminal justice system and international law enforcement.â€ A former police officer with Northumbria Police, Mr. Hipgrave joined FTS in 2003 and has been the companyâ€™s Commercial Director since 2005. In 13 years in the police service, he mainly worked in serious crime investigation and had spent the last 10 years advising on telecoms investigations. He developed the FTS Telecoms Investigators course in 2005. Accredited by Teesside University, the course has been delivered to more than 700 detectives and telecoms analysts in the UK and abroad.
In particular in respect of Lord Blair’s article it appears that there may be elements of the Winsor recommendations which could be conducive to facilitating increases in private sector delivery while minimising financial impact to forces. This is a clear matter for exploration and clarification.
Part 1 Concludes with 5 Recomendations
- 1) The immediate initiation of a full inquiry into policing and police reform and until such time as the below inquiry topics have been resolved, the current police reforms, including those relating to Winsor Part 2 are to be placed on immediate hold.
- 2) The extent of this private industry link and, the influence this has had on the process and progress of the police service as a whole and, the current reform agenda, must be explored and probed in full.
- 3) The extent of the links between ex and serving senior officers and, the influence this has had on the process and progress of the current reform agenda, must be explored and probed in full.
- 4) The link between White Case, the legal firm of Tom Winsor (Independent Police Review Lead) and G4S must be probed and it decided whether there was a potential or apparent conflict of interest, taking into consideration the full reform agenda.
- 5) The link between ADS and Sir Edward Crew, principle professional assistant of Tom Winsor, must be explored in full as must his activities in his ADS capacity, to ensure that there has been no potential or actual conflict of interest or cross-over between future business interests and reforms made to the structure and format of the police.
In The Public Interest?
Think Tanks, Policy Makers and Political Influence
Large businesses, bringers of potential income are afforded a degree of kid gloves treatment with their tax affairs and that, to some degree they may have influence over government policy. The quote from the Chartered Business Institute was to the effect that, it was in the governments interest to listen to big business and make trade here more desirable, if they wanted to increase financial output during hard financial times.
With the huge push towards privatisation, a constant drive towards building a competitive ‘free market’ economy and this insight, courtesy of Panorama, the ongoing reforms to the public sector can, potentially, be seen in a slightly clearer or more graspable light.
Business = Revenue.
It would be impossible to look at each think tank, so this is a ‘tip of the iceberg’ exploration, to raise initial subjects to be raised at the inquiry, where they can be explored in more depth.
Initially it was claimed that austerity savings of up to Â£2.6 billion could come from this. The Public Accounts Committee said it had â€œsubstantial reservationsâ€ about Cabinet Office claims that axing hundreds of quangos will save Â£2.6billion. The MPs said ministers would do well to save a little over half that figure. The Cabinet Office said it was in the process of â€œrebasingâ€ its figures and will offer new estimates of the savings in the next few weeks.
Maude’s department has said the programme will improve accountability and save Â£2.6billion in administrative savings between in the three years to March 2015. But the PAC said Â£400million of this figure did â€œnot taken into account the costs of functions being transferred to other organisationsâ€. The committee also questioned whether another Â£500million of savings â€œhad been wrongly classed as savingsâ€.
It added: â€œDepartments should count only administrative savings that come from reorganising bodies and not wider savings from bodies that will continue to exist. The PAC also suggested that transition costs â€“ mainly redundancy and pension charges â€“ could be as high as Â£900million, compared to the forecast Â£425million. The MPs said: â€œDepartments need to provide more complete estimates of the transition costs associated with closing bodies, such as redundancy and pension costs.â€ In all these findings could mean that the Government struggles to make half the Â£2.6billion in savings that it had originally thought.
Last December it emerged that only one in four public bodies has been abolished more than a year after the â€œbonfire of the quangosâ€ was announced. Campaigners complained the bonfire now â€œlooked more like a smouldering campfire than a roaring blazeâ€.Â
David Cameron is now the UK Prime Minister and Francis Maude the Cabinet Office Minister. Archie Norman, is a businessman and former Conservative politician. He is best known for what Management Today calls his ‘legendary years’ at Asda during the 1990s when he cut 5,000 jobs and created enormous profits and growth for the company. Nick Boles, is a Conservative MP and a signatory of the statement of principles of the Henry Jackson Society Project for Democratic Geopolitics, a British neoconservative think tank and political action committee (PAC). In 2011 Tim Montgomerie (the founder and editor of the website ConservativeHome.com) wrote: â€œthe old right wing think tanks weren’t particularly helpful to the Tory modernisers and so they built their ownâ€.
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. Following Michael Portillo standing down from the Leadership contest for the Conservative Party in July 2001 and article was published in the Daily Telegraph quoting Norman as saying: â€œWe’ve got hundreds of thousands of people who don’t want to lose what we were creating, we’ve got financial support from people who wanted to invest in this as the future of the party and we would like to find a way of channelling that and harnessing itâ€.
That August the Daily Telegraph published a letter from the â€˜Portillistasâ€™ in which they said they planned to establish â€˜a new forum, firmly rooted within the party, devoted to developing the ideas that will form the basis of a genuinely modern Conservative Party.â€™ The letter was signed by Francis Maude, Archie Norman, Tim Yeo, Andrew Mackay, Peter Ainsworth, Theresa May, Edward Garnier, Peter Lilley, Damian Green, Nicholas Soames, Julie Kirkbride, Stephen Dorrell and Nicholas Gibb.
Archie Norman, Francis Maude, and their allies set up two separate think-tanks as part of their modernisation project. One, XChange Ideas or simply XChange, would be rebranded as Policy Exchange a few months later. A company limited by guarantee, formed in October 2001, became XChange Ideas on 9 November 2001.
A separate company Conservatives for Change was also was set up that October, and was branded CChange. It is possible that the two were kept separate to allow Policy Exchange to apply for charitable status as a non-partisan organisation.
Conservatives for Change supplied the initial funding for Policy Exchange, with a loan of Â£75,000 Policy Exchange was officially launched at the Tate Gallery in Central London on the evening of 29 April 2002. Policy Exchange applied for charitable status and was registered with the Charity Commission on 3 March 2003.
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.
Former Policy Exchange director Anthony Browne told the Guardian: â€˜We basically borrowed the IPPR’s claim for charitable status and changed the words â€œcentre-leftâ€ to â€œcentre-rightâ€â€™.  Similarly Browneâ€™s predecessor, Nicholas Boles has said: â€œBefore we set up Policy Exchange I went and chatted with Matthew Taylor [then director of IPPR], a friend, and when we approached the Charity Commission we put in an almost identical proposal to them. The joke, which is not quite true, is that the only difference was substituting ‘centre-right’ for ‘centre-left’.â€
Policy Exchange was investigated by the Charity Commission after an MP complained in February 2007 that it was close to the Conservative Party. The Charity Commission report found no evidence of party political bias but identified a number of issues:
1) Events hosted by the Charity â€“
For an event to be educational under charity law it needs to be clearly linked to and advance a programme of research which should be identified prior to the event. We identified that the charity had hosted a series of one-off events to stimulate ideas or to promote the charityâ€™s brand which often included attendance by MPâ€™s.
2) Dissemination of Information â€“
Research papers produced by the Charity are easily accessible on their website, however, very little information was given on other events hosted by the Charity. All charities must demonstrate that they operate for the public benefit. In this case, Policy Exchange could demonstrate public benefit through the dissemination of transcripts and papers arising out of each event and..
3) Transparency â€“
The original source of concern was that the Charity was supporting a political party and carrying out political activities. Whilst the Commission determined that there was no evidence of party political bias we determined that there is a need for greater transparency, particularly on Policy Exchangeâ€™s website. Information contained on the website following events in 2007 failed to sufficiently highlight or identify the cross-party speakers at events hosted by the Charity.
According to Neil O’Brien, the trustees of Policy Exchange ‘donâ€™t exercise a strong direction of what we in the office will do’ but are mainly used ‘as a sounding board’ or for their connections. He told Total Politics: ‘They give incredible amounts of their time to help us meet people, give us people who give us information, people who can help fund things… They help us build our network of people out there. We always say that you are never more than two or three jumps away from being able to talk to anyone. One of our trustees will know someone who knows someone’
The most notable of the early trustees was Michael Gove who was appointed Chairman of Policy Exchange. He was then a Times columnist, but would later become a Conservative MP and then a Minister in the Cameron Government. Other trustees who have since left the board include John Micklethwait, a writer for The Economist, and Iain Dale a right-wing author and blogger who subsequently became a columnist at the Daily Telegraph.
The 13 current trustees are a mixture of right-wing journalists and wealthy businessmen. Theodore Agnew, Richard Briance, Simon Brocklebank-Fowler, George Robinson, Edward Sells and Simon Wolfson are all British businessmen or financiers who have donated to the Conservative Party. Robert Rosenkranz, an American multi-millionaire financier would be precluded from donating as a foreigner but has provided funding to Policy Exchange and Localis (and the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute ) .
Those trustees who are not drawn from the world of business or finance are all affiliated to Britainâ€™s conservative press. Virginia Fraser is the widow of Frank Johnson, a former deputy editor of the The Sunday Telegraph (1995-99) and editor of The Spectator. Alice Thomson is a comment writer at The Times and a former associate editor of the Daily Telegraph and Charles Moore, Policy Exchangeâ€™s Chairman, is a former editor of the Daily Telegraph, Sunday Telegraph, and The Spectator.
In June 2011 Charles Moore stepped down as chairman ‘to focus on his Telegraph columns and his biography of Margaret Thatcher’. His replacement was Daniel Finkelstein of The Times, a close ally of George Osborne.
Mainstream journalists and commentators on policy appear to come from this residential ‘media pool’. One example being current Sunday Telegraph Public Policy Editor, Alasdair Palmer, who on the 12th of May 2012 wrote an article under the header â€œOur bobbies need to start marching to a different beat – The comfortable working conditions of the police are in need of reform.â€ The article was in response to a police protest march in London.
The tone of this appears to be incredibly similar to a Telegraph article on the 14th of March 2012, written by the Policy Exchange Head of Crime and Justice, Blair Gibbs: â€œOur police need more talent, grit and passion – Todayâ€™s police review is a once-in-a-generation chance to transform an outdated workforce.â€
Nick Boles left Policy Exchange in February 2007 and on leaving he stated: â€œMy biggest achievement in politics so far has been to set up and run Policy Exchange, which is now the largest and most influential policy research institute on the centre right. While I was its director, Policy Exchange devised policies to make police forces more accountable to local people, to expand the number of places in good schools and to give local communities incentives to build more housesâ€
In September 2008 Neil Oâ€™Brien, director of the right-wing eurosceptic think-tank Open Europe, was appointed as Browneâ€™s successor.
Blair Gibbs joined the Policy Exchange in June 2010 as the Head of Crime and Justice policy. Gibbs was formerly Chief of Staff to the Conservative Party’s Policing and Criminal Justice Minister, Nick Herbert MP (2007-10). A campaign manager for the Taxpayers’ Alliance he is also a former Home Affairs researcher with the free market think-tank Reform where his work focussed on crime. Nick Herbert is the Conservative Member of Parliament for Arundel and South Downs and is currently a Minister of State at the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice. In 2001 he worked on David Davisâ€™s leadership bid with Andrew Haldenby with whom he set up the neo-liberal think-tank Reform in 2002.
Reform is a free market think-tank which describes itself as â€˜an independent, non-party think-tank whose mission is to set out a better way to deliver public services and economic prosperityâ€™. They â€˜believe that by liberalising the public sector, breaking monopoly and extending choice, high quality services can be made available for everyone.â€™
Their vision is ‘of a Britain with 21st Century healthcare, high standards in schools, a modern and efficient transport system, safe streets, and a free, dynamic and competitive economy’. In a March 2009 presentation Tim Montgomerie and Matthew Elliott described Reform as part of the infrastructure of the conservative movement in Britain.
Policy Exchange states that it is â€˜particularly interested in free market and localist solutions to public policy questionsâ€™. Like other right-wing think-tanks much of its research advocates the expansion of private power through the promotion of ‘free market’ policies. In the case of Policy Exchange however, these measures tend to be presented as progressive solutions to social problems, something it describes as ‘Using centre-right means to progressive ends’.
In its early years Policy Exchange was a medium sized think-tank, operating on an annual income of around half a million pounds. However after David Cameron was elected leader of the Conservative Party its income increased substantially. In financial statements, made up to 30 September 2008, the think-tank reported receiving over Â£2.6 million. Policy Exchange’s main source of income has been through donations, but it also receives significant funding through the sponsorship of research and its ‘Business Forum’, which is part of the think-tank’s ‘Corporate Engagement’.
One ‘Quango’ which engages with Policy Exchange is the National Police Improvement Agency (NPIA). Please see the attached Appendix 4 for a brief overview of the NPIA in the press. In early 2006 PR Week reported that companies were paying Â£5,000 to Â£10,000 to be part of the forum, and that members included BP, SAB Miller, BSkyB and Bupa.
Policy Exchange states that corporations cannot commission research, but that they can ‘contribute ideas and give advice to Policy Exchangeâ€™s research programme.
In the Dispatches programme â€˜Politicians for Hireâ€™, broadcast on 22 March 2010, Patricia Hewitt recommended Policy Exchange as a think-tank which could be used by corporations seeking to influence government policy.
Hewitt met with an undercover reporter and said: â€œNow the think tank and the seminar route I think is a very good one and will remain a good one and so identifying the right think-tank. Policy Exchange is a good one at the moment, Demos is another good one. And saying ok, does that think tank already have a relationship with Minister X? Can we invite Minister X to give a seminar on this subject? Your client would then sponsor the seminar and you do it via the think-tank. And thatâ€™s very useful, because what you get for your sponsorship is basically you sit next to the Ministerâ€.
In an undercover investigation conducted in June and July 2011, Bell Pottinger Public Affairs recommended a Policy Exchange event as a root to influencing UK government policy. The firm’s managing director, Tim Collins, also recommended a meeting with its Chairman Daniel Finkelstein, who he said was very close to David Cameron.
BPPA is one of fourteen companies operating within the public relations division of Chime Communications plc, it states on its website. The Public relations division is named Bell Pottinger Communications. Its stated aim is to “work closely with clients to ensure that their case hits home
with the people who matter most… We make sure that our clients know the politics, policies, people and process that drive decisions. We advise our clients on what to say, how to say to it, who to and whenâ€.
Writing in The Times in December 2005, Paul Staines wrote that the Stockholm Network “turns out to be in fact the public face of Market House International, a PR consultancy that tells corporate clients that the network gives it ‘local capacity to deliver both local messages and locally tailored global messages in a wide range of countries’.”
In November 2010 UK health secretary Andrew Lansley announced that the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) would be stripped of its power to halt the purchase of drugs not considered cost effective for the NHS. He argued that the new system would be one where the ‘price of a drug will be determined by its assessed value’. The Stockholm Network agreed with the proposed change to NICEâ€™s remit. In a press release its chief executive, Helen Disney, argued that the move showed that, ‘even at a time of austerity, the British public does not want or accept rationed healthcare’.
The Stockholm Network were criticised in the British Medical Journal over how their close links with both the Conservative Party and pharmaceutical industry, stating that it ‘raised serious questions about its ability to produce independent policy advice’.
The Stockholm Network is funded by Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, PhRMA and Merck who are all pharmaceutical companies with business interests in the area of health and welfare. The network has also received funding from the Centre for the New Europe who helped set the network up and reportedly receive 50 per cent of their funding from Pfizer.
Pfizer’s Senior Director for Policy Stakeholder Relations, Catherine Windels, also helped to set up the network – part of her role at Pfizer for 22 years was to set up think tanks, earning her the nickname ‘the godmother of all think tanks’. Pfizer is one of the biggest and most influential lobbyists on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry.
Some of the British member organisations are listed as part of the British conservative movement, Movement Conservatism, including the Institute of Economic Affairs, Reform, the Adam Smith Institute, Policy Exchange, Civitas, International Policy Network
Due to its nature the London School of Economics, not specifically the Hayek Society alone, attracts a great of research focus and has a long history of research and speaking links to prominent academics.
That includes Professor Richard Disney, principle assistant to Tom Winsor (Independent Review of Police Pay and Conditions). His CV lists numerous collaboratives which are unsurprising given his detailed experience.
The Hayek group of the LSE propagates the views of Friedrich von Hayek, the Austrian economist who favored an individualistic ethos, removal of state restrictions, opposed socialism in any form and presented a cynical view of altruistic motivations.
The funding for the lavishly-endowed society comes from a network of think-tanks and companies. Among these are:
- Adam Smith Institute
- Institute of Economic Affairs
- Institute for Humane Studies
- Claremont Institute
- International Policy Network
- The Stockholm Network
Previous members have gone on to work in the private sector; several have created their own companies; and some currently work for other think-tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute, Policy Exchange, and the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.
Source Document: Appendix 3
1) The link between think tanks and donations must be fully explored to ascertain whether or not lobbying or business influence on government policy, has taken or is taking place, either deliberately or by coincidence. This incorporates ‘sponsored events’.
2) The links betweens individuals holding current public offices and those working within the think tanks must be fully explored to ascertain whether boundaries are being stretched or abused.
3) The link between think tank donations by foreign donors and party donations must be fully explored to establish whether there should be concern about party support by alternative or prohibited methods.
4) The link between think tanks and the media must be explored to preserve the impartiality of the press, by means of ensuring it has not and is not being used to control or influence content.
5) The link between Prof Richard Disney, principle advisor to Tom Winsor, and the LSE / Institute of fiscal studies must be explored to ensure impartiality in his input.
Thank You for your time ,
Occupy Police UK
Watch The Office of Constable Will Rise Parts 1-4 Â Â Â Â Â Â Appendix 1 Appendix 2 Appendix 3 Appendix 4
The title to this post is very long, if you share through twitter, please delete the â€ Via @Occupy_Police â€ from the tweet, it will be 17 characters too long if not -