Monday, 7 September 2009

Sinister ACPO to oppose Cameron's police plans

ACPO is a sinister and shadowy organisation beyond the reach of any public accountability, its members peer-selected in a corrupt freemasonry of cabalistic power. It feels powerful enough to advise Chief Constables to ignore the ECHR ruling on illegally held DNA, and now they have the statutory right to veto any Chief Constable appointment made by a democratically elected Police Authority. The first task of a Conservative government should be to outlaw the organisation and remove all its privileges.

No doubt that's why ACPO Capo di tutti capi Hugh Orde has come out so strongly against Cameron's proposed democratically elected Chief Constables or Watch Committees in today's Independent.

And just who elected you, Hugh? Or any of your chums in ACPO?

If the public wants someone to head their local police force who is neither a Freemason of the old order or of the new malefic Common Purpose, that's their choice - it's their police force - who the Hell do you think you are to interfere?

18 comments:

Letters From A Tory said...

I wonder how serious Cameron will be about elected police chiefs, once the need to cut public spending takes over on day 1 in office.

JuliaM said...

Probably not very.

But my god, when the mask slips with these people, it really slips, doesn't it?

The reek of arrogance can even reach our nostrils over the Internet...

talwin said...

As a frequent visitor here I've come to understand that you have a thing about ACPO. Much as I respect many of your views I don't go along with you on this one. This is the way I see it.

First, I just don't see the justification for the accusation 'sinister and shadowy'. For you to accuse ACPO of being sinister (my dictionary says evil, malignant, villainous, wicked, criminal) seems a bit much and, in any event, not backed up by evidence. And what would be the motive?

And 'shadowy'? The fact that we (and you) know so much about ACPO suggests otherwise. There's a stonking great website outlining, among many other things, the 'policies' and personalities.

ACPO is not a separate entity: its membership comprises OUR existing 'local' chief officers (including all the assistant and deputy chief officers who you never heard of) who remain working in, and part of, their own separate forces. None sought membership of a sinister and shadowy organisation; it's their representative body of which they automatically become members on their promotion (because, as yet, all senior police officers come from the ranks of constable), in the same way that all police constables are members of the Police Federation, and all superintendents are members of the Superintendents' Association. They're all representative bodies. But in the same way that the Police Federation or Superintendent's Association can and do represent their members (like unions), along with umpteen other bodies and pressure groups, they give their views (sometimes robustly) and lobby on a range of issues: and so also does ACPO.

Like many other professional bodies ACPO has specialist committees, and, like the organisation's 'officers' (President, etc.), chairmen and women, are invited to participate or are voted to the post; yes, by their peer-group. How and why would it be otherwise? And ACPO and these committees will research, maybe prepare reports, and form a 'view' on significant issues which will be promulgated to individual forces so that ,where appropriate or necessary, there is a collective view. And if it were not so, would we not be the first to complain about inconsistencies on policy and procedures which affected the public in different parts of the country?

'Its members 'peer-selected' in a corrupt freemasonry.....'. Christ, Raedwald, all (or even most) of them? I've dealt with 'selection' to ACPO I think, but, to reiterate, assistant chief constables and above automatically become members of their representative body on their promotion: they're not selected in a corrupt freemasonry or otherwise. To be truthful, freemasonry, in the perjorative sense which I think you mean when applied to police promotions, at whatever level, is a bit old hat now. To make this stick you really would have to provide some evidence for this to make it a fair or valid criticism.

Of course Orde, as mouthpiece of ACPO, is going to promulgate a view on the selection of chief officers. If only because it's been the way it is since 1829. Perhaps it should be changed; but allow ACPO, who, like, say, General Dannatt in the army, are experienced professionals who have been through the mill, to have their say.

Oh. And I'm not nor ever have been a member of ACPO.

Fred said...

@ Talwin:

You have not read their web site all that thoroughly. Go back and have another look, and note a few salient points:

1. They proudly proclaim that they are "in EQUAL and active partnership with Government". The Governemnt is elected by the people, ACPO were not.

2. They refuse to answer Freedom of Information requests, because they chose a formation (Company limited by guarantee) that is not included in the Freedom of Information Act. There's a coincidence!

3. ACPO is not a staff association like the organisations that you listed, there is a Chief Police Officer's Association for that purpose. Instead ACPO announces that its job is the management of policing in the UK. They have a number of wholly owned subsidiary companies, such as the Criminal Records Bureau, to help fund their operation.

For any professional body to instruct their members to defy the law should be an offence (probably "conspiring" etc). But for ACPO? They are out of control. They are our next government.

Guthrum said...

ACPO is a trade body, that is now dictating Government Policy, using our money, it is not subject to FOI requests therefore is 'shadowy'.

It is quite simple, we either close ACPO down or accept a Police State

talwin said...

Fred, thanks for your response.

I don't much like the idea of money-making subsidiaries, either. And, maybe ACPO likes the idea of politicking more than it should: but perhaps no more than the NUT, the AA, many Quangos, or such as UNITE, many of whose leaders no doubt would aver that they see themselves as being in partnership with government.

The thrust of my argument was that that there is no real evidence that ACPO is a sinister, evil cabal, the product of secret and corrupt freemasonry whose intentions, by implication, are suspect.

I hope ACPO are not our next government (although even they would be likely to make a better fist of it than Brown and his cronies).

JuliaM said...

I hope ACPO are not our next government (although even they would be likely to make a better fist of it than Brown and his cronies).""

I'm not so sure about that.

The reek of arrogant condescension about the voting rights of the *spit* public in that interview makes me think Orde is reading direct from the NuLabour playbook...

electro-kevin said...

Far from being a Freemason (a preoccupation with the lower ranks) the ACPO level in the City of Londond Police during my time their was dominated by members of the Catholic Guild.

electro-kevin said...

My father is a London Grand Rank Freemason and served throughout his career as a PC. No special favours came our family's way.

Raedwald said...

talwin -

OK, but allow me some hyperbole; if this blog were all eminent sweet reason and academic references it wouldn't be half so much fun.

Yes, I have a thing about ACPO - and the NPIA. I believe 90% of police forces should be small, locally paid for and locally accountable. The remainder need to be regional or national specialists. Look at my exemplar town of Vail, in Colorado; the police force is 31 strong, immediately accountable to the elected Town council and does just about everything that police should do. Federal, State or County resources would no doubt be available if a terrorist cell came to light amongst the pool cleaners.

ACPO's 'we're above everyone and know what's best' attitude pisses me right off. They want a national police command structure, a national police service. And they don't want the inconvenience of democratic choice interfering with their game-plan.

Well, I'm sorry. But I and 45m other electors have a say in this matter - and Orde and his chums better start to recognise it.

Rob said...

Is this arrogant bastard the Chief Constable of any particular area? If so, the Conservatives should use this as the "pilot area" for electing a Chief Constable.

For purely policing reasons, you understand, not because he is an arrogant patrician beholden to New Labour.

You can apply his 'argument' to national politics - why should a politician, who naturally has our best interests at heart, spend so much tedious time canvassing for votes? He should have a permanent appointment, so he could spend all of his energies working to better the lives of his dear subjects, sorry, constituents.

See how ridiculous it seems? I think Sir Hugh fears that a world where Chief Constables are elected will be one sadly lacking in diversity initiatives and other comfortable political, bureaucratic pastimes. Instead it will be out in rain and cold, arresting villains. You can see why he wouldn't like that.

talwin said...

Raedwald.

Barley!

Young Mr. Brown said...

"but allow ACPO, who, like, say, General Dannatt in the army, are experienced professionals who have been through the mill, to have their say."

There is, it seems to me, one difference between the case of General Dannatt and the members of ACPO.

No one ever suspected that General Dannatt got to the top because he was the favoured candidate of the government, with views that suited their purposes.

Many of us are under the impression that police chiefs were chosen precisely because their outlook matches that of the the current government.

talwin said...

Hey, Young Mr Brown, the only reason I mentioned Dannatt as an exemplar was that he was an experienced professional; by implication, a compliment.

But, before he went off-message and upset our fine Labour government, are you really suggesting he was appointed Chief of the General Staff without being the favoured candidate of that same government? Really? Surely, that he was favoured is axiomatic.

Young Mr. Brown said...

"are you really suggesting he was appointed Chief of the General Staff without being the favoured candidate of that same government?"

You are correct, it is axiomatic that he was the favoured candidate of the government.

My contention is that he was favoured by the government, not because of his political outlook, but because of his competence - and he would have been the favoured candidate had there been a Conservative or LibDem or UKIP government.

My suspicion is that while competence is undoubtedly a criterion for the selection of chief police officers in recent years, their political and idealogical outlook has also been highly important.

talwin said...

Young Mr Brown.

But you said clearly, "No one ever suspected that General Dannatt got to the top because he was the favoured candidate of government, with views that suited their purpose". Now you agree it was axiomatic that he was favoured. So I now ask you this, are you suggesting he was appointed because he was 'professional' but that government accepted he would NOT (or would be unlikely to)have views that suited their purpose. Because events of the last few weeks indicate that that starting position was most unlikely. Certainly as far as Jones and Joyce were concerned

And not sure how far your 'suspicion' about police chiefs' selection on its own makes an objective contribution to the discussion.

electro-kevin said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Young Mr. Brown said...

So I now ask you this, are you suggesting he was appointed because he was 'professional' but that government accepted he would NOT (or would be unlikely to)have views that suited their purpose.


I am suggesting that he was appointed because he was, in terms of professional competence, the best person for the job - and that the government did not believe that any views he held to be sufficient reason not to appoint him.

No doubt opinions will differ as to whether my expression of my suspicions adds anything useful to the discussion, but I express them just in case some people think that they do.