The Case Against ACPO - A Critical Look At The Association Of Chief Police Officers
(3) If a group of Chief Officers have decided to form a private company, why is that company allowed to take part in any negotiations involving the terms and conditions of police officers who are public servants?
The decision to form a private company would have had a degree of appeal only if the intentions were to disguise or conceal some of its activities as far as we can see. This is clearly the allegation that is facing ACPO and there may well be substance to the allegations. The evidence revealed in the media and as per our reports certainly seems to support this suspicion. (The uncontrolled and unaccountable spending is just one example). The present format of the PNB seems to allow for ACPO to be represented. but their status does present a serious cause for concern and potential embarrassment for them.
(4) Which Home Secretary actually authorised the membership of ACPO on the Official Side in the first place?
The first annual report of the PNB covers the period 11 February 2000 to 4 April 2001. The Home Secretary from 2 May 1997 to 8 June 2001 was Jack Straw under Tony Blair’s Labour administration.
(5) If Chief Officers sit on both the Staff Side as CPOSA and the Official Side as ACPO, how can any discussions between the Staff Side members, ie the Federation, the Superintendents and Chief Officers be conducted in confidence? !!!!
In our view, they can't. No doubt the abuse of these principles are what Paul McKeever is most aggrieved with.
THE SECRET ACPO DOCUMENT A major cause for concern we would say is Recommendation 26:
"There are real concerns that the antiquated manner of operating that exists within PNB at the current time will not be capable of delivering at speed and thus will inhibit the ability of the Service and government to rectify existing issues and ensure the necessary flexibility that will be required to manage the workforce through this difficult and challenging period of critical workforce reform".
Recommendation 26 : ACPO accordingly urges the replacement of PNB with a pay review body.
Our fear for the rank and file here, is that the PNB may indeed be antiquated, but specifically, why would it not be capable of delivering at speed etc etc? This whole section stinks to high heaven of a "rush through" job to show the Government how powerfully and
22
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53