The Case Against ACPO - A Critical Look At The Association Of Chief Police Officers
Can you clarify why ACPOS in particular (because their specific name appears) can sit on both the Official Side and the Staff Side of the PNB ? Is there not a conflict of interest there? Also if a group of Chief Officers have decided to form a private company, why is that company allowed to take part in negotiations involving the terms and conditions of police officers who are public servants?
Can you also clarify whether the Chief Police Officer's Association and the Chief Police Officers' Staff Association are one and the same or different entities ? I can understand the presence of this body on the Staff Side but can't understand why a subgroup, or perhaps all of them, would want to form a private company called ACPO or ACPOS, and be given the right to sit on the Official Side also.
I hope you can throw some light on this area for me. Thank you
And this is the reply that was received: Dear Mr X
The Chief Police Officers Staff Association (CPOSA) is constituted separately from ACPO. The Chairman of CPOSA is Paul West (Chief Constable of West Mercia Police), and any enquiries about the association should be directed to him.
Concerning ACPOS, to the extent that there is any potential for a conflict of interest, it is for the Independent Chair of the Police Negotiating Board (PNB) to manage this in a way which upholds the public interest.
Any representative body needs to have legal personality to operate effectively. The structure of a company limited by guarantee is used by many charitable and other organisations for this purpose.
Yours sincerely Bill Blase PNB Independent Secretariat
First impression? What a fudge of an answer. Did you think the same?
Until they show that CPOSA is a formally structured entity, to outward appearances it just seems like a bunch of Chiefs who have gathered together in an unofficial club with an official sounding name. Who could blame anyone for supposing this, when there is no website, no trace of them on companies house and no open declaration of their status.
This raises the question.... If they have no legal status what the heck are they doing on the PNB staff side? Indeed, what is the justification for their presence on either side of the PNB as a persona non grata group? Call me a suspicious cynic (wouldn't be the first time) but it looks like a surreptitious ploy to place a set of spying representative eyes within the camp of
24
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