The Case Against ACPO - A Critical Look At The Association Of Chief Police Officers
Sir Patrick Sheehy’s proposal to streamline management structures, introduce performance indicators and reform conditions of service was successfully resisted by the police. A mass public campaign was organized that culminated in a rally of 21,000 officers in Wembley Stadium. Michael Howard, the then Home Secretary, was forced to reject most of Sheehy’s more far reaching proposals.
Henry Brooke’s 1964 Police Act passed without incident because the police hierarchy had succeeded in striking down controversial measures, such as the creation of a national force, in their evidence to the Royal Commission that preceded the Act. The Royal Commission noted that testimony “from persons and organisations closely associated with the present system” had been particularly compelling in rejecting the idea of a national force.
What remained was a coup for the Chief Constables. It created new, larger forces that would be overseen by local authorities that were weaker and less democratic than the watch committees. The new deal for Chief Constables is a quid pro quo – greater independence from Home Office direction in return for greater local accountability.
From all that has been presented here, we must conclude that the ACPO dynasty is no longer fit for its purpose. It’s value as an organisation is doubtful at best, despite the well intended efforts of the few.
If power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. The absolute power of ACPO as a group has been abused in a scurrilous and shameful manner that
Britain's new coalition government has promised radical reform of the police, including the introduction of directly elected police commissioners. Sir Hugh Orde thinks it is a bad idea and has warned it will lead to police chiefs resigning. If he is so opposed to one of the central policing ideas of the new government, can, indeed should he stay in his job? If he and other disaffected Chiefs really did resign, it would save the government the trouble of sacking them.
Now the new Government is in power, surprise surprise, Sir Hugh, the man so apparently opposed to political influence, is displaying that most political of traits, saying one thing and doing another. Speaking ahead of ACPO conference in Manchester, Sir Hugh said "There is still little clarity on how the proposals will work in practice. Obviously we have now moved from manifesto commitments to a coalition government agenda, and from having one directly elected individual to several of them. But I think the plea to ministers at the conference will be to give us more flesh on the bones. It is important at the conference next week that we start the debate,” he said. “We have to ask how we can be more efficient, what we need and what can go first.”
Make your mind up Sir Hugh, you can't have it both ways. You either vociferously oppose the proposals and resign, or put up and shut up, and look for ways to make it work for the
46
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