The Case Against ACPO - A Critical Look At The Association Of Chief Police Officers
(3) If any question arises whether any body is a trade union or an association to which this section applies, the question shall be determined by the chief registrar of friendly societies.
(5) Nothing in this section applies to membership of the Police Federations, or of any body recognised by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section as representing members of police forces who are not members of those Federations.
ACPO’s objectives are stated on their website:
"ACPO's objectives do not include “to control or influence the pay, pensions or conditions of service of any police force.” All of this raised some questions:
(1) If ACPO's objectives are not "to control or influence the pay, pensions or conditions of service of any police force.” then what purpose, role or use do they have in sitting on the Official Side of the PNB? As far as I can see they cannot make any contribution to negotiations without their members being guilty of contravening Section 61(1) of the Police Act 1996.
It seems abundantly clear that by virtue of these submissions, ACPO are proposing to control and influence the pay pensions and (in other sections) the conditions of service of police forces. Albeit that they may say that these were submissions to the Home Office only, by failing to include the other members of the PNB they have acted in isolation which suggests they are more concerned with satisfying political masters than abiding by police protocols. Without scanning the full constitution of the Police Act, (which I will leave to the federation) I could not confirm that a prima facie contravention has occurred. On the face of it though, it appears most likely.
(2) In any case how can Chief Officers sit on both the Official Side (as ACPO) and the Staff Side (as CPOSA). Is there not a conflict of interest there? Which is the subgroup of the other? Is ACPO a subgroup of CPOSA or is it the other way round? Who controls who? Either way there must be partiality involved. Why for instance can't a subgroup of Superintedents, or a subgroup of the Federated Ranks, also sit on the Official Side?
We have not been able to locate any official trace of the constititional format of CPOSA. Companies House searches, Trade Association directory searches have proved fruitless. We find references to Senior Officers being the regional respresentative for CPOSA but to date we've been unable to get any further. Again, this is a question we will put to the federation. They must have some constitutional information so we can check if there is a conflict issue, which it would seem there is. It seems rather pointless having a staff side and an official side if both sides can have representatives and if it is correct that federated ranks can only sit on one side yet Senior Officers can sit on both reveals yet another anomoly.
21
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