The Case Against ACPO - A Critical Look At The Association Of Chief Police Officers CONCLUDING COMMENTS
Without effective police reform, England and Wales will undoubtedly lose the fight against crime in years to come.
The nightmare position of the public finances means that the police’s extravagant spending increases over the last decade cannot be sustained and will in all likelihood be reversed. The police in England and Wales are the most expensive in the developed world – costing a fifth higher as a share of GDP than in America.
The structure of the police presents a block to necessary reform. The “tripartite model” – with power shared between the Home Secretary, Police Authorities and Chief Constables – means that Government does not have effective control over national policing priorities. The 43 forces are run as fiefdoms by their Chief Constables. To get things done, the Home Office has previously resorted to bribing forces with sweeteners.
Currently the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), described as a self-perpetuating oligarchy – is the key influence on police forces. Oligarchy exists where all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few. In most cases, the members of an oligarchy share leadership in a sort of bureaucracy that allows different people absolute power over certain aspects of the machine. The difference between an oligarchy and a democracy is that the shared leadership is not dependent upon the will of the people. Members of an oligarchy achieve their leadership through selection from within the already established members. Therefore, an oligarchy is actually a form of shared dictatorship in which the people have a limited role in the government.
It is strange that the Police & Crime bill gave ACPO a statutory position in advising on appointments when the status of ACPO itself remains undefined. Is it an external reference group for Home Office Ministers, or a professional association protecting senior officers’ interests? Is it a national policing agency, or is it a pressure group arguing for greater police powers?
There is a belief that politicians can control the police, harnessing the force to reassure the public that crime is being reduced. Politicians try to “out-tough” each other with their talk on crime. The result is increasing concern that the police are becoming “politicised” and that their “operational independence” is being eroded.
The centralisation phenomenon has been particularly pronounced in policing, where, under Labour, there was a relentless drive towards government control through a many-layered management regime and the creation of a multitude of new national agencies such as the Police Standards Unit and the National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA).
In reality police forces are not independent. The Home Office sets strategies and targets. ACPO directs national policy and commissions national services. The Metropolitan Police
43
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