Bilderberg Conference: £528,000 policing bill defended by Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer

Bilderberg Conference: £528,000 policing bill defended by Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer

Bilderberg Conference: £528,000 policing bill defended by Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer

First published in News
Last updated
Watford Observer: Photograph of the Author by , Senior Reporter

The Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer defended a £528,000 bill for policing the Bilderberg conference, which must be paid by Hertfordshire taxpayers, suggesting "that’s how the system works".

David Cameron and George Osborne, who were both on the guest list of the Bilderberg Group meeting, held at The Grove hotel last year, agreed that the hefty price tag of policing the event should be paid by the taxpayer.

Last week it was announced that Hertfordshire Constabulary’s application for a Home Office grant to pay the remaining £528,000 was rejected.

The Bilderberg Group had made a donation of £426,000 after the controversial conference, which took place in June, attracted more than 2,000 people, along with about £990,000 of policing costs.

Mr Osborne said that police were necessary to guard the event, but was unable to answer what benefits Hertfordshire residents would see from their substantial bill.

Watford Observer:

Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne

The government minister said: "We host events in this country and we want them to be held peacefully and we want them to be held under the rule of the law and there are policing costs associated with all sorts of events in and around the country and we have a police force precisely so that we can police them better."

Special grant funding is available from the Home Office. However, the cost of policing the event fell short of the one per cent threshold (£1.8 million) and was not assessed as bearing a risk to the force’s financial stability or capacity to deliver policing.

The conservative Prime Minister explained that there is funding relief available when "excessive" costs are involved. However, he did not touch upon the fact that Hertfordshire Constabulary’s application was rejected by the Home Office.

Mr Cameron said: "If the costs are excessive then there are opportunities to apply to the Home Office for help.

"We are very happy to look at this case but the law is as the chancellor says that the police force is able to cope with events and organisations that come for the conferences in Hertfordshire or elsewhere. That’s how the system works."

Watford Observer:

Prime Minister David Cameron

Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne’s views on the Bilderberg police bill were shared when they were in Maple Cross on Tuesday to welcome construction company, Skanska’s, news that it intends to create 1,500 jobs across the country over the next two to three years.

Comments (22)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:40am Wed 23 Apr 14

WanderingDynamo says...

When people are poor & unable to feed themselves, they steal.

That's how the system works.

Is that an acceptable explanation for theft?
When people are poor & unable to feed themselves, they steal. That's how the system works. Is that an acceptable explanation for theft? WanderingDynamo
  • Score: 18

9:02am Wed 23 Apr 14

#UKMum says...

OK at 100,000 voters that's roughly £5 per person. Like you do when you all go to a restaurant together I guess and some people in the group run up an enormous bar bill while others just drink water.
OK at 100,000 voters that's roughly £5 per person. Like you do when you all go to a restaurant together I guess and some people in the group run up an enormous bar bill while others just drink water. #UKMum
  • Score: 0

11:57am Wed 23 Apr 14

JOHNHEALY says...

Spending this kind of money on policing a conference when the country is in debt and people are having to use foodbanks is disgraceful. Mind you at least not only have Osborne and Cameron got themselves photographed but also SKANSKA have got a good advertisement for their company too.
Spending this kind of money on policing a conference when the country is in debt and people are having to use foodbanks is disgraceful. Mind you at least not only have Osborne and Cameron got themselves photographed but also SKANSKA have got a good advertisement for their company too. JOHNHEALY
  • Score: 3

12:23pm Wed 23 Apr 14

LSC says...

JOHNHEALY wrote:
Spending this kind of money on policing a conference when the country is in debt and people are having to use foodbanks is disgraceful. Mind you at least not only have Osborne and Cameron got themselves photographed but also SKANSKA have got a good advertisement for their company too.
What if the conference was to discuss getting out of debt and ending the need for food banks?
Would that still be disgraceful?
[quote][p][bold]JOHNHEALY[/bold] wrote: Spending this kind of money on policing a conference when the country is in debt and people are having to use foodbanks is disgraceful. Mind you at least not only have Osborne and Cameron got themselves photographed but also SKANSKA have got a good advertisement for their company too.[/p][/quote]What if the conference was to discuss getting out of debt and ending the need for food banks? Would that still be disgraceful? LSC
  • Score: -3

12:34pm Wed 23 Apr 14

garston tony says...

JOHNHEALY wrote:
Spending this kind of money on policing a conference when the country is in debt and people are having to use foodbanks is disgraceful. Mind you at least not only have Osborne and Cameron got themselves photographed but also SKANSKA have got a good advertisement for their company too.
And why does everyone think that this is the only expensive police operation that has ever been held?

The police have to police many events for which they foot the bill. Every time some tom dick or harry wants to march through London the Met has to pay for the polic costs, even football clubs arent charged the full cost of policing matches. Be it millionaires or broke dole sponging hippies holding an 'event' often if policing is needed the police pay for it themselves.

The focus on this group just doesnt make sense.
[quote][p][bold]JOHNHEALY[/bold] wrote: Spending this kind of money on policing a conference when the country is in debt and people are having to use foodbanks is disgraceful. Mind you at least not only have Osborne and Cameron got themselves photographed but also SKANSKA have got a good advertisement for their company too.[/p][/quote]And why does everyone think that this is the only expensive police operation that has ever been held? The police have to police many events for which they foot the bill. Every time some tom dick or harry wants to march through London the Met has to pay for the polic costs, even football clubs arent charged the full cost of policing matches. Be it millionaires or broke dole sponging hippies holding an 'event' often if policing is needed the police pay for it themselves. The focus on this group just doesnt make sense. garston tony
  • Score: 0

12:36pm Wed 23 Apr 14

WanderingDynamo says...

LSC wrote:
JOHNHEALY wrote:
Spending this kind of money on policing a conference when the country is in debt and people are having to use foodbanks is disgraceful. Mind you at least not only have Osborne and Cameron got themselves photographed but also SKANSKA have got a good advertisement for their company too.
What if the conference was to discuss getting out of debt and ending the need for food banks?
Would that still be disgraceful?
If it were to benefit the whole country then the bill to hold this conference - and any doing the same wherever it's held in Britain - should be spread across the whole country.

But it was an international group of people having over half the bill paid for by a small percentage of one county.

That's county, not country.
[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JOHNHEALY[/bold] wrote: Spending this kind of money on policing a conference when the country is in debt and people are having to use foodbanks is disgraceful. Mind you at least not only have Osborne and Cameron got themselves photographed but also SKANSKA have got a good advertisement for their company too.[/p][/quote]What if the conference was to discuss getting out of debt and ending the need for food banks? Would that still be disgraceful?[/p][/quote]If it were to benefit the whole country then the bill to hold this conference - and any doing the same wherever it's held in Britain - should be spread across the whole country. But it was an international group of people having over half the bill paid for by a small percentage of one county. That's county, not country. WanderingDynamo
  • Score: 4

12:39pm Wed 23 Apr 14

WanderingDynamo says...

Not sure why I said 'a small percentage of one county' in my previous comment.

It should've read..

'But it was an international group of people having over half the bill paid for by one county.

That's county, not country.'
Not sure why I said 'a small percentage of one county' in my previous comment. It should've read.. 'But it was an international group of people having over half the bill paid for by one county. That's county, not country.' WanderingDynamo
  • Score: 1

12:39pm Wed 23 Apr 14

garston tony says...

#UKMum wrote:
OK at 100,000 voters that's roughly £5 per person. Like you do when you all go to a restaurant together I guess and some people in the group run up an enormous bar bill while others just drink water.
Or alternatively seeing as it was the protesters that led to this bill get them to pay it. At 2,000 protesters thats £264 each, sorted.

Oh but you'll probably bleat on about their right to protest, quite right too. But what about the right of private individuals to meet with each other without the risk of being harrassed, disrupted or potentially attacked?
[quote][p][bold]#UKMum[/bold] wrote: OK at 100,000 voters that's roughly £5 per person. Like you do when you all go to a restaurant together I guess and some people in the group run up an enormous bar bill while others just drink water.[/p][/quote]Or alternatively seeing as it was the protesters that led to this bill get them to pay it. At 2,000 protesters thats £264 each, sorted. Oh but you'll probably bleat on about their right to protest, quite right too. But what about the right of private individuals to meet with each other without the risk of being harrassed, disrupted or potentially attacked? garston tony
  • Score: 0

12:47pm Wed 23 Apr 14

garston tony says...

WanderingDynamo wrote:
LSC wrote:
JOHNHEALY wrote: Spending this kind of money on policing a conference when the country is in debt and people are having to use foodbanks is disgraceful. Mind you at least not only have Osborne and Cameron got themselves photographed but also SKANSKA have got a good advertisement for their company too.
What if the conference was to discuss getting out of debt and ending the need for food banks? Would that still be disgraceful?
If it were to benefit the whole country then the bill to hold this conference - and any doing the same wherever it's held in Britain - should be spread across the whole country. But it was an international group of people having over half the bill paid for by a small percentage of one county. That's county, not country.
But it wasnt 'their' bill, they werent the ones setting out to protest, frustrate or potentially attack others going about their lawful private business.

The bill 'belongs' to those that did want to do that ie the protesters

You're on a slippery slope if you're saying that people should pay for the direct police cost of dealing with whatever someone else does or wants to do to them. That flies wholly in the face of our system which is the cost of policing societies trouble makers being borne by everyone.

What you're saying is if you're mugged or burgled or your car is stolen on top of dealing with that traumatic event you'll end up with a bill for the time the police spend dealing with it. Where does it end, do you want people to foot the bill for the court time if the criminal is caught and the cost of putting them in jail whilst they serve their time for the crime they committed against you?
[quote][p][bold]WanderingDynamo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JOHNHEALY[/bold] wrote: Spending this kind of money on policing a conference when the country is in debt and people are having to use foodbanks is disgraceful. Mind you at least not only have Osborne and Cameron got themselves photographed but also SKANSKA have got a good advertisement for their company too.[/p][/quote]What if the conference was to discuss getting out of debt and ending the need for food banks? Would that still be disgraceful?[/p][/quote]If it were to benefit the whole country then the bill to hold this conference - and any doing the same wherever it's held in Britain - should be spread across the whole country. But it was an international group of people having over half the bill paid for by a small percentage of one county. That's county, not country.[/p][/quote]But it wasnt 'their' bill, they werent the ones setting out to protest, frustrate or potentially attack others going about their lawful private business. The bill 'belongs' to those that did want to do that ie the protesters You're on a slippery slope if you're saying that people should pay for the direct police cost of dealing with whatever someone else does or wants to do to them. That flies wholly in the face of our system which is the cost of policing societies trouble makers being borne by everyone. What you're saying is if you're mugged or burgled or your car is stolen on top of dealing with that traumatic event you'll end up with a bill for the time the police spend dealing with it. Where does it end, do you want people to foot the bill for the court time if the criminal is caught and the cost of putting them in jail whilst they serve their time for the crime they committed against you? garston tony
  • Score: 2

1:38pm Wed 23 Apr 14

#UKMum says...

garston tony

Unfortunately to quote our "great leader" 'We're all in this together' so I am afraid that's £5 from you and £5 from your wife etc. Sorry about that. Maybe you can take it up with Mr Cameron if you feel that only those in the press area provided by BBerg should pay, then count several news teams including BBC and US Media, in that, along with other interested locals who came along out of curiosity including some who were very wealth. OK?. BTW How do you know it was 2000? Did you do a head count?. In case you missed it, I was there with a videographer gatherting information about the profile of those who attended so a balanced view of what actually went on could be ascertained and reported on. I take it you were not there, so I think I have a better idea of what actually went on than you do. I am now telling others via this comments box that your views are somewhat biased. I am sure that you would not wish Watfordians to end up with the wrong impression would you.
garston tony Unfortunately to quote our "great leader" 'We're all in this together' so I am afraid that's £5 from you and £5 from your wife etc. Sorry about that. Maybe you can take it up with Mr Cameron if you feel that only those in the press area provided by BBerg should pay, then count several news teams including BBC and US Media, in that, along with other interested locals who came along out of curiosity including some who were very wealth. OK?. BTW How do you know it was 2000? Did you do a head count?. In case you missed it, I was there with a videographer gatherting information about the profile of those who attended so a balanced view of what actually went on could be ascertained and reported on. I take it you were not there, so I think I have a better idea of what actually went on than you do. I am now telling others via this comments box that your views are somewhat biased. I am sure that you would not wish Watfordians to end up with the wrong impression would you. #UKMum
  • Score: -3

2:07pm Wed 23 Apr 14

WanderingDynamo says...

Garston Tony.

My point re. who should pay the bill was an answer to a comment suggesting the conference would benefit the whole country.
If that's the case the whole country should be helping to pay the bill and not just one county.

It was a hypothetical situation put forward and in all honesty a hypothetical situation in response.

Likening the costings of a special event such as an international conference to billing a victim for being mugged or burgled due to work the police are employed to do day-to-day is, in my view, misplaced.

Differing opinions. The world is still spinning.
Happy St. Georges Day to you all :)
Garston Tony. My point re. who should pay the bill was an answer to a comment suggesting the conference would benefit the whole country. If that's the case the whole country should be helping to pay the bill and not just one county. It was a hypothetical situation put forward and in all honesty a hypothetical situation in response. Likening the costings of a special event such as an international conference to billing a victim for being mugged or burgled due to work the police are employed to do day-to-day is, in my view, misplaced. Differing opinions. The world is still spinning. Happy St. Georges Day to you all :) WanderingDynamo
  • Score: 0

2:16pm Wed 23 Apr 14

LSC says...

But that isn't how police costs work. If it is under a certain amount, the local force foots the bill. If it is over, like for the Olympics, a government grant can be sought. This event was below that line.
That isn't my fault or those at the Grove.
But that isn't how police costs work. If it is under a certain amount, the local force foots the bill. If it is over, like for the Olympics, a government grant can be sought. This event was below that line. That isn't my fault or those at the Grove. LSC
  • Score: 1

2:19pm Wed 23 Apr 14

garston tony says...

#UKMum wrote:
garston tony Unfortunately to quote our "great leader" 'We're all in this together' so I am afraid that's £5 from you and £5 from your wife etc. Sorry about that. Maybe you can take it up with Mr Cameron if you feel that only those in the press area provided by BBerg should pay, then count several news teams including BBC and US Media, in that, along with other interested locals who came along out of curiosity including some who were very wealth. OK?. BTW How do you know it was 2000? Did you do a head count?. In case you missed it, I was there with a videographer gatherting information about the profile of those who attended so a balanced view of what actually went on could be ascertained and reported on. I take it you were not there, so I think I have a better idea of what actually went on than you do. I am now telling others via this comments box that your views are somewhat biased. I am sure that you would not wish Watfordians to end up with the wrong impression would you.
No need to apologise to me, i'm quite happy with the way we all share the cost of policing in this country thank you.

My comment about getting the protesters to pay for it was just in response your comment about 100,000 voters, but there are far more than that number of tax payers in Hertfordshire so the actual cost per person is going to be far far less than £5. Oh and maybe you should read the article if you're going to comment on something, if you had you'll see thats where I got the 2000 figure from. What a plum you are.

As to being biased i'm not. I have no problem with people protesting, I do have a problem when those people cant actually provide any evidence to support their protest (sorry but internet conspiracy theories backed up by zero evidence doesnt count, especially when those are brought to you by people clearly only interested in self promotion in order to make a quick buck from the gullible) yet they and their supporters then go on and complain about the cost to the tax payer that their own actions incurred.

Its like a car thief complaining about the cost of car insurance going up due to all the cars being stolen!
[quote][p][bold]#UKMum[/bold] wrote: garston tony Unfortunately to quote our "great leader" 'We're all in this together' so I am afraid that's £5 from you and £5 from your wife etc. Sorry about that. Maybe you can take it up with Mr Cameron if you feel that only those in the press area provided by BBerg should pay, then count several news teams including BBC and US Media, in that, along with other interested locals who came along out of curiosity including some who were very wealth. OK?. BTW How do you know it was 2000? Did you do a head count?. In case you missed it, I was there with a videographer gatherting information about the profile of those who attended so a balanced view of what actually went on could be ascertained and reported on. I take it you were not there, so I think I have a better idea of what actually went on than you do. I am now telling others via this comments box that your views are somewhat biased. I am sure that you would not wish Watfordians to end up with the wrong impression would you.[/p][/quote]No need to apologise to me, i'm quite happy with the way we all share the cost of policing in this country thank you. My comment about getting the protesters to pay for it was just in response your comment about 100,000 voters, but there are far more than that number of tax payers in Hertfordshire so the actual cost per person is going to be far far less than £5. Oh and maybe you should read the article if you're going to comment on something, if you had you'll see thats where I got the 2000 figure from. What a plum you are. As to being biased i'm not. I have no problem with people protesting, I do have a problem when those people cant actually provide any evidence to support their protest (sorry but internet conspiracy theories backed up by zero evidence doesnt count, especially when those are brought to you by people clearly only interested in self promotion in order to make a quick buck from the gullible) yet they and their supporters then go on and complain about the cost to the tax payer that their own actions incurred. Its like a car thief complaining about the cost of car insurance going up due to all the cars being stolen! garston tony
  • Score: 2

2:21pm Wed 23 Apr 14

garston tony says...

#UKMum wrote:
garston tony Unfortunately to quote our "great leader" 'We're all in this together' so I am afraid that's £5 from you and £5 from your wife etc. Sorry about that. Maybe you can take it up with Mr Cameron if you feel that only those in the press area provided by BBerg should pay, then count several news teams including BBC and US Media, in that, along with other interested locals who came along out of curiosity including some who were very wealth. OK?. BTW How do you know it was 2000? Did you do a head count?. In case you missed it, I was there with a videographer gatherting information about the profile of those who attended so a balanced view of what actually went on could be ascertained and reported on. I take it you were not there, so I think I have a better idea of what actually went on than you do. I am now telling others via this comments box that your views are somewhat biased. I am sure that you would not wish Watfordians to end up with the wrong impression would you.
Oh, and your comment about 'telling' others about what you believe to be my bias is immensely superior of you. Hows about you allow those other people to make their own minds up? Oh, unless you're one of those controlling people that wants others to just believe what you tell them to for your own ends. Well here's a message from me to everyone who bothers to read these things, MAKE YOUR OWN MIND UP. Dont let people like UKmum dictate what you believe.

But please feel free to highlight my comments, i'm happy for people to see that the people of Watford are not all gullible sheep that are happy to believe what some random (in the very real sense of the word in many cases) person on the internet tells them they have to be believe (hence why you're right I chose not to join in this protest, if i'm going to do protest i'd like to actually have a reason for it!)
[quote][p][bold]#UKMum[/bold] wrote: garston tony Unfortunately to quote our "great leader" 'We're all in this together' so I am afraid that's £5 from you and £5 from your wife etc. Sorry about that. Maybe you can take it up with Mr Cameron if you feel that only those in the press area provided by BBerg should pay, then count several news teams including BBC and US Media, in that, along with other interested locals who came along out of curiosity including some who were very wealth. OK?. BTW How do you know it was 2000? Did you do a head count?. In case you missed it, I was there with a videographer gatherting information about the profile of those who attended so a balanced view of what actually went on could be ascertained and reported on. I take it you were not there, so I think I have a better idea of what actually went on than you do. I am now telling others via this comments box that your views are somewhat biased. I am sure that you would not wish Watfordians to end up with the wrong impression would you.[/p][/quote]Oh, and your comment about 'telling' others about what you believe to be my bias is immensely superior of you. Hows about you allow those other people to make their own minds up? Oh, unless you're one of those controlling people that wants others to just believe what you tell them to for your own ends. Well here's a message from me to everyone who bothers to read these things, MAKE YOUR OWN MIND UP. Dont let people like UKmum dictate what you believe. But please feel free to highlight my comments, i'm happy for people to see that the people of Watford are not all gullible sheep that are happy to believe what some random (in the very real sense of the word in many cases) person on the internet tells them they have to be believe (hence why you're right I chose not to join in this protest, if i'm going to do protest i'd like to actually have a reason for it!) garston tony
  • Score: 3

2:23pm Wed 23 Apr 14

garston tony says...

WanderingDynamo wrote:
Garston Tony. My point re. who should pay the bill was an answer to a comment suggesting the conference would benefit the whole country. If that's the case the whole country should be helping to pay the bill and not just one county. It was a hypothetical situation put forward and in all honesty a hypothetical situation in response. Likening the costings of a special event such as an international conference to billing a victim for being mugged or burgled due to work the police are employed to do day-to-day is, in my view, misplaced. Differing opinions. The world is still spinning. Happy St. Georges Day to you all :)
Maybe the cost should be spread across the whole country, good or bad the system isnt set up like that however. The event took place in Hertfordshire and its Herts police that have the bill.
[quote][p][bold]WanderingDynamo[/bold] wrote: Garston Tony. My point re. who should pay the bill was an answer to a comment suggesting the conference would benefit the whole country. If that's the case the whole country should be helping to pay the bill and not just one county. It was a hypothetical situation put forward and in all honesty a hypothetical situation in response. Likening the costings of a special event such as an international conference to billing a victim for being mugged or burgled due to work the police are employed to do day-to-day is, in my view, misplaced. Differing opinions. The world is still spinning. Happy St. Georges Day to you all :)[/p][/quote]Maybe the cost should be spread across the whole country, good or bad the system isnt set up like that however. The event took place in Hertfordshire and its Herts police that have the bill. garston tony
  • Score: 4

2:28pm Wed 23 Apr 14

garston tony says...

#UKMum wrote:
garston tony Unfortunately to quote our "great leader" 'We're all in this together' so I am afraid that's £5 from you and £5 from your wife etc. Sorry about that. Maybe you can take it up with Mr Cameron if you feel that only those in the press area provided by BBerg should pay, then count several news teams including BBC and US Media, in that, along with other interested locals who came along out of curiosity including some who were very wealth. OK?. BTW How do you know it was 2000? Did you do a head count?. In case you missed it, I was there with a videographer gatherting information about the profile of those who attended so a balanced view of what actually went on could be ascertained and reported on. I take it you were not there, so I think I have a better idea of what actually went on than you do. I am now telling others via this comments box that your views are somewhat biased. I am sure that you would not wish Watfordians to end up with the wrong impression would you.
Oh, I should also mention pot and kettle. It seems quite clear whose 'side' you are on, yet its okay for you to be biased but not others. One rule for you and another for everyone else, how lovely
[quote][p][bold]#UKMum[/bold] wrote: garston tony Unfortunately to quote our "great leader" 'We're all in this together' so I am afraid that's £5 from you and £5 from your wife etc. Sorry about that. Maybe you can take it up with Mr Cameron if you feel that only those in the press area provided by BBerg should pay, then count several news teams including BBC and US Media, in that, along with other interested locals who came along out of curiosity including some who were very wealth. OK?. BTW How do you know it was 2000? Did you do a head count?. In case you missed it, I was there with a videographer gatherting information about the profile of those who attended so a balanced view of what actually went on could be ascertained and reported on. I take it you were not there, so I think I have a better idea of what actually went on than you do. I am now telling others via this comments box that your views are somewhat biased. I am sure that you would not wish Watfordians to end up with the wrong impression would you.[/p][/quote]Oh, I should also mention pot and kettle. It seems quite clear whose 'side' you are on, yet its okay for you to be biased but not others. One rule for you and another for everyone else, how lovely garston tony
  • Score: 2

4:46pm Wed 23 Apr 14

WanderingDynamo says...

Away from topic a little and just out of curiosity..

An event is being held in 'County A'.
That county doesn't have the manpower to cover the event.
Manpower is used from 'County B' & 'County C'.

Does 'County A' cover the police bill for all three counties as the event is within their boundary or do 'County B' & 'County C' help cover costs?

Genuinely curious and not trying to prove a point either way.
Away from topic a little and just out of curiosity.. An event is being held in 'County A'. That county doesn't have the manpower to cover the event. Manpower is used from 'County B' & 'County C'. Does 'County A' cover the police bill for all three counties as the event is within their boundary or do 'County B' & 'County C' help cover costs? Genuinely curious and not trying to prove a point either way. WanderingDynamo
  • Score: 0

5:23pm Wed 23 Apr 14

LSC says...

WanderingDynamo wrote:
Away from topic a little and just out of curiosity..

An event is being held in 'County A'.
That county doesn't have the manpower to cover the event.
Manpower is used from 'County B' & 'County C'.

Does 'County A' cover the police bill for all three counties as the event is within their boundary or do 'County B' & 'County C' help cover costs?

Genuinely curious and not trying to prove a point either way.
I don't know for sure, but I believe County A covers it until the costs reach a certain level, then National government pay.
But it gets complicated on what the actual 'costs' are. If a County B copper is doing a normal shift pattern that just happens to be in County A, then I understand County B would pay for that. Overtime or special measures and equipment might be different.

Imagine a car chase up the M1. Herts police are chasing someone. They don't stop when they reach the Bedfordshire border. They might 'hand over' to more local police who know the area better, but until then they keep going. Bedfordshire would not be sent a bill for Herts petrol money.
[quote][p][bold]WanderingDynamo[/bold] wrote: Away from topic a little and just out of curiosity.. An event is being held in 'County A'. That county doesn't have the manpower to cover the event. Manpower is used from 'County B' & 'County C'. Does 'County A' cover the police bill for all three counties as the event is within their boundary or do 'County B' & 'County C' help cover costs? Genuinely curious and not trying to prove a point either way.[/p][/quote]I don't know for sure, but I believe County A covers it until the costs reach a certain level, then National government pay. But it gets complicated on what the actual 'costs' are. If a County B copper is doing a normal shift pattern that just happens to be in County A, then I understand County B would pay for that. Overtime or special measures and equipment might be different. Imagine a car chase up the M1. Herts police are chasing someone. They don't stop when they reach the Bedfordshire border. They might 'hand over' to more local police who know the area better, but until then they keep going. Bedfordshire would not be sent a bill for Herts petrol money. LSC
  • Score: 4

6:04pm Wed 23 Apr 14

crazyfrog says...

garston tony wrote:
#UKMum wrote:
OK at 100,000 voters that's roughly £5 per person. Like you do when you all go to a restaurant together I guess and some people in the group run up an enormous bar bill while others just drink water.
Or alternatively seeing as it was the protesters that led to this bill get them to pay it. At 2,000 protesters thats £264 each, sorted.

Oh but you'll probably bleat on about their right to protest, quite right too. But what about the right of private individuals to meet with each other without the risk of being harrassed, disrupted or potentially attacked?
Yes tony bill the protesters as I think they had a couple of attack jets on standby but couldn't fly them because of the no-fly zone over the grove, it's a good job that a few protesters did turn up because that justifying the policing cost doesn't it !
[quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]#UKMum[/bold] wrote: OK at 100,000 voters that's roughly £5 per person. Like you do when you all go to a restaurant together I guess and some people in the group run up an enormous bar bill while others just drink water.[/p][/quote]Or alternatively seeing as it was the protesters that led to this bill get them to pay it. At 2,000 protesters thats £264 each, sorted. Oh but you'll probably bleat on about their right to protest, quite right too. But what about the right of private individuals to meet with each other without the risk of being harrassed, disrupted or potentially attacked?[/p][/quote]Yes tony bill the protesters as I think they had a couple of attack jets on standby but couldn't fly them because of the no-fly zone over the grove, it's a good job that a few protesters did turn up because that justifying the policing cost doesn't it ! crazyfrog
  • Score: -1

7:53pm Wed 23 Apr 14

LSC says...

crazyfrog wrote:
garston tony wrote:
#UKMum wrote:
OK at 100,000 voters that's roughly £5 per person. Like you do when you all go to a restaurant together I guess and some people in the group run up an enormous bar bill while others just drink water.
Or alternatively seeing as it was the protesters that led to this bill get them to pay it. At 2,000 protesters thats £264 each, sorted.

Oh but you'll probably bleat on about their right to protest, quite right too. But what about the right of private individuals to meet with each other without the risk of being harrassed, disrupted or potentially attacked?
Yes tony bill the protesters as I think they had a couple of attack jets on standby but couldn't fly them because of the no-fly zone over the grove, it's a good job that a few protesters did turn up because that justifying the policing cost doesn't it !
You seem to be suggesting you knew how many would turn up and what their motives and methods might be. Perhaps you should have shared that with the police and it all might have been cheaper.

Or perhaps, like with the G8 'peaceful protests' we might have descended into riot. Or like the Conservative conference in Brighton, and nobody sane would deny them a right to have a conference, we might have had blood on our hands.
[quote][p][bold]crazyfrog[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]#UKMum[/bold] wrote: OK at 100,000 voters that's roughly £5 per person. Like you do when you all go to a restaurant together I guess and some people in the group run up an enormous bar bill while others just drink water.[/p][/quote]Or alternatively seeing as it was the protesters that led to this bill get them to pay it. At 2,000 protesters thats £264 each, sorted. Oh but you'll probably bleat on about their right to protest, quite right too. But what about the right of private individuals to meet with each other without the risk of being harrassed, disrupted or potentially attacked?[/p][/quote]Yes tony bill the protesters as I think they had a couple of attack jets on standby but couldn't fly them because of the no-fly zone over the grove, it's a good job that a few protesters did turn up because that justifying the policing cost doesn't it ![/p][/quote]You seem to be suggesting you knew how many would turn up and what their motives and methods might be. Perhaps you should have shared that with the police and it all might have been cheaper. Or perhaps, like with the G8 'peaceful protests' we might have descended into riot. Or like the Conservative conference in Brighton, and nobody sane would deny them a right to have a conference, we might have had blood on our hands. LSC
  • Score: 8

8:18am Thu 24 Apr 14

garston tony says...

WanderingDynamo wrote:
Away from topic a little and just out of curiosity.. An event is being held in 'County A'. That county doesn't have the manpower to cover the event. Manpower is used from 'County B' & 'County C'. Does 'County A' cover the police bill for all three counties as the event is within their boundary or do 'County B' & 'County C' help cover costs? Genuinely curious and not trying to prove a point either way.
I think that county A has to cover the whole costs.

Relating it to the event being 'discussed' (although apparently if you dont hold the same opinion as UKmum you're wrong so not much desire for a 'discussion' on her part) I think Herts police got assistance from other neighbouring forces but are covering the whole cost
[quote][p][bold]WanderingDynamo[/bold] wrote: Away from topic a little and just out of curiosity.. An event is being held in 'County A'. That county doesn't have the manpower to cover the event. Manpower is used from 'County B' & 'County C'. Does 'County A' cover the police bill for all three counties as the event is within their boundary or do 'County B' & 'County C' help cover costs? Genuinely curious and not trying to prove a point either way.[/p][/quote]I think that county A has to cover the whole costs. Relating it to the event being 'discussed' (although apparently if you dont hold the same opinion as UKmum you're wrong so not much desire for a 'discussion' on her part) I think Herts police got assistance from other neighbouring forces but are covering the whole cost garston tony
  • Score: 8

8:43am Thu 24 Apr 14

garston tony says...

LSC wrote:
crazyfrog wrote:
garston tony wrote:
#UKMum wrote: OK at 100,000 voters that's roughly £5 per person. Like you do when you all go to a restaurant together I guess and some people in the group run up an enormous bar bill while others just drink water.
Or alternatively seeing as it was the protesters that led to this bill get them to pay it. At 2,000 protesters thats £264 each, sorted. Oh but you'll probably bleat on about their right to protest, quite right too. But what about the right of private individuals to meet with each other without the risk of being harrassed, disrupted or potentially attacked?
Yes tony bill the protesters as I think they had a couple of attack jets on standby but couldn't fly them because of the no-fly zone over the grove, it's a good job that a few protesters did turn up because that justifying the policing cost doesn't it !
You seem to be suggesting you knew how many would turn up and what their motives and methods might be. Perhaps you should have shared that with the police and it all might have been cheaper. Or perhaps, like with the G8 'peaceful protests' we might have descended into riot. Or like the Conservative conference in Brighton, and nobody sane would deny them a right to have a conference, we might have had blood on our hands.
Crazyfrog my comment was a flippant one in response to UKmums, as LSC quite rightly pointed out the police do not have a crystal ball and have to base their operations based on potential threats. They cant wait until the day and decide what to do based on who turns up can they, if they did that and a few people with uzi's and grenades had turned up the place would have been a slaughter house before the appropriate forces came anywhere near turning up.

Whilst the people at this meeting where there in a private capacity in their working life they represent organisation etc that a lot of people do want to physically attack (as LSC mentioned G8 for instance). Unfortunately attackers are not going to limit their activities to when someone is clocked on at the office and will look at any and all opportunities to get to their targets. Whilst this group did arrange their own private security Herts police decided that due to the profile of those meeting they required official protection also.

I have no problem with the police protecting private individuals who have a real risk of being targetted and it doesnt matter the level of their finances. Be they well off like many of those that attended that meeting or some bloke on an estate who has received credible death threats we have a system that seeks to protect all those that others wish to harm.

Just because someone may have money doesnt mean that different rules should apply to them, and I have to say its rather funny when on the one hand some of the reasons given for being anti bilderberg is that they are well off and allegedly treated differently yet on the other hand people are calling for them to be treated differently because they are rich! Just again highlights the confused, hypocritical bias against this group. The protesters quite literaly didnt have a clue what they were protesting about, they just saw a bunch of people meeting and on that basis alone they were worthy of 'assault'
[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]crazyfrog[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]#UKMum[/bold] wrote: OK at 100,000 voters that's roughly £5 per person. Like you do when you all go to a restaurant together I guess and some people in the group run up an enormous bar bill while others just drink water.[/p][/quote]Or alternatively seeing as it was the protesters that led to this bill get them to pay it. At 2,000 protesters thats £264 each, sorted. Oh but you'll probably bleat on about their right to protest, quite right too. But what about the right of private individuals to meet with each other without the risk of being harrassed, disrupted or potentially attacked?[/p][/quote]Yes tony bill the protesters as I think they had a couple of attack jets on standby but couldn't fly them because of the no-fly zone over the grove, it's a good job that a few protesters did turn up because that justifying the policing cost doesn't it ![/p][/quote]You seem to be suggesting you knew how many would turn up and what their motives and methods might be. Perhaps you should have shared that with the police and it all might have been cheaper. Or perhaps, like with the G8 'peaceful protests' we might have descended into riot. Or like the Conservative conference in Brighton, and nobody sane would deny them a right to have a conference, we might have had blood on our hands.[/p][/quote]Crazyfrog my comment was a flippant one in response to UKmums, as LSC quite rightly pointed out the police do not have a crystal ball and have to base their operations based on potential threats. They cant wait until the day and decide what to do based on who turns up can they, if they did that and a few people with uzi's and grenades had turned up the place would have been a slaughter house before the appropriate forces came anywhere near turning up. Whilst the people at this meeting where there in a private capacity in their working life they represent organisation etc that a lot of people do want to physically attack (as LSC mentioned G8 for instance). Unfortunately attackers are not going to limit their activities to when someone is clocked on at the office and will look at any and all opportunities to get to their targets. Whilst this group did arrange their own private security Herts police decided that due to the profile of those meeting they required official protection also. I have no problem with the police protecting private individuals who have a real risk of being targetted and it doesnt matter the level of their finances. Be they well off like many of those that attended that meeting or some bloke on an estate who has received credible death threats we have a system that seeks to protect all those that others wish to harm. Just because someone may have money doesnt mean that different rules should apply to them, and I have to say its rather funny when on the one hand some of the reasons given for being anti bilderberg is that they are well off and allegedly treated differently yet on the other hand people are calling for them to be treated differently because they are rich! Just again highlights the confused, hypocritical bias against this group. The protesters quite literaly didnt have a clue what they were protesting about, they just saw a bunch of people meeting and on that basis alone they were worthy of 'assault' garston tony
  • Score: 9

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree