- Mobile site
- E-Newsletters
-
- News feed
- Find us on Twitter
@Observer_Owl
Follow Watford Observer on Twitter
- Find us on Facebook
Watford Observer
Like us on Facebook
Labour police commisioner candidate vows to scrap G4S deal (From Watford Observer)
Get involved: send your pictures, video, news and views by texting WO to 80360, or email us
Labour police commisioner candidate vows to scrap G4S deal
3:00pm Sunday 26th August 2012 in News
By Ben Endley, Senior reporter
Labour’s candidate to become Hertfordshire’s new elected police and crime commissioner has pledged to scrap a controversial plan to outsource large swathes of the county’s police operations to the under-fire security company G4S.
Sherma Batson is to stand against Conservative candidate David Lloyd and Lib Dem Ron Tindall on November 15 for the £75,000- a-year Hertfordshire police and crime commissioner role.
Hertfordshire Constabulary announced this week that due to delays caused by Olympic security fiasco the final decision on the tender will be made after the November 15 elections.
The move means the G4S bid could become a heated political issue in the run-up to the ballot and Councillor Batson has been the first to publically declare her position.
She said: “I still believe that in something as fundamental as the provision of
our police services, at least one other option should be considered and that should be an internal solution.
“Outsourcing to a private company will dilute the services we get from the police.
“The men and women of the constabulary provide a service for the community with pride and diligence and this is something that would most certainly be lost.
“If I am elected, I will be looking at finding an alternative option to privatisation.
“There are some fundamental services that should not be outsourced in this way and we need to protect our neighbourhoods from private companies.”
Councillor Lloyd and Councillor Tindall could not immediately be reached for comment.
Comments(10)
Arthur
says...
3:46pm Mon 27 Aug 12
In case you missed it there was a global economic crisis which we are still suffering. At least Labour had qualified people to deal with it and the economy was starting to grow again until this lot bought power. £463 grand Watford reportedly cost them - have a look at http://searchthemone
y.com/.
Now we have a chancellor who's only got a basic GCSE in maths - look at the result - double dip recession and all the trimmings
Ditching G4S is he? Well he's got my vote already!
Nascot
says...
5:14pm Mon 27 Aug 12
garston tony
says...
9:19am Tue 28 Aug 12
Anyway, the rights and wrongs of the G4S contracts involved aside is the Labour candidate opposing the contracts because they truly believe them to be wrong or because they know that’s the right thing to do to gain votes?
Politics is so muddy that its hard to know when politicians truly believe in what they say or are just saying things to be crowd pleasers. I'd rather a politician be true but be unpopular than be popular but untrue. The latter is far more likely to stab us ordinary folk in the back just to keep their place.
Roy Stockdill
says...
5:48pm Tue 28 Aug 12
Does anyone seriously think it's a good idea to allow private security firms, whoever they are, to take over policing responsibilities? I find the whole idea utterly appalling!
Private security companies employ jumped-up little Hitlers who are untrained and probably uneducated gorillas to go swaggering around in public flaunting their uniforms and pushing innocent people around. This is how Nazi Germany began under Adolf H.
Could I remind everyone that private security guards have absolutely NO legal rights whatsoever, any more than those of the ordinary citizen? We should resist any moves to legitimise them at all costs.
Arthur
says...
6:01pm Tue 28 Aug 12
garston tony wrote:The only truthful bit is the ejection of Walter Wolfgang who subsequently received an apology for his treatment from the party chair. It was the police who decided to use their "Anti-terrorism" powers not the Labour Party executive.
Arthur, repeating the truth over and over again doesn’t change the fact that the truth is the truth.
Anyway, the rights and wrongs of the G4S contracts involved aside is the Labour candidate opposing the contracts because they truly believe them to be wrong or because they know that’s the right thing to do to gain votes?
Politics is so muddy that its hard to know when politicians truly believe in what they say or are just saying things to be crowd pleasers. I'd rather a politician be true but be unpopular than be popular but untrue. The latter is far more likely to stab us ordinary folk in the back just to keep their place.
Democratic as the Labour Party is, Walter was elected to the National Executive Committee the following year by rank and file members.
As for the rest of it, utter tripe.
If you check their manifestos you will find that both Labour Candidates for Herts and Beds, (the conjoined forces originally proposing the use of G4S), have unconditionally opposed G4S involvement in anything. I believe due the debacle of G4S's arrangements for the Olympics (p*ss-ups and breweries come to mind).
Talking of truth, have you all looked up http://searchthemone
y.com/.
yet?
LSC
says...
12:01am Wed 29 Aug 12
As a historian, Roy will actually know this is not how Nazi Germany started.
However there are similarities. Hitler was democratically elected, but took a role above his place (See: Gordon Brown) and Germany was at the whim of the rest of Europe who were sucking them dry at every opportunity (See: Us).
The only people who prospered in Germany in the 20s and 30s were the Jewish community, which is why the general public went along so readily with the anti semetic vibe that came from the nut-jobs at the top.
The general feeling was about how we feel about bankers today.
This History lesson is free of charge, but donations are welcome.
Roy Stockdill
says...
10:28am Wed 29 Aug 12
I feel pretty sure also that the vast majority of ordinary Germans went along with Hitler when his armies were advancing right across Europe, blitzing smaller countries, and the concept of the "master race" and world domination began to take hold. It was only when Germany began to suffer severe setbacks that the national mood began to change.
However, that is not the principal point I was making, which was that it is very dangerous to put power into the hands of private security companies that employ untrained amateurs to take over powers that should rightly belong only to the police. You know the old saying - give a man a uniform and a bit of power and he will always, ALWAYS abuse it! I have seen security gorillas in The Harlequin who swagger about as if they were guards at Auschwitz.
The G4S fiasco at the Olympics, when soldiers had to be brought in to take over the security role because of a monumental ****-up by the private security company was surely evidence enough that we can never trust these companies to do their job properly.
Roy Stockdill
says...
10:35am Wed 29 Aug 12
Just for information, the term I used in the above message, which has been "bleeped out" was C - O - C- K-up (not the F-word). Now, this is a very common and perfectly acceptable piece of slang in the English language. It has a popular definition easily found with Google. Sometimes, I think the parameters of censorship here are laid down, if not by followers of Mrs Whitehouse, by a bunch of 10-year-olds.
LSC
says...
12:58pm Wed 29 Aug 12
I personally know a guy who was rejected by every police force he applied to because of personality 'issues'. His dream was to make the Armed Response Unit, so he could drive really fast and carry a gun.
Thankfully for all of us, they saw this and turned him down.
However, they happily took him on as a Special, and boy, did the motorists of Watford know about it.
Reg Edit says...
11:50pm Sun 26 Aug 12
Do not forget Labour's record. Would you really want a Union running the police force? The Labour party in charge of Law and Order?
I don't think much of the other parties, but Labour? Please, give us a break!
Soft on crime, soft on the causes of crime. Despicable.