ACPO Ltd & Mission Creep

[paolo]

ACPO is stepping into roles that should be a statute issue, not for the police to decide on their own terms. DNA retention, for example.

That they are doing so under the umbrella of a commercial organisation with the least transparency is unacceptable. Perversely, if they had formed a Plc, the public - by way of a shareholding - would be able to challenge their policies.

A private limited company is a hugely inappropriate vehicle, as the head of ACPO agrees.

Given this - the acceptance on their own behalf that they have an inappropriate setup for their organasation - are ACPO making moves to reform?

And if not, is there anything we can do? Or is it a case of "do as your told" on matters where ACPO has "made a decision"?

 

[detective-boy]

It is most definitely not a "do as you're told" situation as far as ACPO is concerned. The way that it has developed from what was an informal association of Chief Constables into what is effectively an entity delivering national policing services without being formally constituted by Act of Parliament is a concern in itself and lessons should be learned to stop anything similar happening again ... but I would argue strongly that what has been done has been done entirely in the best interests of UK policing and it is NOT any sort of scam intended to make profits for any person connected with them.

As I have posted elsewhere, (a) it is entirely inappropriate for ACPO to be an unincorporated entity (it being inappropriate for even local sports clubs and such like remaining unincorporated entities); (b) the limited company structure was selected as the basis for ACPO taking on property and staff and (c) there are a limited number of different structures which are available to an organisation seeking to give itself a structure, of which the limited company was no doubt considered the least bad alterative.

I agree that the situation should be regularised as soon as possible ... but I wonder what alternative structure you (or anyone) would suggest that they should have taken?

And have you obtained the publicly obtainable documentation related to the company through Companies House?

 

[paolo]

As I have posted elsewhere, (a) it is entirely inappropriate for ACPO to be an unincorporated entity (it being inappropriate for even local sports clubs and such like remaining unincorporated entities); (b) the limited company structure was selected as the basis for ACPO taking on property and staff and (c) there are a limited number of different structures which are available to an organisation seeking to give itself a structure, of which the limited company was no doubt considered the least bad alterative.

I agree that the situation should be regularised as soon as possible ... but I wonder what alternative structure you (or anyone) would suggest that they should have taken?

It's not for me to build legal frameworks. I'd struggle to build a shed, and blimey I'm at that age.

What I find disappointing (being boringly British, and not foaming ACAB) is that the ACPO are happy to fill policy voids.

Are they making any moves to push things into statute, or simply lapping it up?

 

[DaveCinzano]

I would argue strongly that what has been done has been done entirely in the best interests of UK policing

Well, obviously - one tends not to do something because one thinks it's a dastardly and evil thing. This does not mean it is the right thing to do. History is full of deluded, narcissistic, authoritarian or plain mental people who somehow got their hands on some lever of power or other, doing things "for the greater good".

it is NOT any sort of scam intended to make profits for any person connected with them.

Where here was that suggested?

 

[paolo]

Quite.

The choice of vehicle isn't the gotcha.

A autonomous body is making rules. Not boring but necessary operational rules. Things that affect civil liberty, and should be open for debate.

 

[paolo]

It is most definitely not a "do as you're told" situation

How does ACPO's DNA retention policy compare with the EU position?

That comes across as "do as your told".

Liberty even went as far highlighting an ACPO official who advocated DNA sampling and retention for children. The ACPO specialist said that a criminal mind can be deteremined at five years old.

Policing is by consent. The rank and file, largely, have my consent. ACPO don't.

 

[detective-boy]

What I find disappointing (being boringly British, and not foaming ACAB) is that the ACPO are happy to fill policy voids.

Are they making any moves to push things into statute, or simply lapping it up?

As I said, I think how ACPO has developed has been in good faith to address policing issues which needed to be addressed and which current structures did not facilitate. That this was not recognised and addressed officially is a Home Office issue - whether or not ACPO shouted at them enough is a moot point (I know they did some shouting but I don't know how much and I don't think we will ever know unless they make it public). But having recognised a genuine policing need I am not sure that ACPO should be criticised for getting on with it and doing the best they could to address it from within what was available to them rather than simply doing nothing about it, allowing problems to develop further and then, when it all went tits up and someone wanted to know who had fucked up just going "Well we told the Home Office but they did fuck all ...".

I know that Hugh Orde, ACPO President is not content with the current structure and recognises (and shares) the concerns about it ... but again I am not sure how much they are pushing for changes to be made by the Home Office. Knowing him, I suspect that the fact that he has chosen to make public his concerns in the Police Review article I quoted on the other thread a couple of weeks ago, he has been trying but not been getting very far ... and is hoping that public comment may make things move!!!

 

[detective-boy]

Where here was that suggested?

Nowhere here but it is the subtext of most critcism of the fact they are a "limited company" ... which most people immediately view as being intended to maximise profit for shareholders (which is actually not always the case at all - limited companies can have a variety of structures, aims, etc. and without someone obtaining the documentation available from Companies House which it is will not be clear).

 

[detective-boy]

A autonomous body is making rules. Not boring but necessary operational rules. Things that affect civil liberty, and should be open for debate.

The only "rules" ACPO makes so far as I am aware are national policies about various policing issues. These are (a) made by police officers and staff seconded to specific working groups, committees, etc. set up to consider the matter and (b) intended to provide consistency across different police forces. I am not sure there is any more or less "debate" than there would be if individual Chief Constables made their own policies on each subject. Please explain what would be the difference, bearing in mind that Chief Constables don't usually have a public debate about setting each of their operational policies ....

 

[detective-boy]

How does ACPO's DNA retention policy compare with the EU position?

So far as I am aware it simply reflects what is lawful in the UK. As a UK organisation they are entitled to apply UK law rather than the EU's (I think you probably mean the ECHR's) position. It would be somewhat ridiculous if a State was arguing at the ECHR for a particular approach to an issue whilst one their executive agencies with a lead role in the issue was doing something different ...

Liberty even went as far highlighting an ACPO official who advocated DNA sampling and retention for children. The ACPO specialist said that a criminal mind can be deteremined at five years old.

That is a quote from an individual Chief Officer, it is not ACPO policy. Individual Chief Officers especially those with lead responsibility for an issue, are entitled to make their views known. Without that there would not be a debate to be had.

The rank and file, largely, have my consent. ACPO don't.

I am afraid that makes no sense whatsoever. The police are an organisation, an entity. They, as a whole, deliver policing services. You can either consent to what they do or resist it. The rank and file officers are organised and deployed by Chief Officers (i.e. members of ACPO) and Chief Officers are perfectly entitled, within the restraints of the law, to set policies and procedures for how rank and file officers are to operate. It makes no sense to say that you consent to one without the other.

I'm not sure whether you know much about ACPO, what it is and how it operates but you need to be more specific about that actual things that "ACPO" do or don't do which you contest before any meaningful discussion about them can be had.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Seems to me that the main problem resides in ACPO being neither fish nor flesh. They're not purely what their name implies, neither are they a "neutral" organisation, insofar as their service to the government may predispose them to certain "pro-establishment" behaviours.
Their articles of association (available as a .doc download from their website) are interesting reading, but fail to give much clue as to whether they're aware of the potential for (internal or external) abuse or influence that's inherent to any company (as opposed to, say, a properly-constituted trade union, which "enjoys" more legislative oversight).

 

[paolo]

It's good thing that Hugh Orde and the like recognise that the current regime is not correct.

In the meantime, ACPO sets policies that are very questionable, in the context of EU - and "common decency" (e.g. Perspective on child DNA)

Are ACPO, despite the legal curiosities as to their foundation, an organisation that is for and representing the people they serve? I don't think they are.

 

[detective-boy]

Their articles of association (available as a .doc download from their website) are interesting reading, but fail to give much clue as to whether they're aware of the potential for (internal or external) abuse or influence that's inherent to any company (as opposed to, say, a properly-constituted trade union, which "enjoys" more legislative oversight).

Their Memorandum and Articles of Association are here: http://www.acpo.police.uk/about_pages/Articles of Association updated June 08.doc.

I am not clear what you are suggesting about their "neutrality" which is any different from the "neutrality" of any individual Chief Police Officer. Could you explain what you are getting at and how it differs from the situation applicable to a single Chief Officer?

I am also unclear about what you mean by these "abuses" or "influences" which are "inherent to any company" - what are you referring to?

As for the mention you make of trade unions, they are most definitely NOT that. They were something similar orginally and for a number of years as their operational role grew they were both but the representative role has now been hived off to an entirely seperate organisation - the Chief Police Officer's Association. And I would suggest that that is not a trade union any more than the Police Federation or the Superintendent's Associations are "trade unions", nor would we want it to be (even though Chief Officers going on strike would be far less damaging to the delivery of policing services than constables and sergeants doing so)!

 

[detective-boy]

Are ACPO, despite the legal curiosities as to their foundation, an organisation that is for and representing the people they serve? I don't think they are.

The point is that all they are doing is coordinating what individual Chief Constables have done since the old King died / would do if ACPO did not. How is ACPO failing to be "for and representing the people they serve" any more than individual Chief Officers would be?

 

[paolo]

DB, a few things:

It's normal for uk organasitions to follow through on EU stuff. Why don't ACPO? Do they have specific local support to deviate? And of not, how are the policies determined in an accountable fashion?

I'll also take task with the wafting away of the ACPO specialt's view on child DNA. That he doesn't make policy isn't a case "oh that's fine then".

I hate to use cheap personal examples, but would you be happy with an authority that casually referenced admonishment for gay people, even it wasn't policy?

I think it's fair to see a concern with ACPO. On the record or off.

 

[detective-boy]

It's normal for uk organasitions to follow through on EU stuff. Why don't ACPO? Do they have specific local support to deviate? And of not, how are the policies determined in an accountable fashion?

I don't know what you are referring to.

But in general terms UK organisations are bound by UK law and the policies and pronouncements of the UK government. The European Courts have NO direct jurisdiction over UK organisations. They have influence on Member States (NOT organisations within member states) through European diplomatic channels. If you are referring to the DNA retention issue, the finding of the European Convention of Human Rights is against the UK government. The UK government is required by the ECHR to adjust the offending legislation. They have now done so and a new regime of retention has been set out (in the Crime and Security Act 2010 - not sure whether it has actually been brought into force yet - I think not as it is something that the new government may wish to go further on). The current law (i.e. that which does not prevent the retention of samples indefinitely) is extant in the UK until any new legislation is passed (or until a case passes through the Appeal Courts and changes the relevant Common Law) and UK organisations are perfectly entitled to continue to act under that law if they wished. They would be wise to try to comply with the ECHR judgment if they wished to avoid civil claims but there is no legal obligation to do so and what ACPO is doing is consistent with what the UK government is content for them to do. In due course, if the new law is challenged again the ECHR will make a new ruling and the process will start again.

But it seems you are mistaken if you believe that UK organisations are directly bound by the judgement of the ECHR. They are not.

(In relation to many issues, not just DNA retention, I would much prefer that the police (in the form of ACPO or otherwise) take far more interest in the issues of civil liberties than they do ... but there is equally an argument that says that they should push the law to it's boundaries so as to prevent crime and protect future victims. (In relation to DNA retention, I happen to believe that their argument for retention, based on the crime for which someone has been arrested for amongst other things is basically fuckwitted because it seems to absolutely fail to understand that someone arrested (for murder, let alone anything else) may be totally, completely, utterly and demonstrably innocent and thus the nature of the offence for which they were arrested (which they did not commit) is entirely irrelevant in terms of the ris of future offending that they represent.

I'll also take task with the wafting away of the ACPO specialt's view on child DNA. That he doesn't make policy isn't a case "oh that's fine then".

I didn't say that it was "OK" - I said it wasn't ACPO policy or anything like ACPO policy, it was the comments of an individual Chief Officer. And if we are going to deal with whether that comment should be criticised or not, then yes, I agree it should. But that doesn't alter the fact that it can be "wafted away" as irrelevant when it comes to consideration of ACPOs policy.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Their Memorandum and Articles of Association are here: http://www.acpo.police.uk/about_pages/Articles of Association updated June 08.doc.

I know, I read 'em earlier, before commenting.

I am not clear what you are suggesting about their "neutrality" which is any different from the "neutrality" of any individual Chief Police Officer. Could you explain what you are getting at and how it differs from the situation applicable to a single Chief Officer?

Remember how we were talking about institutional behaviour recently?
Membership organisations have a tendency towards aligning organisational opinion towards their more conservative elements (an observed phenomenon usually explored in research on sectoral dynamics). This alignment places limits on what is or isn't permissible discourse within the institutional framework. Therefore, an individual CPO, "speaking for himself", may perceive his "neutrality" and/or the perspective from which his neutrality originates on matters of policing (and the politics thereof) as differing from any expression he might make "speaking as a member of ACPO".

I am also unclear about what you mean by these "abuses" or "influences" which are "inherent to any company" - what are you referring to?

I should have said "inherent to anyone within a company structure, or any business structure". The usual shit of the (mis)use of company materiel to promote personal agendas; the internal dynamics which allow party A to exert influence over party B; the temptation to use company contacts for personal networking purposes.
Then there's the more general issues around lobbying.

As for the mention you make of trade unions, they are most definitely NOT that. They were something similar orginally and for a number of years as their operational role grew they were both but the representative role has now been hived off to an entirely seperate organisation - the Chief Police Officer's Association. And I would suggest that that is not a trade union any more than the Police Federation or the Superintendent's Associations are "trade unions", nor would we want it to be (even though Chief Officers going on strike would be far less damaging to the delivery of policing services than constables and sergeants doing so)!

Why the instant equation of trades unionism with striking?
It's not as if a) non-strike agreements don't exist, or b) that the last 20 years have been full of examples of strikes. It's hardly the 1970s and 1980s.

 

[paolo]

DB: Essentially it sounds like we agree.

In the case of DNA retention, ACPO are acting without mandate. No one has voted for the policy, whether it be at UK or EU level.

 

[detective-boy]

Remember how we were talking about institutional behaviour recently?
Membership organisations have a tendency towards aligning organisational opinion towards their more conservative elements (an observed phenomenon usually explored in research on sectoral dynamics). This alignment places limits on what is or isn't permissible discourse within the institutional framework. Therefore, an individual CPO, "speaking for himself", may perceive his "neutrality" and/or the perspective from which his neutrality originates on matters of policing (and the politics thereof) as differing from any expression he might make "speaking as a member of ACPO".

You are a Home Office Civil Servant, highly trained in the use of impenetrable bollocks and I claim my £5 ...

Whilst I agree a tendency towards the views of the organisation would be more likely where an organisation exists than where it doesn't, I really don't think there would be any significant difference unless we were to move to a situation in which individual Chief Police Officers operated entirely without contact with any other Chief Police Officers ... and that simply isn't realistic and it hasn't been the situation for decades, if ever. Chief Police Officers will always liaise and share experiences and, especially where there is a common problem or a common enemy, tend to agree on a common approach.

I should have said "inherent to anyone within a company structure, or any business structure". The usual shit of the (mis)use of company materiel to promote personal

agendas; the internal dynamics which allow party A to exert influence over party B; the temptation to use company contacts for personal networking purposes. Then there's the more general issues around lobbying.

Again the same point exists - all of these issues arise if Chief Police Officers get together for any reason and with any structure. I see nothing different in this regard in the situation we have now than that which existed ten years ago before the company structure was introduced.

Why the instant equation of trades unionism with striking?

Because it is the principle difference between a trade union and a police staff association (who are prohibited by law from being a trade union).

 

[detective-boy]

DB: Essentially it sounds like we agree.

Apart from the fact that I think you are seeing lots of scary monsters where I am not at all convinced any / many exist, I think you are right.

In the case of DNA retention, ACPO are acting without mandate. No one has voted for the policy, whether it be at UK or EU level.

The government regularly makes, and changes, law without people voting on the policy (though I would definitely agree that this policy is definitely something that should be the subject of public debate). As with the use of s.44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 I think the approach of ACPO (and of the senior management of police forces generally - don'yt forget that the retention policy has always included the possibility of an appeal to an individual Chief Officer for retention to be refused in a particular case ... but very few forces have allowed any, or certainly many, appeals) has been misguided and they have dug themselves a hole that they had no need to dig.

Just because something is possible (and lots of things are possible under a legal system which allows pretty much anything unless it is specifically prohibited by statute or common law) doesn't mean that it is right and it certainly doesn't mean that the police should do it.

 

[paolo]

I should perhaps have said voted for a government rather a policy. It's a not perfect mechanism, but there is some[/] form of democracy at work.

On the whole, I'd like to think that most of what I've said is reasonably grounded in fact rather than conspiracy theories. Liberty's White paper is very informative and unemotive.

I'm not labouring under the impression that we're bound by EU court decisions, but they do set an expectation as a notionally 'higher' authority even if they have no means of enforcement.

When the DNA things is actually sorted out, maybe I'll not see ACPO in such a bad light. In the meantime, am I right in saying that are still sending out form-letters refusing (on first application) to delete/destroy DNA samples?

And if this practice was determined by them rather than government, surely they can drop it without waiting for 3rd party (e.g. government) action?

 

[free spirit]

(a) it is entirely inappropriate for ACPO to be an unincorporated entity (it being inappropriate for even local sports clubs and such like remaining unincorporated entities);

bollocks. A constituted but unincorporated body is an entirely appropriate organisational structure for a sports club, and could easily be the best structure for an association of a few dozen chief police officers to meet to discuss policy related to their work, create some policy guidance etc.

The private limited structure serves no purpose other than to limit the liability of it's board / management group and members, so that they can't be personally held liable for their actions (outside of fraud / negligence situations). I can see why they chose the limited liability private company route, but this was far from the only option.

(b) the limited company structure was selected as the basis for ACPO taking on property and staff and (c) there are a limited number of different structures which are available to an organisation seeking to give itself a structure, of which the limited company was no doubt considered the least bad alterative.

I agree that the situation should be regularised as soon as possible ... but I wonder what alternative structure you (or anyone) would suggest that they should have taken?

And have you obtained the publicly obtainable documentation related to the company through Companies House?

what documentation? It's a private limited company and is therefore barely required to submit fuck all to companies house. It's also been issued with an exception that unusually allows them to not use the word limited, or LTD in their name. What purpose this could serve other than to hide the fact that they're a limited company, and no merely the sort of community group / charity / union type set up that the word 'association' would indicate to people.

A more appropriate structure IMO would have been a community interest company, that would have provided the limited liability protection, but also meant that they had to submit an annual statement demonstrating how they had achieved their stated goals in that year.

A CIC structure isn't perfect, but would be the most appropriate and accountable structure for this situation IMO. Having said that, CIC didn't exist when ACPO were incorporated, so it's understandable that they went the route they did at the time. Now it does exist, and ACPO's role has become so much more high profile, more openness about their acitivities, and the purpose of these activities would be a good thing, particularly as it's not covered by the freedom of information act.

 

[detective-boy]

When the DNA things is actually sorted out, maybe I'll not see ACPO in such a bad light. In the meantime, am I right in saying that are still sending out form-letters refusing (on first application) to delete/destroy DNA samples?

And if this practice was determined by them rather than government, surely they can drop it without waiting for 3rd party (e.g. government) action?

I've no idea ... but probably. They certainly have wide discretion in how they apply the law as it stands. As I said, I believe their pretty general refusal to destroy samples in pretty much every case was a wrong decision on their part. There has been a serious failure of logic about the whole issue. And the situation we have where it is pretty much a lottery whether or not your DNA / fingerprints ends up on the database is simply fuckwitted. It would be logical to have everyone's samples on the database. It would be logical to restrict it to those convicted (or even, arguably, to those charged on the basis of current charging guidelines). But arrested is simply a matter of fate in many cases and can be the result of an entirely false allegation being made maliciously by some other person and investigated (albeit in good faith) by the police.

 

[detective-boy]

A constituted but unincorporated body is an entirely appropriate organisational structure for a sports club, and could easily be the best structure for an association of a few dozen chief police officers to meet to discuss policy related to their work, create some policy guidance etc.

ANY lawyer would advise otherwise. Not least because as an unincorporated body the members are individually liable (and in an unlimited amount) for any claim against the body (which is why sports clubs have long been advised to become incorporated because people can get (very badly) hurt and there may be massive claims for negligence ...). It is also practically impossible for an unincorporated body to employ people or to lease or purchase property (both of which ACPO needed to do).

If ACPO were just a talking shop (as you clearly believe) then you may have a point ... but it isn't any more.

I agree that the situation should be regularised as soon as possible ... but I wonder what alternative structure you (or anyone) would suggest that they should have taken?

They shouldn't have had to do it themselves - it should have been constituted as a State agency. I know that they had pressed to some extent for the Home Office to do that, when they recognised some things that they believed needed doing in terms of the proper delivery of policing services on a national level ... but whether they did that enough before deciding to sort it out themselves I would not know. What I would say, however, is that I would rather they got on with what they considered to be a professional policing need rather than saying "Well it's needed but it's up to the Home Office, and they can't be arsed so there's nothing we can do ...".

what documentation? It's a private limited company and is therefore barely required to submit fuck all to companies house. It's also been issued with an exception that unusually allows them to not use the word limited, or LTD in their name. What purpose this could serve other than to hide the fact that they're a limited company, and no merely the sort of community group / charity / union type set up that the word 'association' would indicate to people.

All companies have to register on formation. Directors, etc. are listed. Shares are listed. Accounts have to be filed (full or abbreviated depending on turnover). There's loads of stuff.

I have no idea why they were given an exemption from using the word Ltd ... but seeing as everything is publicly available on Companies House website it's hardly a secret ...

If you are alleging they are covering something up, please do tell us what.

A CIC structure isn't perfect, but would be the most appropriate and accountable structure for this situation IMO. Having said that, CIC didn't exist when ACPO were incorporated, so it's understandable that they went the route they did at the time.

Indeed. They made the best of a bad job.