Security guards, guard the Police!

**Husar** · 10-23-2006, 11:56

Why do they not just hire additional policemen?
They have to pay some guy's monthly payment anyway, if they hire another company, they pay for the guy and the company, if they train a new guy, they pay only the guy and they can ensure he is up to the task.
Also here I have never seen any "guards" around police stations, the one guy at the entrance and a few colleagues talking to him or being in their bureaus seem to be more than enough.
They could also turn their police station into a bunker with machine guns and anti tank guns to keep the evil robbers out if they're so afraid.

**Scurvy** · 10-23-2006, 11:59

they belive that the police officers they have trained are more use policing the streets - very sensilble, why waste valuble skilled manpower when you can hire a seperate company to provide your simple protection.

**Sir Moody** · 10-23-2006, 12:03

Police are trained to patrol the streets and investigate crimes - they are not trained to guard buildings

Security guards on the other hand ARE trained to protect buildings

its a good move by the police so long as they dont use it as an excuse to lay off the police who currently guard the buildings

**Slyspy** · 10-23-2006, 13:30

At first I went with the knee-jerk OMG!!11one!!!! reaction.

Then I realised that you don't need a highly trained and well paid police officer to do basic security work at the HQ. In fact to use an officer in this way is to waste resources.

I would prefer that the security guards were employed directly rather than contractors be used, for control and veting purposes more than anything. But as others have said, if it is cheaper to employ security guards than to use police officers and it isn't used as an excuse to lay people off then I see no problem.

**Don Corleone** · 10-23-2006, 14:32

I suspect the reasons for private security guards mirror those of the Pentagon going with 'defense contractors' instead of actual military for conducting interrogations. The police have to follow rules and give potential attackers all sorts of warnings and coddle them, respecting their human rights.

Private security are under no such restrictions. You try to screw with them, they only have to explain themselves to their contractor, who's sole interst is task-oriented... no 'respecting the rights of the criminal' crap for them.

Edit: Removed inaccurate representation of British police policy from another thread.

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 10-23-2006, 15:20

Efficiency should not really be an issue with services, unless it is a real problem. The Police are there to do a job. A large part of that job is image. Currently the Police and Criminal justice in general has a bad image. As a result Crime is actually rising. We have one of the highest crime rates in Europe and though we have the highest prison population per-head we have one of the lowest populations per crime.

Precisely because a Police Officer is a visable symbol of the Police' power and is highly trained they should be the only ones guarding the Police station. If a private security officer is less acountable that is another reason no to have him. The Police are acountable, anyone working with them must also be acountable.

As to those who say this is not a job the Police are trained for, well then who guards all the embassies and public buildings in London?

The Police should be administered, controlled and staffed exclusively by Police. The same should be true of the Army, the Hospitals and the Universities.

Outside managers and contractors usually cost more upfront and they don't understand the system, which creates problems, which further increases costs.

Where I am we have departments closing and Schools being amalgumated, meaning departments moving buildings and general confusion. I have personnally spent upwards of 20 minutes wandering around a building looking for the secretary.

If it wasn't for a bust of Hermes I probably never would have found my sodding department.

**Banquo's Ghost** · 10-23-2006, 16:15

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

The Police should be administered, controlled and staffed exclusively by Police. The same should be true of the Army, the Hospitals and the Universities.

I look forward to Nurse Plod.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

**Kralizec** · 10-23-2006, 21:10

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I suspect the reasons for private security guards mirror those of the Pentagon going with 'defense contractors' instead of actual military for conducting interrogations. The police have to follow rules and give potential attackers all sorts of warnings and coddle them, respecting their human rights.

Private security are under no such restrictions. You try to screw with them, they only have to explain themselves to their contractor, who's sole interst is task-oriented... no 'respecting the rights of the criminal' crap for them.

Edit: Removed inaccurate representation of British police policy from another thread.

That sort of makes sense, but if the rules policemen have to work under become unworkable, they should be reformed rather then look for expensive workarounds.

**Husar** · 10-23-2006, 17:40

Originally Posted by Scurvy

they belive that the police officers they have trained are more use policing the streets - very sensilble, why waste valuble skilled manpower when you can hire a seperate company to provide your simple protection.

Why waste the hired guys for guarding the bulding if they could just as well police the streets?

**Scurvy** · 10-23-2006, 17:52

Originally Posted by Husar

Why waste the hired guys for guarding the bulding if they could just as well police the streets?

thats the point

the hired guys arent trained to police the streets, while the police are

A large part of that job is image. Currently the Police and Criminal justice in general has a bad image. As a result Crime is actually rising.

This i agree with, if the police's image was improved crime would drop - because people feel they are less liely to get away with it. However i think this is irrelevant to the guarding of police stations
- there is a large police presence at these places anyway, even if they arent standing around at the door
- peple like to see the police on the streets, this improves there image far more than guarding
- the police are still seen standing guard at major landmarks anyway (ie. Downing street) which is important aswell as improving their image

the major obstacle to police image is the media- something they really have to sort out (i don't blame the media - the police are yet to work out how to influence the media, and are not helped by the government and all this terrorism fuss.)

**Tribesman** · 10-23-2006, 19:42

I would prefer that the security guards were employed directly rather than contractors be used, for control and veting purposes more than anything.

To work at a British police station , either as an employee like a typist , cleaner or mechanic , you get vetted , if you enter as a contractor , a builder , decorator or caterer you still get vetted .
Though their home office did screw up recently with their cleaners didn't it .
It got security clearance for the actual company , but was doing the daily temporary security passes for the contractors employees due to a backlog in paperwork , when they finally got round to vetting the cleaners it turned out they were illegal immigrants