Manchester bomb attack

[peterb]

sounds like the optimum time for private industry to "assist" the civil service. First they should appoint management consultants to study the issue at length, then set up a few committees, then they can produce a detailed study and lots of cost-benefit risk matrices and fancy charts to put in the briefing papers. Then the relevant departments can explain it needs to be cheaper - because despite the long term losses that will result overall it's more important to cheapen it now to make it look like they're being economical. Following this off it goes to multiple firms working in "collaboration" to develop the necessary IT infrastructures. And after 3 years and billions spent the government can set up a parliamentary committee to review it, who can declare it's too complicated, axe the contracts and then the whole process can start again.
Gotta love bureaucracy right

I would also add that the Civil Service don't necessarily have all the expertise required to deliver these projects optimally. And they are also constrained by being in the public eye to ensure value for money and to be scrupulously clean in how money is spent - which is why large value contracts invariably go to competitive tender (and putting a tender together may cost companies 6 figure sums to put together - which has to be recouped if they win, and is lost if they lose. But assessing those tenders costs time, money and expertise, and contractors may be called in to help with the technical assessment.

Where the process can fall down is if the tender documents don't tie the requirement down absolutely or worse still, accurately capture the requirement - but although it may not seem like it, some Government departments are much better at doing that than they were 20 or so years ago.

BUT - this is taking the thread way off the original topic.

[Jonj1611]

BUT - this is taking the thread way off the original topic.

Plus 1

[ik9000]

BUT - this is taking the thread way off the original topic.

Plus 1

What, and people talking about NHS quotas isn't?

[Jonj1611]

Not sure why I was quoted. I have only spoke about the event and nothing else.

And my +1 was for the comment regarding the thread going off topic. I thought it was supposed to be about the Manchester bombing.

[peterb]

Not sure why I was quoted. I have only spoke about the event and nothing else.

And my +1 was for the comment regarding the thread going off topic. I thought it was supposed to be about the Manchester bombing.

That indeed was the topic. I answered the question about contracts as a matter of courtesy (as it was asked) but it really has little to do with the original topic, although it is easy (looking back) to see how it happened! (Threads are a bit like those word games where one word morphs into another changing one letter at a time!)

[ik9000]

regarding the thread going off topic. I thought it was supposed to be about the Manchester bombing.

Me too, but it seems to me it's already gone off topic with discussions about aircraft carriers, the number of planes on them, quotas for the NHS and what it should and shouldn't pay for, and MPs etc. I thought I would join in with where the thread had evolved to.

[Top_gun]

I would also add that the Civil Service don't necessarily have all the expertise required to deliver these projects optimally. And they are also constrained by being in the public eye to ensure value for money and to be scrupulously clean in how money is spent - which is why large value contracts invariably go to competitive tender (and putting a tender together may cost companies 6 figure sums to put together - which has to be recouped if they win, and is lost if they lose. But assessing those tenders costs time, money and expertise, and contractors may be called in to help with the technical assessment.

Where the process can fall down is if the tender documents don't tie the requirement down absolutely or worse still, accurately capture the requirement - but although it may not seem like it, some Government departments are much better at doing that than they were 20 or so years ago.

BUT - this is taking the thread way off the original topic.

Not really true. The Civil Service do employ a fair number of consultants from the private sector and there are guidance in place for procurement. The percentage of failures in the public sector is no different to the private sector. However, there's more scrutiny on the public sector than there is on the private sector.

[Top_gun]

Not really interchangeable. Under special powers the military can back police up in certain situations, but they still don't have police powers, like arrest, on the streets. And if, as appears to be the case, there MIGHT be more members of a bombing cell out there, then on a temporary basis, it seems to me to be a measure designed to keep us safe. Bear in mind, unlike most countries, most of our police aren't armed, or trained and qualified to be.

Of course, there are rules and procedures in place as you say. However, what sounds great in theory doesn't always translate well in practice.

Here's a classic example showing the litter enforcement people having no idea about law and abusing their powers. A similar situation could easily happen with army personnel on slippage of powers in their own line of work.

[peterb]

Of course, there are rules and procedures in place as you say. However, what sounds great in theory doesn't always translate well in practice.

Here's a classic example showing the litter enforcement people having no idea about law and abusing their powers. A similar situation could easily happen with army personnel on slippage of powers in their own line of work.

There is a world of difference between a private company employing untrained and unvetted personnel pick up litter and a group of highly trained, vetted and disciplined military personnel.

Military Aid to Civil Authorities is a well known and used facility. While this particular instance has attracted media attention because of the high profile of the incident, MACP procedures include unexploded ordnance disposal, RAF mountain search and rescue, Royal Navy assistance to the Maritime rescue organisations and so on. In all cases, Command and Control is retained by the Civil Authority.

In the case you cite, the employing councils abrogated their responsibility to the company concerned and failed to monitor their performance. It made interesting watching, although I think this was covered by Panorama or a similar programme.

[TheAnimus]

Oh the guy in that video is a real benefit to our society isn't he.

He has no idea of the legal situation. It's as if he has scored a C grade in AS level law.

[Saracen]

Of course, there are rules and procedures in place as you say. However, what sounds great in theory doesn't always translate well in practice.

Here's a classic example showing the litter enforcement people having no idea about law and abusing their power ....

Seriously?

Soldiers patrolling with police to free up armed police as responders while there's a critical risk of another attack, for a few days after a bombing, and you're going with litter enforcement?

I'm not even going to dignify that with a further answer.

[Top_gun]

Seriously?

Soldiers patrolling with police to free up armed police as responders while there's a critical risk of another attack, for a few days after a bombing, and you're going with litter enforcement?

I'm not even going to dignify that with a further answer.

I'm afraid you've misconstrued my last post. Just simply saying how easy it is for authorities to abuse their powers regardless of situations.

ETA: Do I feel safer seeing soldiers with guns on the streets? No, just means I have to watch my back for both terrorists and law. Having soldiers on the streets is for people living in the sticks believing the government is being strong on terrorist. The reality for us Londoners is one needs to watch their back regardless of sides. Did Charles de Menezes felt safe after the July 2005 bombings by seeing more armed police on the streets of London? Of course not. Unless you understand the daily life in living London then your patronising remarks is essentially worthless.

[Top_gun]

There is a world of difference between a private company employing untrained and unvetted personnel pick up litter and a group of highly trained, vetted and disciplined military personnel.

Army personnel don't always gets things right regardless of high quality training hence why some of them are subject to court martials.