ABSTRACT
In Chapter 8 John Grieve argues that there is no single explanation as to why there was a political imperative to change the character of British policing by introducing privatisation. Nor could he see an obvious motivation. This chapter is a ‘thought piece’ (Fitzgibbon 2013) but includes some very limited original research. This chapter compares and contrasts some aspects of privatisation of policing with the disastrous and failed experiences of privatising the Probation Service which were not heeded to and asks what lessons can be learnt. He examines their respective context and environment looking for some similarities despite differences and differences despite similarities. In the course of attempting to understand the many issues involved, some literature has been reviewed, and learning conversations/autodidact opportunities conducted about the sensitising concepts of austerity, value for money, reform, professional values and most especially ethics, competition, completion, risk, blame, and their use in ‘language games’ (as developed by Manning 2014) are explored. A chronology of some policing crises is included. The chapter concludes that significant aspects of professional ethics may not be the same for the public and private sectors. Moreover based on Patel’s model of strategy as power, purpose and principle (Patel 2005) and Freedman’s definition (2013) the chapter considers the issue may have been more about the nature of success or failure in an ideological political strategy about power as winning a conflict between politicians and Police. This is a power play as opposed to an objectively arrived at strategy based on principles and values. It is also concluded that the stated purpose about value for money as part of repairing the economy, in an age of austerity and creating cheaper public security and safeguarding, has not been achieved.
