A parliamentary committee challenged the Home Office's choice of Taser provider to the UK Police, questioning whether the new supplier was a little too closely linked to the previous one. The matter arose during a meeting of the Home Affairs Select Committee, which last week reviewed Home Office policy in respect of Taser …
So basically ...
They got the office manager to front a new company, the original directors staying off the paperwork, but almost certainly still sitting in the same office chairs they were before.
Shareholders? I guess we have to wait for them to file the annual return to see who the shareholders are, but I suspect they have just registered the shares in their mum's name.
Same old, same old.
What was needed was a new supplier, what we got was the same supplier under a different name.
Something smells funny here....
Will they EVER learn..?
Hasn't the MPs expenses scandal taught our government and authorities anything?!!!
This STINKS to high heaven; it is not enough for those in authority to claim "we are acting withing the rules" when it is blatantly obvious that they are working completely AGAINST the SPIRIT of the rules!!!
It's rather early in a a new westminster administration to be hearing about 'sleaze' of this sort, if the coalition holds together, God help us in five years time!
Snouts at the ready piggies,
And, trough on!
Plus ça change. Kzeeeeeeeeeeeerttt!
the licence should never have been revoked in the first place
IIRC the licence was revoked because a director of the company gave the police a new type of tazer fired from a shotgun during the roul moat affair.
i believe he was genuinely trying to help the police, and he later committed suicide citing the shame he had brought.
if the police were that concerned they shouldn't have accepted them. and i think he could reasonably have assumed that their acceptance was an acknowledgement he was doing the right thing.
in re-awarding the contract to effectively the same company i assumed the authorities were just going through the motions.
but no they weren't. we'll import them now an lose british jobs.
Yes it should.
> the licence was revoked because a director of the company gave the police a new type of tazer
The licence was revoked because the company was supplying firearms outside the terms of their licence.
It doesn't matter whether their intentions were good, bad, or indifferent - firearms are dangerous things, and licences need to be respected. What Pro-Tect did is against the law, and they must be held to account for their actions.
They knew what they were permitted to do. They knew they were not permitted to supply these shotgun weapons to the police. They chose to breach their licence. They got caught.
well not really. I wonder if the powers that be would allow this approach to normal criminals? Get done for murder/speeding/robbery, change your name, get let off.
Why didn't they use one of the other taser suppliers
I mean, there are hundreds of them dotted around the country aren't there?
Seriously, up until september there was only one company allowed to supply them. They withdraw their licence then immediately start looking for a new supplier. Who did they expect to find?
Perhaps they should now find a few more, entirely unrelated, suppliers. That way the suppliers are under a genuine threat if they break the rules. And maybe a bit of competition might bring the price down?
agreed - prohibited weapons have limited supplies shock
Did anyone look at the list of suppliers available before taking away their license.
All that is missing from the MPs noise is "think of the children".... i mean they already got "lessoned learnt" in there.
It would be nice if the law was based on "lessons learnt" as it seems that anyone aside from an ordinary worker drone can claim to have learnt lessons and thats all ok.
I'm suprised they didn't call the new company Tect-Pro.
You will probably find that they have formed a US middle man company to supply the units to the UK company and it'll be owned by the original Pro-Tect owners.
Under TUPE regulations, if a contract shifts from one supplier to another, the new supplier is obliged to consider employing staff from the previous one. This turns up often in public sector contracts - you'll often find the same names cropping up on a job even if the contractor has changed.
Agreed that this is probably a leetle bit dodge for that though...
Title should be automatic on reply
> Under TUPE regulations, if a contract shifts from one supplier to another, the new
> supplier is obliged to consider employing staff from the previous one.
No TUPE only applies when the business is transferred from on comany to another.
That's not what happened here; in this situation, a company simply lost its licence to sell firearms because it was found to have breached that licence.
TUPE does not apply.
" ... handed over to Tactical Safety Responses Limited (TSR)"
+1 Taser of shocking?
Confirmation that ACPO Ltd are indeed above the law, and beyond reproach.
Q: Is Mr Cameron a "principal" of both companies?
Depends on what your definition of is is.
And what is the definition of "slippery eel" or "weasel"?
(TSR reference shouldn't need to be explained...)
There were suddenly a lot of people in Daventry needing jobs and having experience supplying police contracts, and a new company hiring people for supplying police contracts?
Would it not be against employment law to reject them on the basis of who they worked for before?
So, in a nutshell...
...this sequence of events would appear to suggest corruption, cronyism and a flagrant disregard for the law in a matter involving the British police and their support structure.
However we have seen in recent times that rank-and-file police officers may murder civilians and brutally assault wheelchair-bound people while their superiors may repeatedly perjure themselves, all with complete impunity. This being so, the matter of a few Midlands merchants slipping on false beards so as to ensure continuity of the revenue stream they enjoy from the (clearly unregulated) supply of electric human being killers to the (clearly unregulated) police forces of the UK is simply consistent with the way things are done on the island.
After all, it's all in the Common Cause, isn't it? Part of the British way of doing things along with a government of identified thieves performing social engineering on the 'electorate' whilst simultaneously undertaking bloodstained foreign incursions against a few unfortunate goat-herders, all without benefit of a mandate.
My question is this: doesn't anybody get tired of this? Are you all blase? Naive? Apathetic? Or just so beaten-down that it really doesn't matter to you any more?
AC because Mr Plod has a long memory and a much-documented vicious streak. I haven't lived on the island for decades, but I still have to return occasionally.
None of my 1980s D&D books mention tasers...
It fails the 'arms length' test
It looks like a government blessed 'slight of hand' so the original importer continues to reap the benefits.
Do you smell the stench, too?
Why would you expect civil servants or politicians ...
to recognise conflict of interest?
Ahhh! Aaahh I think i'm going INSANE!!!!
They really are complete cunts aren't they?
TSR? how appropriate
Terminate and Stay Resident, makes sense to me.
This very same problem was pointed out by Fester Bestertester regarding the bona fides of the Acme Gorilla Suit Company and the Ace Gorilla Suit Company, shortly before being ambushed by gorillas dressed in Senate Anti-Trust Committee Member Suits.
Gee willikers, lawks a lawdy, well I never, etc...
Is anyone really surprised at this?
- 'Kim Kardashian snaps naked selfies with a BLACKBERRY'. *Twitterati gasps*
- Crawling from the Wreckage THE DEATH OF ECONOMICS: Aircraft design vs flat-lining financial models
- Pics Facebook's Oculus unveils 360-degree VR head tracking Crescent Bay prototype
- Bargain basement iPhone shoppers BEWARE! eBay exposes users to phishing vuln
- Google+ GOING, GOING ... ? Newbie Gmailers no longer forced into mandatory ID slurp