Spy Blog - SpyBlog.org.uk

Interesting, isn't it, that the Home Office can announce the appointment of staff to a new agency that has no legal existence? What if Parliament declines to pass the relevant legislation?

(I'm assuming, of course, that we still live in a constitutional democracy where the rule of law prevails and Parliament is the legislative authority.)

Who remembers Tony Blair's slogan "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" these days ?

We seem to be promised a "law and order" election campaign, with each of the main political parties trying to outdo each other with their vague promises.

David Blunkett has allegedly secured legislative timetable slots for 6 Bills in the Queen's Speech in November, so it is likely that Parliament will pass the SOCA legislation in one or other of them.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,11026,1274419,00.html

On past form, any opposition will be diverted by other controversial clauses and this bit of legislation will slip through on the nod, and without proper debate by MPs.

Is it me or does the whole SOCA thing seem like an attempt to cut costs?

There will be lots of overlap in the new merged entity, new contracts for agents -

Many experienced officers will go back to their forces rather than face the uncertainty.

In a couple of years time SOCA will be directly recruiting off the streets and the whole thing will be diluted in quality.

Whats wrong with the existing structures of the NCS, NCIS, Customs???

Is it that they are too expensive with the looming pensions crisis in the public sector eating up huge amounts of law enforcement budgets ???

Create a new agency - change terms and conditions, move out the experienced officers - and bring in the new blood on lower wages and pensions....

Change the law to make it easier to convict and confiscate organised crime groups assets - so in 2008 it appears that the new agency is succeeding...

Maybe im cynical....

I work with an individual who has been interviewed and offered a SOCA supervisors post. There was no need for the individual to give details of a line manager so their skills(or not) could be verified. This individual is not up to the job, but SOCA don't seem to care. They have so few applicants they are desperate. They will reap what they sew. An organisation of less than adequate individuals.

Are they not offering any more pay for these "elite" Serious Organised Crime Agency personnel ?

The public sector has never paid that well and the calibre of most public sector employees reflects this. Why should SOCA be any different.

Employing civilians to do tasks previously carried out by police constables is policing on the cheap. The police pension scheme for example is far more generous than anything that will be offered to SOCA employees. The other advantage, from the Home Secretary's point of view is that they will answerable to him, not to a police authority. Like the London Command Crime Group mentioned previously.

SOCA falls under the remit of the Independent Police Complaints Commission, but as you say, there is no Local Police Authority for the Home Office to bully, and the annual reports about the effectiveness of SOCA only go to the Home Secretary.

Perhaps the expenditure , alleged value for money, delays in computer projects etc. should come under the scrutiny of the Intelligence Services Committee, which itself needs to be more aggressive in questioning the Executive branch of Government.

I doubt that the Home Affairs Select Committee will provide any proper independent scrutiny of SOCA.

Despite the Press hype, SOCA is looking more like Europol than the FBI.

Not too sure where Nur mi is cominmg from re. comments about employing civilians to do jobs previously done by a PC - most of the operational staff in SOCA actually going out doing arrests etc will be ex Police, Customs or IS - its likely that most of the NCIS civilians (presume this means those not badged to make arrests in reality - ie not a constable, customs or immigration officer) will be doing the kind of jobs they already do at NCIS. Also as to the calibre of public sector employees - well thats surely subjective - - not good compared to who - most private sector employees have not had to go through a door at 6 in the morning or face potential serious violence

Here we go. SOCA applicants from Woolworths, M&S etc. These are the people expected to fight the best criminals in the world. The thing will be a fiasco.

I find it somewhat unusual and without foundation for people, almost certainly serving or ex-police officers, to suggest that all new SOCA recruits must be police or ex-police. Why is this ? There are a great many law enforcement agencies worldwide that recruit straight from civi street. The recruitment process is very comprehensive and new recruits are then subject to a lenghthy, specialised and intensive training programme before becomming operational. This is precisely what happens in most of the Federal Agencies in the USA, such as the FBI, US Marshals Service and Secret Service to name but 3. These agencies recruit a great many people who have no prior Law Enforcement experience, via a very strict recruitment process, and intensive training course.
The FBI and Secret Service (is there any job more important to the USA than the protection of their own Head of State) are highly regarded, some would say they are the best in the world. Maybe! Are we saying that the US have got this wrong, and they should only be recruiting ex-police officers who may have only ever arrested some shoplifters, a few saturday night drunks and speeding motorists instead.They will certainly never done any CP work, so how is prior police experience of any relevance whatsoever? It's not. If prior experience in these areas was necessary, then I have no doubt that the FBI and Secret Service would insist on it. In fact while we are at it surely it would make sense for VIP protection units such as the Secret Service and perhaps the Met Special Branch Officers that protect the PM, should all have prior experience in close protection and firearms. If that were the case then only ex SAS, Royal Military Police or Royal Marine trained CP personnel would have the requisite skills. What possible relevant skills would a normal Met police officer have, which would make him more suited or experienced in CP work than a CP trained ex-military guy. The answer is none, yet we recruit Close Protection Officers from serving Met officers. Why do we do this? because personality, potential and ability to learn new skills are more important.
That is why the FBI recruit straight from civi street (university degree required amongst other things) and the new recruit can be trained in every thing he needs to know. Why the hell should SOCA be any different. Bright, sensible civilians with the right qualities can be trained in all they need to know for a role in SOCA just as new FBI recruits can. Why would a beat bobby in say, rural Suffolk who has never dealt with anything like the level of crime that SOCA will, be any more suited than a bright civi with all the right attributes. The answer is he wouldn't. The police do not have the monoploy on investigative skills and most of their day to day work is of no relevance to SOCA. Open up the recruitment, with strict appication requirements and an intensive training course and any of these successful recruits will be of the right quality for SOCA, more so than an area cop who because he has 5 years service on the streets, in some non descript British town feels he has a god given right to be more able to join SOCA than a highly motivated intelligent civilian. No disrespect to any service or ex officers, many of who I can call friends but I am demonstrating the lack of relevence to SOCA, of normal police experience and the argument does not stack up well when compared to other agencies such as the FBI etc.

Having read the above comments from "Norman" i find some of his comments refreshing and will agree with the "why should a beat bobby be given the god given right to apply" argument. However, I am a Detective Sergeant at present and am certainly sure that my experience in dealing with the criminal fraternity is relevant. I would even go as far as to say that a civilian fresh off the street would not be able to grasp the delicate intricasies needed for such major investigations. Let's stop pre-judging the new SOCA and wait to see what happens.

Don't forget that a massive portion of SOCA's remit is to combat financial crime (money laundering etc). Surely recruits for this work should have a commercial background and come from financial institutions, private sector investigations firms (Kroll, Control Risks) or agencies like the FSA. Many police officers haven't got the level of financial or commercial (and in some cases technical) background needed for this work. To my mind, the very best SOCA will have a mixture of private and public sector investigators from a variety of backgrounds. The police officers will learn from the civilians and vice versa.

It seems strange that the Serious Fraud Office did not get amalgamated into SOCA.

http://www.sfo.gov.uk/

Would the SFO as part of SOCA be more, or less effective than at present ?

>>The police officers will learn from the civilians and vice versa.

This is the most sensible comment I have read on the whole page.

It is of course inherently true and, in todays recruitment world, the only way that any new organisation is going to get the right quantity and quality of choice that it needs to build an effective organisation. Selection, Training, Rewards all need to be top quality - otherwise I fear SOCA will fall into its own quagmire.

I hope my latter comment does not come to fruition as, as has already been stated, the criminals don't give a toss for any of this and carry on as they always have done.

I could not agree more with John Doe, Civi Street and Polko. My thoughts entirely. At last some well thought out and sensible comments on possible (indeed preferable)pools of talent for SOCA recruitment.

John Doe, thanks for the comment about my post being refreshing, and I agree with most of yours. I do have an issue though, where you say that "a civilian fresh off the street would not be able to grasp the delicate intricasies needed for such major investigations" This would be quite true if the person being recruited was indeed fresh off civi street, but that is not what I am suggesting. If they are new to law enfrocement or indeed any investagative work, then they would need to be carefully selected and trained and then be worked into the role, just as they would be in the FBI, Secret Service, Customs or M15 for example which take direct civilian recruits, why should SOCA be any different. Yourself as an experienced DS was once a new inexperienced CID Officer that needed training and supervising until your skills were at the level they are now. Not trying to argue with you but just wanted to make that point, that i am not advocating someone walking into SOCA off the street and the next week having them dealing with seroius and organised crime.
I agree lets wait and see.

Many different comment on this link, so time for my two pence worth.
As far as Police Officers are concerned they need to ensure that their entitlements are of a similar stature to what they have as a serving officer. At the present time it still seems a little up in the air as to what a retiring 'Agent' will get. There are many very experienced officers NOT going for the role for fear of losing out. This in itself is a great shame as there is a welth of experience there already. There is also a welth of experience within customs and i can see many of them applying for the new role - which will probably pay them much better than they get now.
Yes - the FBI takes on new recruits and i am sure SOCA will have to do the same - but lets be clear about this - there will have to be a massive trasitional period for this to take place smoothly.

Just a thought on the prior posts. I say Saga not Soca!

Today sees an attack on the retirement age for public sector workers (Teachers/civil servants etc) with a mandatory 65 for all 'new' recruits. Cops can retire after 30 years but will members of the new agency have to totter on into their dotage? "STOP! or I’ll clout you with my Zimmer - if I can lift it".

The new agency wants cops at start-up but I suspect that they will recruit elsewhere once they are up and running - police officers are hard to sack whereas under SOCA they can give their 'agents' 28 days notice.

Methinks that just as cheapo 'Community Support Officers' have supplanted the beat PC, so the Home Office will in the long-term recruit 'on the cheap' in the war against organised crime.

I agree that the police service does not have the monopoly on investigating serious crime, especially it's financial aspects but the writers are missing the point. The bureaucracy, legal niceties and torturous legislation involved is not easily absorbed. Cops who have 'suffered' through 15-20 odd years are sufficiently experienced - it would be a brave individual from 'Civvy Street' (though Cops are civilians, locally appointed etc) who could be confident in assuming an operational role in the new SOCA.

I hope it works and pay scales are right - pay peanuts as the saying goes...perhaps they can apply for a lottery grant from the spare £2.6bn knocking around in the fund at present.

Bluephase should be aware that a move to SOCA will entail a substantial pay cut for most officers, whether from Police of Customs. The terms and conditions are still to be ironed out, but rest assured, Bluephase, that people will be joining the new agency to do the job, NOT for financial gain.

As an operational 'civvie' and a veteran of many a covert surveillance operation, I have found that a lot of the time it was the police officers who were uprofessional. Their attitudes ranged from the incompetent to the cavalier. From practically shouting on their mobile phones whilst in obs vans - literally feet from machettied-up Yardies - or wearing bright red footy shirts at obs points, dancing about with binoculars because they couldn't get a 'proper look' in the urban hide, to being lied to about having the correct RIPA in force for the mode of surveillance. (I always check now)

I feel that any job role that doesn't call for the possession of a warrant card, can be civilianised. Surveillance, intelligence gathering, evidence gathering, forensics and preparation for court, can all be very professionally done by civilian employees. It's only when the 'civvies' need the doors kicking in and the bad guys dragging to interview do we really need card carrying officers. (You know, like MI5 do with Special Branch ;) If the operation is done really well, we don't even need much of an interview. (Don't want all our evidence giving away so they can cook up a story. Do we?)

I don't know which Force or individuals that Top Cat encountered. I myself worked for the police in a civilian role and my husband is a police officer - a specialist ( not in the Met I may add). It is true to say that in any organisation there are good and bad, and to make a sweeping statement and tar all police officers with the same brush is unjust. I know many officers whose professionalism, competence and experience would be invaluable in the set up of such an organisation - I also know other officers who do not appear to have the ability to undertake such a role. What is clear is that in the set up of an organisation which is expected to be up and running and producing results quickly, experience particularly in such a specialist field is very much needed. However, I do agree that applications should be welcomed from civilians and officers alike and that every individual applying for a post with SOCA , whether police officer or civilian should undergo strict assessment to see if they have the necessary skill and potential to fulfill the post requirements.

when this starts up when what will be the youngest age to apply and or recruit