quote:

---

Tom Stamatakis says he worries that security companies taking over policing functions is creating a gap between rich and poor neighbourhoods.

"The average person has to phone 911 and wait for police to arrive and may have to wait anywhere from several hours to several days. Where that gap starts to exist, those who can afford it then look for alternatives," he says.

"We find ourselves in a situation where those that have the means can purchase all kinds of security, personal safety. But then what about the poor person?"

Stamatakis says the police department need more money and resources so that poorer neighbourhoods that can't afford to pay can feel secure.

---

...

This is a very topical article, especially considering these two recent threads on babble:

• "Sensitivity Training" for TO cops in wake of bathhouse raid
• Rent-a-Cops lose tasers

[ 07 January 2005: Message edited by: Anchoress ]

quote:

---

In any case, how would private security for the rich hurt the poor? Presumably it would free up more police officers to help keep the poor secure.

---

Police officers hate going to false alarms. It's not only a waste of money, it's not in the public interest. 99% of alarms are false, and the alarm company can usually tell it's false because it triggers only one motion sensor inside the building (something fell).

The police are more than happy to let private security companies with $10/h guards respond to these.

Companies which hire private stationary security guards reduce insurance costs. Many of these jobs are extremely BORING and no police officer would do it.