I personally see big moral issues with privately-funded police services, as if following the economic objective to simply maximise profit/revenue as a private company is assumed, it means public services and special powers given by the government to the public serving individuals are being used for profit by companies.

They may still have little changed in their duties, and still work in public interest/safety. But the result of work boils down to benefit private companies, and it seems wrong that police officers, given extra legal power over standard citezens, can be bought out privately to act in a companies interests. Should this special 'power' be for sale?

Of course there is the massive counterpoint that private-funding reduces the need for public specing, and that police officers will simply carry out standard police duties and uphold the law, regardless of where the funding is from.

A good example is the British Transport Police which is staggarangly 95% funded by private rail companies. There is no doubt their work involves acts in the public interests/safety. however actions such as fare related offences/enforcement may be construed as in the interest of the company financially, which is wrong. I do not disagree that they are at most points upholding the law, as fare-dodging is illegal (theft), however they are able to use powers/force to protect a companies personal incomings/interests. This seems morally incorrect. Of course, if a fare-dodger/theif is caught, a company has every right to make use of the police service and powers to prosecute/prevent, however having a specialized force, specially funded seems a corrupt way of going about it.

Another example we can look at it 'private security', who are privately funded but do not have legal powers of a police officer. There are types of quasi-legal law enforcement such as bounces/doormen at events, however they are given special training/powers by law such as the ability to use force against people, or jurasdiction over certain areas such that they can stop/intervene legally with anti-social behaviour.

This seems a much more ideal form of private enforcement, as companies hire as required to protect, and no tax money/public spending is used in the interest of a private company. It protects the integrity of the powers and use of police force, as no excessive/special legal power is available to doormen.

I believe a special police force should be created for private-hire, or special limits/rules should apply to police power when working for private companies to prevent biased policing or use of power specifically in financial interest. There is no doubt a need for 'bought' police services, however I think thier roles/power/responsibility should be different and more limited if privately funded.

Although the British Transport Police does not commonly come under scrutiny for malpractice/corruption by the media or organizations monitoring the police, I believe they are at very high risk of corruption and conflicts of interests, due to the size of the funding. Why should these companies assist with police funding, if it does not work in their favour? It would be a stupid expenditure and waste of money. So there must be some form of control over these forced by companies, even if not explcit. And this can be open to abuse/corruption if their financial objectives of having paid police are not economically justified.