Home Office to charge police officers for a requirement
Discussion
Zod said:
Theresa May said:
This weekend the federation warned that spending reductions mean that we will be forced to adopt a paramilitary style of policing in Britain. Today you said that neighbourhood police officers are an endangered species.
I have to tell you that this kind of scaremongering does nobody any good. It doesn’t serve you, it doesn’t serve the officers you represent and it does not serve the public.
In 2002 you said David Blunkett had done more harm to the police in five minutes than others have taken years to do. In 2004 you said Labour were going to destroy policing in this country for ever. And in 2007 you said the government had betrayed the police.
Now, I disagree with Labour policies, but even I don’t think those things are true.
You said police officers were demoralised in 2002, 2004 and 2007 and 2012. You warned of police officers’ anger in 2002, 2005 and 2008. And you warned that the police and the public were being put in danger in 2001, 2004 and 2007.
The truth is that crime fell in each of those years. It has fallen further since, and our country is safer than it has ever been.
So, please, for your sake, and for the thousands of police officers who work so hard every day, this crying wolf has to stop.
Rebuttal?I have to tell you that this kind of scaremongering does nobody any good. It doesn’t serve you, it doesn’t serve the officers you represent and it does not serve the public.
In 2002 you said David Blunkett had done more harm to the police in five minutes than others have taken years to do. In 2004 you said Labour were going to destroy policing in this country for ever. And in 2007 you said the government had betrayed the police.
Now, I disagree with Labour policies, but even I don’t think those things are true.
You said police officers were demoralised in 2002, 2004 and 2007 and 2012. You warned of police officers’ anger in 2002, 2005 and 2008. And you warned that the police and the public were being put in danger in 2001, 2004 and 2007.
The truth is that crime fell in each of those years. It has fallen further since, and our country is safer than it has ever been.
So, please, for your sake, and for the thousands of police officers who work so hard every day, this crying wolf has to stop.
If she's specifically talking about morale, now, which is actually relevant, then she should look at the internal / fed / external surveys to see the outcomes (Google it to see some yourself). Naturally she won't, instead she deflects by talking about what the Fed may or may not have said in the past when facing change.
I'm more objective than most as a) I manage my own pension and b) fortunately have business interests outside the police to which I'll eventually move. I understand the economic situation and wanting to turn a deficit into a surplus, and people are living longer so pensions need reforming.
Whilst accepting those things, I don't accept the lies that policing (especially neighbourhood policing) won't be affected by such reductions in funding. A lot are disbanding police officers from neighborhood policing to default to core response / process roles. A Fed survey found that 33 of the 44 forces have either, "scrapped, reduced or merged" their neighbourhood teams since 2010. To say this type of policing is massively under threat is no scaremongering. Focusing on what the Fed apparently said in 2002 doesn't change that.
Fine, we need to make saving, but let's have a Home Sec who is at least honest about the potential impacts.
As I said earlier, every officer needs to be recording as much justifiable crime as possible. For too long we've helped the state get the figures it wants. The figures should match reality.
SteBrown91 said:
Derek that sounds more like an issue with your force's duty management unit not correctly allocating resources.
Most forces have swapped officers for staff where possible as they can pension off/re-assign a 35-40k Sgt for a 20k staff member (and often its the same person)
So are you suggesting that these forces have sacked officers and then reemployed them to save money?Most forces have swapped officers for staff where possible as they can pension off/re-assign a 35-40k Sgt for a 20k staff member (and often its the same person)
Forces are required by government to keep officers so it looks good on paper. Or rather in papers.
Like it or not, cost cutting has been going on for years and by slashing the budget some of the best ideas have been cut. It was the best option.
Drumroll said:
Many other professionals have to pay out of there own pocket to belong to their professional organisation. So don't really see an issue with that.
You obviously do not know what the federation is or why it was imposed. It is not a professional organisation. There is no similarity. It was introduced as a way of stopping the demand for police officers to the right to free association. The federation is limited to what it can do, and some of those core functions have been since blocked by the government. The issue is that the federation represents a restriction on the rights of police officers. It is unjustifiable. There is no sensible reason to block the right to free association. In other words the federation is a construct of the home office. It is as if a prisoner is asked to pay for his chains.
Elroy Blue said:
Derek Smith said:
So you think I'm a supporter of labour?
Wow! That's a good one.
It's pretty much the standard response when anyone criticises Cameron and his grubby teamWow! That's a good one.
They way government treats the Police (and for that matter the forces) is a joke.
La Liga said:
Zod said:
Theresa May said:
This weekend the federation warned that spending reductions mean that we will be forced to adopt a paramilitary style of policing in Britain. Today you said that neighbourhood police officers are an endangered species.
I have to tell you that this kind of scaremongering does nobody any good. It doesn’t serve you, it doesn’t serve the officers you represent and it does not serve the public.
In 2002 you said David Blunkett had done more harm to the police in five minutes than others have taken years to do. In 2004 you said Labour were going to destroy policing in this country for ever. And in 2007 you said the government had betrayed the police.
Now, I disagree with Labour policies, but even I don’t think those things are true.
You said police officers were demoralised in 2002, 2004 and 2007 and 2012. You warned of police officers’ anger in 2002, 2005 and 2008. And you warned that the police and the public were being put in danger in 2001, 2004 and 2007.
The truth is that crime fell in each of those years. It has fallen further since, and our country is safer than it has ever been.
So, please, for your sake, and for the thousands of police officers who work so hard every day, this crying wolf has to stop.
Rebuttal?I have to tell you that this kind of scaremongering does nobody any good. It doesn’t serve you, it doesn’t serve the officers you represent and it does not serve the public.
In 2002 you said David Blunkett had done more harm to the police in five minutes than others have taken years to do. In 2004 you said Labour were going to destroy policing in this country for ever. And in 2007 you said the government had betrayed the police.
Now, I disagree with Labour policies, but even I don’t think those things are true.
You said police officers were demoralised in 2002, 2004 and 2007 and 2012. You warned of police officers’ anger in 2002, 2005 and 2008. And you warned that the police and the public were being put in danger in 2001, 2004 and 2007.
The truth is that crime fell in each of those years. It has fallen further since, and our country is safer than it has ever been.
So, please, for your sake, and for the thousands of police officers who work so hard every day, this crying wolf has to stop.
If she's specifically talking about morale, now, which is actually relevant, then she should look at the internal / fed / external surveys to see the outcomes (Google it to see some yourself). Naturally she won't, instead she deflects by talking about what the Fed may or may not have said in the past when facing change.
I'm more objective than most as a) I manage my own pension and b) fortunately have business interests outside the police to which I'll eventually move. I understand the economic situation and wanting to turn a deficit into a surplus, and people are living longer so pensions need reforming.
Whilst accepting those things, I don't accept the lies that policing (especially neighbourhood policing) won't be affected by such reductions in funding. A lot are disbanding police officers from neighborhood policing to default to core response / process roles. A Fed survey found that 33 of the 44 forces have either, "scrapped, reduced or merged" their neighbourhood teams since 2010. To say this type of policing is massively under threat is no scaremongering. Focusing on what the Fed apparently said in 2002 doesn't change that.
Fine, we need to make saving, but let's have a Home Sec who is at least honest about the potential impacts.
As I said earlier, every officer needs to be recording as much justifiable crime as possible. For too long we've helped the state get the figures it wants. The figures should match reality.
Youll not find a single survey amongst officers , certainly not in my time over the last 40 odd yrs where morale was high - there have always been issues - pay, staffing levels, overtime, loss of allowances and the surveys always reflect doom and gloom and theres always been something to moan about and always will be. Things did lighten up a bit after Maggie gave us a thirty odd percent pay rise back in 1979. My force is hanging on to neighbourhood policing pretty much in name only - they provide a lot of daily assistance to core shifts but our PCC is committed to keeping the concept alive. Forces are now getting their act together in relation to crime recording - weve had the draconian new recording rules imposed thanks to earlier generations of target led senior officers artificially keeping figures down by introducing 'local recording rules' - so you can thank them for some of todays ills. The Home office has no targets in place in relation to crime recording/reduction/outcomes, however we still have some senior management worried about their next promotion is coming from imposing unnecessary pressures on officers in relation to crime recording and outcomes. The public are getting used to not seeing neighbourhood cops out every day on foot - however they do want a prompt and effective response when they call for assistance - something which most forces are still able to achieve.
Bigends said:
Youll not find a single survey amongst officers , certainly not in my time over the last 40 odd yrs where morale was high - there have always been issues - pay, staffing levels, overtime, loss of allowances and the surveys always reflect doom and gloom and theres always been something to moan about and always will be.
Oh there's no doubt rose-tinting, as I alluded to with each generation telling the next how the job is worse. My point was that May shouldn't be watering down the Fed's concerns at this moment, today, because they may have been a little mellow-dramatic in the past. She's using the 'Boy Who Cried Wolf' comparison. Part of that fable was that the actual event occurred. I find it interesting to note Lord Stevens basically said it's the worst he's seen in 40 years: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-ord...
Bigends said:
Things did lighten up a bit after Maggie gave us a thirty odd percent pay rise back in 1979. My force is hanging on to neighbourhood policing pretty much in name only - they provide a lot of daily assistance to core shifts but our PCC is committed to keeping the concept alive.
Indeed, exactly why May is wrong to say / suggest it won't be affected. Bigends said:
Forces are now getting their act together in relation to crime recording - weve had the draconian new recording rules imposed thanks to earlier generations of target led senior officers artificially keeping figures down by introducing 'local recording rules' - so you can thank them for some of todays ills. The Home office has no targets in place in relation to crime recording/reduction/outcomes, however we still have some senior management worried about their next promotion is coming from imposing unnecessary pressures on officers in relation to crime recording and outcomes. The public are getting used to not seeing neighbourhood cops out every day on foot - however they do want a prompt and effective response when they call for assistance - something which most forces are still able to achieve.
The new 24 hour rule is great (it's not). All sorts of stuff getting recorded on the most superficial of information (as the crime recorders are obligated to, no criticism), whereas previously we wouldn't record a third party report of two brothers fighting in a dwelling as an affray, as an officer would attend and likely negate it. I hope it results in much more recorded crime. I've no doubt that the manipulation suited senior officers as much as the government, since they were held to account by the government for it. The Mad Monk said:
340600 said:
Apparently PolFed are crying wolf now as well. The decimation of the service that's clear to everyone must be in our imaginations then.
I didn't think the opinion of May could get any lower on my shift but it looks like she's outdone herself again.
Is that 'decimation' as in 'reduced by 10%' or,I didn't think the opinion of May could get any lower on my shift but it looks like she's outdone herself again.
Edited by 340600 on Wednesday 20th May 13:32
'decimation' as in reduced by 90%'?
The message from the Home Secretary is clear - there are more cuts to come.
Some food for thought - there are currently approx 126,00 police officers in England and Wales.
32,000 of those are Metropolitan Police.
This leaves 94,000 officers for the rest of England and Wales.
Deduct the number of officers who are not "deployable" - by this I mean really deployable.
This means subtracting the number of senior officers who will not be deployed (at any cost if they can help it), those seconded elsewhere (NCA, etc), those on training courses, on "squads" or working on "projects", those officers who are ill or injured, etc. etc.
Let's be relatively conservative here and say 25% of that 94,000 are not really "deployable" - they are not a resource.
This leaves approx. 70,000 officers.
Now divide that number by 4 - to allow for 4 shifts/ teams.
This means there are approximately 17,500 police officers on duty at any one time to cover all of England and Wales (excluding London).
That is not enough to fill half a football stadium.
These 17,500 officers cover cities such as Birmingham, Cardiff, Manchester, Liverpool, Nottingham, Newcastle, Leeds, and everything in between.
The population of England and Wales (excluding London) is about 50 million.
That is 17,500 cops to police 50 million people.
And May wants less ... go figure.
Some food for thought - there are currently approx 126,00 police officers in England and Wales.
32,000 of those are Metropolitan Police.
This leaves 94,000 officers for the rest of England and Wales.
Deduct the number of officers who are not "deployable" - by this I mean really deployable.
This means subtracting the number of senior officers who will not be deployed (at any cost if they can help it), those seconded elsewhere (NCA, etc), those on training courses, on "squads" or working on "projects", those officers who are ill or injured, etc. etc.
Let's be relatively conservative here and say 25% of that 94,000 are not really "deployable" - they are not a resource.
This leaves approx. 70,000 officers.
Now divide that number by 4 - to allow for 4 shifts/ teams.
This means there are approximately 17,500 police officers on duty at any one time to cover all of England and Wales (excluding London).
That is not enough to fill half a football stadium.
These 17,500 officers cover cities such as Birmingham, Cardiff, Manchester, Liverpool, Nottingham, Newcastle, Leeds, and everything in between.
The population of England and Wales (excluding London) is about 50 million.
That is 17,500 cops to police 50 million people.
And May wants less ... go figure.
Edited by Red 4 on Wednesday 20th May 22:29
Derek Smith said:
You obviously do not know what the federation is or why it was imposed. It is not a professional organisation. There is no similarity. It was introduced as a way of stopping the demand for police officers to the right to free association. The federation is limited to what it can do, and some of those core functions have been since blocked by the government.
The issue is that the federation represents a restriction on the rights of police officers. It is unjustifiable. There is no sensible reason to block the right to free association. In other words the federation is a construct of the home office. It is as if a prisoner is asked to pay for his chains.
1. Prisoners are now being asked to pay for their own chains (sort off). If you are accused of a crime it's going to cost you dearly if you chose to say you have not done it. The issue is that the federation represents a restriction on the rights of police officers. It is unjustifiable. There is no sensible reason to block the right to free association. In other words the federation is a construct of the home office. It is as if a prisoner is asked to pay for his chains.
2. The police are lucky. I was in the armed forces. When I served we neither had a union, nor were subject to the human rights act. That's why blokes were sent to Iraq in less armoured vehicles than the police in NI have. There are a large number of men who got paid CONSIDERABLY less than a police officer to have less rights and do a more dangerous job - with no legs because of it. We didn't have a 'federation'. If it's so rubbish then chose to ignore it and don't engage with it at all.
Nor could we just leave... If a police officer hates his job he can quit. You don't have that luxury in the armed forces (unless you want to be creative with the rules...). But that is besides the point - people made a choice to join the police knowing what the rules were. The police have a huge amount of things to complain about - but the government not paying for their solicitors and federation isn't one of them.
Anyway - how much exactly is it going to cost every officer? In reality is it worth getting upset about?
photosnob said:
1. Prisoners are now being asked to pay for their own chains (sort off). If you are accused of a crime it's going to cost you dearly if you chose to say you have not done it.
2. The police are lucky. I was in the armed forces. When I served we neither had a union, nor were subject to the human rights act. That's why blokes were sent to Iraq in less armoured vehicles than the police in NI have. There are a large number of men who got paid CONSIDERABLY less than a police officer to have less rights and do a more dangerous job - with no legs because of it. We didn't have a 'federation'. If it's so rubbish then chose to ignore it and don't engage with it at all.
Nor could we just leave... If a police officer hates his job he can quit. You don't have that luxury in the armed forces (unless you want to be creative with the rules...). But that is besides the point - people made a choice to join the police knowing what the rules were. The police have a huge amount of things to complain about - but the government not paying for their solicitors and federation isn't one of them.
Anyway - how much exactly is it going to cost every officer? In reality is it worth getting upset about?
Police arent the army - no comparison - have this discussion with my brother who did 19yrs in tanks - if he wanted my pay and conditions he should have joined the Police and not the army. Agreed members should pay for their Federation - some of the monies the Govt is withdrawing was used to fund representation on certain negotiation bodies and not for general funding2. The police are lucky. I was in the armed forces. When I served we neither had a union, nor were subject to the human rights act. That's why blokes were sent to Iraq in less armoured vehicles than the police in NI have. There are a large number of men who got paid CONSIDERABLY less than a police officer to have less rights and do a more dangerous job - with no legs because of it. We didn't have a 'federation'. If it's so rubbish then chose to ignore it and don't engage with it at all.
Nor could we just leave... If a police officer hates his job he can quit. You don't have that luxury in the armed forces (unless you want to be creative with the rules...). But that is besides the point - people made a choice to join the police knowing what the rules were. The police have a huge amount of things to complain about - but the government not paying for their solicitors and federation isn't one of them.
Anyway - how much exactly is it going to cost every officer? In reality is it worth getting upset about?
Edited by Bigends on Wednesday 20th May 22:52
340600 said:
Decimation as in, we barely have enough staff or resources to carry out our duties properly any more. I'd encourage you to go for a ride-along with your local force if you don't believe me.
Very much this. I get to spend a fair bit of time with the custody suites, something I volunteer for. There is very little fat left to cut, and a lot more dross.Derek Smith said:
Drumroll said:
Many other professionals have to pay out of there own pocket to belong to their professional organisation. So don't really see an issue with that.
You obviously do not know what the federation is or why it was imposed. It is not a professional organisation. There is no similarity. It was introduced as a way of stopping the demand for police officers to the right to free association. The federation is limited to what it can do, and some of those core functions have been since blocked by the government. The issue is that the federation represents a restriction on the rights of police officers. It is unjustifiable. There is no sensible reason to block the right to free association. In other words the federation is a construct of the home office. It is as if a prisoner is asked to pay for his chains.
as for the allusion of prisoners paying for their own chains - tiny violin time again as the health professionals and lawyers point out they pay somewhere between several hundred and several thousand pounds a years in registration, indemnity and professional representative organisation subs each year in addition to un recoeverable expenses for CPD ... and i nthe case og many health professionals for less than the salary of and experienced PC.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff