Copper earns 45k.... in overtime alone.
Discussion
Vaud said:
Quite. The tension between the Home Office and the Police is an odd one that I don't fully understand. "The Home Secretary is out to destroy policing as we know it" seems to be the default response, regardless of the real outcome.
I was struck by her speech to the Police Federation:
"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, 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’s fallen further since – and our country is safer than it has ever been."
She, and all her predecessors deserve close protection. Although whether the risk of attack is from terrorists, or members of the Police Federation is probably the real question...
many police officers were struck by May's speech writers.I was struck by her speech to the Police Federation:
"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, 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’s fallen further since – and our country is safer than it has ever been."
She, and all her predecessors deserve close protection. Although whether the risk of attack is from terrorists, or members of the Police Federation is probably the real question...
Blunkett was the worst HomSec this country has seen in my lifetime. Many of his changes, which were criticised by the tories at the time, have been 'built on' by this current lot. So, at the time, one would assume that her government sided with the federation on their assessment of his abilities.
Mind you, they were quiet on his Criminal Law Act which was an opportunity missed as it was found wanting and replaced in just over a year.
As for the later betrayals. If memory serves, that was when the negotiating body that was set up to ensure decent conditions and pay was ignored by the government. So something that was forced on the police in order to delay what an independent body thought would have kept them on par with other similar (although somewhat less demanding in many cases) jobs was, when it was found too honest, ignored. Yes, morale took a hit. We - I was a police officer then - found that MPs were untrustworthy.
What is especially admirable in May's speech is that she uses the fact that despite pay cuts and failure to adhere to agreed practices (although, to be fair, the federation had no function in agreement or otherwise), not to mention the destruction of conditions of service which protected, in a small way, against the stress of the job, the police efficiency has increased to the extent of the country being 'safer that it has ever been' into a criticism of the very people whose efforts have ensured this significant change.
She has selected the quotes of course, and most were about specifics. However, you can't prove that current criticisms of policy are wrong by suggesting, especially with selected quotes, that previous criticisms were wrong.
You'd think someone as important as her who deserves protecting - unlike the London bobbies who don't even deserve water - would know that this type of argument is spurious. Even if she didn't, you'd think Cameron would have mentioned it. The officers must be awaiting his intervention with some anticipation.
The fact is that performance has suffered under this government. One can understand a pay cut - although only if it went for everyone, like the MPs - but the attack on conditions was well out of order. I understand the need to show how badly the police are doing before privatising it and giving more money to Group 4 and its ilk, but even so.
Vaud said:
Ore we could accelerate some force mergers and back office?
Plenty of companies with 100,000's of employers have one IT system, one HR, one payroll, one procurement and manage very well. There is plenty of efficiency to be found without touching front line.
The repeated criticism of the Met is that it is too large. The savings of mergers is often illusory. Further, payroll, for instance, is largely automatic in the forces I know about. So amalgamation will mainly just add another level of bureaucracy. Plenty of companies with 100,000's of employers have one IT system, one HR, one payroll, one procurement and manage very well. There is plenty of efficiency to be found without touching front line.
Most, all probably, forces have some shared facilities, those picked because savings are made without damage to the individual force.
The idea of one single IT system for, for instance, command and control would mean that there was no competition, no firm starting up with a new, cheaper method, competing with the established ones. To block this seems bordering on socialism.
Procurement, well that's coming. The government have suggested before that it be centralised, and by that they mean sold off to some private comp4any. They will make a profit from the sales to to the police. So we have the purchase price for the contract, the pay for the bosses, and money to shareholders. A share of these costs will be added to each car, each chair and each paperclip. It will, inarguably, add to costs.
In fact the government will sell off contracts for such things as payroll, and each little thing will add to the cost of policing.
I partly agree with your points and don't believe in "one system" but think there is a good way to go and a balance to be struck - and also some better procurement/consolidation by the police (I've seen some of their tenders).
Selling off is one thing - having better supplier management is a better way of approaching it.
Selling off is one thing - having better supplier management is a better way of approaching it.
Vaud said:
I partly agree with your points and don't believe in "one system" but think there is a good way to go and a balance to be struck - and also some better procurement/consolidation by the police (I've seen some of their tenders).
Selling off is one thing - having better supplier management is a better way of approaching it.
You know, I assume, that many forces act together on procurement? There are different 'groups' of forces, those with similar needs, and these cooperate on a level that varies depending on the importance. Further, these forces fall into different groping for different tasks. Selling off is one thing - having better supplier management is a better way of approaching it.
The easiest to understand in regional crime units - or whatever the name is currently. Regional gives a clue as to the groupings.
Bedrordshire and Sussex are in the same group for policing strategies, yet there is a difference in size of a factor of 3.
When I had a query about driver training, I went to a force in another group which had similar circumstances to Sussex.
Cooperation used to go on all the time, even 15 years ago.
There are forces where payroll is joint. There are others where command and control are centralised.
These decisions are made on practicality and cost, which sometimes conflict. If such decisions as to who works with whom were made on political grounds then this would be a recipe, if not of disaster, then of greater costs.
Change, especially fundamental change, costs. My force was obliged to change its command and control systems and we were told that after seven or 9 years, forget which, the change would pay for itself. This was wrong as it failed to take into account such things as interest, other changes that were forced on us, etc. Five years later, the system was changed again through outside pressure.
If savings are minimal, and centralising systems across all forces would probably save a few quid, then given the risk of circumstances changing, forcing further change, it is better to work with the established systems and improve them. Payroll can be all but automated. I know that in my force, staffing levels of the pay office dropped considerably in my time. In the old days there was always someone to answer the phone.
What the service needs, needs desperately in these straightened times, is reform. But it won't get it.
Slashing funding is not reform. Indeed, all the actions of the service will be to try and cope with the management of change of funding.
What the police needs as well is for the government to butt out. If there was a plan and it turned out, for instance, that the best way of going was to legalise possession of certain drugs, then the government would think that this would cost them votes so would refuse. That's the problem.
We already have one of the lowest police : per capita ratios in the EU and there are more substantial cuts to come. Yet the police still spend hours reporting useless stats to the HO.
With dramatically fewer police officers, and more cuts to come, the uproar about police not arresting for simple possession of cannabis (a class C in everything but class, because of political interference) is rather pathetic. Not attending every burglary? Get used to it. It is the only answer.
Sussex has, at times, just one traffic car forcewide. One. The police should be removed from roads policing but that would require reform, and the government will not do something where they might be criticised.
Edited by Derek Smith on Thursday 30th July 19:53
Derek Smith said:
Vaud said:
I partly agree with your points and don't believe in "one system" but think there is a good way to go and a balance to be struck - and also some better procurement/consolidation by the police (I've seen some of their tenders).
Selling off is one thing - having better supplier management is a better way of approaching it.
You know, I assume, that many forces act together on procurement? There are different 'groups' of forces, those with similar needs, and these cooperate on a level that varies depending on the importance. Further, these forces fall into different groping for different tasks. Selling off is one thing - having better supplier management is a better way of approaching it.
The easiest to understand in regional crime units - or whatever the name is currently. Regional gives a clue as to the groupings.
Bedrordshire and Sussex are in the same group for policing strategies, yet there is a difference in size of a factor of 3.
When I had a query about driver training, I went to a force in another group which had similar circumstances to Sussex.
Cooperation used to go on all the time, even 15 years ago.
There are forces where payroll is joint. There are others where command and control are centralised.
These decisions are made on practicality and cost, which sometimes conflict. If such decisions as to who works with whom were made on political grounds then this would be a recipe, if not of disaster, then of greater costs.
Change, especially fundamental change, costs. My force was obliged to change its command and control systems and we were told that after seven or 9 years, forget which, the change would pay for itself. This was wrong as it failed to take into account such things as interest, other changes that were forced on us, etc. Five years later, the system was changed again through outside pressure.
If savings are minimal, and centralising systems across all forces would probably save a few quid, then given the risk of circumstances changing, forcing further change, it is better to work with the established systems and improve them. Payroll can be all but automated. I know that in my force, staffing levels of the pay office dropped considerably in my time. In the old days there was always someone to answer the phone.
What the service needs, needs desperately in these straightened times, is reform. But it won't get it.
Slashing funding is not reform. Indeed, all the actions of the service will be to try and cope with the management of change of funding.
What the police needs as well is for the government to butt out. If there was a plan and it turned out, for instance, that the best way of going was to legalise possession of certain drugs, then the government would think that this would cost them votes so would refuse. That's the problem.
We already have one of the lowest police
er capita ratios in the EU and there are more substantial cuts to come. Yet the police still spend hours reporting useless stats to the HO. With dramatically fewer police officers, and more cuts to come, the uproar about police not arresting for simple possession of cannabis (a class C in everything but class, because of political interference) is rather pathetic. Not attending every burglary? Get used to it. It is the only answer.
Sussex has, at times, just one traffic car forcewide. One. The police should be removed from roads policing but that would require reform, and the government will not do something where they might be criticised.
How much does the Sussex police force cost the taxpayer each year?
egor110 said:
Be interesting to see what would happen if the police,nhs staff refused to work any overtime.
Do NHS staff get overtime pay?My daughter works in mental health and doesn't. If someone calls their service and suggests they're having suicidal thoughts then it has to dealt with however long it takes.
In theory they can get time off in lieu but in practice it's impossible to take because it would mess up her clinics.
Sheepshanks said:
egor110 said:
Be interesting to see what would happen if the police,nhs staff refused to work any overtime.
Do NHS staff get overtime pay?My daughter works in mental health and doesn't. If someone calls their service and suggests they're having suicidal thoughts then it has to dealt with however long it takes.
In theory they can get time off in lieu but in practice it's impossible to take because it would mess up her clinics.
Of course the government don't give a s
t because they know when push comes to shove nhs staff won't go on strike and its illegal for the police to take action.Sheepshanks said:
Do NHS staff get overtime pay?
My daughter works in mental health and doesn't. If someone calls their service and suggests they're having suicidal thoughts then it has to dealt with however long it takes.
In theory they can get time off in lieu but in practice it's impossible to take because it would mess up her clinics.
My sister in law is a nurse and same thing happens to her. It's a handy way for ward managers to keep staffing costs to a minimum.My daughter works in mental health and doesn't. If someone calls their service and suggests they're having suicidal thoughts then it has to dealt with however long it takes.
In theory they can get time off in lieu but in practice it's impossible to take because it would mess up her clinics.
egor110 said:
That doesn't make it right though does it, your daughter should be paid for hours she works.
Of course she should - but they say they don't have the money.egor110 said:
Of course the government don't give a st because they know when push comes to shove nhs staff won't go on strike and its illegal for the police to take action.
It's fine for the Police - they get paid overtime, apparently. Wonder where they get the money from if their budgets are limited?t because they know when push comes to shove nhs staff won't go on strike and its illegal for the police to take action.Sheepshanks said:
It's fine for the Police - they get paid overtime, apparently. Wonder where they get the money from if their budgets are limited?
By reducing their permanent staff headcount. Unfortunately with nursing I think there's a minimum ratio of nurses to patients so there's a limit to how few nurses can be on duty at any one time.Edited by Countdown on Thursday 30th July 22:36
Countdown said:
NoNeed said:
There comes a point where the negatives of fatigue from too much work far outweigh the positives of sensible working hours. I work with somebody that does a lot of overtime and he is no where near as fast or sharp as his colleagues that don't.
I agree but some PH'ers are superhuman 
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=146...
There is a place for overtime but too much is counter productive. If a department has for three consecutive years done a level of overtime that a normal contacted employee would earn surely it would be better to employ another person.
Elroy Blue said:
The second round of cuts will reduce West Mids Police to half the size it was in 2010. Demand has not been halved.
Unsurprisingly, they are now reviewing the overtime rates as Officers are forced to work excessively long hours.
What a shock.....people wont be staying on if they're not being paid for it. Unsurprisingly, they are now reviewing the overtime rates as Officers are forced to work excessively long hours.
I get a fair bit of overtime at the moment as my department has a lot of out of hours short notice work. Im happy to do it as it stands because the OT makes up for the reduced family time and pain in the ass factor if getting up at 2am but if I'm not being rewarded for that then they can poke it.
Goodwill has been keeping things going for too long so that'll soon dry up too.
V8 Fettler said:
There's a starting point.
How much does the Sussex police force cost the taxpayer each year?
How much does the Sussex police force cost the taxpayer each year?
Just to clarify, are you suggesting that the police should attend every burglary?
And in answer to your question, about 25% less than four years ago but around 30% more than by the end of this government.
Elroy Blue said:
The second round of cuts will reduce West Mids Police to half the size it was in 2010. Demand has not been halved.
Unsurprisingly, they are now reviewing the overtime rates as Officers are forced to work excessively long hours.
"That’s the standard technique of privatization: defund, make sure things don’t work, people get angry, you hand it over to private capital."Unsurprisingly, they are now reviewing the overtime rates as Officers are forced to work excessively long hours.
Noam Chomsky,
Greendubber said:
What a shock.....people wont be staying on if they're not being paid for it.
I get a fair bit of overtime at the moment as my department has a lot of out of hours short notice work. Im happy to do it as it stands because the OT makes up for the reduced family time and pain in the ass factor if getting up at 2am but if I'm not being rewarded for that then they can poke it.
Goodwill has been keeping things going for too long so that'll soon dry up too.
Expect the term "Exigency of duty" to be used to beat officers into submission (even when it is not an exigency of duty).I get a fair bit of overtime at the moment as my department has a lot of out of hours short notice work. Im happy to do it as it stands because the OT makes up for the reduced family time and pain in the ass factor if getting up at 2am but if I'm not being rewarded for that then they can poke it.
Goodwill has been keeping things going for too long so that'll soon dry up too.
neenaw said:
Just wait for the uproar when they pick up on the overtime earnings of some Paramedics, it's well above the numbers they're talking about in that article.
Good luck to them if they're wiling to work the hours to get that kind of OT money though.
Good luck to them if they're wiling to work the hours to get that kind of OT money though.
yay for long days in the nHS and thanks to the unique way in which A+E ambulance staff are trained and the way in which the unions have objected to 'mixed race' working ... overtime is still one the best ways of getting more cover ...
Derek Smith said:
V8 Fettler said:
There's a starting point.
How much does the Sussex police force cost the taxpayer each year?
How much does the Sussex police force cost the taxpayer each year?
Just to clarify, are you suggesting that the police should attend every burglary?
And in answer to your question, about 25% less than four years ago but around 30% more than by the end of this government.
I am merely a punter who pays for it all, I have little interest in the infighting and b
hing between the Home Sec and various police forces, but I do want good value for money and effective and efficient policing.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff