Home Office to charge police officers for a requirement

[Derek Smith]

May has decided that the police federation should be funded entirely by the police officers.

The federation was imposed on the police rank and file as an - entirely successful at the moment - attempt to eliminate the legal claim for officers to join a union.

The federation is a direct copy of the Russian unions at the time of communism. In other words, such things are a method of control.

Funding was cut in the past but now we have the farcical situation of a government requirement being paid for by the persons whose civil rights have been restricted by such imposition.

It is no coincidence that the federation funded a civil case against a foul-mouthed MP just before funding was cut.

The nasty home secretary.

[Derek Smith]

I have a friend who was a civilian, ex police, employee at our HQ. He did the just jobs, such as statements, measurements of scenes, that sort of thing. There were two of them, one for north, and him for south. Both have not had their basic pay plus (10?)% plus expenses contracts renewed. There is now one police officer who performs that role so half the jobs that used to be covered are sleeved because there's no one to take the necessary statements.

This officer takes out a decrepit car 5.5 days a week and goes from statement to statement.

He is shown as operational, part of this laughable magic number that May invented. The reason he is in this post is because he had been declared unfit to work as a police officer due to injury. He, according to May, is a patrolling officer. Ha, bloody Ha.

The nick is now full of police officers performing roles that civilians used to do, except less effectively. Despite the fact that they are stuck in the nick - moaning all the time no doubt - they are shown as operational.

They lied, these politicians. They have no honour. They have no memory of service. They have no concept of service. May is after Cameron's job and will do/say/perform anything to get it.

[Derek Smith]

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?

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.

[Derek Smith]

Mr GrimNasty said:

Derek is in denial, he prefers the Labour way - just ask the police how high up the wall they want the money pissed.

So you think I'm a supporter of labour?

Wow! That's a good one.

[Derek Smith]

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.

[Derek Smith]

williamp said:

Derek Smith said:

It is no coincidence that the federation funded a civil case against a foul-mouthed MP just before funding was cut.

Yes, how did that go when the Police decided to get political, anti- government and lied? Repeatedly?. Over one bad word which is used every day. Even by Police officers. Did the British population fully support you then?

Derek Smith said:

The nasty home secretary.

There is a lot which is wrong with our police force and needs to be changed. Its brave of someone to take you on.

You suggest that the police are political but the problem lies with the government which has politicised the policing of this country.

You say that there is a lot that is wrong with policing in this country (phraseology changed, but I think that's what you meant to say) and needs to be changed. Well welcome to the world of police officer opinion. There is an awful lot that is wrong, and many of the serving officers who contribute to this forum have said so time and again. It seems strange that you appear to have missed all the comments. However, this government is not out to change what is wrong with the police but to make it cheaper. That's all. The problems have not been addressed and m it has made many of them considerably worse.

And as for May being brave by 'taking on' the service . . . what is so brave about being a bully? There is nothing the police can do. They have to sit there and take the cuts in pay, the reduction in conditions of service, the imposed limits on rights available to everyone else, and an increase in demand. Yeah, very brave, just like a big, fat school kid is brave when they beat up younger and weaker children.

Take 'you' on: that makes it look as if the only reason she is taking this stance is for some moral stance when everyone knows that she is doing it to suck up to the right of the party to bolster her chance for the top job when Cameron goes in three or so years.

The police, at least the rank and file, were after changes back in the 90s. The call was ignored. There were changes demanded during the 2000s but the appeal was ignored. My force tried to block the imposition of PFI, but the demands were ignored, and the cost of that is being paid now.

[Derek Smith]

andy_s said:

"Change to give the illusion of progress" - never saw so much of it as I did in the Bill.

I went for a post that I didn't want. The selection procedure was really fun. I unfortunately got through to the interview stage and, although we all know who had been, I felt I had to do a little bit of preparation to show willing.

When the predictable question was put to me: 'What changes would you make to the unit in the first couple of months' I came out with my prepared little speech designed to make me unemployable.

'I have a great deal of respect for [the outgoing inspector] and there is no doubt in my mind that if I thought I saw something obviously wrong and easily changed I be demonstrating considerable conceit. What I'd do is observe, probably for three months, discussing with the staff anything I found odd or confusing, asking why they did things that way and then I'd bring my thoughts to the staff's attention, ask them for their comments and then implement any changes one at a time to ensure that I could check their usefulness.'

This radical proposal confused the interviewing team and they had no follow-up questions. They floundered for some seconds. All very enjoyable, but indicative of what was wrong with senior supervision. They wanted someone who would make unresearched tactical changes to the unit.

So the interview proved worthwhile: they could justify not picking me, and I went back to my old role.

I went to a division where my role changed four times in 15 months, and I was about to move into my fifth office when I decided enough was enough and went elsewhere.