Joining the Police
Discussion
Chicken Chaser said:
The stick over the carrot has gone the wrong way for sickness though, by dropping CRTP it's probably cost forces more in sickness than in paying out to ensure good attendance.
Possibly.The bean counters will only see the bottom line though (and don't forget CRTP was pensionable).
All things considered, I'd say stick is the preferred management style of the police anyway.
Red 4 said:
vonhosen said:
Red 4 said:
............... (and don't forget CRTP was pensionable).
When it came tax purposes, but eventually not when it came to calculating final salary pension receipt.Q. What allowances are pensionable? A. Pensionable Pay - includes:
Basic Salary (plus any temporary salary on temporary promotion)
CRTP
Red 4 said:
vonhosen said:
Red 4 said:
............... (and don't forget CRTP was pensionable).
When it came tax purposes, but eventually not when it came to calculating final salary pension receipt.However they then phased out CRTP & as a result a lot of officers who had been paying that enhanced percentage (due to them receiving CRTP) had not only effectively taken a pay cut (c£1200), but they then also didn't receive the enhanced contributions they had made for all those years as a credit in either the pension they received, or a refund for all the contributions they had made but would not now count in their pensions.
For some they had made 13 years of enhanced pension contributions (due to CRTP) & then received nothing for them.
ie They was robbed.
vonhosen said:
ie They was robbed.
Ah, I see.Yeah, if you didn't retire and benefit from a miniscule enhancement to your pension then I suppose they'll have had you for about a tenner a month.
CRTP should never have been pensionable, but that's HMG for you - one hand giveth and the other taketh away. At least Dick Turpin wore a mask.
A bleep test linked to pay band with an age allowance might be good?
Basic bleep test = basic pay..
10+ = Basic + 1k
15+ = Basic + 2k
[/quote]
Not adverse to the idea of bonuses re a good standard of fitness but some big issues with this.
Have a look at any VO2 max tables related to the bleep test.
Over 10 gets you into the very good/excellent category for most age ranges in the police, for both male and female.
15+ is way too high. I doubt if you got a group of people outside of semi professional/professional sports hardly any would consistently hit that level.
Many international rugby and football leagues or national teams have a benchmark in the 13- to low 14 range to play, and that’s for 20 somethings remember!
Also look at the standards for armed forces. Again, far lower than 15. I think the Royal Marines only require 17/18 year olds to get just over 10.
The basic problem with the test IMO is a) it’s set too low for some roles and should be higher and b) unlike most sensible organisations that use it the police don’t differentiate between age (definitely should) or sex (more contentious I guess.) I’d also copy the military system that’s used in the states whereby you get a different grade of fitness, based on age and sex using a combined score for things like pull ups, press ups, running etc.
Be handy for specialisms and promotions as I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t take much digging to find some academic studies that prove fit people take less sickness. Be a good morale builder and add a competitive edge.
Because standards are low you’ll get a 21yr old hardly out of breath following a shield run with a 45yr old almost looking for a defib. I know people will espouse age discrimination but some things are definately a young persons game. Albeit I’m 46 and can still get in the 11’s. I’m guessing I’m in the minority.
I hate running and won't due it. Can't stand it. I'm 47 and can hit level one public order standard.
Level one two and three are at the right level for what is expected for each level of officer.
You don't need more than level three for 99.9% of response work. Mostly it's sat on your arse on a car seat or walking.
Running after someone opens up a world of trouble in terms of falls plus you always come across these characters again so why run?
Level one two and three are at the right level for what is expected for each level of officer.
You don't need more than level three for 99.9% of response work. Mostly it's sat on your arse on a car seat or walking.
Running after someone opens up a world of trouble in terms of falls plus you always come across these characters again so why run?
I hate running too which is exactly why I do the bleep test a few times a week.
Get properly out of breath in about 8 minutes, none of this running around at a steady pace for ages on end.
I get the point about response work but there is a good deal of satisfaction to be had out running people 20 odd years younger than you in their best tracksuit and trainers whilst in body armour and boots.
I’ve actually had someone stop stone dead who I’ve caught before when I said “don’t run, I’ll catch you and you know it”. Little things like that bring a bit of cheer to an ordinarily crap job!
Get properly out of breath in about 8 minutes, none of this running around at a steady pace for ages on end.
I get the point about response work but there is a good deal of satisfaction to be had out running people 20 odd years younger than you in their best tracksuit and trainers whilst in body armour and boots.
I’ve actually had someone stop stone dead who I’ve caught before when I said “don’t run, I’ll catch you and you know it”. Little things like that bring a bit of cheer to an ordinarily crap job!
Gmlgml said:
The basic problem with the test IMO is a) it’s set too low for some roles and should be higher and b) unlike most sensible organisations that use it the police don’t differentiate between age (definitely should) or sex (more contentious I guess.)
a) I still can't get my head around why air support are required to achieve a higher standard than a dog handler.b) The bar is set low. If they lower it any more then there is no need for a test as long as you are still breathing !
The age thing is contentious.
The sex thing is unlawful.
And the sex thing is plainly a nonsense under some circumstances.
I’m not advocating standard A) for a certain role, and standard A-) for the same role if your female. They are doing the same job so should hit the same standard.
What I’m suggesting is if a bonus for the standards of fitness were to be brought in it could apply here.
An excellent score for a 35 year old female is 11/5.
It’s 12/9 for a male.
Both should be awarded the same bonus even if the female score is lower.
I’m not advocating standard A) for a certain role, and standard A-) for the same role if your female. They are doing the same job so should hit the same standard.
What I’m suggesting is if a bonus for the standards of fitness were to be brought in it could apply here.
An excellent score for a 35 year old female is 11/5.
It’s 12/9 for a male.
Both should be awarded the same bonus even if the female score is lower.
Gmlgml said:
And the sex thing is plainly a nonsense under some circumstances.
I’m not advocating standard A) for a certain role, and standard A-) for the same role if your female. They are doing the same job so should hit the same standard.
What I’m suggesting is if a bonus for the standards of fitness were to be brought in it could apply here.
An excellent score for a 35 year old female is 11/5.
It’s 12/9 for a male.
Both should be awarded the same bonus even if the female score is lower.
It isn't nonsense because it is law ( direct sex discrimination).I’m not advocating standard A) for a certain role, and standard A-) for the same role if your female. They are doing the same job so should hit the same standard.
What I’m suggesting is if a bonus for the standards of fitness were to be brought in it could apply here.
An excellent score for a 35 year old female is 11/5.
It’s 12/9 for a male.
Both should be awarded the same bonus even if the female score is lower.
I have to say I don't agree about bonuses for fitness.
Some of the laziest, crappest (is that a word ?) Cops are also some of the fittest.
Just because it’s law doesn’t mean it fits every circumstance. Could easily be amended for the right reason.
And I know plenty who are so fat, unfit and slovenly the only thing they could run is a bath.
I’m fairly confident a direct correlation could be drawn between a decent level of fitness and attendance. I’m not saying fit people dont get sick, I’ll or injured but I’d bet the rate for those that are unfit would be higher.
Windsor’s approach to failing fitness tests is about the only thing I would agree with him on.
And I know plenty who are so fat, unfit and slovenly the only thing they could run is a bath.
I’m fairly confident a direct correlation could be drawn between a decent level of fitness and attendance. I’m not saying fit people dont get sick, I’ll or injured but I’d bet the rate for those that are unfit would be higher.
Windsor’s approach to failing fitness tests is about the only thing I would agree with him on.
Red 4 said:
Gmlgml said:
And the sex thing is plainly a nonsense under some circumstances.
I’m not advocating standard A) for a certain role, and standard A-) for the same role if your female. They are doing the same job so should hit the same standard.
What I’m suggesting is if a bonus for the standards of fitness were to be brought in it could apply here.
An excellent score for a 35 year old female is 11/5.
It’s 12/9 for a male.
Both should be awarded the same bonus even if the female score is lower.
It isn't nonsense because it is law ( direct sex discrimination).I’m not advocating standard A) for a certain role, and standard A-) for the same role if your female. They are doing the same job so should hit the same standard.
What I’m suggesting is if a bonus for the standards of fitness were to be brought in it could apply here.
An excellent score for a 35 year old female is 11/5.
It’s 12/9 for a male.
Both should be awarded the same bonus even if the female score is lower.
I have to say I don't agree about bonuses for fitness.
Some of the laziest, crappest (is that a word ?) Cops are also some of the fittest.
Gmlgml said:
Just because it’s law doesn’t mean it fits every circumstance. Could easily be amended for the right reason.
What reason ?The only time discrimination is lawful is when it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
As both male and female officers do the same job you won't be able to justify different fitness standards.
The reason being as stated in earlier posts if we were to go down the route of paying bonuses for standards of fitness.
Many organisations that use incremental fitness testing apply different standards to age and sex. I agree it should be standardised for a particular role and everyone should hit that mark.
However if we went down the US military system of grading fitness 1/2/3 as part of a reward and recognition process there would have to be allowances for age and gender.
A 25 yr old male should be able to get to a higher standard on the bleep test than a 25yr old female. Similarly a 45 year old male should expect to get less than both the 25 yr olds.
all could be grade 1 in their respective categories once allowances/calculations have been made.
Many organisations that use incremental fitness testing apply different standards to age and sex. I agree it should be standardised for a particular role and everyone should hit that mark.
However if we went down the US military system of grading fitness 1/2/3 as part of a reward and recognition process there would have to be allowances for age and gender.
A 25 yr old male should be able to get to a higher standard on the bleep test than a 25yr old female. Similarly a 45 year old male should expect to get less than both the 25 yr olds.
all could be grade 1 in their respective categories once allowances/calculations have been made.
Edited by Gmlgml on Friday 28th December 17:40
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff