Joining the Police
Discussion
Gmlgml said:
Windsor’s approach to failing fitness tests is about the only thing I would agree with him on.
... Ultimately, dismissal.Do you think Winsor's recommendations are really about fitness ?
HMG have done similar to the Fire Service.
A VO2 max test which the governments own research states most will fail in their 50s.
Increase pension age to 60.
Thank you and goodnight (and your pension will be frozen until you are 67/ 68).
Much £££ to be saved. Genius.
No idea how they get round the regs specifically other than to say it is discretionary to the chief con and not a given right.
The extra day is identifiable on the system and has to be used within the 12 month period.
If I remember rightly the starting point is a rolling period of 5 yrs with no sickness. Providing you stay sickness free for that initial 5 years, every calendar year after that where you don’t have any unplanned absences you get a little letter of thanks and the extra day added to your leave.
The extra day is identifiable on the system and has to be used within the 12 month period.
If I remember rightly the starting point is a rolling period of 5 yrs with no sickness. Providing you stay sickness free for that initial 5 years, every calendar year after that where you don’t have any unplanned absences you get a little letter of thanks and the extra day added to your leave.
Gmlgml said:
My force do. Don’t have a day off sick in a12 month period (pre planned stuff for surgery doesn’t count) and you get an extra days AL.
That's not incentive enough though. One days leave. Everyone struggles with illness and sometimes something that effects you in the job.
I said I’d agree with Windsor on failing fitness tests being a standard for employment up to a point, but it’s the arbitrary nature of it that I’d have the issue with.
I’m sure I read that CNC officers retirement age is 68, and as AFO’s they’d have to all be athletes to get to that standard, post 60. Chances for the vast majority aren’t good but where is the common sense in expecting two people, potentially over 40 years in age apart to hit the same standard?
That’s why the system at the moment of a fixed standard for any age, gender, or fixed standard for a role doesn’t stack up with basic physiology and exercise science.
Whatever the answer is would certainly be contentious as it would have to reflect all of the above to be fair.
I’m sure I read that CNC officers retirement age is 68, and as AFO’s they’d have to all be athletes to get to that standard, post 60. Chances for the vast majority aren’t good but where is the common sense in expecting two people, potentially over 40 years in age apart to hit the same standard?
That’s why the system at the moment of a fixed standard for any age, gender, or fixed standard for a role doesn’t stack up with basic physiology and exercise science.
Whatever the answer is would certainly be contentious as it would have to reflect all of the above to be fair.
Edited by Gmlgml on Friday 28th December 17:53
Red 4 said:
Gmlgml said:
Windsor’s approach to failing fitness tests is about the only thing I would agree with him on.
... Ultimately, dismissal.Do you think Winsor's recommendations are really about fitness ?
HMG have done similar to the Fire Service.
A VO2 max test which the governments own research states most will fail in their 50s.
Increase pension age to 60.
Thank you and goodnight (and your pension will be frozen until you are 67/ 68).
Much £££ to be saved. Genius.
Gmlgml said:
I’m sure I read that CNC officers retirement age is 68, and as AFO’s they’d have to all be athletes to get to that standard, post 60. Chances majority aren’t good but where is the common sense in expecting two people, potentially over 40 years in age apart to hit the same standard?
That’s why the system at the moment of a fixed standard for any age, gender, or fixed standard for a role doesn’t stack up with basic physiology and exercise science.
Whatever the answer is would certainly be contentious as it would have to reflect all of the above to be fair.
I've got a mate in the CNC.That’s why the system at the moment of a fixed standard for any age, gender, or fixed standard for a role doesn’t stack up with basic physiology and exercise science.
Whatever the answer is would certainly be contentious as it would have to reflect all of the above to be fair.
Retirement age was 60 - now it is 67/68.
They are all AFOs and are required to get to level 7.6 on the bleep.
Apart from that, there are regular firearms assessments and other tests they must pass.
If they don't then they are dismissed on capability grounds.
HMG do not appear to give a s
t and the CNC Fed lost a legal challenge.That job really is fecked !
67 year old firearms officers ? Never going to happen for 99% of them.
And therein lies Pandora’s box.
Lower the standard for an AFO so a 68 year old can pass (over 65 means an “excellent” rating is anything over 7/2 male, 5/7 female). Or have the standard as is and mean an older workforce hasn’t much of a chance of passing it?
No easy answer to that one!
Lower the standard for an AFO so a 68 year old can pass (over 65 means an “excellent” rating is anything over 7/2 male, 5/7 female). Or have the standard as is and mean an older workforce hasn’t much of a chance of passing it?
No easy answer to that one!
Gmlgml said:
And therein lies Pandora’s box.
Lower the standard for an AFO so a 68 year old can pass (over 65 excellent is anything over 7/2) or have the standard as is and mean an older workforce hasn’t much of a chance of passing it?
No easy answer to that one!
I think you are missing the point.Lower the standard for an AFO so a 68 year old can pass (over 65 excellent is anything over 7/2) or have the standard as is and mean an older workforce hasn’t much of a chance of passing it?
No easy answer to that one!
They don't want an older workforce.
The fitness standards won't be decreased - if anything they will be increased.
Windsor wanted the PSNI test for a standard fitness test.
If that can be justified for mainland cops then it will probably be implemented in the future.
Red 4 said:
Gmlgml said:
I’m sure I read that CNC officers retirement age is 68, and as AFO’s they’d have to all be athletes to get to that standard, post 60. Chances majority aren’t good but where is the common sense in expecting two people, potentially over 40 years in age apart to hit the same standard?
That’s why the system at the moment of a fixed standard for any age, gender, or fixed standard for a role doesn’t stack up with basic physiology and exercise science.
Whatever the answer is would certainly be contentious as it would have to reflect all of the above to be fair.
I've got a mate in the CNC.That’s why the system at the moment of a fixed standard for any age, gender, or fixed standard for a role doesn’t stack up with basic physiology and exercise science.
Whatever the answer is would certainly be contentious as it would have to reflect all of the above to be fair.
Retirement age was 60 - now it is 67/68.
They are all AFOs and are required to get to level 7.6 on the bleep.
Apart from that, there are regular firearms assessments and other tests they must pass.
If they don't then they are dismissed on capability grounds.
HMG do not appear to give a s
t and the CNC Fed lost a legal challenge.That job really is fecked !
67 year old firearms officers ? Never going to happen for 99% of them.
Edited by Bigends on Friday 28th December 18:20
I absolutely get they don’t want an older workforce!
Hence their abject failure to adopt a sensible, scientific based approach to fitness that references the differences between age and sex.
Like the army (with the age thing anyhow).
Staggering how there are no standardised rules for this sort of thing across public services.
Hence their abject failure to adopt a sensible, scientific based approach to fitness that references the differences between age and sex.
Like the army (with the age thing anyhow).
Staggering how there are no standardised rules for this sort of thing across public services.
Realistically we would probably all agree a 60+ year old AFO is too old.
Lower fitness, slower reactions, physical and mental etc etc.
More likely to have a sudden cardiac event in extreme stress situations.
It's clearly a younger person's role.
OK so do it from 20-50 if you can manage the various tests/competencies.
A optional extension of 5 years available for those 50-55 who can keep up with regime.
But mandatory move into another role when you hit 55 or something..
It's not rocket science..
So long as you know that is the role, requirements and age cut off when you apply, seems fair.
Perhaps a grace period where you keep any enhanced payments for a while if you do your full AFO tour and are then moved back to general Policing due to this age cutoff. .
Lower fitness, slower reactions, physical and mental etc etc.
More likely to have a sudden cardiac event in extreme stress situations.
It's clearly a younger person's role.
OK so do it from 20-50 if you can manage the various tests/competencies.
A optional extension of 5 years available for those 50-55 who can keep up with regime.
But mandatory move into another role when you hit 55 or something..
It's not rocket science..
So long as you know that is the role, requirements and age cut off when you apply, seems fair.
Perhaps a grace period where you keep any enhanced payments for a while if you do your full AFO tour and are then moved back to general Policing due to this age cutoff. .
Bigends said:
Are their any other fall back roles in the CNC or are they all merely armed security?
They are all armed - no other roles (unless Chief Insp and above).Loads have left, apparently.
Some are hankering after medical pensions.
You're right - it's basically armed security but they have adopted the fitness standards set by The College of Policing.
Another scary thought - there have been rumours of an Infrastructure Constabulary (MOD Plod, CNC, BTP and Highways England combined in some sort of fashion).
Given that my mate has never locked anybody up in 20 odd years of "policing" and this is very much the norm for CNC, there may, possibly, maybe, more than likely, just might be some training issues if they are to be let loose on the general public.
I'm sure HMG will sort it though (if you are lucky)
Just like the pension issue.
You'll be able to spot the CNC officers using a G36 as a crutch.
Edited by Red 4 on Friday 28th December 18:39
ED209 said:
Gmlgml said:
My force do. Don’t have a day off sick in a12 month period (pre planned stuff for surgery doesn’t count) and you get an extra days AL.
Interesting, how do they get round police regulationns?Not sure why but I'm rarely ill, my Bradford score must be amazing but I might as well self certify and have use the extra days off
No insentives now
Bigends said:
Havent the Fire Brigade and Judges just appealed against the pension rule changes and won their case? Just needs the Federation to get their backside into gear and do the same
. The federation will never challenge a scheme that they actively helped the government design. I am part of an independent legal challenge which is basically the same as the cases already heard. I anticipate any win and the changes that result will filter down to all those affected though. Well apart from any damages those challenging are awarded.
Bigends said:
Havent the Fire Brigade and Judges just appealed against the pension rule changes and won their case? Just needs the Federation to get their backside into gear and do the same
. The federation will never challenge a scheme that they actively helped the government design. I am part of an independent legal challenge which is basically the same as the cases already heard. I anticipate any win and the changes that result will filter down to all those affected though. Well apart from any damages those challenging are awarded.
ED209 said:
The federation will never challenge a scheme that they actively helped the government design. I am part of an independent legal challenge which is basically the same as the cases already heard. I anticipate any win and the changes that result will filter down to all those affected though. Well apart from any damages those challenging are awarded.
Genuine question.
peterperkins said:
Realistically we would probably all agree a 60+ year old AFO is too old.
Lower fitness, slower reactions, physical and mental etc etc.
More likely to have a sudden cardiac event in extreme stress situations.
It's clearly a younger person's role.
OK so do it from 20-50 if you can manage the various tests/competencies.
A optional extension of 5 years available for those 50-55 who can keep up with regime.
But mandatory move into another role when you hit 55 or something..
It's not rocket science..
So long as you know that is the role, requirements and age cut off when you apply, seems fair.
Perhaps a grace period where you keep any enhanced payments for a while if you do your full AFO tour and are then moved back to general Policing due to this age cutoff. .
I don’t agree. Lower fitness, slower reactions, physical and mental etc etc.
More likely to have a sudden cardiac event in extreme stress situations.
It's clearly a younger person's role.
OK so do it from 20-50 if you can manage the various tests/competencies.
A optional extension of 5 years available for those 50-55 who can keep up with regime.
But mandatory move into another role when you hit 55 or something..
It's not rocket science..
So long as you know that is the role, requirements and age cut off when you apply, seems fair.
Perhaps a grace period where you keep any enhanced payments for a while if you do your full AFO tour and are then moved back to general Policing due to this age cutoff. .
If you stopped AFOs at 55 you would lose a vast number of excellent, well-trained and experienced officers with plenty to teach the next generation.
Red 4 said:
ED209 said:
The federation will never challenge a scheme that they actively helped the government design. I am part of an independent legal challenge which is basically the same as the cases already heard. I anticipate any win and the changes that result will filter down to all those affected though. Well apart from any damages those challenging are awarded.
Genuine question.
You see cases all the time when people are awarded damages after being subject to age/sex/race discrimination. This case is no different.
Its fair to assume though that those who didn't lodge a claim with the employment tribunal initially mustn't feel that they are discriminated against and will therefore not get damages.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff