Police Federation
Discussion
Many may have felt that the attack on the Police Federation, and therefore rank and file officers, was over but it seems that the government still wants to dig and dig.
The Federation is not a union, despite the newspapers and other media being told to call it that. It is a part of the police force in much the same way as roads policing. Officers are obliged to belong to it. It is a way of controlling officers, limiting their freedom of actions, up to and including the rank of chief inspector. It was imposed on those ranks after the strikes after the first world war when ex forces, rather naively, thought they were fighting for a country for heroes to live in. It is, in fact, all about control.
The early history of the federation, especially its creation and imposition, makes for fascinating reading.
Despite there being obligations as to role for those officers with a role in the federation, funding has been cut, all but eliminated I was told a year or so ago, and officers who perform said function have to do it in their own time in some forces. Many officers, the majority in fact, pay into the federation coffers in order for it to perform some of its obligated role and to gain the benefit of experience in matters of discipline.
Now the government has decided to admit it was telling porkies by classifying it as a public authority. So it comes under the freedom of information act in the same way that the government doesn't.
It suggests it is to increase accountability. But to whom? The members pay in their money. Who else needs to know.
Some might feel it is a way to stop the federation supporting officers who have been lied about to the media by MPs. Also, the government refused to pay monies it owed to retired officers - this included fire service staff as well. It knew about it in 2007 (at least, some suggest much, much earlier) and then, when legitimate claims were put in, they dragged it through the courts despite decisions after decision going against them.
Wait for the government's next go at criticising the federation, especially if it has the temerity to criticise MPs in course, demand monies owed to it and, I bet, other ways it will reduce the conditions of service.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2017/3/section...
If the police as a whole applied, under the HR Act, to be allowed to have free association, then there is little, very little, grounds for the government to defend such an action. By continually pushing against the Federation, the government might well be starting something it might regret.
The Federation is not a union, despite the newspapers and other media being told to call it that. It is a part of the police force in much the same way as roads policing. Officers are obliged to belong to it. It is a way of controlling officers, limiting their freedom of actions, up to and including the rank of chief inspector. It was imposed on those ranks after the strikes after the first world war when ex forces, rather naively, thought they were fighting for a country for heroes to live in. It is, in fact, all about control.
The early history of the federation, especially its creation and imposition, makes for fascinating reading.
Despite there being obligations as to role for those officers with a role in the federation, funding has been cut, all but eliminated I was told a year or so ago, and officers who perform said function have to do it in their own time in some forces. Many officers, the majority in fact, pay into the federation coffers in order for it to perform some of its obligated role and to gain the benefit of experience in matters of discipline.
Now the government has decided to admit it was telling porkies by classifying it as a public authority. So it comes under the freedom of information act in the same way that the government doesn't.
It suggests it is to increase accountability. But to whom? The members pay in their money. Who else needs to know.
Some might feel it is a way to stop the federation supporting officers who have been lied about to the media by MPs. Also, the government refused to pay monies it owed to retired officers - this included fire service staff as well. It knew about it in 2007 (at least, some suggest much, much earlier) and then, when legitimate claims were put in, they dragged it through the courts despite decisions after decision going against them.
Wait for the government's next go at criticising the federation, especially if it has the temerity to criticise MPs in course, demand monies owed to it and, I bet, other ways it will reduce the conditions of service.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2017/3/section...
If the police as a whole applied, under the HR Act, to be allowed to have free association, then there is little, very little, grounds for the government to defend such an action. By continually pushing against the Federation, the government might well be starting something it might regret.
Rovinghawk said:
It was the other way around, surely? 
Daily Mail reader perhaps?I've no argument about the punishment of those officers who lied. I can remember no serving or ex officer on these forums having anything to say in their support. Not quite the same for Mitchell when his lies were exposed.
The only punishment for Mitchell was for his own conceit and stupidity. Rowland, the police officer lied about, at least according to the judge, behaved impeccably throughout.
Those who wish to tell lies, like the police officers and Mitchell, deserve all they get in such situations, although Mitchell wasn't punished by his employers, but just by his own actions.
It is just one of those strange coincidences that occur from time to time with regards those in power that once the Federation stood up for the rights of its members, such as being lied about and wanting the return of monies taken from retiring officer, that the government has seen fit to all but eliminate funding of their imposed system of keeping control of ranks up to and including chief inspector and then have the effrontery to admit, in law, that it is a public body.
You can, it seems, have it both ways.
Derek Smith said:
If the police as a whole applied, under the HR Act, to be allowed to have free association, then there is little, very little, grounds for the government to defend such an action. By continually pushing against the Federation, the government might well be starting something it might regret.
Would they need much grounds?Article 11 ECHR said:
Freedom of assembly and association
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.
That principle has been upheld in UK courts and Strasbourg against GCHQ staff, British Transport Police officers, Prison Officers Association and similar groups on the continent over the years with 'lawful restrictions' held to mean an act of parliament.1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.
Derek Smith said:
Rovinghawk said:
It was the other way around, surely?
Daily Mail reader perhaps?Derek Smith said:
I've no argument about the punishment of those officers who lied.
From that you obviously accept that they lied.If the Fed try to depose members of government then they can hardly be surprised when there are repercussions.
"Who would fight should first count the cost"
Sun Tsu- The Art of War
Edited by Rovinghawk on Monday 13th March 22:19
ninja-lewis said:
That principle has been upheld in UK courts and Strasbourg against GCHQ staff, British Transport Police officers, Prison Officers Association and similar groups on the continent over the years with 'lawful restrictions' held to mean an act of parliament.
This is beyond my expertise but I've read a few decisions.Any restrictions must have a reason. In other words they cannot be arbitrarily repressive. There has to be a reason for refusing them the right to free association. Free can be limited if it can be justified. That the Federation is largely ignored by the government, apart from target practice, is a lever.
At the time the (Met?) police took advice, the Federation was being marginalised. Since then, the Federation has been blocked from consultation in many matters, remarkably some of those functions that were its prime purposes.
There was acceptance that the government can impose restrictions on police officers, such as no right to strike. After all, there are a number of restrictions and obligations placed on serving police officers already and these have not caused friction within the service.
The Federation is a system for controlling police officers of lower ranks. The organisation is hierarchical for instance.
The legislation is rather out of date in any case. Police officers do join groups, as most people do. Uniformdating.com has been set up for a purpose. There are a number of online groups, both open and closed, that are specific to police officers. I belong to a couple, one 'local' and another specific to England/Wales which has developed with international members. The police are not banned from joining them. But then certain police officers have joined such closed clubs for years, certainly since 1839.
If the Federation continues to be attacked by the government and ignored in negotiations on pay and conditions, then I reckon things could change.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff