Winsor repays his debt to the tories

[Andy Zarse]

Winsor will be a breathe of fresh air for us, the general public. He will take no heed of the vested interests and Spanish practices rife in such a union led industry as the police. He was very effective as the Rail Regulator and is a very clever operator. Ruffling feathers is his stock in trade, nice to see some knee jerk reactions on here.

[Red 4]

Andy Zarse said:

Winsor will be a breathe of fresh air for us, the general public. He will take no heed of the vested interests and Spanish practices rife in such a union led industry as the police. He was very effective as the Rail Regulator and is a very clever operator. Ruffling feathers is his stock in trade, nice to see some knee jerk reactions on here.

Spanish practices ?

Union ?

Not very informed are you.

[Mojocvh]

Elroy Blue said:

Well his aid budget is increasing 43%

The Police budget has been CUT by 20%. Even CMD's fanboys on PH can't alter that fact.

reference please.

[ClaphamGT3]

To all those who believe that Tom Winsor's appointment is bad for policing and who believe that this Government's policies relating to the police are wrong; what action are you taking (either individually or collectively) to engage with the policy makers and provide a credible alternative approach to delivering the service quality improvements and cost reductions that are required of all public sector organisations?

[RemyMartin]

He looks like a peado.

[Andy Zarse]

Red 4 said:

Spanish practices ?

Union ?

Not very informed are you.

Am I not? What is the PF if not a union? And are you seriously suggesting there are no "Spanish practices" in the police? You're kidding, right?

Anyway, he hasn't even started yet and he's making stroppy dinosaur police folk angry already. That can only be a good thing. The police need a bloody good shaking up.

[ED209]

Andy Zarse said:

Am I not? What is the PF if not a union? And are you seriously suggesting there are no "Spanish practices" in the police? You're kidding, right?

Anyway, he hasn't even started yet and he's making stroppy dinosaur police folk angry already. That can only be a good thing. The police need a bloody good shaking up.

The police federation is not a union, it is a staff associtaion it has none of the powers unions haver to strike etc etc etc.

I have been in the job 15 years and i believe it needs to change but not the constant ramshackle change i have experienced over the last 15 years, change after change after change, some of the changes for no good reason. I have not experienced anything but constant change.

Whats needed is a stop, a long pause and a proper review, a royal comission. Unless this is done we will be in a constant state of flux.

[ClaphamGT3]

ED209 said:

The police federation is not a union, it is a staff associtaion it has none of the powers unions haver to strike etc etc etc.

I have been in the job 15 years and i believe it needs to change but not the constant ramshackle change i have experienced over the last 15 years, change after change after change, some of the changes for no good reason. I have not experienced anything but constant change.

Whats needed is a stop, a long pause and a proper review, a royal comission. Unless this is done we will be in a constant state of flux.

I think that many - if not most - would agree with the need for a root and branch review. What is worrying is that there appear to be many serving officers who do not share your view and who seem determined to block that review or to discredit it it if it does happen.

[Andy Zarse]

ED209 said:

The police federation is not a union, it is a staff associtaion it has none of the powers unions haver to strike etc etc etc.

Semantics.

[ExFiF]

Andy Zarse said:

ED209 said:

The police federation is not a union, it is a staff associtaion it has none of the powers unions haver to strike etc etc etc.

Semantics.

Actually it's not semantics, when you objectively take in the differences and the particular T&Cs which are disciplinary offences the regulations enforce on officers that no MoP would accept in their job there is a significant difference. These conditions have been discussed many times on the various threads and I can't be Zarsed to repeat them.

Nobody is arguing that change isn't needed, nobody is arguing that there aren't ways that efficiencies can be improved, and nobody is arguing that they are not willing to participate in such change.

What the public seem to be unaware is that whilst genuine cuts are being implemented, front line response officers (troops on the street) are being decimated, yet the workload on the response police is increasing due to more and more incidents falling off the end of other agencies' desks, and in some cases other agencies abdicating their responsibilities knowing the police will have to pick things up as first responders.

Yes, Social Services and parts of the Ambulance Service, I'm looking directly at YOU!

[turbobloke]

ExFiF said:

no MoP would accept in their job

Out of interest what's the scope of that - how long is the list and what's on it?

[Andy Zarse]

turbobloke said:

ExFiF said:

no MoP would accept in their job

Out of interest what's the scope of that - how long is the list and what's on it?

Presumably they're unique to the police service as being a policeman is a unique job. It's worth noting no other MoP has similar powers either when reflecting on T&Cs. I don't see how the two can be subjectively compared.

Quacks like a duck time I'm afraid. The PF behaves like a union, for example, I refer to the disgraceful and pathetic childish display towards the Home Sec at the recent "conference". Pure TUC behaviour. On that basis alone they deserve Winsor.

[Elroy Blue]

Andy Zarse said:

Winsor will be a breathe of fresh air for us, the general public. He will take no heed of the vested interests and Spanish practices rife in such a union led industry as the police. He was very effective as the Rail Regulator and is a very clever operator. Ruffling feathers is his stock in trade, nice to see some knee jerk reactions on here.

At the end of his contract with Network Rail, he was not invited to re-apply for the post. He made such a hash of it during his tenure that Railtrack was liquidated and Network Rail born out of the ashes.

The railways are such a great example of an effecient transport system aren't they.


Spanish Practices? I assuming from your Daily Mail-esq comment you have actual examples, don't you?

Union led industry? I assuming you can come up with examples of how the Police Fed is a 'union' and what they have done to demonstrate this.

The fact is the Police have no industrial rights and the Fed can only put forward a viewpoint. The Government has ignored anything and everything the Fed has put forward and there is nothing they can do about it.

Mojocvh said:

Elroy Blue said:

Well his aid budget is increasing 43%

The Police budget has been CUT by 20%. Even CMD's fanboys on PH can't alter that fact.

reference please.

Unless you've lived on the moon, I don't think even the most rampant anti-Police can dispute these figures

ClaphamGT3 said:

To all those who believe that Tom Winsor's appointment is bad for policing and who believe that this Government's policies relating to the police are wrong; what action are you taking (either individually or collectively) to engage with the policy makers and provide a credible alternative approach to delivering the service quality improvements and cost reductions that are required of all public sector organisations?

If you bothered to find out, you'd know the Federation offered a detailed alternative, giving comparable savings to those demanded by Cameron. They were rejected out of hand because they didn't fit into the privatisation agenda.

ClaphamGT3 said:

I think that many - if not most - would agree with the need for a root and branch review. What is worrying is that there appear to be many serving officers who do not share your view and who seem determined to block that review or to discredit it it if it does happen.

What you mean discredit a report that contained 'interviews' with Officers that didn't exist (lies)

That produced sickness 'statistics' suggesting they were relevant for the whole of the Police. They were compiled from a medical center. (People sick at a doctors, who'd have thought it)

The producer of a report that recommends wholesale privatisation, works for a firm that advises the biggest private security company on securing privatised Police work.

A Police Minister that heads a 'police think tank', whose biggest donor is..the biggest private security company bidding for privatised police work.

Police have been asking for a Royal commission for years. It didn't fit the political agenda. It certainly doesn't fit the current Governments plans for wholesale privatisation.

Andy Zarse said:

The PF behaves like a union, for example, I refer to the disgraceful and pathetic childish display towards the Home Sec at the recent "conference". Pure TUC behaviour. On that basis alone they deserve Winsor.

What, Some Officers show their disgust and that makes them a 'Union'. I'm sure she was traunatised. Oh hang on, They behave a hundred times worse every day in the House of Commons. If that's the best you can do to demonstrate the Fed is a Union, I'd give up now.

It doesn't matter now. Winsor, Cameron and May have achieved their objective. When the head of G4S comes out and openly says they will have taken over vast areas of Policing by 2015 (and it will be irreversable), then the game is up. Once they have taken over, wait for the contract to come up for renewal. The majority of uniformed Officers will be gone, all the support staff will be G4S employees, so the taxpayers will have to pay what G4S demand as there will be no alternative. And the supporters of Winsor on this site, will still find a way of blaming Police Officers. I might be pissed off at seeing my pay and pension cut, but I'm infinitely more worried about what my family will have as a 'Security service' once G4S are at the helm.

On

[TheBear]

I've said it before and I'll repeat it again.

If a private sector business faces a year on year increase in demand for its product and services it will expand massively to meet that demand. It will build new infrastructure, hire more people, invest in training so that it can make more money, increase its reputation etc...

The police faces a year on year increase for its services. What do its bosses and the public want to happen? Its wants it to cut costs, reduce staff, buy cheaper equipment and at the same time it wants better performance, it wants an officer on their doorstep seconds after they've been the victim of a crime. It wants officers ready to work 24/7 at a moments notice, yet they don't want to invest in them.

Want, want, want, want, want. It just isn't going to happen.

There is a reason why politicians and chiefs make such throwaway comments such as "reducing bureaucracy", "managing our resources better". Its because they are easy to say and popular. Far more difficult to implement when they actually get into the job and they realise what silly comments they were. Then they start to massage figures to hide it all. And the public lap it up.

"The police force deserve Winsor and whats coming to them". A grand statement and another throwaway comment, only don't you realise its the public on the receiving end?

[Caulkhead]

RemyMartin said:

He looks like a peado.

But he can probably spell it.

[ClaphamGT3]

Elroy Blue said:

Andy Zarse said:

Winsor will be a breathe of fresh air for us, the general public. He will take no heed of the vested interests and Spanish practices rife in such a union led industry as the police. He was very effective as the Rail Regulator and is a very clever operator. Ruffling feathers is his stock in trade, nice to see some knee jerk reactions on here.

At the end of his contract with Network Rail, he was not invited to re-apply for the post. He made such a hash of it during his tenure that Railtrack was liquidated and Network Rail born out of the ashes.

The railways are such a great example of an effecient transport system aren't they.


Spanish Practices? I assuming from your Daily Mail-esq comment you have actual examples, don't you?

Union led industry? I assuming you can come up with examples of how the Police Fed is a 'union' and what they have done to demonstrate this.

The fact is the Police have no industrial rights and the Fed can only put forward a viewpoint. The Government has ignored anything and everything the Fed has put forward and there is nothing they can do about it.

Mojocvh said:

Elroy Blue said:

Well his aid budget is increasing 43%

The Police budget has been CUT by 20%. Even CMD's fanboys on PH can't alter that fact.

reference please.

Unless you've lived on the moon, I don't think even the most rampant anti-Police can dispute these figures

ClaphamGT3 said:

To all those who believe that Tom Winsor's appointment is bad for policing and who believe that this Government's policies relating to the police are wrong; what action are you taking (either individually or collectively) to engage with the policy makers and provide a credible alternative approach to delivering the service quality improvements and cost reductions that are required of all public sector organisations?

If you bothered to find out, you'd know the Federation offered a detailed alternative, giving comparable savings to those demanded by Cameron. They were rejected out of hand because they didn't fit into the privatisation agenda.

ClaphamGT3 said:

I think that many - if not most - would agree with the need for a root and branch review. What is worrying is that there appear to be many serving officers who do not share your view and who seem determined to block that review or to discredit it it if it does happen.

What you mean discredit a report that contained 'interviews' with Officers that didn't exist (lies)

That produced sickness 'statistics' suggesting they were relevant for the whole of the Police. They were compiled from a medical center. (People sick at a doctors, who'd have thought it)

The producer of a report that recommends wholesale privatisation, works for a firm that advises the biggest private security company on securing privatised Police work.

A Police Minister that heads a 'police think tank', whose biggest donor is..the biggest private security company bidding for privatised police work.

Police have been asking for a Royal commission for years. It didn't fit the political agenda. It certainly doesn't fit the current Governments plans for wholesale privatisation.

Andy Zarse said:

The PF behaves like a union, for example, I refer to the disgraceful and pathetic childish display towards the Home Sec at the recent "conference". Pure TUC behaviour. On that basis alone they deserve Winsor.

What, Some Officers show their disgust and that makes them a 'Union'. I'm sure she was traunatised. Oh hang on, They behave a hundred times worse every day in the House of Commons. If that's the best you can do to demonstrate the Fed is a Union, I'd give up now.

It doesn't matter now. Winsor, Cameron and May have achieved their objective. When the head of G4S comes out and openly says they will have taken over vast areas of Policing by 2015 (and it will be irreversable), then the game is up. Once they have taken over, wait for the contract to come up for renewal. The majority of uniformed Officers will be gone, all the support staff will be G4S employees, so the taxpayers will have to pay what G4S demand as there will be no alternative. And the supporters of Winsor on this site, will still find a way of blaming Police Officers. I might be pissed off at seeing my pay and pension cut, but I'm infinitely more worried about what my family will have as a 'Security service' once G4S are at the helm.

On

Leaving aside the fact that you've misinterpreted many of the posts that you've responded to here, just a couple of things that are worth considering;

• Are the police - or factions thereof - ever REALLY going to accept any sort of review? I fear that who ever was put forward to head such a review would be accused of being in some way tainted

• The outsource market - if you take the trouble to analyse it - is a very crowded one, with a huge number of participants chasing a limited amount of work. If anything, at the end of the 1st concession, the purchasor will be in a strong position to demand a better service for less money from the provider market (this is what usually happens). Your PFI analogy is also somewhat wide of the mark; a service outsource and a PFI transaction are two completely different things. Even if outsourcing is a model that is - to an extent - used in the reform of the Police, it should not be seen as automatically a bad thing

[Elroy Blue]

ClaphamGT3 said:

Leaving aside the fact that you've misinterpreted many of the posts that you've responded to here, just a couple of things that are worth considering;

• Are the police - or factions thereof - ever REALLY going to accept any sort of review? I fear that who ever was put forward to head such a review would be accused of being in some way tainted

You accuse me of misreprensation. Then completely ignore the fact we have been seeking a Rpyal Commission for years. Not a 'review' from a Political lacky that conviniently comes to conclusions that exactly match those proposed by Cameron.

ClaphamGT3 said:

* The outsource market - if you take the trouble to analyse it - is a very crowded one, with a huge number of participants chasing a limited amount of work. If anything, at the end of the 1st concession, the purchasor will be in a strong position to demand a better service for less money from the provider market (this is what usually happens). Your PFI analogy is also somewhat wide of the mark; a service outsource and a PFI transaction are two completely different things. Even if outsourcing is a model that is - to an extent - used in the reform of the Police, it should not be seen as automatically a bad thing

Really? There are hundreds of firms with specialist forensic services. 'patrol' Officers, major investigators, child protection officers, Road death Officers, Home Office approved dog handlers. You might consider all thses skills as trivial, but I'm sorry to disappoint you, they are not.

It's nothing short of pathetic to suggest that the 'provider market' will be paid less when the original contract ends.

Of course there is the other consideration that G4S do not want to handle the 'picking up the pieces' roles the Police currently do. All those caring, sharing roles the Police currently do. Not enough profit in it you see.

But as always, I'm not thinking outside the box or demonstrating blue sky thinking. I really need to be more mission focused and turn off the tap of failure. It's the future.

[Andy Zarse]

ClaphamGT3 said:

Leaving aside the fact that you've misinterpreted many of the posts that you've responded to here, just a couple of things that are worth considering;

• Are the police - or factions thereof - ever REALLY going to accept any sort of review? I fear that who ever was put forward to head such a review would be accused of being in some way tainted

• The outsource market - if you take the trouble to analyse it - is a very crowded one, with a huge number of participants chasing a limited amount of work. If anything, at the end of the 1st concession, the purchasor will be in a strong position to demand a better service for less money from the provider market (this is what usually happens). Your PFI analogy is also somewhat wide of the mark; a service outsource and a PFI transaction are two completely different things. Even if outsourcing is a model that is - to an extent - used in the reform of the Police, it should not be seen as automatically a bad thing

Agreed. I have never really had strong views on this subject previously. What fired my ire was the conference. The PF were utterly pathetic. Showing "disgust" to one's employer is one thing I suppose, but such a puerile and pitiful display as was beyond any excuse. I have seen better behaved chimps in a zoo. And these actually people police our streets?

A question to Elroy. If the PF actually had the power to call a strike or other industrial action, would they have done so by now and how else are they different to a union? That they haven't is a matter of law, and nothing to do with the unionised structure of the PF.

[Elroy Blue]

Your comment was:

Andy Zarse said:

in such a union led industry as the police.

Exactly how are we 'union led'. That suggests to me you see the Police Fed as something akin to Bob Crow. I asked for examples of how they have acted as such. You haven't given any. While you're at it, you might like to give examples of all those 'spanish practices' you talked about. You seem to have missed my request for those.

Does the Fed represent Police Officers. Yes (poorly some might say). Is your local car enthusiasts club a union. They don't have any power to strike or lead industrial action. But they are a group of members acting together.

I'd like to say I'm past caring. But I'm not. My kids will find that in the future, should they be a victim of crime, the profitibility of the reponse will be the primary consideration,. The privatised 'service' will be inspected by a man who recommended the privatisation and whose firm makes money from Police privatisation, so I'm sure his inspections will show everything is fine and dandy.

You reap what you sow. Coming to a high street near you.

[Andy Zarse]

Elroy Blue said:

Exactly how are we 'union led'. That suggests to me you see the Police Fed as something akin to Bob Crow. I asked for examples of how they have acted as such. You haven't given any. While you're at it, you might like to give examples of all those 'spanish practices' you talked about. You seem to have missed my request for those.

Does the Fed represent Police Officers. Yes (poorly some might say). Is your local car enthusiasts club a union. They don't have any power to strike or lead industrial action. But they are a group of members acting together.

I'd like to say I'm past caring. But I'm not. My kids will find that in the future, should they be a victim of crime, the profitibility of the reponse will be the primary consideration,. The privatised 'service' will be inspected by a man who recommended the privatisation and whose firm makes money from Police privatisation, so I'm sure his inspections will show everything is fine and dandy.

You reap what you sow. Coming to a high street near you.

You think Muzza should have police protection at a tennis match rather than the tournament paying for private security to keep away autogaph hunters?

The Police Federation is obviously not a car club but a staff association, this is clearly the same as any other union. It lobbies management, negotiates the terms and conditions of its members employment, it is funded by member subsrciption, it represents its members at disciplinaries and tribunals, it provides welfare support to members. Finally, it has a policy dimension which it voices to political parties as to how it sees thing. How is any of this not the same as a union. The strike aspect is a total red herring. If you want to live in La-la land and pretend this ain't so then you're welcome. There's none so blind as them that won't see.

I asked you if the PF would take industrial action if it was able to? Please answer the question.