The Police Federation
Discussion
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/182hxrhdQx/
Hopefully the link works. Relates to a High Court Action.
Could any serving officers tell me what this is about?
Hopefully the link works. Relates to a High Court Action.
Could any serving officers tell me what this is about?
Quite simply the chair's both serving officers of two force federations were suspended and kicked out of the Fed by the civilian head of the Fed who earns £700.k !! For speaking out on behalf of their members
The court decided that their suspension from the Fed was unlawful, the Fed appealed and got told to do one
https://www.serjeantsinn.com/news/high-court-rules...
The court decided that their suspension from the Fed was unlawful, the Fed appealed and got told to do one
https://www.serjeantsinn.com/news/high-court-rules...
It would appear:
The two named were police federation (PF) elected officials. They made comments in a TV programme criticising the PF and police forces. They were suspended. They took the matter to court. They won. The PF appealed. It was rejected.
For those interested:
The PF is not a union. It was imposed on the federated ranks, constable to chief inspector, in order to control them. And has done a great job. The rules, imposed by the government, are worded to keep the constables weak as compared to, for instance, inspectors. The PF has not been reluctant to go to civil court over the years. Two that spring to mind are suing a government minister - plebgate - and the scandal over police and fire service being underpaid in their pensions. The fire service noticed it first. When they pointed it out, they were told, in essence, tough. Go away. They didn't have the funding to pursue the matter. They went jointly with the PF, who were also victims of the same deliberate underpaying, and won. Cameron and May never forgave the police, hence the tories suddenly became anti-police, May even stopping the funding of the PF despite it being imposed by them on the police.
The media is normally fed the PF is a union line, but it is not. It's like the old Soviet unions in that they are government controlled. Cooke says that the PF is in a monopoly position. Not quite the way I would describe it, and in any case, it is the problem. The police should have the right to free association.
The two named were police federation (PF) elected officials. They made comments in a TV programme criticising the PF and police forces. They were suspended. They took the matter to court. They won. The PF appealed. It was rejected.
For those interested:
The PF is not a union. It was imposed on the federated ranks, constable to chief inspector, in order to control them. And has done a great job. The rules, imposed by the government, are worded to keep the constables weak as compared to, for instance, inspectors. The PF has not been reluctant to go to civil court over the years. Two that spring to mind are suing a government minister - plebgate - and the scandal over police and fire service being underpaid in their pensions. The fire service noticed it first. When they pointed it out, they were told, in essence, tough. Go away. They didn't have the funding to pursue the matter. They went jointly with the PF, who were also victims of the same deliberate underpaying, and won. Cameron and May never forgave the police, hence the tories suddenly became anti-police, May even stopping the funding of the PF despite it being imposed by them on the police.
The media is normally fed the PF is a union line, but it is not. It's like the old Soviet unions in that they are government controlled. Cooke says that the PF is in a monopoly position. Not quite the way I would describe it, and in any case, it is the problem. The police should have the right to free association.
Derek Smith said:
It would appear:
The two named were police federation (PF) elected officials. They made comments in a TV programme criticising the PF and police forces. They were suspended. They took the matter to court. They won. The PF appealed. It was rejected.
For those interested:
The PF is not a union. It was imposed on the federated ranks, constable to chief inspector, in order to control them. And has done a great job. The rules, imposed by the government, are worded to keep the constables weak as compared to, for instance, inspectors. The PF has not been reluctant to go to civil court over the years. Two that spring to mind are suing a government minister - plebgate - and the scandal over police and fire service being underpaid in their pensions. The fire service noticed it first. When they pointed it out, they were told, in essence, tough. Go away. They didn't have the funding to pursue the matter. They went jointly with the PF, who were also victims of the same deliberate underpaying, and won. Cameron and May never forgave the police, hence the tories suddenly became anti-police, May even stopping the funding of the PF despite it being imposed by them on the police.
The media is normally fed the PF is a union line, but it is not. It's like the old Soviet unions in that they are government controlled. Cooke says that the PF is in a monopoly position. Not quite the way I would describe it, and in any case, it is the problem. The police should have the right to free association.
Thanks, I learned a lot from this post.The two named were police federation (PF) elected officials. They made comments in a TV programme criticising the PF and police forces. They were suspended. They took the matter to court. They won. The PF appealed. It was rejected.
For those interested:
The PF is not a union. It was imposed on the federated ranks, constable to chief inspector, in order to control them. And has done a great job. The rules, imposed by the government, are worded to keep the constables weak as compared to, for instance, inspectors. The PF has not been reluctant to go to civil court over the years. Two that spring to mind are suing a government minister - plebgate - and the scandal over police and fire service being underpaid in their pensions. The fire service noticed it first. When they pointed it out, they were told, in essence, tough. Go away. They didn't have the funding to pursue the matter. They went jointly with the PF, who were also victims of the same deliberate underpaying, and won. Cameron and May never forgave the police, hence the tories suddenly became anti-police, May even stopping the funding of the PF despite it being imposed by them on the police.
The media is normally fed the PF is a union line, but it is not. It's like the old Soviet unions in that they are government controlled. Cooke says that the PF is in a monopoly position. Not quite the way I would describe it, and in any case, it is the problem. The police should have the right to free association.
Thank you to Jmn and Bike.
The PF was imposed on the police in England and Wales in 1919 under the then new Police Act following the strike that year. It's purpose was to ensure the lower ranks did not have means of organising resistance to the government. The pay was appalling and the Met police went on strike. The way it was broken is worth reading, and they were all sacked. The non-strikers had their pay reduced. So some poor bod out on the Gower peninsular lost money and rights due to some officers in London (wherever that was).
During the late 70s, police pay was so low that if I, working in London in one of the highest paid forces, had a third child I could have claimed supplementary benefit despite working nearly 60 hrs a week. The Met officers in inner London decided to work to rule as such and they used methods to ensure no patrol car was out on the streets for the first two hours or so in the morning. I was part of the City of London support group and we went all over answering emergency calls. A couple of times we asked for support and the cars were sent out, but otherwise we had a tremendous time. The Met were very supportive, coming in with warnings and suggestions. We then got a public enquiry into pay, were promised a large increase which we didn't quite get by quite a lot.
Since those heady days, pay and conditions have been steadily eroded. Roll on the next work to rule.
There's a lot to criticise in the PF, and I've done my fair share. The non-legal rights to this one are arguable, but it seems the CEO suspended the officers without due process. Not right. That said, the officers went on TV and slung mud at the police in general. I thought that was against a law Cameron/May brought in.
There should be solid grounds for removal of rights, and free-association is a bit of a basic one. Forces across Europe have the right to FA and, on occasion, strike without the world ending.
The PF was imposed on the police in England and Wales in 1919 under the then new Police Act following the strike that year. It's purpose was to ensure the lower ranks did not have means of organising resistance to the government. The pay was appalling and the Met police went on strike. The way it was broken is worth reading, and they were all sacked. The non-strikers had their pay reduced. So some poor bod out on the Gower peninsular lost money and rights due to some officers in London (wherever that was).
During the late 70s, police pay was so low that if I, working in London in one of the highest paid forces, had a third child I could have claimed supplementary benefit despite working nearly 60 hrs a week. The Met officers in inner London decided to work to rule as such and they used methods to ensure no patrol car was out on the streets for the first two hours or so in the morning. I was part of the City of London support group and we went all over answering emergency calls. A couple of times we asked for support and the cars were sent out, but otherwise we had a tremendous time. The Met were very supportive, coming in with warnings and suggestions. We then got a public enquiry into pay, were promised a large increase which we didn't quite get by quite a lot.
Since those heady days, pay and conditions have been steadily eroded. Roll on the next work to rule.
There's a lot to criticise in the PF, and I've done my fair share. The non-legal rights to this one are arguable, but it seems the CEO suspended the officers without due process. Not right. That said, the officers went on TV and slung mud at the police in general. I thought that was against a law Cameron/May brought in.
There should be solid grounds for removal of rights, and free-association is a bit of a basic one. Forces across Europe have the right to FA and, on occasion, strike without the world ending.
Yep, this is the removal and victimisation of two Force Fed reps who were forced out by the self elected CEO (who also set his own salary!!).
They'd criticised the way the Fed works, wanted to change the Fed and also asked uncomfortable questions about the CEO's salary and the way he got the job etc.
For info, there's a group of officers about now who are attempting to have the law changed so that officers have the choice of who represents them, an alternative to the police Fed.
As an officer (now retired thankfully) who were in the legal challenges against both the government and the Police Fed, I really hope they succeed. the police Fed no longer have their members best interests and haven't done for the past 10 odd years. It needs a huge overhaul. putting myself in this challenge actually got myself and the other challengers put on a National Fed 'black list' that they would then refuse any help to us. this was well known at the time. They tried to get compliance from members by threats!!!
And can I just say that all the anger towards the Police Fed is towards the National fed, rather than the local fed branches, who generally, apart from not speaking up enough against the national fed, do the job on the ground and a good one at that in most cases.
They'd criticised the way the Fed works, wanted to change the Fed and also asked uncomfortable questions about the CEO's salary and the way he got the job etc.
For info, there's a group of officers about now who are attempting to have the law changed so that officers have the choice of who represents them, an alternative to the police Fed.
As an officer (now retired thankfully) who were in the legal challenges against both the government and the Police Fed, I really hope they succeed. the police Fed no longer have their members best interests and haven't done for the past 10 odd years. It needs a huge overhaul. putting myself in this challenge actually got myself and the other challengers put on a National Fed 'black list' that they would then refuse any help to us. this was well known at the time. They tried to get compliance from members by threats!!!
And can I just say that all the anger towards the Police Fed is towards the National fed, rather than the local fed branches, who generally, apart from not speaking up enough against the national fed, do the job on the ground and a good one at that in most cases.
nordboy said:
Yep, this is the removal and victimisation of two Force Fed reps who were forced out by the self elected CEO (who also set his own salary!!).
They'd criticised the way the Fed works, wanted to change the Fed and also asked uncomfortable questions about the CEO's salary and the way he got the job etc.
For info, there's a group of officers about now who are attempting to have the law changed so that officers have the choice of who represents them, an alternative to the police Fed.
As an officer (now retired thankfully) who were in the legal challenges against both the government and the Police Fed, I really hope they succeed. the police Fed no longer have their members best interests and haven't done for the past 10 odd years. It needs a huge overhaul. putting myself in this challenge actually got myself and the other challengers put on a National Fed 'black list' that they would then refuse any help to us. this was well known at the time. They tried to get compliance from members by threats!!!
And can I just say that all the anger towards the Police Fed is towards the National fed, rather than the local fed branches, who generally, apart from not speaking up enough against the national fed, do the job on the ground and a good one at that in most cases.
Good points.They'd criticised the way the Fed works, wanted to change the Fed and also asked uncomfortable questions about the CEO's salary and the way he got the job etc.
For info, there's a group of officers about now who are attempting to have the law changed so that officers have the choice of who represents them, an alternative to the police Fed.
As an officer (now retired thankfully) who were in the legal challenges against both the government and the Police Fed, I really hope they succeed. the police Fed no longer have their members best interests and haven't done for the past 10 odd years. It needs a huge overhaul. putting myself in this challenge actually got myself and the other challengers put on a National Fed 'black list' that they would then refuse any help to us. this was well known at the time. They tried to get compliance from members by threats!!!
And can I just say that all the anger towards the Police Fed is towards the National fed, rather than the local fed branches, who generally, apart from not speaking up enough against the national fed, do the job on the ground and a good one at that in most cases.
There was an approach, back in the day, to get a legal decision on whether the removal of the right to free association would be overturned if challenged and it seemed likely it would be. I think it was a manoeuvre to encourage the government to follow a review body's suggested pay award. Conditions were systematically attacked under the tory government and on talking to serving officers I too was pleased I had retired. The PF could not take action, nor support any, so May could just do what she wanted without any limiting factors. Appalling HomSec.
Even in my time, I would have agreed with your penultimate paragraph. It's antiquated, doesn't give equal votes, and the way the government imposed its rules, it is far from democratic. A self-appointed CEO setting his own pay; does he think he runs a water company?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff