Thwaites Brewery trashed by travellers

[Digga]

La Liga said:

police officers have no union/s. They have a federation.

Semantics. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

La Liga said:

What could the fed do / have done to stop pension reform had various governments wanted to change it earlier than when they did? They could explore legal avenues, but ultimately that's it.

I don't see any link between police officer pensions and the creation of PCSOs.

I also don't see the link between pension reform and why there are fewer police officers.

Perhaps you can enlighten me on both points.

I do not 'blame' the police for what happened, it was merely symptomatic of what happened across huge swathes of the public sector. Effectively 'expensive' (read experienced and with bigger and growing pension entitlements) workers were retired early and had their numbers cut and were, only partially, replaced by younger, less skilled and less experienced personnel. This happened within local authorities, schools and education etc. etc. too.

The reasons this extremely short-sighted tactic was deployed was simple.

1. The costs of retiring people early were hidden off balance sheet
2. It gave the new Labour government the opportunity to create huge numbers of jobs

[Red 4]

Digga said:

Red 4 said:

Perhaps they should be asking why there are so few available police rather than criticising everything else.

I know the answer to that; because your mindless unions persisted in expecting gold-plated pensions, long after they could possibly be sustainably afforded. This created an inevitable government standoff and hence the advent of the "plastic police" a.k.a. PCSOs.

(I happen to know a fair bit about the pensions because my dad's friend and neighbour used to administer the local force's fund.)

FWIW I would completely agree that the police are, today, seriously under-resourced. However, in matters of national importance and security, we do still have armed forces we can call on.

I'm sorry, what ?

PCSOs were introduced over 15 years ago and the Police Federation did not mount a legal challenge to the police pension reforms.
The pension changes were pushed through by HMG and, essentially, the Fed stood by.

But that's OK 'cos your Dad knows someone who administers pensions.

Marvellous.

[Greendubber]

The only useful thing the fed have done for me is provide a diary and ballpoint pen for the last 12 years.

They've certainly done nothing for my pay and conditions, mainly due to the fact they're completely powerless.

[anonymous-user]

Digga said:

La Liga said:

police officers have no union/s. They have a federation.

Semantics. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

The federation was created because the police were prohibited from joining a trade union.

They're clearly distinctive from how they're established in law, down to their limitations, the most fundamental one being not being able to undertake industrial action.

The primary mechanism for negotiating pay and conditions is arbitration, which practically has no 'teeth'.

Digga said:

I do not 'blame' the police for what happened, it was merely symptomatic of what happened across huge swathes of the public sector. Effectively 'expensive' (read experienced and with bigger and growing pension entitlements) workers were retired early and had their numbers cut and were, only partially, replaced by younger, less skilled and less experienced personnel. This happened within local authorities, schools and education etc. etc. too.

That's a separate point to the cause and effect of strength changes.

PRTVR said:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinanc...
I know it's from 2012 but last year I heard a similar statement on the radio, some police authorities have to support more retirees than active members, the money has to come from somewhere and that means fewer officers.

I don't disagree, but he presented it as the cause and effect ("I know the answer...") for fewer officers. It may impact, just as any budgetary matter may, but police number reductions are primarily correlated / caused by central funding, not by pension obligations.

[Digga]

Red 4 said:

Digga said:

Red 4 said:

Perhaps they should be asking why there are so few available police rather than criticising everything else.

I know the answer to that; because your mindless unions persisted in expecting gold-plated pensions, long after they could possibly be sustainably afforded. This created an inevitable government standoff and hence the advent of the "plastic police" a.k.a. PCSOs.

(I happen to know a fair bit about the pensions because my dad's friend and neighbour used to administer the local force's fund.)

FWIW I would completely agree that the police are, today, seriously under-resourced. However, in matters of national importance and security, we do still have armed forces we can call on.

I'm sorry, what ?

PCSOs were introduced over 15 years ago and the Police Federation did not mount a legal challenge to the police pension reforms.
The pension changes were pushed through by HMG and, essentially, the Fed stood by.

But that's OK 'cos your Dad knows someone who administers pensions.

Marvellous.

Knew, past tense, the poor chap died a couple of years ago, but yes, he was in overall charge for the local force. Clever bloke.

I'm afraid your version of the reaction to the pension changes does not chime with my mate's who is on the force.

Bear in mind, the processes I am talking about began about 20 years ago - the introduction of 'cheaper police' or PCSOs was just part of it. I use the term not to denigrate PCSOs, but rather to emphasise that they are clearly a sticking plaster measure which reflects the need for greater police resources - it could be argued that if there were sufficient officers, there would be no real role for them.

[Digga]

La Liga said:

don't disagree, but he presented it as the cause and effect ("I know the answer...") for fewer officers. It may impact, just as any budgetary matter may, but police number reductions are primarily correlated / caused by central funding, not by pension obligations.

Current salaries and current pension payments are both made out of the same pot; the Home Office budget. If one element rises then, within a relatively fixed budget, the other must therefore fall. The overall discussion of affordability have been in the public domain for a long time.

The police pension schemes do hold some investments (hence the need for an administrator )












.

[Rovinghawk]

La Liga said:

Trust, confidence and perception doesn't really change with policing. It's pretty consistent as it's the bigger picture that matters.

You have surveys; we've heard. Note the example in Yes Prime Minister where Sir H. shows how surveys can be manipulated to give the answer of choice.

La Liga said:

The 'thin end of the wedge' type fallacy thinking is melodramatic, which I also expect applies to most peoples' judgement of how big-a-problem there is with travellers etc.

Move along, nothing to see?

La Liga said:

We know a gross disproportion go through the criminal justice system

No we don't- whilst per capita they appear to be over-represented there is an argument that per crime they are massively under-represented.

La Liga said:

andymc said:

they are an organised criminal group, no more no less

Some certainly qualify and receive attention for it.

The whole point of this thread is that many qualify & don't receive attention for it. Many would like for them to receive appropriate attention, regardless of what excuses can be made as an easy alternative to action.

Edited by Rovinghawk on Tuesday 19th June 16:58

[Red 4]

Digga said:

new, past tense, the poor chap died a couple of years ago, but yes, he was in overall charge for the local force. Clever bloke.

I'm afraid your version of the reaction to the pension changes does not chime with my mate's who is on the force.

Bear in mind, the processes I am talking about began about 20 years ago - the introduction of 'cheaper police' or PCSOs was just part of it. I use the term not to denigrate PCSOs, but rather to emphasise that they are clearly a sticking plaster measure which reflects the need for greater police resources - it could be argued that if there were sufficient officers, there would be no real role for them.

Sorry to hear about the death of your Dad's neighbour (I am, really).

But perhaps you could enlighten me with your knowledge of the pension reforms / the polfed involvement.
I'm still struggling to see how any Federation involvement in pensions has affected police numbers - like you said.

BTW, some forces are getting rid of PCSOs because they don't represent good value for money.
It seems your argument is flawed.

Edited by Red 4 on Tuesday 19th June 16:17

[anonymous-user]

Digga said:

Current salaries and current pension payments are both made out of the same pot; the Home Office budget. If one element rises then, within a relatively fixed budget, the other must therefore fall. The overall discussion of affordability have been in the public domain for a long time.

I'm not contesting the relevance / impact of pension liabilities. My point is it's not the sole / primary cause as you suggested as to why we have reduced officer numbers.

[Digga]

Red 4 said:

Digga said:

new, past tense, the poor chap died a couple of years ago, but yes, he was in overall charge for the local force. Clever bloke.

I'm afraid your version of the reaction to the pension changes does not chime with my mate's who is on the force.

Bear in mind, the processes I am talking about began about 20 years ago - the introduction of 'cheaper police' or PCSOs was just part of it. I use the term not to denigrate PCSOs, but rather to emphasise that they are clearly a sticking plaster measure which reflects the need for greater police resources - it could be argued that if there were sufficient officers, there would be no real role for them.

Sorry to hear about the death of your Dad's neighbour (I am, really).

Nice, very classy comeback. (I'd stop digging right there if I were you.)

Red 4 said:

But perhaps you could enlighten me with your knowledge of the pension reforms / the polfed involvement.

The reforms were not at all well received. I have had my ear bent many times by my mate, so I know what the general opinion was.

The overall subject of the reforms has been widely covered in the press and is not really relevant. we could fill pages and pages of the thread with the intricacies of the previous accrual and the present situation, suffice to say, it has happened. That overall process began some time ago.

Red 4 said:

BTW, some forces are getting rid of PCSOs because they don't represent good value for money.
It seems your argument is flawed.

As I already stated, they were a very short-sighted sticking plaster. I did not, for one moment, advocate them, but I do think they served a purpose in the process.

[Red 4]

Yes Digga. Very good.

But you really are talking nonsense.

I'll ask you a very direct question

How is the Police Federation's involvement in Police Pension reform responsible for the reduction in police numbers ?
That is what you said.

P.S. if anyone needs to stop digging it's you (very apt username you have).
My sentiments about the death of your Dad's neighbour were meant sincerely BTW.

[Digga]

[quote=Red 4
I'll ask you a very direct question

How is the Police Federation's involvement in Police Pension reform responsible for the reduction in police numbers ?
That is what you said.

[/quote]It took them until 2015 to accept the changes. Up until that point they were in opposition. As I already pointed out to La Liga, since the current salaries and pension liabilities all come out of Home Office budget, the refusal to accept changes in one impacts on the ability of the Home Office to spend on the other.

The whole issue runs in parallel with the problems relating to the Federation itself.

[Red 4]

Once again - yes Digga.

But how does the Polfed objecting to pension changes affect police numbers ?

The Polfed could object until the cows come home. If the issues were not challenged via a legal route - through the Courts (which they weren't following advice from Counsel) then the government get their way.

I don't need a history lesson. A simple explanation will do.

Anybody else ? Answers on a postcard please to - I'm talking utter guff on the internet again.

Edited by Red 4 on Tuesday 19th June 17:06

[Rovinghawk]

Red 4 said:

But how does the Polfed objecting to pension changes affect police numbers ?

I don't need a history lesson. A simple explanation will do.

One pot of money. More for pensions= less for salaries.

[Red 4]

Rovinghawk said:

Red 4 said:

But how does the Polfed objecting to pension changes affect police numbers ?

I don't need a history lesson. A simple explanation will do.

One pot of money. More for pensions= less for salaries.

Oh well, there's the answer then.

Stop offering/ paying police pensions and all will be well.

There'll be hoards of police everywhere.

Have you sent me a postcard yet ?

[Rovinghawk]

Red 4 said:

There'll be hoards of police everywhere.

Gathered up & hidden away?

Get a dictionary so you understand what I've just written & why I've written it

[Red 4]

Rovinghawk said:

Red 4 said:

There'll be hoards of police everywhere.

Gathered up & hidden away?

Get a dictionary so you understand what I've just written & why I've written it

Hordes.

Thanks Teach.

That's one thing you've been right about on this forum.
Try and make it two (I won't hold my breath).

[Rovinghawk]

Red 4 said:

Thanks Teach.

From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.

You're welcome.

[Greendubber]

An example of the reasons there aren't enough police available, it's the force in question too...



6 X MH people to deal with, it'll be a pair on each so 12 bobbies that could be making a difference elsewhere but are too busy having to fill the gaps due to a lack of beds.

[Red 4]

Rovinghawk said:

Red 4 said:

Thanks Teach.

From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.

You're welcome.

When wise man stops learning he will not be as wise as he thinks.