Theresa May speaking at the Plod federation conference
Discussion
Today Theresa May made a speech that every previous Home Secretary would love to have made.
"Theresa May stuns Police Federation with vow to break its power"
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/may/21/the...
"May tells police - change or be changed"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27511997
"Theresa May stuns Police Federation with vow to break its power"
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/may/21/the...
"May tells police - change or be changed"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27511997
Maybe its no such bad thing.
The Police by their nature are an isolated organisation,Non political and un-elected.
Is it such a bad thing that every decade or so the elected representatives give the Police a poke to remind them that they are public servants who are there to uphold the law and not make their own.
The Police by their nature are an isolated organisation,Non political and un-elected.
Is it such a bad thing that every decade or so the elected representatives give the Police a poke to remind them that they are public servants who are there to uphold the law and not make their own.
Jimboka said:
St Theresa does little wrong. I'd put money on her being the next PM (assuming Cameron wins next time!)
And there we have the reason for the speech.It was self-aggrandisement.
As any other HomSecs have proved in the past, the police can be pushed around and they have no come back because they have no representation. She can change the articles of the federation on a whim, or rather whenever she thinks it will help her career. It is not a union.
She, probably, possibly certainly, she is acting under orders from police-hating Cameron. He's never forgiven the world for their derision of the Sheehey report, which was his baby.
By May's own figures, 91% of federated ranks are dissatisfied with the federation. Fair enough, government figures so they will be dishonest, but let's say 75%. Kicking the fed into submission, well it has to submit, that is why it was created, will hardly decrease the percentage dissatisfied.
The last thing that would be good for the police service is to join a union. Regardless of rights or limitations, this would lead to confrontation after confrontation and I reckon that it would hinder the service. There is too much inherent power in the service.
So where is this 75%/91% and probably growing going to go? The police have already been told that if they asked they will be given the right to free association, in other words they could join a union. That union would probably be affiliated to the TUC in some way. The Fed has frequently (always? I don't know) sent observers to the TUC conference.
Look up how the federation came about. Henry, a bloke whose great tradition of ignoring the wishes of those he controlled being followed by May, brought it in in order to control the federated ranks. And it has worked for <100 years. May, well Cameron, risks taking away that control. Other HomSecs, although by no means all, in the past have accepted this and taken the wishes of the fed into account, although not always noticeably. Those that didn't were disastrous HomSecs, such as Blunkett. His much heralded, and still referred to, Criminal Law Act, costing £millions, was never actually used.
Give a little, take a lot was the motto I think. Now May/Cameron have decided to take, take, take what little autonomy the federated ranks had.
The Irish police have just secured the right to strike. The way they police is considerably different to the way the police in England and Wales do. But there are similarities. Is this what you want from your police force? Despite it not being a human rights issue for the police, if they get a union, then the right to industrial action is the next step, and from then to striking.
£70m tucked away in bank accounts, public confidence in the Police at a new low. Despite the federation endlessly banging on that lower budgets mean more crime, there is no statistical basis for that seen.
Final of course we have the Politics, Police seem determine to dabble in politics, everythign from Plebgate to dire warning that economic policies will bring ruin.
Enough was certainly enough. The federation should look to its own, not line its pockets at taxpaer expense, and NOT have a view on government policy.
Final of course we have the Politics, Police seem determine to dabble in politics, everythign from Plebgate to dire warning that economic policies will bring ruin.
Enough was certainly enough. The federation should look to its own, not line its pockets at taxpaer expense, and NOT have a view on government policy.
Gargamel said:
£70m tucked away in bank accounts, public confidence in the Police at a new low. Despite the federation endlessly banging on that lower budgets mean more crime, there is no statistical basis for that seen.
Final of course we have the Politics, Police seem determine to dabble in politics, everythign from Plebgate to dire warning that economic policies will bring ruin.
Enough was certainly enough. The federation should look to its own, not line its pockets at taxpaer expense, and NOT have a view on government policy.
What's the beef about the money? It's money put in by the federated members. Officers do not have to put any money in, it is a free choice. They remain members of the federation even if they do not pay. So why is it any business of May, or come to that you, what the federated members who subscribe do with their money? This is another example of finding a problem where none exists. Taxpayer's expense. The contribution out of the public purse is very low in comparison to the money put in by officers. Even this is now taken away, much taunted by May although in point of fact it will have little effect, despite the fact that the federation is a part of police management and not something generated by the officers themselves.Final of course we have the Politics, Police seem determine to dabble in politics, everythign from Plebgate to dire warning that economic policies will bring ruin.
Enough was certainly enough. The federation should look to its own, not line its pockets at taxpaer expense, and NOT have a view on government policy.
You suggest that public confidence is at a new low, and yet the current police force is the most honest and hardworking there has ever been. The reason confidence is, if it is, at this all time low we continue to hear about is because of political policies of the government. And, of course, those who buy into the spin because they are told to by the tory media and the TV. But then Cameron needs to erode support in order to privatise the police, to give money to G4S in order for them to give some of it back. It stinks.
You suggest the police dabble in politics. This human right is forbidden the police. If they have, as you suggest, done so then it is a discipline offence. If tryig to secure a decent deal for their members is politicking then it is because the current government has made the issue political.
You suggest there is no statistical basis for more investment in police lowering crime rates. That's whole new thread but what is true is that the more police on the streets, the more crime they find, so crime rates go up. Take officers from operational matters and crime rates fall. It's not rocket science, and it has been demonstrated for those who struggle to grasp the concept.
In any case, should the police federation not take an interest in how crime is dealt with? They are, after all, the professionals, the only ones who really know what's going on. Should they therefore not mention their concerns? Seems a bit harsh, if not silly, to limit their voice.
The thing that is remarkable is that half a dozen years ago support for the police would have been the default position of the PH massive. Indeed, it might have been seen as a requirement for entry into the in-crowd. Now the reverse has happened and it is all because of government spin, and those gullible enough to fall for it.
If the police do form a union or if Cameron gets his way and the service is sold to G4S, do you think this will make some form of improvement? Rhetorical question of course. Do you look back at the time when you could negotiate with traffic wardens? If G4S have any input, and they will, it will all be automated. Fines, fines and more fines. They will keep most of it and you, going about your business will be paying their shareholders and for the grateful contributions to the tories.
Brave new world? You have probably the best police force in the western world, you have the cheapest per capita of any industrialised western country. If you are arrested you are covered with CCTV from the moment you are taken to a central lock-up, and soon you will be videoed from the moment a police officer approaches you. And all this is in the main supported, sometimes demanded, by the officers themselves. There is a discipline system that is very strict - Plebgate is mentioned but the fact that some officers have been dismissed is dismissed. It is the discipline procedures working but people refuse to admit it.
And what criticism is the first one on your list? The money that individual officers have paid to the federation being put into a bank account. Yeah, well, that's a massive problem, money being looked after. We must try and stop that, mustn't we.
Can't you see you are being manipulated? You've read about the money, May suggests it is something that shows how bad the police are and you buy into it.
What is the money FOR Derek, genuine question by the way.
The Police Federation is partly taxpayer funded, so does it not seem odd to be stashing money.
I can see there are two sides to this, but when have the Police federations ever done anything other than complain the need new equipment, new laws, more powers etc
Rape convictions in London remain 3% of those reported, is that "the best policing in the Western world ? "
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff