Theresa May speaking at the Plod federation conference
Discussion
I agree with you broadly. I think there are some Fed reps who become too attached to the trappings of power. They get too used to the shiny suits, the expenses and the nice lunches and forget what the point of it all is. There are also some who no doubt over estimate their own importance.
I have been to quite a few conferences where this is apparent.
I hope that there will be reform of the way that things are done, in all our interests.
I have been to quite a few conferences where this is apparent.
I hope that there will be reform of the way that things are done, in all our interests.
XCP said:
I agree with you broadly. I think there are some Fed reps who become too attached to the trappings of power. They get too used to the shiny suits, the expenses and the nice lunches and forget what the point of it all is. There are also some who no doubt over estimate their own importance.
I have been to quite a few conferences where this is apparent.
I hope that there will be reform of the way that things are done, in all our interests.
I had my suspicions we were in broad agreement but couldn't be sure.I have been to quite a few conferences where this is apparent.
I hope that there will be reform of the way that things are done, in all our interests.
My first point was that it was lawful for May to remind her audience that, if Polfed doesn't reform itself then the government will step in, and that if the government did act, that would be lawful too.
My second point wasn't dependent on or linked to the first, it referred to the fact that May offered a chance for self-reform prior to government action, and this was entirely reasonable (and in my view, ethical too). There was no suggestion that it had to be so, merely a comment that it was.
It would be preferable for those involved to stop focusing on the shiny suits and junkets while remembering (as you say) what their role is all about.
A strong leadership challenge speech by May, staking her claim alongside Gideon & BoJo.
The PolFed is guilty of a few things:
Where the national body has recently demonstrated incompetence...
There is the lying arse who magicked up his story and has gone to prison; there are those who leaked and there are the West Mids Fed officers who were that this thy never considered that Mitchell was taping them.
Some clear bad apples who have rightly been dealt with - but Mitchell has not been cleared or exonerated of having said it, has he?
I thought that the Part 2 (or whatever they are called) accounts are where the local (force level) branches are keeping their members' contributions away from the Fat Cats and the mahoosive mortgage which was created {I accept that I may have got this bit wrong}.
Perhaps the local branches should declare UDI from the National body and reincorporate with better ethics.
They should also, perhaps, have praised May for being untainted by the criminal corruption of the expenses scandal and demanding decisive police action to investigate the stinking mire of thieves with which she sometimes has to work alongside.
Still... It least it gave the Parties some respite in the news from UKIP's march on the elections (except for Ed 'Bacon Buttie' Milliband)
The PolFed is guilty of a few things:
- the Fat Cats at the top of the tree, being paid 'top-ups' to the equivalent of Met Chief Inspectors evethough they have not achieved that rank.
- spunking members' donations on the swanky HQ set up at Leatherhead with the suites and free meals for the fat cats
- in an association of 130k members, only the cabal at the top are allowed to vote for the main players
Where the national body has recently demonstrated incompetence...
- Not foreseeing May's hijack coming and agreeing to the reform. Recommendations (which they themselves commissioned) before the poli beat them to the punchline
- not seeing Green's "picking a fight" about the public own everything which is done with members' wages and being mre eloquent in dealing with it.
- an arrogance that they could take on a PR Spin machine which is as efficient as the KGB might have been
- behaving like football thugs in jeering TM a couple of years ago - playing into others' hands perhaps.
There is the lying arse who magicked up his story and has gone to prison; there are those who leaked and there are the West Mids Fed officers who were that this thy never considered that Mitchell was taping them.
Some clear bad apples who have rightly been dealt with - but Mitchell has not been cleared or exonerated of having said it, has he?
I thought that the Part 2 (or whatever they are called) accounts are where the local (force level) branches are keeping their members' contributions away from the Fat Cats and the mahoosive mortgage which was created {I accept that I may have got this bit wrong}.
Perhaps the local branches should declare UDI from the National body and reincorporate with better ethics.
They should also, perhaps, have praised May for being untainted by the criminal corruption of the expenses scandal and demanding decisive police action to investigate the stinking mire of thieves with which she sometimes has to work alongside.
Still... It least it gave the Parties some respite in the news from UKIP's march on the elections (except for Ed 'Bacon Buttie' Milliband)
turbobloke said:
My second point wasn't dependent on or linked to the first, it referred to the fact that May offered a chance for self-reform prior to government action, and this was entirely reasonable (and in my view, ethical too). There was no suggestion that it had to be so, merely a comment that it was.
What has she offered? That the fed does exactly what it said it was going to do.In any case, demanding that the fed must follow a specific path or else it will be forced on them is not offering anything. It is an order, nothing less.
Derek Smith said:
turbobloke said:
My second point wasn't dependent on or linked to the first, it referred to the fact that May offered a chance for self-reform prior to government action, and this was entirely reasonable (and in my view, ethical too). There was no suggestion that it had to be so, merely a comment that it was.
What has she offered? That the fed does exactly what it said it was going to do.In any case, demanding that the fed must follow a specific path or else it will be forced on them is not offering anything. It is an order, nothing less.
Derek Smith said:
turbobloke said:
My second point wasn't dependent on or linked to the first, it referred to the fact that May offered a chance for self-reform prior to government action, and this was entirely reasonable (and in my view, ethical too). There was no suggestion that it had to be so, merely a comment that it was.
What has she offered? That the fed does exactly what it said it was going to do.In any case, demanding that the fed must follow a specific path or else it will be forced on them is not offering anything. It is an order, nothing less.
The order was to undertake reform from within, the fact that the government reserved the right to use parliamentary powers shows that the ability of PolFed to take decisions on its own future is still in place. Clearly the what is determined, but the details of how are not, at least so far.
From the website of the left's beloved BBC with some info for clarification in brackets:
"The organisation (PolFed) which represents 126,000 rank and file officers, has faced accusations of bullying and a lack of transparency in its accounts."
"Government funding had already been reduced from 320,000 to 190,000 a year, the home secretary said, adding that the federation had built up "vast reserves" of cash (70m)"
"She (May) also announced the Home Office would use its powers to inspect the federation's accounts, and announced that she would be bringing forward proposals to make the organisation subject to the Freedom of Information Act."
"And she said officers would no longer automatically become members of the federation, instead having to opt in."
More on the first point from another source.
Sky News said:
A "systematic" culture of bullying within the top tiers of the Police Federation has been identified by MPs in a damning new report.
PolFed shiny suits were looking and acting like a bunch of Scargills. Well done May for pointing out the direction in which they need to travel to get back to the real world. If police don't like the look of that, they can get another job and join another federation, 21 years in or not. However they apear to have got the message, which is sensible."A motion for reform was passed at the federation's annual conference after Mrs May's speech."
The vote on reform was a formality. It had already been decided. May knew this but used her diatribe to fool the gullible into believing it was all her work. It appears to have worked.
You also don't get automatically enrolled into the Fed. But I suppose if you keep saying it, it might sound convincing.
You also don't get automatically enrolled into the Fed. But I suppose if you keep saying it, it might sound convincing.
turbobloke said:
May was speaking about changing the law on that point. PolFed doesn't make the law.
Your spin or hers, what a choice.
Federation membership is automatic at the moment. Paying subs and receiving various benefits as a result, is voluntary. This has been the case for decades.Your spin or hers, what a choice.
XCP said:
turbobloke said:
May was speaking about changing the law on that point. PolFed doesn't make the law.
Your spin or hers, what a choice.
Federation membership is automatic at the moment.Your spin or hers, what a choice.
A government website said:
In common with changes made elsewhere in the public sector, the Home Secretary announced that she plans to change the law so that officers will have to opt in to join the Federation. This will mean that officers no longer become Fed members by default.
So she's correct, there would be a change in the law, and federation membership would not be automatic.It looks like the spin is from other BiB not you or May.
You are NOT forced to pay into Fed nor have your salary automatically deducted. You are asked to opt IN.
May's suggestion is that money is somehow being squirrelled away from new recruits by the Fed. Not true at all. As a Police Officer, you do receive some Fed benefits straight away.
But keep talking about 'spin' and quoting May as chapter and verse. It just reinforces the fact that falsehoods can be repeated as fact by those with an agenda and there will always be those that lap it up.
May's suggestion is that money is somehow being squirrelled away from new recruits by the Fed. Not true at all. As a Police Officer, you do receive some Fed benefits straight away.
But keep talking about 'spin' and quoting May as chapter and verse. It just reinforces the fact that falsehoods can be repeated as fact by those with an agenda and there will always be those that lap it up.
Elroy Blue said:
You are NOT forced to pay into Fed nor have your salary automatically deducted. You are asked to opt IN.
May's suggestion is that money is somehow being squirrelled away from new recruits by the Fed. Not true at all. As a Police Officer, you do receive some Fed benefits straight away.
But keep talking about 'spin' and quoting May as chapter and verse. It just reinforces the fact that falsehoods can be repeated as fact by those with an agenda and there will always be those that lap it up.
If there's spin, it will be noticed, whether from May or on PH.May's suggestion is that money is somehow being squirrelled away from new recruits by the Fed. Not true at all. As a Police Officer, you do receive some Fed benefits straight away.
But keep talking about 'spin' and quoting May as chapter and verse. It just reinforces the fact that falsehoods can be repeated as fact by those with an agenda and there will always be those that lap it up.
May's first suggestion is that membership is automatic and that appears to be the case.
XCP said:
Federation membership is automatic at the moment.
May's second suggesiton is that membership will not be automatic in future, using the law if needs be.The squirrels and other assorted diversions change nothing about that.
XCP said:
Membership of the Fed does not depend on whether an officer pays subs or not. Most do, 2 out of 3300 in my force didn't. They were still members though.
OK, but that's the whole point, subs are being used as a smokescreen.May spoke about membership being automatic - apparently it is - and changing that...not about subs, that was spin against May (not from you).
I'd say it was a first salvo in the next Conservative leadership race, which she knows could well be starting in a years time. The detail of what she said, and whether it was based in truth or not, really doesn't matter, it was the tone that it was said in. As others have pointed out, it wasn't aimed at the audience in the room, it was for consumption beyond. May clearly believes, naively perhaps, that she can achieve political success by cloaking herself in the aura of Thatcher.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff