Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing most liked content since 22/09/11 in all areas

  1. 14 points
    I can't believe I need to say this in order to explain myself. 1)The 1987 scheme was generous and preferential and was no small part of why I committed the best years of my life to this career. 2)It was "sold" to me at the time as bullet proof-It was protected by law. Law that supposedly could not be broken. 3)The current scheme that a new joiner joins is not the 1987 scheme. 4)The government has given notice that they will likely increase the pensionable age to 68 in the future-Entirely likely to be within the career period of an 18 year old new recruit today...If the Police Service lasts. Therefore a new joiner today at 18 etc etc. As for "welcome to the real world...." I am afraid that is insulting. If I took everything from you that you had worked for and left you naked and starving on the street I could point at those dying in the third world and say to you, "welcome to the real world" and shrug at your complaints. We live in a country where I am arguing that I should get what I was promised. But that promise can't be afforded in this country-A country where a footballer's weekly expenses would likely have me going back to quietly picking up body parts and fighting with pschopaths. Welcome to the real world? Where a single banker's yearly bonus would probably cover an officers lifetime pension? I am fed up of being told to suck this up by people who aren't in it with the rest of us, perhaps have what they were promised and consequently don't care. If the new scheme is so advantageous and preferential, why arent new officers signing up to committing that percentage of their pittance on it? I can think of a number of reasons. 60 or 68 -Thats a heavy toll on anyone. 42 years of front line duty will mean that you will likely dievery early. Many will not see their pensions. Of those that do how long must they survive to get their investment back?? Please don't quote the 1987 scheme at me again-That is gone. As for Industrial action. That doesn't always mean striking. I wouldnt refuse to respond to someones life in danger-I do that off duty anyway. There are many options and graduations of activity prior to actual total withdrawal of service. While I have contempt for this government I am still loyal to the Crown and the public. My father was in the 1987 scheme. He saw none of it. He died in service as did approximately half of the officers on his team.Where is that money now? Where is the money of all those officers who never saw a penny? As an industry where is the product of the combined financial might of all our contributions? There was no protected "fund". If HMG thought it was ok just to use it as a petty cash kitty then an obligation comes with that when the investor turns up. It's too late for me to change career direction now-It's too late for me to recover my investment. I was lied to. The law is being broken and we are being shafted royally. If "the real world" is where you just have to quietly take being lied to and stolen from and expected to keep your mouth shut out of guilt because somewhere on the planet someone else has it harder; then "the real world" needs changing because it's a sick and indecent place. Tolerance of this sort of treatment of others is unethical in itself. We haven't just lost money, we have lost life choices and years of time invested. But it's ok there is still enough cash in the economy to pay our football players and bankers and buy houses for MP's. That's the real world.
  2. 13 points
    Hello all, I`ve been a member here for a few years now but have never posted anything on here. I have benefited from other posters though esp. when is comes to law and procedure. I have seen the question from AHussain and as a devout Muslim PC with just 10 years in the job I thought I`d share my thoughts here. The issue of shaking womens` hands and the hadith (above prophetic narration) you have quoted can be interpreted in 2 ways. 1) The literal meaning i.e. that is forbidden to touch ANY women one is not related or married to or 2) The non-literal meaning i.e. the word touch meaning to have sex with. This is backed up by a verse in the quran where one is told to take a bath after a man has "touched" a woman. All muslim scholars have agreed that the word touch in the quranic verse means to have sex . However, as with all religions you will have your conservatives and your liberals and each will act on their understanding. But from a policing point of view I have found it is very hard to be a very strict muslim officer and try to follow a literal meaning of Islam. As a colleague has already pointed out: Shaking a female`s hand will be the least of your worries on the ground. One of the hardest things I found hard was praying 5 times a day. Working different shifts and not being at a station especially in the winter months when prayers times are close to each other. What will you do when you are instructed to stand on a scene through out the day where will you pray? Where will you perform your ablutions ? You can not just leave a murder scene to nip off to the local mosque! and why should other colleagues have to stand in for you so that you can go off to the station at prayer times? This is even harder with Friday prayers which have to be performed in a group and if there arent any muslims on your division or any on duty then you`ll have to go to the mosque. What if an emergency call comes through round the corner ? One thing that has always played on my mind and thankfully has never happened is that : what if I was in the middle of a prayer and a colleague pressed his/her emergency button (Shudder) . I dont think I would forgive myself if I did not turn up to assist ( No one in the police would forgive me either!) but then I say to myself that that`s an emergency and my religion allows me to break my prayer for an emergency (That`s my interpretation . is that yours?) or like when I was taking a statement off a domestic violence victim at sunset in Ramdhan and I had to break my fast? I didnt have my food with me so I asked the victim for a drink of water then continued to take the statement (she made me a brew! :). Sunset is also a prayer time. Would you break off in the middle of a statement ,return to the station , break your fast ,have something to eat and then go back to finish the statement? You sergeant will not be happy! or would you do what I did and had the brew whilst taking the statement , finished the statement , returned to the station an hour later , had something to eat and then pray and then complete the file? Depends how strict you are? How about the extra prayer in Ramadan at night ? especially when you`re working nights or even when you have to wake up early the next day? Another colleague mentioned about being alone with a female colleague. How would you feel about this? and if you refuse how do you expect your colleagues to respect that or how do you think they would feel? Having acted as a sergeant for 6 months on response, if you came to me saying you did not wish to pair up with a female colleague I would have refused to grant you this as where is the diversity and respect to my female officers then? especially in the first year when ( in my force ) you`ll not be a driver and will have to team up with someone. The first 2 years in the police will be spent in uniform where you will need the support of your shift and they will teach you and you will learn a lot by just watching and observing other officers especially those you`ve been teamed up with. If you distance yourself from colleagues they`ll not bother with you and you in turn will feel isolated and become depressed. Will you be comfortable interviewing a female prisoner on her own? How about sudden/expected deaths: Will you be comfortable searching a dead woman? before joining the cops I had never been to a pub or club or bar because I never had the need. Now it`s nearly every week I`m going to a pub for CCTV or because of a disturbance or to do licensing check I know your question was specifically about shaking a female interviewers hand and you mentioned something about searching because of the law allowing you to do so and for your safety. Believe it or not a lot of what police officers do has little to do with what the law says and a lot has to do with policy and how the police work and how things get done. So the answer is really how strict you are and It is worth considering the above before committing to become a police officer. thinking about it now though, I dont think I have shaken anyones hand in an interview in the police because the hand was never offered and I`ve been interviewed by males and females. Obviously the above is my opinion
  3. 12 points
    Betrayal of trust? Following recent high profile events like Plebgate, the national industrial rights ballot and the abject failure of the Police Federation to effectively counter Winsor's review, there's a strong argument that the Police Federation of England and Wales is no longer fit for purpose. That's a view reflected by a growing number of angry, disillusioned and frustrated officers nationwide. It's something the PFEW are waking up to themselves - their recently announced 'root and branch' review recognises the fact. Press release regarding National Federation review http://tinyurl.com/bn6nj7e But, it could be that this inward soul searching will be seen by the membership as being too little, too late - especially as this much vaunted review is anticipated to take a year to unfold and longer to implement if the hierarchy deem that any change is necessary. On the frontline, officers are asking how it is that the organisation responsible for representing them has become so detached from its members. The answer lies in the Federation's national structure, which is a throw back to before the dark ages. By way of highlighting its broken structure, it's well known that the Constables, who comprise around 70% of the membership, suffer a disproportionately minuscule number of votes in any decision making processes undertaken at national level. Neither fair, representative, nor democratic.... It's also an open secret that a handful of centrally located people hold the vast majority of the power, none of them having been elected by the rank and file. They receive generous allowances and 'pension-related honoraria payments' that leave their members with the perception that although everyone is equal, some are more equal than others. The perception from those on the frontline is that it must be really difficult to fight for your members when you are not affected by what is happening to them.... But what grates most for members is being ignored, or worse, being treated like children and this is an ongoing issue. When questions are asked, they routinely go unanswered, and the recent ballot is a case in point. Even whilst the ballot was live, it wasn't widely known that a 50% + 1 voting threshold had been arbitrarily imposed, and the reasons behind that decision remain a mystery to this day. It's hard to think of any organisation, trade union, or other public or private body that imposes such restrictions on a supposedly democratic process. Looking at the voting stats throws up more questions than answers. It looks like more than 50% of officers nationwide registered to vote. That means officers took the time to engage with the process and found a computer to log on to. So, if more than 50% registered, why didn't they all vote? There were HUGE variances in some regions between those who registered and then those who eventually voted. We know FOR A FACT that there were technical issues early on - did this stop the process being effective? We may never know. We do know officers have come forward saying that, having registered, they never received their voting email, despite repeated contact with the electioneers. Given that, prior to the ballot, Federation officials were adamant that everyone who wanted to vote would get the opportunity, their silence now on this issue is baffling. Where is the transparency, scrutiny and accountability? Several recent national examples show our ballot up for the farce that it was. National elections recently secured jobs for Police Crime Commissioners who gathered as little as 8% of the popular vote. News item re PCC turnout http://tinyurl.com/9swnhqe And the civil service union has just announced that its members are to take strike action based on a ballot that only secured votes from 28% of its members. News item re Civil Service strike ballot http://tinyurl.com/cex5jsp So just why is it that we were required to achieve a 50.1% turnout? For the same reason, many suspect, that turkeys don't vote for Christmas. Obtaining industrial rights would bring with it the opportunity to join a trade union and that would sound the death knell for the Police Federation. It's hard for the national leadership to counter such cynicism, especially when they seem incapable of communicating with their members even at the most basic level. It took them a year to organise a ballot because they said it 'needed to be credible'. Criticism of the ballot has been as vociferous as it has been widespread, but the most damning verdict was delivered by the Met Fed, who openly described the ballot as 'bizarre', stating they were 'appalled'' at the National Fed's stance. Such criticism is unprecedented and some predict is the opening salvo of a civil war that could tear the organisation apart. Met Fed's criticism of National Fed http://tinyurl.com/blc96tf Records show that the PFEW is sitting on a cash pile of over £20m, but there is scant evidence of this being used to launch an effective campaign to fight the harsh realities of Winsor. Their financial records are a matter of public record and they certainly bear closer examination. How many officers know that in 2011, £1.4m of their money was spent on furnishings? What percentage of officers realise certain fed officials receive honoraria payments and 'elected officer enhancements' to their salaries - bonuses that start at £15K per annum? So how can all of this be justified if you are on the wrong end of a complaint and the fed decide they won't pay to legally represent you because you don't have more than a 50% chance of winning in their opinion? How do such bonuses sit with frontline officers having their pay cut in April, with more financial misery to follow? Police Federation accounts 2011 http://tinyurl.com/c4wmyvy Officers feel that they are effectively being held hostage because there is no alternative to the Police Federation. To access associated benefits officers HAVE TO pay voluntary subs. They then, at additional cost, get access to health care, insurances and other benefits. 99% of officers join the fed when they sign up for service. The benefits are competitively priced thanks largely to the fed's bulk buying power and the fact that when they join most officers are comparatively fit and healthy. To pull out of paying voluntary subs, for example with twenty years service, means members lose access to all the benefits that they have signed up to. Without the financial support of the federation, the fear of a malicious complaint putting an officer in court at their own expense is tangible, especially when coupled with the loss of health and life cover, which it is virtually impossible to source competitively elsewhere if you are in your forties of fifties. The fact that despite these pitfalls officers ARE withdrawing their subs should be ringing alarm bells at national HQ. Many believe that if there was ANY competition the federation would be abandoned by its members and bankrupted virtually overnight. It's a sad indictment that many now see the federation as a necessary evil, rather than their guardian angel. Officers are left with what is effectively a two tier representative body. At local level fed reps represent officers, influence management and help those who are doing an impossible job. The work of these reps is often heroic and goes largely uncredited, but the bigger picture has them, and those who rely on them, hamstrung by in-fighting and petty politics, the likes of which means that, at national level, communication is chaotic and the message mixed. On the one hand we're told individual branch boards won't share their details with each other, which means the national federation don't know who their members are, yet at the same time officers are being 'mail shot' at home as the fed desperately attempts to entice officers to take up various offers designed to plug the financial gap created by those leaving. The most current example of this confusion is the constables branch website (www.policeconstables.org). Just to officially launch it and have a link to it off the main National Federation website proved an onerous task. It was heralded as the voice of the rank and file. A chance for the majority to have their say and to be kept informed and up to date with all matters fed related. Officers were encouraged to register so the fed would finally know who their members were and so that they could share questions and ideas on the forums found there. Typically, things started well, but soon descended into farce. Though over 8,000 PCs have registered, the site has yet to trailblaze to any degree. Months and months of questions being posed and left largely unanswered by fed officials has left the site looking like a post-apocalyptic ghost town. The few posters left (there are a hard core of about ten) are treated with contempt, chastised and threatened with bans. The site is plagued with technical difficulties and its news section is so out of date as to make it a contradiction in terms. The largest ongoing joke is the insistence of fed officials from within the site that they have 'a plan'. It must be a corker of Baldrick-like cunning because it has been 'a work in progress' for nearly two years and is yet to show itself. The site is a microcosm of everything that is wrong with the Police Federation, all wrapped up in one sad, semi-abandoned bundle. This April's pay packet will bring with it the double-whammy of a pension contribution increase and the reduction in CRTP. It will be a defining moment for officers and the PFEW. Until now officers have largely only lost the opportunity to receive something that was becoming due...we've missed out on future pay rises, or the next stage of an increment rise that was on the cards. From April, for the first time, we will start to see our hard earned money being deducted at source from our pay packets. Pension contribution increase: http://tinyurl.com/c4xqglo CRTP withdrawal: http://tinyurl.com/chuathk Nationally, it isn't something PFEW have prepared officers for. It will come as a shock to many and will affect us all. There will be welfare and financial issues that will need addressing - officers should be in no doubt that this is the start of actual hardship for many. How ironic that at their time of greatest need, officers will be considering withdrawing from the Federation to try and claw back some of the cash that the Federation has allowed the government to snatch from their members. As a Post Script, it seems PFEW are not beyond being petty either. Having recently withdrawn my subs, I have been denied access to the Constable's website forums, despite the fact that even having withdrawn my voluntary subs I remain a member of the PFEW whilst I continue as a serving police officer. If that doesn't guarantee me access, then the fact that I have paid subs up to my next pay packet does. It's a small thing, but it's also indicative of an organisation perceived by some as rotten to its core. Needless to say, emails surrounding this issue have gone unanswered. There is little doubt that within the next six months events of seismic proportions will overtake the Police Federation. With voluntary redundancy ratified and live, compulsory severance on the horizon, fitness testing, reductions in pay for restricted officers, the possible introduction of A20 and a new comprehensive spending review imminent, it's beyond time for the national PFEW to clean house, draw a line and start again. Officers need their help and have done for some time. Sad indeed that whilst I remain proud of being a police officer I am ashamed and embarrassed of the organisation that is supposed to represent and protect us all.
  4. 12 points
    In my opinion anybody who volunteers needs their heads tested. my reasons being 1) No proper risk assessment 2) Not firearms trained 3) Under Winsor and if you get seriously injured you are out of a job 4) If you get injured it will effect your pension 5) You are not being financially rewarded properly 6) By not volunteering you could send a message to this government that your goodwill has gone.
  5. 11 points
    The apology from the force could read "We're sorry we ran out of officers. The officers on duty were dealing with two people harrassing each other on Facebook, a neighbour dispute between two adults who should know better, a vulnerable misper from a care home who was allowed to walk out by the one person who was on duty there. The last officer who was on duty had arrested a domestic violence suspect earlier in the shift and was on the phone to CPS for 50 minutes waiting for a decision. We'd have more officers, but The Tories tell us that the reforms are working, so there you go. That is their reforms working. Please feel free to tell your MP." I'm a little ray of sunshine today.
  6. 11 points
    Stephen, there will be many many people thanking you for the money you raised, and is still coming in, whata selfless act from someone so very ill. Thank you and R.I.P. away from any pain now.
  7. 10 points
    People, I've removed footage of the murder of a fellow police officer. It's graphic, disgusting and terribly sad. If you feel a need to see it, then you can search for it elsewhere.
  8. 10 points
    Every now and again someone throws rent and housing allowance into the mix, with a suggestion that abolishing both would somehow even things out and be fair to all. And every time it is raised I give the same answer. The only individuals who were shafted over HA were on two intakes in 1994. They were told they would be in receipt of HA only to find it withdrawn. Everyone subsequent to that knew what they were getting. It may not have been fair that HA was withdrawn, but it went around the same time the rules were relaxed on where we could and couldn't live. How many post 1994 joiners had their homes visited during the recruitment process to see if they were suitable. How many officers these days have to seek the agreement of their Chief when they want to move house? Not many, and it was in part because of those restrictions that allowances were paid. They were also paid in lieu of the fact most Forces still provided police houses. Given the fact no new joiners have received HA for nearly 20 years, those in receipt are now very much in the minority. And yet those who don't get it think it's "fair to all" if things are "evened out", and people like me are expected to take an additional 7% hit to our earnings? Well guess what. In much the same way as you all set your budgets based on what you get paid, so do I. So why should I be hit proportionately far harder than you, just because I get an allowance that all bar two 1994 intakes either get, or knew they were not getting when they started setting their budgets? For all HMG's failings, even they accept that to abolish HA would be unfair. If HMG can see it, it's about time the post '94 brigade stopped bleating about it once and for all.
  9. 10 points
    I totally understand that view. I know that this has been said before..............however..... I must say, I've enjoyed my time in the job. Got to do some stuff that I would never have been able to do, and have done some stuff that I would have had to pay to do. Having said that. I worked in IT before joining the job. I earned over £60K a year when I left with a final salary scheme. My decision to join was based on a few things, but one of them was definitely the "your employment to retirement is guaranteed, I'll get x thousand lump sum when I leave, the salary will rise to around £40K, etc., safe job, interesting days, etc.. The starting salary was well under £20K when I joined but I had a few quid from taking voluntary redundancy to tide me over for the first couple of years. While I adjusted my standard of living. The last week or so I've seen where my previous colleagues are and I've looked at what's going on in the job, and said to my other half "what was I thinking? I must have been bonkers.". I don't care what anybody says about being "promised". The pension and salary might as well have been written in stone when I joined. We knew we'd work 15 years and be on top whack. We knew we'd work x years and retire with x amount lump sum and x a year pension. That was the 'contract' and mutual 'understanding' upon which I said "Yes, you can have my services until I retire. I choose not to go into the private sector and earn z amount, and because I won't do that, you'll give me a challenging job, you will pay me x amount and I'll retire with z. Thanks." Nobody, not a single recruiter, senior officer, interviewer, HR person, FED representative, other copper, politician, or anybody said to me "be careful though, because all of that can chance on the whim of any future Government. They might decide to screw you over.". Not only did they not say it, they didn't even alude to it. It wasn't on anybody's radar because it wasn't dreamed of. I fulfilled my part of the 'contract'. I gave up certain freedoms, worked hard, did everything that was expected of me. I've been challenged, I've passed every test (apart from the skipper's exam!) that has been put in front of me. I have protected MPs, dignitaries but mostly decent, normal people. And in return since this Government has been in power I've been shown nothing but disdain, verging on hatred - all with platitudes or a veneer of smiles. I enjoy what I do, but at the end of the day, I've got bills to pay, a future to plan for and a family to provide for. I've started making some enquiries to go back into IT.........I stayed in touch with all my old colleagues, most of whom appear to be IT directors now......... It's been an expensive lesson - trusting a police force and Government. Who would have thought it all those years ago, that the latter would seriously let me down and hate me so much as to royally f**k the future that I did plan for. I was told what my future salary compensation would be. It might as well have been written in stone. "These are the pay scales in your first 15 years" is what they said. What crap. Yes, I might have got another job in IT and been sacked, or made redundant (again). But I gave up that possibility for a more certain future. A more certain future that Cameron, May and Winsor (and a cast of a few hundred) decided to make decidedly uncertain. I'd understand more if every public sector worker was treated the same, but the venom that we're being treated with makes it look personal. Very personal. Cameron hasn't just f***ed with my career, he's f***ed with my family's future. Keep pushing my old china. Because at some point, somebody with nothing left to lose, will break............. Their hatred from this Government towards me and my colleagues, of the uniform I proudly wear, has over time, become mutual. I wrote my own letter to my MP and got told to lump it - in their own words, admittedly (although it was by one of their minions). The Fed are powerless, or at worst implicated, in f*****g me over. Maybe, one day, I'll get the opportunity to repay everything that HMG has done to me. Maybe I won't. Cameron hasn't won yet. And I have plenty of life left to live. In the meantime, I'll cut my cloth a little more closely, cancel a few things, try and replan my finances and my working future. I saw a sticker on the wall of a gun range a few years ago. It said "I love my country but I fear my Government". I laughed at the time............
  10. 9 points
    Folks, A sticky to keep track might be a nice idea. The views expressed are not mine, but a collection of the thoughts and reposts of others elsewhere around the Internet. No offence is intended to anyone. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. I remain hopeful that the constructive suggestions made by Winsor will be shaped and moulded so as to produce a service fit for purpose, taking us forward in partnership with the public - our customers - for the next thirty years....which could be how long we are all in service for! 1: Tom Winsor is asked by Teresa May, our beloved Home Secretary, to conduct a review of policing. The result is a two part report that kills rainforests and the contents of which are deemed 'not nice' by some, but I'm fine with it, really. http://review.police.uk/ 2: Some people suspect that Winsor 'cribbed' his thoughts and conclusions off David Cameron, because Winsor's review reaches virtually the same outcomes as those offered in speeches made by David Cameron and Nick Herbert in 2006 (What are the chances? Find out in a future episode......) http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2006/jan/16/conservatives.ukcrime 3: Teresa May says the review was 'independent' . We don't like the review, but have to admit that it seems impartial and independent, but then we might be in the dark about a few things http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theresa_May 4: It turns out that May is very busy and has other interests including holding, (or did hold) shares in Prudential. That might cause you to ask 'why is that relevant'? And a good question it is too..... http://www.theyworkforyou.com/regmem/?p=10426 5: It happens, by chance, that Prudential own a slice of Group 4, now known as 'G4S'. Again you say, this is a slow moving soap opera, where is the drama? http://www.g4s.com/en/Investors/News%20Events%20and%20Presentations/Announcements/2011/10/06/Major%20Shareholding%20Prudential/ 6: Patience, young Jedi, the forces are with you... http://www.starwars.com/ 7: 'G4S' is a company that some (not me) think has fallen in love with (owning / wiping out) the police service / force by privatising most policing roles and functions http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-17772674 8: 'G4S' recently won a 200m contract to privatise certain sections of Lincolnshire Police (can you believe you are getting this timely update for free along with all Police Oracle users who are late to the party?) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-16277806 9: 'G4S' needed a solicitor to get their takeover pushed through, because buying a Police Force, or any part thereof, is not as easy as doing the weekly shop, you see. By coincidence / chance, call it what you will, they ended up using 'White and Case', a firm of solicitors to do the boring technical bits of the deal..... http://www.whitecase.com/ 10: Here's interesting. It turns out Tom Winsor, he of spectacles, no smile and puveyor of an independent two part police review, is a partner at 'White and Case' (As in he's a 'big cheese' there). http://www.whitecase.com/twinsor/ 11: Enquring minds stop. And think. And start investigating. You see, all of Winsor's potential victims are trained investigators, as luck would have it. So they start excitedly forraging for information. Because this incident involves politicians and solicitors some see the potential for scullduggery having occurred as being huge, wide and deep (not me) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherlock_Holmes 12: We are relieved to be told by 'White and Case' that Winsor wasn't involved in the Lincolnshire affair, because if he had been it may have caused a 'conflict of interest'. We were all especially relieved when Teresa May confirmed the 'White and Case' story and added that Winsor's review was completely independent too. He worked solo, detached from 'White and Case'. On his lonesome, but definately not for or on behalf of 'White and Case'. I was cheered to hear this. Come on, admit it, so were you.... 13: It seems that some folk were hoping to escape Winsor's clutches and they became depressed (not me), despite press interest giving hope that a 'conflict of interest' might be revealed to discredit Winsor and his report. 14: And then a response from the Home Office came through as a result of a Freedom Of Information request. It made it clear that Winsor didn't get paid for his work on parts one and two of his report, but instead 'White and Case' were paid.... http://www.nigeltompsett.com/uploads/2011_05_13_FOI_Response_18164.pdf 14B: This causes much confusion - why would 'White and Case' be paid when Winsor was working for himself, not on their behalf. Suspicion had been roused that he had acted rather less than impartially because two press releases were seen on the 'White and Case' website heraldeding the start and end of his work for the Home Office doing his review. How rude, you might think http://www.whitecase.com/press-10012010/ http://www.whitecase.com/press-03152012/ 15: In other news, we took another look at Part 1. In it, there's reference to a group called 'Reform' being consulted and we understand that's a think-tank with the sole stated aim of 'improving public sector performance by engaging with the private sector'. Which is nice. We need to know if its founder was paid for being consulted by Winsor, or if he earns any money from the think tank. We think either scenario would be 'naughty' because Winsor and friends don't really want us to have two jobs and we know that the founder of 'Reform' has or had at least two jobs because he's our policing minister Nick Herebert. Which is nice. http://www.nickherbert.com/pages/about.html http://www.reform.co.uk/ 16: Meanwhile, West Mids and Surrey were queuing up a 3 billion partnership tender for some of their policing services to be taken over by private companies like 'G4S'. Most other forces in England and Wales are 'non committed' interested parties. http://ted.europa.eu/udl?uri=TED:NOTICE:24070-2012:TEXT:EN:HTML http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/108098/response/264454/attach/2/BPP%20MEMORANDUM%20OF%20INFORMATION%20FINAL%20version%201%20Feb%202012.pdf 16B: Scottish police forces meanwhile describe themselves as 'looking on in horror from the sidelines, because we are completely safe north of the border, though no one really knows why'. It's true that they are safe, but it is only fair to admit the quote is made up, but I can assure you that is exactly what they would say (in a Scottish accent, if asked). Anyway, we see the West Mids / Surrey document and it creates much fear because the only thing ruled out from the tender is 'arrest' as far as we can see....I remain unconcerned because a 'go live' date of Feb 2013 for this partnership stuff is just a weird coincidence, coming as it does just weeks before Winsor's proposed compulsory redundancy for police officers, which is due to hit in April 2013. Nowt more than coincidence... http://www.policeoracle.com/news/HR,+Personnel+and+Staff+Development/2012/Apr/18/Minister-Winsor-Proposals-Are-Frankly-Insulting_47358.html 17: Politicians and ACPO look on, favouring Winsor initially, but then becoming anti-Winsor, some say. I don't comment. Keith Vas favours Winsor, but then goes for a walk with 35,000 police officers around London. That changes his mind, which is nice. Mr Vas runs a committee that oversees some people, and thankfully that incudes Tom Winsor, though no one really understands why. Anyway Vas can and does call Winsor to a meeting to explain stuff, though that get together has yet to take place. We know Winsor will get tea and biccies, which we hope are plain digestive because times are austere, old boy. http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/blog/2012/may/10/public-sector-pensions-strikes-and-police-protest-live http://www.acpo.presscentre.com/Press-Releases/ACPO-comment-on-Winsor-Part-II-164.aspx 18: Teresa May goes to the Fed conference and has a rough time of it, which I did not like, much. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/may/16/theresa-may-heckled-police-conference?newsfeed=true 19: It hits the press that there may be an issue around Winsor's impatiality or non impartiality, and who did what to whom and when. Confusion brings fear and a scenario unfolds that reminds me of rats, ships and the like. Everyone runs for the hills, which is mixing metaphors, I'm fully aware, but what do you want? I'm doing this for free...I don't go anywhere on account of my dodgy legs which mean hill climbing is an non-starter and wifi reception is poor up there anyway. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-18101548 20: In connected news, though I believe it to be unconnected, Surrey stall their rush to privatisation for whatever reason (each individual chooses to believe what they will, I believe Surrey, though can't remember their story). West Mids essentially do the same, which is right or wrong depending on who you talk to. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18105253 19/05/12: For a short demolition of Winsor 2, go here http://www.surreypf.co.uk/uploads/Winsor%20Part%202.pdf 19/05/12: For a read of the original Home Affairs select committee meeting with Winsor 2011 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmhaff/939/11061402.htm What's interesting here, in response to Q 452 from Steve McCabe MP, Winsor explicitly states that he is NOT proposing compulsory redundancy, yet when Part 2 appeared it was the foundation of his recommendations. What changed, when and why? 19/5/12: This? Well this just beggars belief. A FOI reqest asked: 'Who has access to PNC?'. What follows is the obvious list of public bodies, and guess who? G4S.... http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2011-11-21a.205.6
  11. 8 points
    Based solely on what Winsor's done, I'm several thousands pounds worse off per annum that I would have been. Thanks to Hutton I will have to work several years longer, pay more in contributions and retire on an inferior package. The PAT is gone and the Federation are in turmoil. Soon we are likely to face the end of a career at the stroke of a pen. Would I go on strike? I don't know, but my views on this have certainly changed. Should we have industrial rights? 100% yes - I don't enjoy getting trampled over. I imagine we're all very public-minded, but if the 'public' come before your family you're either lying or you're bonkers.
  12. 8 points
    People talk about the Military. But nobody joins the army as a Lt Colonel, nobody joins the RN as a Commander and nobody joins the RAF as a Wing Commander. Even when they join directly as an officer, they join at the very lowest commissioned rank for their service and get experience on the ground, doing the job. I’m sure direct entry candidates feel that they can bring in superior strategic knowledge which can change policing for the better, but strategic knowledge of what exactly? I am now out of the police and I now work for some excellent leaders, but they couldn’t cope with the 24/7, 365, extremely limited resourced nature of the UK police. Unless you’ve actually lived and worked in policing, with its varied legal requirements, rules, regulations, laws, powers, can’t say no, Office of Constable etc you’ll never fully understand what you’re leading. In my mind, strategy is useless if you can’t back it up with tactical experience. They only way you get tactical experience is by doing it day in day out. If you want to build a specific skill set, go and become an expert in your field, then join the police as a civilian with responsibility for your area of expertise. If you want to be a police officer, join at at a rank that allows you to be a police officer, i.e. a constable. If you want to be a police officer, surely you want to be in a role and rank where you actually do police work, then work your way up. The same way as a second lieutenant works their way up, learning tactics and as they get more senior, applying that experience in a leadership role.
  13. 8 points
    There are a lot of new posters on here asking the same questions, most have which have been answered before. However I accept that 400 odd pages of this thread is a big ask to find what you want, so I've created a sort of FAQ. I'll repost this fairly regularly so people don't have to search for it. I'll add to it if necessary. Quick guide to the pensions, in terms of when you can get your pension. Firstly in order to get a police pension you have to retire. Sounds obvious!! 1987 pension. *********** If you leave the Police…… …Between 2-24 years total pensionable service (includes service in the 2015 scheme) and under the age of 55 - You will get your pension at 60. …Between 25-29 years (with 2015 service) you will get it at 50 or over. If you are under 50 then you'll get it when you are 50. …With 30+ years service (again includes 2015 service) you can take a pension at the completion of 30 years, no matter what the age. …Over the age of 55, then you can take your pension at any time no matter what service you have. Some other points in respect of the 1987 pension: It is index linked from 55 onwards. If you have retired before that date then it will be index linked from the day you retired, though you won’t receive any backdated payments. Commutation in all cases is 25%, apart from between 25-29 years (under 55) when it's 2.25 x your yearly pension. Commutation is worked out as roughly a quarter of your pension, multiplied by your commutation factor (a number dependant on age - usually around 18-22). It will be slightly less than a quarter of the pension because of the way the pension ‘pot’ is worked out, but the total amount is nominally 25% of your ‘total pension pot’. Once you have done 30 years pensionable service in respect of the 1987 scheme (as a combination of one or both schemes) then you cannot gain more pension in that scheme. If you are in the 2015 scheme then you can continue to build that up. Your pension is based on the best of the last three years final salary including CRTP and London Weighting. If you opt out of the pension then unless you have over 25 years or are over 55, you will be a 'deferred pensioner' and you won't get it till 60. Your pension will be based on your final salary when you opted out and you won't be able to benefit from ill health pensions. 2015 scheme *********** Firstly no pension under this scheme is payable under the age of 55. (not including ill health pensions). At present, this is the earliest legal age to get a pension, whether this will change in 2027/2028 remains to be seen, as that is when the earliest age to get a pension changes (to 57). There is no suggestion that it will at the moment. Secondly pensionable service has no bearing on when you can retire, it's purely based on age. If you leave the Police….. ….Under 55, then your pension is deferred until 67/68 (State Pension Age). You can have it paid from the age of 55 but it will be actuarily reduced from the age of 67/68, so roughly around a 39-46% reduction. …Between 55-59. You can claim your pension in full at age 60 or you can have it actuarily reduced from 60 to get it paid at 55-59. Again it will be actuarily reduced, but from the age of 60, so roughly around 18-23% for the full 5 years, 4-5% per year. … At age 60 - you receive your pension in full. Some other points: Whilst the accrual rate is 1/55.2 or whatever, it doesn’t mean that you build up fractions of that as in the current system. It doesn’t work like that and it will come out with the wrong figure if you work it out like that. It’s accrued by taking 1.81% of your pay every year and putting it into a (virtual) pot. That pot is then increased by CPI + 1.25% every year (as long as you continue to pay into the scheme) until you take it. The total pot is then your pension. It is then increased by CPI every year once you take it. Commutation is 12:1. Maximum is 25%. There is no maximum pension under this scheme, you will carry on accruing more and more for every year that you pay in. If you have both pensions then you have to retire to get them both, you cannot continue serving and paying into the 2015 scheme and get the 1987 pension paid. Once you retire then the relevant ages above come into play for each scheme. Any other queries, then let me know and I'll add them on.
  14. 8 points
    We can all thank Smirks for this post.... I've kept an eye on the original story thanks to Smirks who suggested that they knew more about it than was being published in the press. They suggested, actually stated, that an officer had been identified and that the officer had apologised. At the time I was pretty sure that wasn't true based upon the news stories I'd heard, but one generally waits for facts to be established before arguing with somebody saying they know something. Smirks basically suggested he had inside information - I was worried for him if he worked for Lincs police, as it sounded like he was releasing information about an ongoing investigation - which would be bad for him if Lincs found out who he was. It irked me. Anyway. Now. At the time of writing, no media account that I can find says that the cop has been identified. This is a week after the original story ran? So......I looked into it a bit more........I do hate unfairness. The account in the Grantham Journal says the dad said this: Mr Lindley said: “A police car pulled over and told me she had to get off her bike as it is against the law to ride on the footpath. “He then drove off but said he’d be checking his mirrors, and if he saw her riding the bike again he would confiscate it.” The account in the Daily Mail says the dad said this: He just shrugged and said, “She must get off the bike and walk and I’m going to sit here and make sure you don’t put her back on it. If you do, I’ll confiscate the bike.” I was gobsmacked.’ The officer kept watch as they began the one-mile walk uphill to West Grantham Academy St John’s school. I'm gobsmacked too. On the face of it, that's two different accounts. Either the cop sat there and watched, or he drove off. I guess one could say that a reporter asking a certain question, gets a certain answer, so it's possible (I guess) for two different accounts to come from the mouth of one person. Unfortunately, no other witnesses would appear to have been identified - the father doesn't mention anybody (other than his 4 year old daughter). So. We have one person's word against a police force being taken as fact. The fact that Lincolnshire appear to have apologised doesn't help their case, but it would appear that any apology was made very quickly after the report hit the press, so that would have been before any proper investigation had taken place. It would appear that no cop has been identified. Now, it's possible that one of the cops of Grantham who were on duty at the time is a liar. That the officer has decided it's best to keep quiet because he could get into trouble. That's possible I guess, but then the amount of trouble he's in for lying about it, is far worse, than the trouble he'd be in for just admitting being a dick. So wouldn't he just admit his mistake? You'd think, considering the enormity of the publicity of this story, that each of the cops who it could have been would have been happy to stand in an ID procedure - I mean, I know that if I was insulted by a copper in front of my daughter, that I'd never forget his face, and would easily recognise him again. But we all remember different things I guess. It's possible that there is an errant copper. But, by the same token, it's possible that this story isn't everything that it's been made out to be. I find it gratifying that the Great British Public heard an account from one person and almost universally took that as a copper being a bullying dick. Yes, easy to see that coppers are thick, nasty, bully boys and less easy to think that this story might not be accurate. I hope Lincs get to the bottom of it, because if they can't find the guilty party from a very small selection of suspects, then it doesn't say much for their ability to detect crime. And we all want our forces to fight for truth and justice. Don't we? If Smirks hadn't been so vociferous, I'd have not thought much more about it. But Smirks had a bit of a go at me........it made me sad.
  15. 8 points
    Well, come Friday next that's me done, 30 years done and dusted! Who'd have thought it? The last thing on my mind when I joined up was retirement but it got me in the end. I don't know quite what I should be feeling, elation that I've managed to get there in relatively one piece, got to the light at the end of the tunnel, or sadness at leaving a job I have been proud to be part of, hoping I've made at least one persons life a bit better by helping them in their hour of need. I have had more good times than bad times despite the restrictions, the missed birthdays, wedding anniversaries, Christmases, cancelled rest days, you get the picture. I have worked with some of the best blokes you could imagine and worked for some of the best sergeants and inspectors who I would go the extra mile for because I knew they had my back, I've also worked with and for some right arseholes who I wouldn't cross the road to piss on if they were on fire, but having worked in industry before joining the job, the police is not unique in this respect. I have been part of something that many aspire to but few get the opportunity to do. I have seen and experienced things that people shouldn't that have altered for ever my view of life and the world but I believe that what doesn't kill you makes you stronger. I know there is life after the job, but what a job!
  16. 8 points
    What you are experiencing is 'the perfect storm'. First and foremost, the 'honeymoon' period is over. The 'wow, I made it as a Police officer' has been replaced with 'why did I make it as a Police officer?'. You have also realised that far from being a pillar of the community, you are seen as a crutch by those that won't support themselves, and a litigation backstop by those that lead you. Your eyes will have been opened to just how futile it can be, but made worse by realising just how important it all is, and how fighting the organisation is often harder than fighting the drunks. The rewards you expected will have failed to materialise, while you will have been blindsided by demands you couldn't possibly have predicted. You will have been stabbed in the back by those you didn't expect, and received support from those you didn't think you could trust. You will have been stereotyped, pilloried, castigated, put down and abused by the press and the media, and then told you are held to a higher standard and have no right to defend yourself. You will have driven to work dreading what lies ahead, gone to situations where you dread the outcome but still you turn up the next day. You will have sacrificed bodily and mental health for those who cannot be bothered to ensure you have sufficient water or a decent meal. You will have sacrificed precious time with your family, time that you can never recover, in exchange for a monthly pay packet under constant attack by those that govern us such that you begin to ask 'is it all worthwhile?' In short, it's all caught up with you. All the demands, all the doubt, all the frustration. Your decision has to be yours. I don't hate being a Police officer, but neither do I love it. It's just a job. I didn't join to do 'just a job' I joined to make a difference and enjoy a long, demanding, rewarding, career. Sometimes fantasy and reality make uneasy bedfellows. Personally speaking, I am here for the long haul for three reasons; having joined later in life my 'long haul' is shorter for me than for others, I have an employment stability often denied me outside of the Police and most importantly, I live in hope that the pendulum will again swing back to what I know the role can be, a rewarding, fascinating, demanding, well respected, profession. Your way of coping, or of deciding, will have to be your own, I am afraid. Don't rush into anything and whatever you decide always remember the good, repress the bad and take pride that you were one of the good guys!
  17. 8 points
    Let's all go back to the start of the last century when workers worked 12 hour days, had no paid holidays, wages were a disgrace and working conditions where dangerous, all in the name of profit for the rich. Without unions this country would still be likened Romania other Eastern European countries. We would still be getting around in horse and carts. I support the unions and hope they take this government to task.
  18. 8 points
    In the past I had always voted Tory however NEVER again will they get my vote. The two big attempts to shaft the police in the last 25 years have both come on the Tories watch (Winsor & Sheehy). Having witnessed both I would never vote to give them a 3rd crack at us. Oh and yes I'm a selfish voter who votes solely for my own benefit and proud of it.
  19. 8 points
    WARNING - I’m going off into rant mode..... Well well. Take some well hung historic scandal, say Hillsborough. Simmer in a jus of Miner’s Strike. Add a handful of Lawrence bugs and a glass of chateau Plebgate. Stir and stir and, well, stir some more, keep the pot simmering for months. You get the picture. Then bring in a celebrity ex cop, Lord Stevens to review the whole sorry state of affairs. Winsor a good thing, “necessary and long overdue” he opines. Ever ‘right on’, he urges the equality watchdog to use its legal powers to force police to hire more women and ethnic minorities. The toughest anti-intolerance legislation in the world and the odious ‘positive discrimination’ just isn’t enough it seems for men like m’noble Lord. All officers should be ‘chartered’ and their names included on a public register of officers held by the College of Policing. Anyone accused of serious misconduct would appear before a new ‘professional competence and conduct panel’, he says. I read an active thread on this forum - I call it the “Can’t Pay Won’t Pay” whinge reacting to the question of forced subscription to the “College of Policing”. Well good luck with that I say because once it comes in and if you don’t pay you’ll be OUT. End of. Police should investigate every reported crime, he said, but if this is not possible the victim should be told why. There is another active thread “Crime Everything” . If we are forced to sign up to this and investigate EVERYTHING then chaos and stagnation awaits. The whole question of operational discretion will go. I really do despair when supposedly experienced former officers spew out this sort of nonsense. Lest I be accused of a skewed perspective there is also some elements to like in his conclusions; A national procurement strategy to increase the amount of collaboration between forces - to include standardised uniforms. About bleedin’ time BUT it is nothing that every contributor to this forum & every bobby in the land hasn’t been thinking for years. Whist you’re at it chuck in bulk vehicle purchase, same for consumables and let’s have computer systems that are actually compatible with one another. Electronic submission of case files to courts and prosecutors. Again, great assuming your force has moved away from DOS 3.1 and hasn’t screwed down the operating environment through paranoia to render it useless for purpose. Mobile access to intelligence, including the Police National Computer. Agreed and in place already in some areas (see above re national procurement) as is restrictions on the use of private companies such as G4S and Serco for policing functions – hurray and about time too. Calls for a guaranteed level of neighbourhood policing and targets for response times – though I thought Green/May and their buddies had done away with targets? However at the end of his ramblings is this rather curious statement, that “police are ‘not just crime fighters’ and have a ‘social purpose’ including ‘improving well-being within communities’. Everyone here should sit up and take note of that. A radical move away from Peelian principals, something alien to me, immeasurable (though you can bet someone will WANT to measure it) and a metric designed to set up the police force of the future to fail. Social engineering per plod? The list of things the role of constable encompasses just got booted into the stratosphere. Lord Stevens also criticises oversight arrangements for police as ‘toothless’ and calls for the police watchdogs, Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary and the Independent Police Complaints Commission, to be merged into a single body. Mr. Winsor, it seems, will be casting a long shadow. I used to hear the refrain that the job is “F’d” and not necessarily agree but, as old and cynical as I have become, it is true that we are on the cusp of seeing wholesale root and branch change. HMG know that they have a free hand given the laughable opposition shown by the Federation to both Winsor and pension reform, exacerbated by further demonstrating their political naivety in their actions post discussions with “Thrasher” Mitchell. They were just the thin end of the wedge. You can see where all this is leading. I’d better go have my Horlicks now. /Rant
  20. 8 points
    Like many of us in the job, I spent many years wearing green before I wore black. Today is an important day for my family and I, as for many ex servicemen in & their families. I wear my uniform with the pride of knowing I earned it. To see this individual, wearing a made up uniform of no historical significance, of no connection or grounding in sacrifice, courage or service, angers me beyond belief. To see him saluting a monument to courage & sacrifice, a salute being a symbolic gesture of which that person has no concept or knowledge of and certainly has never earned the right to give or receive, fills me with such a level of contempt, I feel physically sick. That he did all of this, knowing the depth of feeling on this matter, but had the arrogance and disdain to do it anyway, is beyond belief. The man is vermin beyond contempt. He has no honour, no worth and his presence sullies the act which he demeans with his attendance in his banana republic uniform. If I thought there was any hope of reconciliation between Westminster and the police, this act has buried that forever. Mr Winsor you do not represent me, you never have and never will. I never saw you wearing green and carrying a weapon on service or campaign. I have never seen you putting yourself on the line for the public, wearing black. You are an utter disgrace and not even worth the contempt of honourable & brave officers of the crown. That you then demean the Cenotaph in your fancy dress costume, pretty much sums you up. Because that's all it is, a costume. A uniform is earned.
  21. 8 points
    I also grew up in the North in the 70s and 80s and was appalled by the Poll Tax and Clause 28. But I and many others had a top-class free education because of the assisted place scheme, which Labour did away with, condemning so many clever kids from poor families to attending sink schools. And we are massively more affluent as a country; in the 70s ordinary workers could rarely afford foreign holidays; these days it's pretty much the norm (or was until New Labour wrecked the economy). So there was good and bad and how you see it mostly depends on where you were standing at the time. No leader ever benefited every citizen, and it is very telling that the police service once known as "Maggie's bully boys" is now one of the most implacable enemies of the Tory administration. Nothing is ever black or white. But more to the point she has just died and it is churlish to take pleasure in this as though she was some despot who could not be removed from power; she was not a dictator but a democratically elected Prime Minister and left office over 20 years ago!
  22. 8 points
    I already have my pension and whether or not it is generous, too generous or whatever is irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that I am receiving what I was promised when I signed up for it. No more, no less. I appreciate that in the current financial situation HMG have to make stringent economies but a promise is a promise and the pension conditions of those who actually work for HMG should be honoured. While it is dishing out foreign aid to countries who don't need it and others who actually hate us I don't see why HMG can truly say thy don't have the money to honour the promise made to its own servants.
  23. 8 points
    Too generous? To be honest I find it quite hypocritical and insulating by some posters too suggest the pension is too generous when they are fully protected and wil be receiving what they were expecting, promised and signed up to. You sound exactly like an mp or a leatherhead trougher spouting on about how pensions have to change knowing full well they wont be touching theirs. I guess those posters thinking they are generous will then be handing a portion of their honoured pension back if they feel so strongly about it that they are going to receive too much??? No thought not.
  24. 8 points
    There loads of precedents set by cases from tribunals,appeals and courts all the way to the top in relation to discrimination. Police officers have fought and won those battles together with many other occupations. They cannot change those precedents especially in relation to equality. Here they will be beaten, alternative employment with the same terms or pensioned off thats it- no grey areas. Those PDR'rs, the letters of commendation and other positive documents relating to the work of the restricted and injured officers will be their saving grace. Why 2012 - This officer is performing exceptionally well despite being injured, he has met all the targets and produces excellent work which was recognised by the Chief Constable and for which the force received awards (an example) 2014 - this officer is injured so does not deserve to be treated like a human being, to be treated like his colleagues and we have to pay him less because we have to save money. In fact we will ruin his life further by increasing his stress and anxiety, thus excaberating an already disabling condition. They lawyers will be queuing up at the doors of each and every nick in the land
  25. 8 points
    Well, well, if WINSOR CAMEROON and MAY were to read these pages they would piss themselves laughing. How did we change from brothers & sisters in Serve, to selfish, jealous individuals. Maybe its because I'm ex mob, BUT every single cop, whether office or street deserves loyalty, respect and the same pay. You do NOT know why a cop is now in an office, what physical or mental scars he carries. Some people posting on here have no idea which way their life will go. It may be that one day you are smothered at behind your back for being an office dweller. My role? Street for my entire time, until 12 months ago. Now I still wear my baton, still use my powers but use an office for half my time. You can swap with me for a week if you like, you may, however, find it uncomfortable, in the very very bright spotlight! Especially if the wheel came off. In short, we are all cops. Some may do well to remember that!
  26. 8 points
    I find this 'you don't work nights, lates etc' attitude a bit strange. I joined the police in 1984 and worked on shifts for at least 16 years. I was then given an opportunity to apply for a specialist role which always interested me so I applied and got it. The first 5+ years of that job meant working in a public facing 'front line' role (though not on the streets) followed by almost 8 years office based (once my restriction kicked in, although I didn't cough it to the job for a couple of years until I was forced to). My point here is that in this job of policing there are various roles to perform at all ranks and everybody has the opportunity to apply for those roles during their careers. At no point during my 28.5 years has anyone said that one role was worth any less than another and that by taking a particular role my pay should be cut (or increased for that matter). If such a position had existed before now would many of the office based (but vital) jobs have ever been filled? We have all done service at the sharp end for years and many chose to move either sideways or on promotion to either expand their careers or just to increase their interest in a new role. No-one should now be penalised for making career choices which existed throughout their years of service just because HMG have moved the goalposts. Many chose to remain in uniformed policing as they enjoy it and that is their choice too. I have heard many officers with up to 10 years service saying those based in offices shouldn't get as much in wages as they who are on the streets etc but they often forget that those longer in service have already served for longer in total than they have at the sharp end. Other jobs exist in the police and officers should not be penalised for taking them when the opportunity arose.
  27. 8 points
    It has finally dawned on me today that the ballot is a complete waste of time and would be so even if it was a straight yes or no without the arbitary 50% quota required by the Fed. Despite me taking part and voting 'yes' what has made me think this way?.....the news that 3000 officers have already applied to work at the G8 in N. Ireland! This was THE chance for rank and file cops to say 'up yours' to HMG! If, in dreamland, we ever got industrial rights these same cops would be the ones who would be climbing over us all to work overtime to cover for the ones who were taking any form of industrial action to try and improve the pay and working conditions of those very 'scabs'! A further irony here is that many of those 3000 and others who will follow them are probably the very ones who HMG have hammered with the increment freeze and cost thousands of pounds in lost earnings. We may as well close down this forum now or at least confine it to mundane police matters as all we have been debating re HMG, Winsor, Hutton etc is quite obviously a complete waste of time. Even the Fed have told cops to wait until all the G8 duty details, training, accomodation etc are known before applying but no, some people would volunteer to jump into shark infested water if there was a quid in it for them. The 'bigger picture' doesn't interest the greedy who seem to have no interest whatsoever in doing anything for the good of all their 'brothers and sisters' (including themselves). There is obviously no 'socialism' (with a small 's') in the police service I know some will say that there are cops who will 'need' the cash and I appreciate that but they are only replacing cash stolen by HMG. They would be better fighting to get that original cash back so that in future such opportunities as the G8 would genuinely be chances to earn EXTRA cash. A potential G8 boycott should always have been about protest against HMG's treatment of the police and never about any dangers which maybe faced policing in NI as police officers often face dangers and aren't afraid to do so. The fight (if it ever existed) is well and truely lost and I, for one, despair!! I could have posted this on any number of threads on this forum but I decided to link it to the ballot one as it seemed most appropriate to me.
  28. 8 points
    Couple of sets ago I was out in the middle of nowhere at 3am, single-crewed, on some country roads which wind back and forth between my Force area and the next county along. The only other unit working on my shift that night was a double-crewed car who they'd called into Custody to do an interview at stupid o'clock because of an anally retentive, risk-averse skipper who takes any opportunity to empty the cells. My nearest back-up from my County would have been about 15-20 mins tops on a blue light run from the next furthest nick, and that's if I could actually get as far as telling them where in the middle of nowhere I was. As I was driving along said windy road about 6 miles away from civilisation I came across a brand new motor parked up in the lay-by with it's lights on. I stop next to it, turn the alley lights on, and staring back at me are 3 guys who look monged off their tits. He hits the accelerator, I spin round and go after him, and within a couple hundred metres pull him over. Car stinks of weed, all 3 have previous for Class A, all 3 have previous for assault PC, one has previous for manslaughter, another on the SOR following a rape, and two of the three have 'weapon' markers. I take their details and send them on their way... Honestly? I think I'd have had grounds to nick the driver for driving whilst unfit and failing to stop. I wanted to turn them and the car over because of the Intel and the smell. After speaking to a friend who works in the neighbouring Force's drugs team these 3 are on their briefing for supply of Class A. Why didn't I? Because they'd have kicked the living daylights out of me. Rule 1 is to get home to the family at the end of each day... I'm not going to eat through a tube for the rest of my life just for another NFA from CPS or a Community Order from the Courts. If that makes me a bad cop then so be it... I just see it as not having the resources available to me to do my job effectively. Anyone who wants to call me on it, then fine... but I suggest they've not been on the receiving end of too many hidings if they're still seeing themselves as knights in shining armour.
  29. 8 points
    Prime Minister David Cameron: Killings are 'shocking reminder of the debt we owe to those who put themselves in danger to keep us safe and secure. These are the glib words of a 'two-faced' man, his crocodile tears will not impress anyone, let alone all those officers having their pensions fiddled with, and their pay reduced. I hope when he goes to bed tonight he will think of those two ladies who have been killed, trying to keep us safe and secure.(sorry rikshawallar - I was so incensed over these deaths and the comments of Cameron, I will delete it if it offends anyone)
  30. 8 points
    They provide alarm services in the UK as well; Everyone is alarmed at the thought of them taking over policing functions.
  31. 7 points
    I haven’t posted for a while but this issue had had be thinking. Oh no - another police shooting. I’ve read the press reports, seen the IPCC reaction, and listened to the Met responses and those of the usual talking heads. I’d have to pose the question; who would want to carry a firearm in today’s police service? Why would you? We have something of a dichotomy here; on the one hand HMG want more armed officers to tackle the prospect of terrorist activity. It will not have escaped your notice that the Home Office have published advice to “Run, Hide & Tell” which is a toned down and slightly less frightening version of Protect and Survive which I grew up under; the prospect of everyone getting blown away rather than an infinitely smaller number in discreet events. To combat this threat evermore lads and lasses in blue are to be encouraged to carry firearms. Why would you? To be expected to exercise Solomon-like judgement in a split second, to have the know-it-alls pick over and dissect everything through 100% crystal-clear hindsight after the event, to have a management populated by soulless and spineless automatons desperate to parrot the party line, some of whom will happily throw you under the bus to promote their ‘PC’ credentials. To be vilified in and hounded by the press and to be at risk forever more from certain sections of the 'valued and diverse' gangster community. Why would you do it? I’m always amazed and disheartened in equal measures at the ‘community’ reaction in such circumstances. Self-appointed spokesmen and women, lots and lots of ‘witnesses’ in areas where, in other circumstances no-one ever sees a thing, rumour and speculation given far too much credibility by the mainstream press and I’m sickened and dismayed at the appeasement and excuse-making when the mob descends on their local shopping centre for a spot of looting and arson. If a tenth of their outrage and indignation, ‘community’ effort and support were to be directed against the culture of gun-carrying at the heart of many criminals and their gangs I suspect the problem would be significantly reduced. I also find it difficult to understand the mind-set that would lionise the likes of Mark Duggan, hold him up to be someone to be admired. In my opinion – which I’m entitled to express – he was just another gun-toting wannabe who found out – too late – that the world of GTA has fatal consequences in the real one. I remember when sentencing policy called for a mandatory five years for firearms possession, even first offence yet as you know, that almost never happens. Given that pretty much all sentences (with the possible exception of life convictions carrying expressed or whole-life tariffs) are automatically halved in any event, see S244 onwards of the 2003 CJA, even observance of maximum sentences are rendered something of a joke by S244. Not much of a disincentive then for the criminal use and possession of firearms and there is little point in blaming the judiciary; they after all are merely expressing the wishes of HMG as set out in sentencing guidelines. So, why would anyone do this job? Why would you do a job that carries no more reward but almost guarantees in today’s environment that you’ll find yourself gripping the rail if you have to use your weapon. The corollary to that will inevitably lead to situations where, but for the timely use of a lawfully held firearm, lives will be lost or serious injuries sustained. The consequences of all that will follow will surely be operating on the mind of the officer in question. Judgements will be clouded, priorities skewed, the wrong people may be seriously injured or die. No-one wants to give AFOs carte-blanche permission to be absolved of investigation in a shooting incident and every incident should be thoroughly and independently investigated. By that I mean that the IPCC needs to get on with its job and be entirely dispassionate in its pronouncements, especially with the sometimes fawning and cringe-worthy platitudes of sympathy towards the deceased and holding ill-advised ‘community’ meetings. In this most recent shooting, that of Jermaine Baker Ken Marsh of the police Federation observed that; “The IPCC staged in inflammatory meeting on Thursday. It was one-sided and biased to appease a baying mob.” I'd have to question the basis for having to arrest the officer in question - what was the necessity, is community appeasement to be found in S24 PACE? Finally then, to aspiring and serving AFOs, knowing the pedigree, apparent lack of impartiality and the disposition, generally of those who will investigate you in a shooting incident why would you do it?
  32. 7 points
    I think the only mainland European country to behave responsibility over this issue is Hungary while Germany is dealing with the matter in a completely irrational manner. My main concern is the opportunities afforded by terrorists of the Islamic extremist type and their clandestine inclusion among the mass of immigrants/refugees has been clearly admitted by ISIS and similar organisations who make no secret of their sinister intentions. We have been well warned of the possible consequences of our complacency and I fear we shall reap a bitter harvest before long.
  33. 7 points
    I thought it was very interesting to note that all three fallen officers received the Chevalier level of the Legion d' Honneur - the award of such an equivalent honour in UK would not have happened so quickly - not least because it would have been the subject of political debate and probably squabbling by all sorts of individuals. This is not much consolation for the families but it is a recognition of the sacrifice they made in protecting the public. It was interesting to note that the Protection Officer that was murdered had been overseas and apparently undertaken some hairy assignments protecting French diplomats - clearly he was not a man who avoided dangerous tasks; it seems his twin brother is also a senior Police Officer. Three fine people lost in the cause of freedom. May the Rest In Peace and their families eventually be able to remember the great times together. I hope the French Government looks after their families properly.
  34. 7 points
    Campervan I have just Joined this forum having come across this website by Chance. I don't know you and neither do any of the other contributors but all of us have a bit of an idea of what you are going through as we all appear to be part of the same family. I used to Represent you Guys and Girls at a level that most would love to do but dare not. I wasn't frightened to tell the Truth and highlight the failings go Management and Those who failed us My reward was to have the Establishment join forces and try to destroy Not only my Reputation but also me because thats what happens in this wonderful World of our - Freedom of speech but don't you dare take it up! Well thats just a little Intro; My Friend Campervan You are clearly is a very bad place - I've been there and you need some help and reassurance because although you may have a lot of Friends and maybe a close family and Colleagues you are in a very lonely place - How do I know because I've been there and very very near the Brink! Some of the things you say resonate with me and clearly resonate with others in the same Job as you! Anticondem and Dollydog have suggested some helpful hints; When you are in a dark place making sensible decisions and thinking straight doesn't come easy; So find someone you can talk to. Do you have someone in the Job that you are real good friends with if so Meet outside of work and talk through your concerns over a pint or a coffee - some Fed Reps are really good and will talk to you in Confidence. Occupational Health sadly are often a complete waste of time. If you don't trust colleagues for any reason talk to a mate outside the Job in confidence always good to bounce ideas off of the wall. I had one year to go and to me at that time it felt like 10 I felt like a caged animal I would have done anything to get out I went to bed Depressed and was Greeted with the same Depression when I awoke and the Thought of going to book on duty for another shift - It didn't matter which they were all the same continued to feel me with Dread. So I Met a Great Fed rep mate and talked through what I was going through many in my force had an idea but not the Gravity of how it all affected me. We put together a plan on how I would get through the next 12 Months - It was like planning the Great Escape and that exactly what you need to do. My friend as I stated you don't know me but if I could get through it for just one last year so could just about every cop and that Includes you. Sit down with a Diary for the whole of your Final Year; Highlight in what colour you like every Rest Day then put in your 30 Days holiday If you work a bank Holiday then thats another Two more days to high light. If you pay into the Police Convalescence Home get down to your Doctor and get Diagnosed with what you are suffering from Depression PTSD whatever it is and get them to recommend you for some Urgent Convalescent Care that should be another Two weeks. Keep going for as long as you can before going sick unless you need to Immediately. If you need to immediately then do so take Two to Four weeks off. In this time Don't go into work don't take calls from work unless you have to. Thats another 14/21 days that you can highlight on your Calendar. If you do overtime build up as much Time off in Lieu as you can and any day you go in and can't face the whole shift take half off. Is there an old school senior officer that you can confide in - if so try and get them on your side be careful not to indulge anything that can be thrown back at you; see if you have experienced something bad at work then see if you can get some Counselling with a year to go it will have to be the deal you make in your own head that sometimes to get out the other end is it really that bad telling someone that you are finding it difficult to cope - That could be another 8 - 12 half days whilst you get some counselling. If not through work ask your Doctor if not through your Doctor then there are many voluntary Organisation that either offer5 counselling services for free or quite cheaply. If I have mis interpreted what you are going through then please accept my apoligies but you could do worse that write on forums such as this and talk about things that concern you with anonymous colleagues! I will conclude by agreeing with most of the comments that have been contributed as for many many years you have paid into your Pension and for the sake of Just hanging on for 12 months...........look at all those highlighted days.....It will be far from anywhere near 12 Months1 Good Luck my Friend keep your eye on the light at the end of the Tunnel it will get Brighter every day!
  35. 7 points
    Camper, You would be very, very, very wise to wait until you have 25 years in, otherwise you are throwing away years and years and years of pension claiming If you are unwell, let's not forget you can have 6 months off (or a years if you have insurance) You have run a marathon. You are 100 metres from the end and you are pulling out of the race
  36. 7 points
    Watching the Commons debate on the PFEW today (where they seem to confuse PFEW with the Police) added to the comments by the Home Sec, I'd have to say that any serving police officer would be crazy to vote Tory at the next election. Having voted Tory in every election since the late 1980s, I'm deeply ashamed that I voted Tory in 2010. It's not that I'm no longer conservative, it's just that this lot are not Conservatives, they are out of touch, self-entitled twits who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. They've cut and cut, not taking into account that when you cut to the bone, there is little left to cope when something unexpected comes along.
  37. 7 points
    I did a study and asked three people if they thought journalists made stuff up to suit their own agenda. All of them said they thought they did. If you scale that up for the UK as a whole.........well that's 100% of the population that believe journos talk through their backsides. Quite worrying !!
  38. 7 points
    Shall we put our pay into context when looking at what Winsor and Cameron think is too much and believes should be reformed; then consider whether we are being fairly treated. I'm a provincial IRT Pc on top whack with all the bells and whistles i.e. shift allowance, rent allowance and remnants of CRTP. I have the usual family to support etc. On a flat wage I take home 27k p.a. Ok you say not a bad living wage, but consider this:- Cameron would like to cap welfare family claimants at 26k p.a. (not yet managed that, too busy chasing down the police) So basically Tom and Dave think I am worth 1k more to society than a benefit club member. Most Pc's don't have all the bells and whistles and are on considerably less than 26k take home. So those people who think that we were ripe for police pay reform and it is fair reward for what we do, how do those figures stack up?
  39. 7 points
    Personally, I couldn't care less that this enemy of my country was killed or in what circumstance. As said in the film, it's nothing he wouldn't have done to one of us. One more dead terrorist who won't be killing anymore of ours. What concerns me is what I am hearing from old colleagues about this. That the country has sold out one of its own, who put life and limb on the line, day in day out, over several campaign deployments. That they now consider it better to pull back from a fight than go forward, because even if you don't end up dead or crippled, your own country will second guess every decision you make and seek to crucify you, in the name of good publicity. The job of the soldier is and always has been "to close with and kill the enemy". As was once said " this isn't a form of aggressive camping". Much as whenever I hear of an armed criminal getting shot by us, it registers at no emotional level whatsoever. These are the sort of people who applaud when cops are killed or injured. The only people I feel sorry for are the poor sods who have to face the inevitable IPCC witch hunt because they did their job and stopped a violent criminal. As far as I'm concerned, all this verdict has done is further weakened this country, further weakened the morale of its fighting troops and further make me ask whether anything I' did in the services or in the police was ever worth it. I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that it wasn't.
  40. 7 points
    As a long-serving Special but now no longer involved, I do understand the various sides of the argument for and against Specials. I can fully understand the feelings of many existing and retired Regular Officers who see the recent attempts at recruiting more Specials as a Government ploy to replace regular Officers with Specials and, potentially, mislead the Public into thinking there are more Police on the streets or, at the very least, that the numbers are not reducing at the levels that appear in the press. It must be clear to all that the Special Constabulary will NEVER replace the Regular Force nor can individual Specials replace Regular Officers. Whatever some Specials might think, their chance of having the necessary training, experience & skills to replace regulars is about the Square Root of Zero. In my 27 years, I met a number of Specials who thought they were at least on a par with regulars; sadly, many of these `people had "rank" in the Special Constabulary. Most of these folk were Walter Mitty-like characters and many of the Specials around them cringed at their arrogance and stupidity. When I joined the Specials, many of the regulars were ex-WW2 servicemen; some were anti- and some were pro-Specials. But what I found was that if Specials made an effort, turned up, listened to what was said and didn't try to be something they could not be, the relationships were pretty good at an individual level. As a Special Sgt I was sent to a "hard" station with 7 SCs - the aim by our Divisional Commandant was that we would be so badly treated by the Regulars that we would leave - this suited him because we were all active Specials and we didn't really want us because we rocked his personal boat - which focused on being a canteen cowboy - wearing Chief Supt's rank badges. The first few months at the "hard" station was a bit cool but by dint of hard work, always turning up and doing the crappy jobs - but also often being first ob scene at a shout for urgent assistance, we won over the Regulars and even the sub-divisional CID. The real measure of our success was that we were members of the Tea Club so that on nights (which we often did as a team on Fridays & Saturdays) we'd "mess" with Regulars who treated us as people who were part of their team. We would never had taken overtime off PCs but would turn out for duties where we were asked. The regular supervisors were good - they saw to it that we were trained and many of the PCs would do "specialist" briefings for us. It was hard to get to the above situation but it was worth it. One Inspector took me aside one night and said "I really don't like Specials and you lot irritate me - because I can't help but like you - you're always there when you're needed and I have PCs telling me what a help you are. If you ever need anything come to me and I'll sort it out for you." He then told me that there were two new Specials he was uncomfortable with and we agreed to take action to get rid of them. He proved right - they were troublemakers. The key to our success at that station is that we mirrored the values and attitudes of our regular colleagues. We were careful who we recruited and would not take anyone unless we were sure they were the right sort to fit in. To me, it is selection that is the key to a useful Special Constabulary - the regulars must know that they can rely on individuals and the collective Specials unit. Specials must be good at the limited range of things they can do - but that must include being able to do the paperwork - otherwise they are not fully functional for even a limited range of duties. Finally, there has to be a major initiative on the part of Chief Constables ^& the Met Commissioner to convince the Government that whilst Specials have a role, it isn't replacing Regulars. Using the Special Constabulary as a "feeder" for the Regular Force is a good idea but letting it be "policing on the cheap" will be a disaster! To any Specials reading this, remember one thing, you have been allowed to join one of the cornerstones of British justice - it is a serious business not a "hobby" and you have to have the humility to learn and listen to what the Regulars say. If you cannot have that humility, I venture to suggest that your attitude to the Public might be less than ideal and being a Special isn't really for you!
  41. 7 points
    I don't doubt it, Tommo. Warning, if I can manage it, this passage contains a swearword. The question of what would happen if a “free man” who drives a car uninsured has an accident and causes harm to the victim remains unanswered. Saying that it may never happen is not enough. I am asking what would happen if it does. We are all human with human frailties and sometimes we make misjudgements and, as moral creatures, we should make accommodation for that possibility. I note that our latest human being man states that we are slaves. This is the fundamental misconception. I am not a lawyer, nor am i a copper. I am a human being woman. What I say below is my perceptions of the way we live in this country. To illustrate it I will use analogies. When I joined this forum I ticked a little box saying that I agreed to the terms and conditions of membership. There was no compulsion to join and I can leave at will. But while I am a member, because I have agreed to the terms and conditions, I have to respect them. That is part of my moral contract (and legal contract) with the forum. I am not a slave of the forum (though it may feel like that at times) I am a member. If I break the rules, if I transgress the terms and conditions of my membership, then the other members have a moral right to be protected from my behaviour. That is part of their moral contract when joining the forum. Therefore, if I transgress, I face sanctions. That’s not slavery, that’s the terms and conditions of my membership. If the rules, terms and conditions are changed after my joining and agreeing to the T&Cs, then I have a choice. I can leave the forum. Or I can stay. As soon as I post after the changes in the Ts & Cs, I have accepted these new conditions. This is not slavery, it is membership. If I upset someone on the forum, then it is my moral duty to try and repair that harm. That is my moral duty as a human being woman. That is not stated in the Ts and Cs, as such, because it is a basic moral human being obligation. Part of being human, if you will, to do no harm. Unfortunately to err is human, and there have been times when I have said things on here which have caused distress to others. When that has happened, I have tried to make it good. Sometimes it is necessary to admonish members for transgressing the terms and conditions, for the protection of other members of the forum. As a Moderator, that is my moral obligation, because when people become members of this forum, they are given the rights to protection against abuse and spamming. It is my moral duty as a moderator to offer members that protection. Because I am a human being woman, and am subject to bad days and errors of judgement, unless the transgression is obvious, I will discuss moderation decisions with the other moderators, we will judge the matter and make our decision. That is our collective moral responsibility. The Ts & Cs are long enough as it is, and can’t dictate for every possible transgression. That is where our moderator discretion comes in. As Mods sometimes it is our moral duty to impose sanctions, for the sake of tranquillity on the forum. Mostly, the person having sanctions applied. being a moral person and understanding the Ts & Cs under which she is a member, will acknowledge their transgression. Sometimes they won’t and stronger sanctions need to be applied. Sometimes the sanction is unfairly applied. If they undertake subversive activities, then even if they were not in breach of their Ts & Cs, they are now, and face further sanctions. If instead they appeal then any injustice can be rectified. Nobody has to be a member of this forum, it’s not compulsory, and people are free to leave at any time. At the same time nobody has the “right” to be a member of this forum. It is a privilege automatically granted except to spammers. That privilege is withdrawn on occasions if someone behaves in a manner which is detrimental to the forum. Sometimes, as time goes on and people interact on the forum, it is necessary to adjust the moderator thinking to accommodate unfairness or aspects which might cause some distress. For example, the use of swear words. A revamp of the forum meant that swear words were no longer automatically starred out. People had to either star them pout themselves, or leave them as written. Some starred them out, others decided it was their “right” to put the full swearwords down. This caused some offence to some people. As moderators we had to decide whether to leave things as they were, or to star certain words out, and if so, which words. Whichever decisions we took, some people were going to be miffed. Doing nothing would upset those who wanted to have their words unadulterated. Not starring them out would mean causing offence to other members. The rules had to be changed and we had to decide what was right for the majority of users on the forum. That is what rules are and that is what new laws do. This is why we as a society have new statutes. It doesn’t matter what the situation was last week, last month, last century or in the 11th Century. New laws are created for the benefit of all. If a law is unjust in needs changing, not ignoring. If someone didn’t like the way swear words were now starred out, or other words they felt were offensive had been left as is, they can leave the forum, or they can ask the Mods to review their decision. What they cannot do is use aggression to rebuke anyone who does not star out, for example, ”shag”, nor can they manipulate the forum such that the word “f**k” comes out as fuck and not f**k. If they do, they are transgressing the Ts & Cs of the forum, and face sanctions. But, I hear you say, it is an accident of birth that i live in this country, not my decision. Therefore I should be able to choose which laws I abide by. No. As a child you have no choice where you live. As an adult, a man has that choice. That choice is to abide by the Ts & Cs and moral duties and rights of this country, or he can leave. Let’s say for the sake of argument, that membership of a forum is automatic with say, membership of a club. A person does not have to use the forum, but as soon as he does, he has accepted the Ts and Cs. Nobody is forcing a free man to have a car, but as soon as he has a car and uses roads which are maintained by the country, then he has a moral obligation to follow the terms and conditions of using those roads. In this country that means driving on the left, staying within the speed limit, giving way when necessary, maintaining the car ina roadworthy condition, and having insurance so that if he causes an accident, reparation can be made. Those are the Ts and Cs. If he doesn’t like it, he doesn’t have to drive. If he does drive and transgress, then he should face sanctions. Imagine if we had no rules on roads, people could drive in whichever side of the road they chose, not stop at junctions, speed past children, and if they hurt someone, tough. We could, of course, have a system whereby the state paid out compensation, rather than have insurance, but that would be grossly unfair because some people are more likely to have accidents than others. At one time road tax was the same for every size of car, regardless of size, impact on the environment, wear and tear on the roads. That was unfair and now bigger cars pay more. If someone does not like the laws, statutes, the basic Ts & Cs of this country as it is right now, regardless of previous history, they are free to leave (unlike under the old communist regimes of the USSR, for example. They made slaves of their nations. We are not slaves, we are free to stay or go, but as soon as we use the benefits of this country as it is at this very moment, we are agreeing to the Ts and Cs, and if we want to break those rules, then we cannot complain if we face sanctions. The basic moral contract with my country is that I will agree to follow the laws in exchange for protection against evil and care of my health and wellbeing. As long as I remain in this country, I have the moral obligation to take the whole package, not just the bits I agree with.
  42. 7 points
    Ahh...the old Housing allowance mantra again. Zulu is quite correct...those in the job still in receipt of Housing allowance fought and won a hard fight to keep it back in 1993. Back then Officers stood together and there was non of the apathy that we see today. Many of my service were 'posted' when they joined, into Police accommodation often in the far flung reaches of the Force that nobody else wanted to Police. We did not have the option to buy housing that officers get today. As a result (and as a condition of service) we receive either supplied accommodation or Housing allowance. In my case this meant that my Wife had to resign from her job, and come with me to the out station that I had been posted to. It was 50 miles away, and I was expected to provide cover 24 hours a day. I also had to sell the house that I owned as my Chief Con wouldn't allow me to keep it. Ten years later when I managed to get a move away from the out station, I had to seek permission from the Chief Con to buy a House, which on the first 2 occasions was refused. Needless to say, in the time I had been in Police Housing, property prices had rocketed with the house I had been forced to sell now being worth £150,000 more than I had sold it for. So there is good reason Housing allowance exists, although there are fewer and fewer of us in receipt. Officers in their last 10 are also frozen at their current pay point (in so much as none of us are in receipt of yearly pay rises). The loss of CRTP hits those in the last 10 as much as it hits any other officer. Loss of SPP also affects those in their last 10. Those in the last 10 will be paying 14% in pension contributions as opposed to those in the 2006 scheme who will be paying 12%. That all being said, I think that it is fundamentally wrong that Officers who are not at the top of their pay scale have been frozen on their current pay point, and have supported and taken an active part in every action I can to tackle what is clearly an injustice. It is a shame that so many of the officers actually being affected cant get off their ars*s and do likewise, but rather sit back expecting everything to be done for them. If we had acted similarly back in the early 90's, I am sure we would have lost housing allowance, and would all now be on short term contracts ! What does never cease to amaze me is seeing Officers calling for Colleagues pay to be targeted and reduced. That is precisely what the Govt want to see happening - Divide and conquer... I have said it before, and will say it again. Changes affecting any Officer in the job prior to the recent changes being brought about in my eyes are wrong. They should be introduced for new joiners only, after all the Govt have consistently told us that these changes are not about short term savings...The fed have to be pushed to challenge the pay increment freeze, and be pushed to challenge under sec 2 in 2015. To achieve this we must all stand together, as anything less will mean certain failure...
  43. 7 points
    Probably not racist but I'm outraged that anyone using this forum reads the DM. Get a bloody grip!
  44. 7 points
    I don't think there are any surprises left, keithboy. They have repeatedly failed to pull anything remotely resembling a rabbit from the hat, and it is quite clear that, nationally at least, the PFEW have failed on every count. I said many months ago I would reserve judgement on their performance. Well, I'm afraid that this former Fed rep and long term apologist has finally lost patience. My subs were cancelled last month. I hope to be able to negotiate the remainder of my service without the need for representation, so what else am I paying for? I already get a desk diary free every year. The bottom line is that I do not feel I am getting anything like value for money, and quite simply I can no longer justify £21 every month with times getting harder. The saddest thing about all this isn't that an ex rep is cancelling his subscriptions. It's the fact that a 47 year old policeman with nearly 23 years' service cannot afford the £21 a month it costs to be a member. I hope HMG are proud of what they've done.
  45. 7 points
    Just finished watching a great film called A Few Good Men. Jack Nicholson gives a great speech defending his marines from a government investigation stating the following "You have the audacity to criticise and belittle our role when you rest and sleep each night under the blanket of security we provide" Got me thinking how lame we are as a service when it comes to defending ourselves. So many say there's nothing we can do. There's plenty we could have done with a robust leadership who wanted to take on this government.
  46. 7 points
    Just scanning thro the forum for a first time in a long while. This topic caught my eye, Ive just returned to work after 5 months off with PTSD related nervous breakdown with a bit of anxiety and depression thrown in for good measure. Undergoing counselling, medication and self help. The road to recovery is long, bumpy and hard work but I feel as tho Im getting there as a better person. The biggest moment of enlightenment for me was the admission to myself that I had a problem, then to admit the problem to others. I was amazed with peoples reaction, other than suprised everyone ive spoke to has been kind supportive and extremely helpful. I appreciate I may be lucky in this respect, the tone of your replies vicarinauniform would seem that you are still in the dark stages a little. My advice for what its worth is dont make any rash decisions just yet, use your period signed off to get yourself well enough to be in a better place to make your decision. Occy Health/Welfare your GP and others can help you get to that better place. Best of British, be safe, be good.
  47. 7 points
    Good on you for taking the first step: admitting it to yourself. 12 years ago, having been involved in a POLACC and having tried to ignore the injuries, stress caused by the situation and the knock-on effect I was diagnosed with stress-related anxiety. Having previously had 4 days off sick in 12 years service my sickness rocketed when I was laughed at, ignored and vilified leading to my GP refusing to let me go to work and me going onto half-pay,no pay and resigning. As I recovered I realised that if someone had bothered to have a chat over a tea/pint I would have allowed the pressure-release valve to work and returned to work. I tried to ignore the situation which exacerbated it. Now, after 4 years out of the job when I had to stand on my own 2 feet and was self-employed I re-joined and hit the promotion trail.I'm now an A/Inspector with a heavy emphasis on looking after my troops, sometimes to the necessity to going toe-to-toe with SMT. Lessons learnt: 1. a "depressive" episode takes 18mths -2 years to work through your system ( a 3 week celebrity stay in the Priory is b****cks!!!). 2. A wise Counsellor advised me that the Met did not employ her solely to listen to me- you are neither odd nor alone, you're listening to your inner voice which is a good thing. 3. Many of your colleagues will be thinking " there but for the grace of God.."4. TJF..totally and almost irrevocably. You were a human being before the Job, you'll be one after the Job, don't let it become the be all and end-all..now more than ever it's not worth it!
  48. 7 points
    Right assuming i do not get promoted anymore in my service my 1987 pension would enable me to retire 2 weeks before my 50th Birthday with maximum commutation and a pension of 21k per year. Now i am going to be working to 60, so thats 10 years I will not be getting my 21k a year so thats 210k i have lost. Also during these 10 extra years i will be paying in the increased subs so say 5k a year for 10 years so thats another 50k loss. Increased subs for the 15 years before the extra 10 years and add them all up and i am around £300,000 worse off before you even consider the reduced benefits of the new pension scheme. So I loose a conservative £300,000 and the policing minister says there will be no cliff edge effect, and the fed think its the best deal possible? Really? Its a disgrace thats what it is!!! The fed then publish clarification about the deal being the bess possible with no mention of section 2, this comes less than a week after they aske members to lobby their mp's re section 2. So what exactly is your stance fed? I havent got a clue and to be honest I dont think you do either!
  49. 7 points
  50. 7 points
    I hope I don't offend anyone with these comments, but I am seriously pi$$ed off with David Cameron and Mrs May. They have well and truly stabbed police officers in the back with their reforms regarding pay and pensions. I know HMG have to recover from the dire financial state we were left in by Labour, but there are certain institutions which should be left alone, i.e Police, Armed Forces, Nurses and a few others. Did anyone notice that as soon as the death of David Rathband was announced, Show-Pony Dave and Ms Malfoy couldn't wait to get on the radio and TV to spout platitudes about how brave and how David gave his life to serving the public, the idea was not to spout about David as such, but to make them look as if they cared a hoot. Cameron and May couldn't care less about David Rathband, it's all about them looking good in the public eye, making it look as if they were a caring government. I would rather Cameron and May said nothing at all becauser their words are worthless.