Picard999

Resident Members
  • Content count

    2,929
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    44

Picard999 last won the day on October 14 2016

Picard999 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

855 Very Good

About Picard999

  • Rank
    Forum Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. Restricted officers: THE MOTHERLOAD

    Nice update, which I think reflects the draft regs. Bottom line, you'll have to fight to protect yourself...
  2. Cut in numbers.

    Indeed. My force has over 1000 qualified, awaiting promotion. I think they are currently promoting 25 a year..That might be why they are making it a minimum 35 year gig...to give everyone in the queue a chance! The dictionary agrees with Billy too... noun 1 An occupation undertaken for a significant period of a person's life and with opportunities for progress.
  3. Restricted officers: THE MOTHERLOAD

    Indeed. They put together some national guidance / intrpretation that forces will work off, but there are so many issues around all this I don't know where to start. The get outs are interesting: 1: The officers restriction doesn't affect resiliance. The threshold was always 3% - numbers of restricted officers are now well below that anyway 2: Exceptional circs - suitably vague 3: The officer is performing the same job as a fit colleague - this suggests office based restricted officers working alongside fit colleagues are exempt - suggesting the axe may only fall on officers in roles specifically designated as restricted posts 4: Officers whose injury is SOLELY resultant from putting themselves in harms way in the execution of their duty - again suitably vague...what about those with what were 'pre-existing, but now aggravated by an incident injuries'? And 'harms way, execution of duty', suggests tripping on a kerb won't be good enough The big issue for me is the test that is implemented for adjusted duties - it is identical to the test applied to those going for a medical pension. My interpretation is that those will be rarer than rare moving forward - why medically pension, when you can retain, dock pay and detriment pensions? Interesting times My personal opinion - which is not offered as, and should not be construed as advice, is that any officer subject of this process who believes themselves to be protected by the Equality Act (disability), would do well to lodge tribunal papers within 3 months of it happening in order to protect their interests moving forward... Thank god we have a representative body that is doubtless all over this (they must be as I have not heard that they are keeping their powder dry) My personal opinion is it will be impossible to prove that an 8% pension detriment for final salary officers is a 'proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim' Come to that, what is the aim? How does docking the pay and pension of permenately restricted officers improve force resiliance? Sometimes I wish I was a lawyer...
  4. Restricted officers: THE MOTHERLOAD

    I see word autoformatted the below para in my original post. For the avoidance of doubt to correct the numbering, it should read that the only officers who may be subject of a pay cut are those placed on the new 'adjusted duty'... Recuperative Duty Management Restriction of Duty Adjusted Duty (to include all those who are not ‘fully deployable’) Officers in categories (i) & (ii) will not be included in the pool of officers that may have the X-factor element of pay removed.
  5. Folks, I’ve been away for some time and – as things stand – I won’t be creating or posting on new threads or commenting on why. Please find attached the last piece of unfinished business that I had in progress. It’s a timely release because the public consultation ended on Friday and this is due to go live in May 2015, nationwide across all Home Office forces, applicable to all ranks For the avoidance of doubt, the document is 100% authentic – I don’t post stuff that isn’t triple checked and verified...this is. The document HAS been edited to remove personal references. It has been formatted for presentation, but otherwise appears ‘as was’ It relates to how restricted officers will be dealt with from May under Winsor. I can’t and won’t comment on why officers were allowed no part in the consultation or why the fed have not circulated this document or pertinent information to officers to allow them to plan I shall withhold my comments on the contents pending the views of others – I have read and re-read the document and want to see if others join the dots the same way I have, or if there is more than one way to read it and the intent of it I have had to put the text in the main body of the post, because the site only allows me a 12k limit on uploading...even in the advanced editor. If someone knows how to get round that, I’ll post the original document For those with short attention spans, the action is at Annex B and Annex EE! Direct Communications Unit Tel: 020 7035 4848 2 Marsham Street Fax: 020 7035 4745 London www.gov.uk/home-office SW1P 4DF You ask: “I previously asked for this info, and you declined, stating an exemption that the info was to be published Autumn 2014. Autumn 2014 has been and gone, so too has your opportunity to use that exemption, I would suppose 1: Please supply me with full details of the draft regulations relating to how chief constables will deal with restricted police officers under Winsor's recommendations (loss of pay, loss of job etc, consideration of medical pension etc) These regulations are long overdue and there is no definitive publication date Should you now have a new proposed publication date, please tell me what it is Additionally, the draft regs are supposedly for consultation. What form will this consultation take? How long will this consultation be? When is it intended these regs will take effect? Winsor proposed that once assessed as 'restricted' officers would have a year before their pay is cut By definition, once a year has past, most officers, if still restricted for medical reasons, will be disabled under the terms of the Equality Act. Under these proposed regs, do the Home Office / police forces propose to dock the pay of these disabled officers? If so, how will they seek to justify what appears to be direct discrimination?” I am able to disclose some of the information that you requested, as set out in the enclosed I can also confirm that the Home Office holds further information that you requested in the form of a version of draft guidance for forces, which expands on the detail of the legislative provisions. However, after careful consideration we have decided that this information is exempt from disclosure under section 22(1) of the Freedom of Information Act. This provides that information can be withheld where it is held by the public authority with a view to its publication, by the authority or any other person, at some future date (whether determined or not) and the public interest falls in favour of applying the exemption. If you are dissatisfied with this response you may request an independent internal review of our handling of your request by submitting a complaint within two months to the address below. If you ask for an internal review, it would be helpful if you could say why you are dissatisfied with the response. Information Access Team Home Office 3rd Floor, Peel Building 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF e-mail: info.access@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk As part of any internal review the Department's handling of your information request will be reassessed by staff who were not involved in providing you with this response. If you remain dissatisfied after this internal review, you would have a right of complaint to the Information Commissioner as established by section 50 of the Freedom of Information Act. Annex A – response to your questions 1: Please supply me with full details of the draft regulations relating to how chief constables will deal with restricted police officers under Winsor's recommendations (loss of pay, loss of job etc, consideration of medical pension etc) These regulations are long overdue and there is no definitive publication date We are now in the process of consulting with the relevant representative bodies on draft legislation to implement changes agreed last February by the Home Secretary. Following discussion at the Police Advisory Board over the course of the last year, Police Regulations 2003 are to be amended to specify the procedure for determining the circumstances in which an officer may be placed on restricted duty (now called Limited Duty), the arrangements which a Chief Constable may make for officers on restricted duty, and the adjustments to the pay of such officers. · New definitions and a new process are being introduced with a view to: o modernising workforce management practices; o making the process fairer for officers and staff; enabling forces to better determine what resources they have available at any one time to meet operational demand; and enabling forces to improve resilience by deploying officers in a more efficient way. There will be new definitions of recuperative and restricted duties to include the following three categories of ‘limited duty’: Recuperative Duty Management Restriction of Duty Adjusted Duty (to include all those who are not ‘fully deployable’) Officers in categories (i) & (ii) will not be included in the pool of officers that may have the X-factor element of pay removed. The deployment component of the police officer X-factor is to be established as 8% of basic pay for constables. For other ranks, it is to be expressed in cash terms, benchmarked at 8% of the maximum of constables’ basic pay. Officers on adjusted duties will have their deployability and capability to exercise police powers assessed one year after being placed on adjusted duty. Officers who are not fully deployable will, subject to appeal and review procedures, sustain a reduction in pay equal to the value of the deployability element of the X-factor. Any decision to reduce pay will not be automatic. Chief constables will have discretion over whether to apply a reduction in pay in every case, in particular where an officer has been injured as a result of putting themselves in harm’s way in the execution of their duties. Please note that the Police Advisory Board (PAB) is yet to give advice on the introduction of the remaining Winsor recommendations relating to capability dismissal procedures and re-employment of officers and so these elements are not included here. I have enclosed consultation versions of the draft Regulation and the current version of the (more detailed) draft determination under it at Annex B. Please note that these may not be the final versions, since we will need to take into account consultation responses from partners. In particular, some details of the determination are very likely to be amended in light of recent discussions with Police Advisory Board members as part of the consultation. The legislation is not intended to be overly prescriptive about how forces should implement the process, but there will be full guidance for forces to ensure consistent application. The determination closely reflects principles developed by partners at the Police Advisory Board (including chief constables, PCCs, the Police Federation, the Police Superintendents’ Association, CPOSA, Unison and also in this case the Disabled Police Association). The guidance is still undergoing changes and will be published later on and we consider that it is exempt from disclosure under section 22(2) – intention to publish. For an explanation of the exemption, please see Annex C. 2: Should you now have a new proposed publication date, please tell me what it is We are now in the process of consulting with the relevant representative bodies on draft legislation to implement changes. The consultation process ends on 20 February. Subject to ministerial approval, we plan to lay the Regulation in March so that it would come into effect by May. Once this has happened, determinations will be published setting out the detail of the changes as they will affect officers and forces will be allowed a 9 month transition period to implement them. The changes will therefore take effect some time after the Regulation is laid, most likely in May, but it is not possible to give an exact date until that has happened. 3: Additionally, the draft regs are supposedly for consultation. What form will this consultation take? See 2. 4: How long will this consultation be? See 2. 5: When is it intended these regs will take effect? See 2. 6: Winsor proposed that once assessed as 'restricted' officers would have a year before their pay is cut This is correct. However, when developing these reforms, it was decided that this would not be automatic, as set out in the original Winsor recommendation and the proposals were modified to take account of this. Instead, pay decisions will be made on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the circumstances of the individual and the force. 7: By definition, once a year has past, most officers, if still restricted for medical reasons, will be disabled under the terms of the Equality Act. Under these proposed regs, do the Home Office / police forces propose to dock the pay of these disabled officers? If so, how will they seek to justify what appears to be direct discrimination?” Detailed proposals are set out in the attached draft determination and will be covered in further detail in force guidance (to be published in due course). It is imperative that forces have regard to their statutory duties under equalities legislation. Police officers are protected in law as individuals, on a case-by-case basis. In this way, equality legislation already provides a robust framework for decision making, providing safeguards against blanket or arbitrary management decisions. In implementing the changes, individual deployability and situational factors must be taken into account and where forces can reasonably make adjustments, they must do so. Equalities considerations have been incorporated in force guidance, having been subject to extensive discussion with and advice from partners including members of the Police Advisory Board, the Disabled Police Association, the ECHR, legal experts, HR experts and equalities advisors. ANNEX B – draft legislation (consultation versions) 1. Proposed amendments to the Police Regulations 2003: 1.In regulation 22(1)— (a) in paragraph (1), insert after paragraph (g)— “(h) the circumstances in which a member of a police force may be placed on limited duties.”; ( after paragraph (4), insert— “(5) In this regulation “limited duties” means— recuperative duties; adjusted duties; management restricted duties.”. After regulation 28, insert— “28A. Entitlement to pay when on adjusted duties The Secretary of State shall determine the reduction in entitlement to pay of a member of a police force during periods when that member is carrying out adjusted duties in accordance with a determination under regulation 22(1)(h), and in making such a determination the Secretary of State may confer on the chief officer discretion to allow a member of a police force to receive more pay than that specified in the determination.” EXPLANATORY NOTE (This note is not part of the Regulations) Regulation 4 amends regulation 22 of the 2003 Regulations by inserting new provision to allow the Secretary of State to determine the circumstances in which a member of a police force may be placed on limited duties, and defines limited duties as recuperative duties, adjusted duties and management restricted duties. Regulation 5 inserts a new regulation 28A into the 2003 Regulations to require the Secretary of State to determine the entitlement to pay of a member placed on adjusted duties. 2. Proposed amendments to determinations under Police Regulations 2003: (N.B. the text is based on the proposed Regulation change (as above) that is expected to come into force prior to the determination being made) DETERMINATIONS OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE UNDER THE POLICE REGULATIONS 2003 The Secretary of State, in exercise of the powers conferred by regulation 22 and 28A of the Police Regulations 2003 (SI 2003/537) makes the following determination which is effective from XXX. In accordance with the requirements of regulation 46 of the Police Regulations 2003, the Secretary of State has supplied the Police Advisory Board for England and Wales with a draft of this determination and taken into consideration the recommendations of that Board. (1) Regulation 22 was amended by S.I. 2006/3449 and other amendments have been made that are not relevant to these Regulations. The Secretary of State has not considered advice from the Senior Salaries Review Body, or referred the matter to the Police Remuneration Review Board because she considers it unnecessary to do so by reason of the nature of this determination. The Secretary of State has supplied a draft of this determination to, and considered any representations from, those persons referred to in regulation 46(1C). 1) After Annex E, insert the following “ANNEX EE Regulation 22 and 28A LIMITED DUTIES This determination sets out the circumstances in which a member of a police force may be placed on limited duties, and the reduction in entitlement to pay of a member of a police force during periods when that member is carrying out adjusted duties. The three categories of Limited Duty are defined as follows: “Recuperative Duty” is defined as duties falling short of full deployment, undertaken by a police officer following an injury, accident, illness or medical incident, during which the officer adapts to and prepares for a return to full duties and the full hours for which they are paid, and is assessed to determine whether he or she is capable of making such a return. Recuperative duty should be a structured, time-limited, supportive and rehabilitative process. “Adjusted Duty” is defined as duties falling short of full deployment, in respect of which workplace adjustments have been made to overcome barriers to working. For an officer to be placed on adjusted duty, he/she must: be attending work on a regular basis; be working for the full number of hours for which he/she is paid (in either a full time or part time substantive role). It is for Chief Officers to define a process for allocating Adjusted Duty officers to suitable roles within the Force, according to the principles set out in current national guidance, and in compliance with their statutory duties under the Equality Act 2010, particularly in relation to officers with a disability within the meaning of that Act. Once agreed, and subject to continued satisfactory performance in the role, Adjusted Duty arrangements could continue over the long term, depending on the needs of the force and the officer, but will be subject to ongoing management review on at least an annual basis, on or before the anniversary of placement on Adjusted Duty. For the avoidance of doubt, it is likely that some officers with disabilities (as defined under the Equality Act 2010) will be fully deployable as defined in this determination and will not be suitable for Adjusted Duty. “Management Restriction of Duty” is defined as duties to which an officer is allocated in circumstances in which: Verifiable confidential or source sensitive information or intelligence has come to the notice of the Force that questions the suitability of an officer to continue in his or her current post; and/or Serious concerns are raised which require management actions, both for the protection of individuals and the organisation; In either case also that: Criminal or misconduct proceedings are not warranted; and The Chief Constable has lost confidence in the officer continuing in their current role. Temporary limitations to officers’ capabilities arising from pregnancy or breastfeeding are not a matter for a prescriptive regulatory process, but for sensible management of human resource. For that reason officers in that position are excluded from the scope of this determination. An officer who is ‘fully deployable’ for the purposes of this determination will generally demonstrate all the following core capabilities: the ability to sit for reasonable periods, to write, read, use the telephone and to use (or learn to use) IT; the ability to run, walk reasonable distances, and stand for reasonable periods; the ability to make decisions and report situations to others; the ability to evaluate information and to record details; the ability to exercise reasonable physical force in restraint and retention in custody; the ability to understand, retain and explain facts and procedures; The ability to work the full range of shifts. Deployment component of the police officer X-factor (‘X-factor’) The deployment component of X-factor is established as equivalent in value to: For constables: 8% of pay. For all other ranks: the lower of 8% of pay and 8% of the maximum of constables’pay. Pay rates are as set out at Annex F of the determinations. Management and review of officers on adjusted duties and adjustments to pay After nine months on adjusted duties, the officer should be notified that should s/he remain on adjusted duty following the 12 month management review, s/he may be subject to the loss of the deployment component of X-factor. Officers will be assessed 12 months after being placed on adjusted duty, and on an annual basis thereafter, to determine whether: he/she is able, after reasonable workplace adjustments have been made, to discharge a substantive police role for the full duration of the hours for which he/she is paid; and whether such deployment can be accommodated without unreasonable detriment to overall Force resilience. The assessment should constitute a formal management review, undertaken with the individual concerned, and may involve a referral to the force medical advisor(s). Subject to the outcome of the assessment and review and appeal procedures, the decision may be taken that it is appropriate to retain the officer on adjusted duty. Subject to this decision (and the outcome of any appeal), it may be decided that it is appropriate to deduct X-factor from pay. If this is the case, officers must be notified in writing that they are to sustain a deduction from pay equal to the value of the deployment component of the X-factor for the subsequent period of time that the officer remains on Adjusted Duty. One month’s notice will be given of any deduction of the deployment element of X-factor from pay. If an officer has been referred to the Select Medical Practitioner for consideration of ill-health retirement, pay deductions will not be made until the outcome of that referral is known. Whether or not that officer has sustained a deduction in pay, a further review may be initiated at the request of either the officer or local managers at any time if there is any significant change in the circumstances of either the officer or the force. If the conclusion of this review is that an officer’s condition has improved to the point where adjustments are no longer necessary, they will be returned to full duty and X-factor will be reinstated with effect from the date of the conclusion of the review (including consideration of any new medical advice). Exercise of chief officer discretion in relation to the deduction of X-factor from pay The chief officer of police may in a particular case determine that an officer should not sustain such a reduction in pay, if one or more of the circumstances set out below are satisfied. All cases should be considered individually, taking into account the relevant facts and circumstances of each. The chief officer may decide that the deployment component of the X-factor may be retained by the officer in the following circumstances: There is no significant reduction to the way a force is able to deploy officers to maintain operational resilience; To avoid manifest unfairness e.g. where fully fit officers are performing the same range of duties as an officer on Adjusted Duty or where an officer has been recruited on the understanding that their disability precludes them from undertaking particular tasks, roles or hours of duty; An officer is on adjusted duties solely as the result of an injury sustained or contracted in the course of having put themselves in harm’s way in the execution of their duty; Some other exceptional reason (what is considered an exceptional reason is to be determined locally at force level) Appeals The officer has the right of appeal to the chief officer of police in relation to the deduction of X-factor. Allowable grounds for appeal are: Abuse of process; Perverse decision. Should the officer submit an appeal that is upheld, pay will be reinstated, including any back pay as applicable. Transitional arrangements for officers currently on ‘restricted duties’ as at [date the day before new Regs come into force] It is recommended that forces begin an immediate assessment of all officers currently on ‘restricted duties’ against the new definitions of ‘limited duty’. This should be carried out in the context of overall force resilience and the number of officers required to be flexibly deployable to meet demand and provide an effective service. This will include having an understanding of the range of capability and deployability requirements needed for each role in order to achieve resilience. Officers currently on ‘restricted duty’ according to any definition used prior to the implementation of this determination should not automatically be transferred to the new category of adjusted duty. Any decision to place an officer on adjusted duty needs to be taken in accordance with the process as set out in this determination and in the relevant national guidance. This will be especially relevant to those forces that currently define ‘restricted duties’ more broadly e.g. some may include officers who are able to undertake a more limited range of duties than usual on a temporary basis because they are pregnant or breastfeeding or who are undergoing a phased return to work (the latter would constitute recuperative duty under the new definitions). Particular consideration should be given to officers who may be subject to workplace adjustments but who are able to fulfil the full range of duties required of them in their role. The decision to place an officer on adjusted duty represents an intention to retain an officer in the force in a substantive policing role that matches their individual capabilities, on the understanding that this may necessitate long term or permanent workplace adjustments. Therefore, officers currently on ‘restricted duty’ who are under consideration for ill-health retirement should not automatically be re-categorised as being on adjusted duty until the outcome of any ill heath retirement assessment is known. Any performance or attendance issues identified at this stage that fall within the scope of the Police Performance Regulations 2012 should be dealt with separately, according to the usual procedures. If an officer currently on restricted or recuperative duty is already subject to UPP procedures, this should be progressed as usual. Forces are reminded that in disability cases the UPP process should explore whether adjustments could support the officer back to an acceptable level of performance in the role or another role as appropriate. Ill health retirement should also be considered if relevant. Officers who are likely to fall under the new category of ‘adjusted duty’ should be assessed against current medical/capability reports. In most cases, a nurse-led paper based review is likely to be the most proportionate approach, with new medical reviews being conducted only in cases where there is a clear justification for doing so. Forces are expected to complete any such review within 9 months of this guidance coming into effect. ANNEX C - Application of exemptions – section 22(1) – intention to publish Section 22(1) provides that: (1)Information is exempt information if— (a)the information is held by the public authority with a view to its publication, by the authority or any other person, at some future date (whether determined or not), (b)the information was already held with a view to such publication at the time when the request for information was made, and ©it is reasonable in all the circumstances that the information should be withheld from disclosure until the date referred to in paragraph (a). Section 22(1) is a qualified exemption. The information covered by this exemption can only be withheld if the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in its disclosure. The public interest is not the same as what interests the public. In carrying out a PIT, we consider the greater good or benefit to the community as a whole if information is released or not. The ‘right to know’ must be balanced against the need to enable effective government and to serve the best interests of the public. The FOI Act is ‘applicant blind’. This means that we cannot, and do not, ask about the motives of anyone who asks for information. In providing a response to one person, we are expressing a willingness to provide the same response to anyone, including those who might, in certain cases, represent a threat to the UK. Considerations in favour of disclosing the information immediately There is a strong public interest in the public having access to more detailed information about the implementation of new Limited Duty provisions for police officers. Considerations in favour withholding the information until the planned publication date The material, which is not owned by the Home Office, will be published by chief constables or by the Police Advisory Board in the very near future; consequently, you will not have to wait for a significant amount of time before you have sight of it (we anticipate that this will be by summer 2015 at the latest, if not by March/April 2015, when forces plan to hold a workshop for HR practitioners to discuss it). There is a strong public interest in permitting police forces to publish information in a manner and form of their own choosing. Publication by the Home Office before the guidance is finished planned date would undermine forces’ ability to ensure that it is in a final and accurate version and to implement their own publication arrangements. We conclude that the balance of the public interest lies in requiring you to wait for the information until the planned publication date. We believe that in this case the overall public interest lies in favour of ensuring that forces are able to plan the publication of this information in a managed and coherent way.
  6. The Winsor Report Thread

    Indeed, but, when the objective was to save money, this triple whammy of bad math suggests the allowance could be really short lived! As far as the NHS goes, I suspect they will have a sense of humour failure...
  7. The Winsor Report Thread

    His analysis showed 54% of officers worked unsociable hours...
  8. The Winsor Report Thread

    It was a billy bonus - an extra to incentivise those on the frontline...to be offset by cutrtailing pay progression with exams. He even shortened the pay scales because it wasn't going to matter because some wouldn't get half way and some wouldn't get to 37k.. Now he has the costs (that never existed) of: An unsociable hours allowance A shorter payscale No way of stopping folk climbing it! Generous to a fault...or generous by fault!
  9. The Winsor Report Thread

    Yup, it costs stupid amounts of money that was going to be offset by some officers failing the basic skills test and not progressing up the pay scale, and some failing the advanced skills test and not reaching the top of the payscale....
  10. The Winsor Report Thread

    One financially catastrophic mistake Winsor made in his report (given that pay exams were scrapped), was the unsociable hours allowance which went on to be implemented...and which is costing a fortune Well, if the NHS experience is anything to go by, it won't be long before such payments cease to exist... http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jan/09/nhs-staff-unsocial-hours-payments-department-of-health-england?CMP=twt_gu
  11. Flexible Working

    Well, you loiter long enough and chuck in hundreds of topics and eventually two usually diametrically opposed folk will agree, absolutely 100%... All the flexible working options are open to everyone - it is a level playing field and I am unaware of a single role where is would not, could not and has not worked. All it needs is sensible and enlightened managers. The tragedy of Winsor is the skills base lost as these working options have been withdrawn...
  12. New year predictions

    I agree absolutely - terms are being altered and folk are leaving as a result. Those going to tribunals are being paid off - a one off compo payment being the lesser and cheaper of two evils - and most folk don't sue!
  13. The Winsor Report Thread

    And yet, at the same time.....NO!This campaign is not endorsed, approved of, supported by, commented on or backed by national fed... Self destruction in progress. And I'd hope we're on topic because this is about fighting cuts... that were in the Winsor report, or a consequence of it, or running in parallel with it
  14. New year predictions

    No, I was addressing the post - and the trend - of part time, flexible, family friendly, compacted hours etc workers having these things pulled from them - not the redundaancy / CS issue It would be one thing if these workers had been merely tolerated / accepted historically, and thern in hard times we had to pull back from these things, but the fact is these folk were sought out / invited / enthusiastically accepted / recruited - many of whom joined the police because we were 'forward thinking' (many forces having won investor in people' awards and diversity awards), and have now had the rug pulled from them.. You can't embrace / invite diversity and then bin it when it doesn't suit Another unintened side effect of Winsor - disproportionate amounts of women leaving... Cuts have consequences!
  15. New year predictions

    I know exactly what my reacton would be if, as a part time worker, I was told I could not be acommadared any longer. It would involve lodging an employment tribunal - with or without fed assistance