dibble

Resident Members
  • Content count

    79
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

13 Neutral

About dibble

  • Rank
    Forum Member
  • Birthday
  1. In some sort of comparison, I work for a Local Authority providing a service to rural areas where the local village service points were closed down for financial/lack of use reasons. Every Local Authority must make savings and, being objective, I can see areas where such savings can be made (although I'm keeping my head down). As far as my service is concerned, the Local Authority is legally obliged to provide an "adequate" service. Now, who decides what is adequate? Someone "in authority" could decide that one service point in the Local Authority area would be adequate - legal obligations met and much money saved when other, current, service points close (what happens to the staff - who knows???) but, what about the effect on the service to, and access by, the public throughout the Local Authority area? - who cares??? At the moment that scenario is not out in the open and, even if it were, I'm sure those with the purse strings would be able to justify such a decision. Message for the public - use it or lose it. A similar question for the Police Service and its' "provision" will result in closures of public desks at police stations - not closure of the stations themselves. In fact, two of the stations in my old farce/division are under threat of said closure. Worrying times ahead methinks.
  2. Also had access denied but, clicked on the home page and saw that the officer has been traced, safe and well
  3. ... well the obvious one would be the Fed but .....
  4. Old Chattox - re fruit picking .... a long time ago, when I left school, it was customary to "sign on" and commence the search for work. When visiting the Benefits Office for the first time my mates and I were advised that yes you can sign on to search for permanent work but, in the meantime, you will not receive any money as we lived in an area renowned for soft fruit and farmers were looking for pickers. Fair do's we thought and off we went to pick fruit until a job of choice arrived - no such thing as minimum wage either - you got paid for what you picked! Now that technology etc has extended growing seasons for fruit and veg, should todays job seekers not be offered the same advice? No need to import labour from abroad at all. If people don't want to work then they should not be subsidised by the working population, as was the position with us young 'uns. I appreciate that this might be somewhat simplistic but if people really do "want" to work then there are jobs out there - perhaps not trendy or very well paid but everyone needs to start somewhere ... oh and I also appreciate that not everyone who is unemployed might be able to pick fruit/veg but there are many who can. Too many people see certain jobs as "beneath" them and that's when imported workers take up the slack ... before moving onwards and upwards with a proven work ethic. I'm sure I will have upset some with my rationale but hey, even though I've retired from the job, I can still rant with the best (or worst) of them
  5. No sympathy with Cleggy, whatsoever ... now he might appreciate what every cop (not in SMT 20/20 hindsight mode) doing his/her job has felt over the years ... well, maybe not ...
  6. Picard999 Can confirm both links in your post at 0636 PM today, are working
  7. softcap I may be a bit thick (no degree or A levels) but, up 'till now Reg A19? .... and, from next year Compulsary Severance? .... bottom 10% to get the heave ho - no matter that they are still good at their job - just happen to be bottom 10% ... Also you could ask yourself any of the following: Q which employer demands you cannot belong to a union? Q which employer demands to approve your choice of where you can live? Q which employer denies freedom of speech - when you have the audacity to gather together information, already in the public domain? Q which employer denies the right to join a political party of choice (maybe not my choice but ...)? Q which employer will hang you out to dry if the meedja/hand-wringing apologists don't like the lawful outcome of an incident, several days later at an incident review with the benefit of shiny ar@ed hindsight? I'm sure I could go on
  8. NBT1609 - I was a police officer and carried out ALL the tasks you have mentioned above, as well as every other task required of me as a warranted officer - I never felt them a waste of time and was happy to carry them out! We don't have PCSOs in Scotland we have Community Wardens (in my area at least) who are employed by the local Council to patrol areas where anti-social behaviour, litter, dog fouling, parking offences in council car parks etc and are "professional witnesses" should the need arise. They are not, and never will be, confused with a fully warranted police officer - totally different uniform for a start - and they are paid by the Council and not from the police budget, ring-fenced or not. The Community Wardens are in no way, whatsoever, there to make the public think there are more police officers on the ground, only more police officers can do that. You may think it a waste of a warranted officers' time (and it also appears you think it beneath them, which I find really surprising, and a little condescending to your fellow PCSOs) but HMG seem to be hellbent on completely redefining the role of fully warranted officer into one of enforcement and leaving the soft cuddly stuff to others ... this, imho, will, in a very short space of time, completely alienate fully warranted officers from the public at large and cause immense damage to the relationship between the public and the best police service in the world (according to the Home Sec and many others - so if we're that good, why all the dry shafting? - but that's another discussion). Throughout my service, when people came to the Police with a complaint, they wanted to speak to a "proper" police officer (their words, not mine) - not the man/lady on the desk; they wanted police officers to respond to their complaints; schools wanted police officers - real ones who policed the town - to deliver presentations. Indeed the Scottish Government demanded that any drugs education in Schools had to be delivered by a police officer. Dealing with the "soft, cuddly stuff" as well as everything else shows the two sides of the police - there to serve everyone, not just the deal with the bad guys 'n' gals. Dealing with the "soft, cuddly stuff" also keeps police officers grounded and in the real world where not everyone we deal with is bad. The public at large saw police officers in all situations, good and bad, depending on the behaviour which instigated contact with the police and this can only be a good thing. How many times do members of the public complain that police officers are unapproachable, arrogant, officious and don't know how to speak to people? That's because, imho, removing officer contact with the soft cuddly stuff means young officers are never given the opportunity to learn how to speak to people outwith confrontational situations and this can only be detrimental to society as a whole. Dealing with the public in matters where fully warranted powers are not always required should be encouraged and not sidelined to what, from your post, seems to indicate a second rate service and that, from anecdotal evidence, is what the public think they are getting! Relationships built up between police officers and the public they serve are essential and removing opportunities to develop these realtionships - ie visits to vulnerable people, attending Council meetings, PubWatch, Neighbourhood Tasking Groups,Tenant & Resident Associations and the plethora of other multi agency meetings. Carrying out street consultations and drop ins. School assemblies & delivering lesson plans to young people from nursery to college and can only result in more problems as time goes on. Your analogy with the NHS is, imho, flawed - nurses were "augmented" (read into that what you will) by nursing auxiliaries/care assistants (other titles may be applied) BUT here is the difference - they all work across the spectrum of duties required ... PCSOs, by their very definition, cannot carry out the complete range of duties required of a fully warranted police officer. I'm not against PCSOs, as I'm positive that there are many good and capable persons in that role but they should be fully warranted police officers and be able to carry out the full range of duties required to deal with the good, bad and the ugly of society. If the local Council/Authority feels the need for something akin to Community Wardens as described above, then fine but lets get enough cops on the ground first. Sorry folks, seem to be rambling and haven't even got to the red wine yet .......
  9. ..... HGV drivers. You may not call it a profession but then neither is policing. HGV drivers have to requalify by doing 35hrs additional training every 5 yrs. If they don't complete it they cannot drive lorries for gain ,,,, Reasonable Man, if you are alluding to CPC Training - Certificate of Professional Competency (I think) - then my understanding is that to satisfy some EU Regs, then any person driving a vehicle over 3.5 tonnes, for gain, requires to have completed 35 hours training by April 2014, renewable every 5 years. However, you only have to turn up and complete the hours - I believe over 5 "modules" and it is permissible to attend the same "module" 5 times - in order to achieve the 35 hours of training ... and the resulting certificate. So no exam, just turn up (although the "training" has to be paid for ... someone making easy money do you think?) .... someone please tell me I'm wrong ...
  10. Fife Constabulary>Recruitment>The Selection Process http://www.fife.police.uk/default.aspx?page=1779 may help if it is fully up to date ... the power of Google ...
  11. Dr marten .... it might be worth "noting" the relevant drinking holes of the local elected members .... particularly when they "speak up" for licencees .... the correlation will come as no surprise, allegedly
  12. The way it worked in my Force, Scottish, is that the licence is applied for/renewed and this fact is advertised in local press with date of Licensing Board Meeting where decision to grant/renew is taken by Licensing Board members - local councillors. Police and interested parties can object but need evidence of any problems - so if there are problems and locals complain to you, suggest they also complain to their councillor and local licensing board. Also if much grief to lads n lasses on the ground as a result of these establishments then the Police Licensing Officers should be under pressure from the local commander to ensure there is evidence of problems, from a policing perspective, presented at the Licensing Board - cops, in my Force were required to fill in a form to evidence any issue relating to licenced premises which were collated and, along with records taken from incident logs, used as such evidence. Our Division was represented by a Ch Inspector at such meetings and worked very closely with Council Licensing staff and Solicitor. It may take time but if enough evidence of disorder/disturbance/anti-social behaviour apportioned to a particular venue can be grounds for refusal/variation of a licence. Off course licencees will have access to solicitors too and a long drawn out appeal process can result. However, IIRC licencees and their agents must show they are responsible and suitable to hold a licence and in my area, at least are required to attend local authority training to gain accreditation in the licenced Trade .... apologies for "long windedness" ....
  13. Kloozo, Winsor is not applicable in Scotland, yet, but, like a previous Poster (Old Copper, I think) said similar "proposals" will most likely follow after the Independence issue is "resolved. Huttons' pension review is applicable and former colleagues are mightily concerned ...