Makes My Blood Boil!

This weeks "Total Prat" award goes to Daily Mail journalist Peter Hitchens for his article on Sunday 15th September 2013 titled

Get rid of the guns, cars and Tasers and we might just end up with real policemen

I must admit that I don't expect anything else from the Daily Mail when it comes to police bashing which they seem to do in the most derogatory, holier than thou manner but Hitchens has sunk to new lows even for the Daily Mail.

Published three days short of a year since Greater Manchester Police lost two of its finest, PC Bone and PC Hughes (18 Sept 2012) Hitchens goes all out in an ill educated and insensitive way.

For those who can't and won't read the Daily Mail because it makes you feel physically sick, I shall sum up Hitchens words for you.

Hitchens says:

What use are the police these days? We know they have a pretty ambiguous attitude towards us, the public, avoiding us where possible by staying indoors or racing about in cars, and seldom going out alone in case one of us actually approaches them.

He then waffles on about the incident at Buckingham Palace with the Duke of York and drags up the incident with Andrew Mitchell which he conveniently fails to ask the question which we all want to know the answer:

"We know, what you claim you didn't say Mr Mitchell, but what did you say?"

Water off a ducks back, but what really angered me was Hitchens stating:

Call them all back in. Take away their guns and their Tasers and their stab vests, sell their helicopters and their fast cars with the go-faster stripes. Give them proper British police uniforms, which mark them out as the people’s servants, not their masters.

And send them out on solitary foot patrol, yes, even in the rain, where they might once more meet those they are supposed to serve.

What planet does this idiot live on?

I would love to see Hitchens join us on a late or night shift when we have to deal with call after call to fights, drunks, drug addicts threatening us with knives and needles.

When those we arrest are kicking, punching us and spitting in our faces and the calls are mounting and mounting because there are so few officers on such a massive patch.

This man calls to "take away their stab vests and their Tasers"

We all don't live in gated communities and the particular area I police is one of the roughest areas I've ever covered. I've got ten years in and I had a wake up call!

I do not go out without my stab vest, I have had many occasions when a knife has been pulled or a knife has been found on a person I've arrested and or searched.

There has been many occasions where a Taser would have finished a dangerous situation safely for everyone, especially the public but instead, people and officers have been hurt.

A year in three days time we lost two officers to a man with a gun who were tricked whilst they were attending a routine call.

Without the fast cars, helicopters, Tasers etc that Hitchens wants to remove from us this man could have and would have carried on killing officers.

Hitchens has never had to deal with a violent person day after day, week after week, race to a call that may affect someones life with the outcome.

He's never had to pick up the pieces after a road crash, literally in some cases.

He's never had a malicious complaint made against him and still has to carry on, still having to deal with the violence, the sadness of delivering death messages.

Never helped endless lost pensioners, children, adults, or dealt with mental health patients.

Never spent hours on paper work in order to send someone you know is guilty of a serious crime and if you get it wrong you're in serious trouble,

He's never seen the tears and the anguish of a rape victim.

I bet he's never heard the last words and seen the last breath of someone fatally injured.

What angers me even more about this lazy style of abusive journalism from Hitchens is that if he was ever burgled, he would expect the police to turn up with their fast cars and their helicopter and if the suspect was found on his property and was violent towards him, he would want them tasered and if we wasn't there in five minutes, he would be the first to complain.

Yes Hitchens you and I may go home to our families at the end of the day, but I treasure mine the most.

....and lets face it, the public needs the police far more than they need journalists.

Follow me on Twitter http://www.twitter.com/responseplod
Or @responseplod #ResponsePlod
Facebook https://www.facebook.com/ResponsePlod

If You Pay Peanuts....

The shape of things to come?....

"Westshire Constabulary PLC today went into liquidation. This was after a a run of mishaps and blunders that could not be investigated due to privatisation of the organisation. Due to the loss of confidence in the board by shareholders and the glaring media spotlight, share prices plummeted and insolvency practitioners were called in...."

The above is of course fiction but could be accurate in the future as West Midlands and Surrey Police constabularies are inviting bids from security companies to carry out particular types of jobs usually done by police officers such as investigating crimes or patrolling neighbourhoods.

Claiming that money is tight after the budget slashes, these constabularies believe that this is the way forward for saving money and increasing front line presence.

Is it the way forward though?

In my humble opinion, no, it isn't.

Private companies such as G4S are answerable to the shareholder, where the constabulary is answerable to the public.

That means that the security company will put one thing only at the front of their agenda and that's "Profit" for its shareholders.

This could mean cutting corners as other companies in PPP to save money possibly affecting safety of those working with and working for the company. Reduced wages, reduced equipment all to save on costs.

I have never been a believer in contracting out to other companies. Yes I appreciate it creates business and therefore employment opportuniities but you need to look at the broader picture.

Take hospitals as an example, cleaning used to be done by the ward nursing staff. Nurses were responsible for the cleanliness of their ward and they were cleaned to within an inch of their lives. As a result, viruses such as MRSA were not in existence.

Give the contract to a cleaning company who's one sole aim is to make money and you could find that wards are quickly dusted due to there not being enough cleaning staff or mopped with an old dirty mop as buying a new one will effect budgets.

You only have to look at the failed Public-Private Partnership of London Underground to realise just how dangerous this move can be.

The collapse of Metronet in 2007 cost us, the tax payer £410 million. Who's to say that this would not happen again? No one dreamed it would happen to Metronet and them winning the contract with Tube Lines was like the Golden Goose.

Has anyone thought of asking the tax paying public what they think of this and do they have their permission?

So let's ask?

You have been burgled, who would rather arrive to investigate?

A police officer, duty bound by law to investigate? The police officer would have been fully trained, experienced and have knowledge of forensic procedures.

Or a security guard who's company will want them to check it out as quickly as possible as they have three guards off sick and it's costing them to send a substitute guard subcontracted from another company?

Who do you want to see patrolling your streets?

A fully equipped police officer who can not only arrest a person breaking the law but deal with the investigation when necessary?

Or a security guard who cannot arrest, will not be fully equipped and in some cases may not speak much, if any English?

Once you start cutting costs to improve efficiency you effect the quality of service.

West Mids and Surrey are claiming that it will help protect the frontline during cost cutting restraints.

How?

If security guards are patrolling the streets, how is that protecting the front line? In my opinion, that's a significant cut back.

Also, how is it a better option for saving money? and who's decision will it be that one neighbourhood will get police officers and another will get security guards?

If that neighbourhood is paying the same contribution from their Council Tax towards policing, I would want a refund or a significant reduction as you are not getting a police service.

It's a cheaper option and from my experience of many things, quantity isn't quality.

The company, once it's landed a contract over several years, may suddenly find that they need to put their prices up a significant amount to keep up with other businesses alike.

The constabulary may well then find themselves in the middle of a price battle that spirals out of control. In several years time, the contract could cost more than having actual police officers doing that job.

That's when it will go full circle.

You see, this is my point. If I buy a cheap garden shed from a budget supermarket that sells other products as well as garden furniture, I may be making an initial saving but in the long run it will show why it was so cheap when the wood rots and the roof falls in and I have to buy another one or pay out a lot of money to repair it.

If I bought from a company that specialises in garden furniture, yes, it will be considerably more expensive than the cheaper option but it will last several more years and will not need much money to keep it maintained.

I know that the police are not perfect and I would be a fool to claim that they are but if you invest the money back into proper policing you will get results even if it costs more in the short term.

This is why I believe policing should remain with the police and let the guards look after the shops.

Follow me on Twitter http://www.twitter.com/responseplod
Or @responseplod #ResponsePlod

Cops Behaving Badly

This was the title of last nights BBC Panorama programme which in its description was:

"What happens when the police fail in their sworn duty to protect life, when they get it wrong, or when police officers themselves break the law?"


Less than a week after the deaths of two officers and one stabbed all in the course of carrying out their sworn duties to protect life, the BBC chose to show this, poorly timed, political hack of the police in this country.

If this week's topic had instead been about "Sudden Deaths at Home" the BBC would have probably moved the schedule, as done in the past, to another more appropriate time in the future so as not to upset the family of for example, Sir Jimmy Saville.

However, they chose instead to run with this programme, in my opinion, in poor taste and sensationalist ways.

I clearly stated my displeasure about this subject on Twitter last night and one or two of the responses I'll highlight here:

TheloniusBostik T-Bos 

@ 

@citizensmitt never! let's face it. you can't even highlight bad practice without offending the good cops... sad.

TheloniusBostik T-Bos 

@ 

@ResponsePlod we have the right to know. we're mature enough to form studied opinions.

citizensmitt smitty 

@ 

@ResponsePlod @TheloniusBostik So what would be a 'respectful' time to have shown it, then?

I appreciate this feedback and it's difficult to try and express yourself in 140 characters or less which is why I'm glad I have this.

I understand completely that the Police have to be accountable for their actions, period.  How can we provide  reassurance and law and order but be above it ourselves, it doesn't work.

What I was stating is that the programme was poorly timed at best.  If they insisted on showing this programme it could have been aired in the new year to let the dust settle for the families of the deceased.

These families could have seen on prime time television, footage of members of public, quite rightly in some instances, stating that they have lost confidence in policing and that officers are lazy etc.

Not true in the cases of PC Goodlad, PC Jay and Garda Jones.  These three put themselves first, before anything else and two paid with their lives.  Less than a week later, the BBC is showing footage of completely the opposite.

Good police officers do not make good television.  Watching grainy footage of a police officer apparently "beating" a male is shock factor and therefore, apparently, does.

The programme then went on to state that there was an issue of complaints and discipline going on "behind closed doors"

What public interest is there to hear that PC Bloggs has not ironed his shirt again or PC Doe has sworn at her Sergeant?

There isn't,

... or is it only the "juicy" stuff they want?

No other public domain company/service does it including the BBC, and I'm damn sure the Houses of Parliament will not!

A Twitter colleague wrote last night "Police officers don't go to work to do wrong" 

Unfortunately there are a minority element, like all jobs, who have the bullies, who are rude to their colleagues or customers, lazy, incompetent.

The problem with the police service is that if someone is like this, then they leave themselves wide open for complaints or severe lack of judgement calls that could cause someone to be injured or worse.

Discipline in policing has gone completely wrong, it's too "pink and fluffy"

If a Sergeant gives an officer an old fashioned "bollocking" for cocking up, that Sergeant is suddenly accused of bullying and the problem isn't solved.  Problems fester and a lazy cop, or worse, an incompetent cop isn't dealt with quickly enough.

Then you have the issue of malicious complaints.  In many cases some throw a complaint back, in order to "get off" or damage reputations to muddy the water in court.

The system is not infallible. Whilst you have humans as police officers and politicians in power, there will always be mistakes.  The IPCC and the court system are not perfect.  You only have to look at former PC Michael Bunting to realise that terrible mistakes can be caused by so called "professional people" Michael found himself serving four months after kicking out at his attackers whilst they brutally assaulted him and put him in hospital, seriously injured.  This case went before the IPCC, the CPS and the courts yet he was still convicted of assault.

In my opinion, last night's topic was a political attack on the police, designed to damage feeling towards us.  What with the cuts to the police set to be drastic, what better way of sweeping arbitration hearings under the carpets with sympathy destroying topics like that. (Which, ironically are a week away)

You only had to watch the Twitter trend for #Panorama for the immediate lack of sympathy and hate of the police.  Many stating "ACAB" (All Coppers Are Bastards) and yet they will be the first to scream for 999 if they are themselves attacked.

Well, You're Damned If You Do......

So Mark Duggan, a man in his own Obituary picture shown on national news is posing using what appears to be his fingers shaped like a gun looking like gang signs is pulled over by armed police in a taxi and during an altercation a shoot out takes place resulting in one  officer shot and Duggan fatally wounded.

What we saw last night was according to one "witness" on the BBC "The locals taking revenge for the killing of a brother" and "The Police don't police our community they only turn up when this happens"

Memories of The Broadwater Farm riots in 1985 where many of the rioters were not even born or too young to remember were being tossed about by "witnesses" being interviewed on TV.  "This memory is in our DNA where Cynthia Jarrett died after police broke into her home" said one representing the "Youth of Haringey"  "We may have not been there but it's passed down to us"

Cynthia Jarrett dying is in no way even the same as Duggan dying and comparing the two is an insult to Cynthia's memory.

People on tv last night were calling Duggan "Their Brother" and even they said they didn't even know him.

Duggan lived by the sword and by the looks of it, died by it.  He allegedly shot at officers and therefore was shot at in defence and was killed.

Some bright spark witness on Sky was complaining that Duggan didn't have the safety equipment that the armed police officers had and therefore it was unfair and a reporter on Sky even had the gall to say "We don't know who shot at who first"

There are internet rumours going round that someone who knows someone spoke to someone who saw someone see a 16 year old girl allegedly beaten with sticks by police for no apparent  reason. What angers me more is depending on who you believe is that this was used as a "reason" for a full scale riot in Tottenham last night.

There was a protest about the killing of Duggan and the way the area is policed and this was presented to the doors of the Tottenham police station.  For whatever reason after that, it went down hill from there on.

Then a police car with two officers was hijacked and pushed into the road and set alight. This was then a beacon for others to start violent disorder.

The police were then lambasted by locals and the media for not policing the riot properly and their tactics used.  Some complained that the police were only targeting black rioters and some even complained that the police were too soft.

Damned if we do and damned if we don't.

What angers me more through all of this, is the two faced cheek of the government and media.  Suddenly to the government we have their "full support" and "no justification for the aggression shown to the police" with the media it was the complete lack of support and the cutting off of anyone who dared to voice support to the police coming under attack.

The media completely ignored the fact that Duggan shot at officers, completely ignored the fact the innocent bystanders were caught up in the riot, and that the reason police let the bus and buildings burn is because it was unsafe for the London Fire Brigade to go in and put it out.

The government talk about the "aggression shown to police" but fail to realise the irony of their aggression shown to police with the cut backs to the front line and to the police pensions and pay which are about to take place.  The "thin blue line" is so thinly stretched it's fracturing at points and last night was a case in point.  I think you can expect more of this to come.

What the government and public fail to realise is that Public Order trained officers and others like myself with specialist skills in areas including firearms are all volunteers.  We get no extra money and certainly thanks to Hutton, Windsor and May we won't be getting any more for a few years.

We can just as easily turn our passes in as easy as we got them.  If I don't want to be a Public Order trained officer any more I can turn in my certificate.  Just as easy if I don't want to do CBRN or Search.  I can easily fail to sign up for the next refresher or fail the fitness test.

If this carries on with the front line being savaged by the government and public alike I can see many officers ditching their specialist training.

Why should we face a barrage of petrol bombs and rocks whilst the ones that govern us and take away our rights, pensions and wages are sleeping soundly in their beds?

I can see many officers failing to come in when off duty, the sounds of unanswered ringing phones deafening.  The number of mobiles that suddenly had no signal.

We don't get paid a call out fee, so why should we come in?

One Inspector said to me that you could face disciplinary action if you are on a call out list.  Well, prove my phone had no signal, prove my phone rang at my home and not at the exchange.

We have enough restrictions on our lives as it is without placing me under virtual house arrest in case another riot takes place.

It's about time that the government realised that last night is a taste of things to come.

Mess with our tactics, mess with our numbers, budgets and wages and this is what you get.

A lot of innocent people cleaning up after a night of disorder and many officers injured.

What I will say is that it's going to make the Notting Hill Carnival an interesting two days.

A Load Of Old Bails

As if the policing world wasn't mad enough with the cut backs, pensions and pay disputes, along comes the Justice System who are supposed to be working with us, not against us and sticks one on the police service just after it's been left reeling with blows from the government.

The short sighted, self interpreted and may I say, bigoted definition of The Bail Act and PACE by a Salford District Judge who took a perfectly good system and then threw it in the bin was then backed up by the High Court.

Today's ruling left yet another bitter pill to swallow when the Supreme Court dismissed an attempt by Police to suspend a legal ruling limiting Police Bail in England and Wales to a maximum of four days only.

MP's are voting on an emergency legislation this Thursday to attempt to put things right.

What this idiot of a DJ has done has taken the law and because he can, use his interpretation and change a piece of legislation.

What this has done to the police has caused utter chaos.

A colleague of mine who works on big fraud cases has said to me that they will find most of their cases collapsing due to constantly having to re-arrest someone.

For example.  What used to happen was, the person was arrested for fraud, then taken to the police station, interviewed.  Mean while their documents, computers, etc would be seized to be investigated into.  Then this person would be "freed" on police bail but their items kept for investigation.  This person would then return at a later date after more evidence has been gathered where they will either be charged or released without charge.

Now what happens is after the person has been interviewed they must be bailed to within 24hrs of their time of release.  This DJ has stated that the custody clock keeps running so you only have in the first instance 24 hours to deal and maybe with extensions up to 96 hours.

That's four days to look into a major fraud case

If after those four days nothing further is found then this person must be either charged or released with no further action.

Problem here,  is if someone has been effectively "NFA" as nothing has been found at this stage to charge, then technically all their property must be returned to them and with it, goes any possible evidence.  The police will have no right to hold onto it as they have been released without charge.

The second further evidence crops up, this person can be re-arrested.

However, how many times will someone need to be arrested to finally bring a charge?

How long will it take before some smart arse Barrister to suggest that their client was "stressed" "embarrassed" and "harassed" by the police and the officers dealing were in breach of process and or their clients Human Rights because they were arrested "too many times"?

How big will arrest rates soar yet charge rates for serious crimes fall drastically?

That's the big cases what about "simple" cases like a theft from a shop.  The person is brought in but is deemed unfit to interview as he is drunk.  The suspect when eventually sober has now asked for a solicitor who takes time to arrive due to heavy traffic and dealing with other clients.  The CCTV cannot be obtained then eventually when interviewed the suspect gives an alibi which cannot be chased up due to the person not answering their phone and your shift is drawing to a close and you need to hand over.

This person now needs to be bailed, but because of the new ruling, there may not be any time left on the clock as because, I stated above, the custody clock now continues to run.  So, if this person has been in custody overnight sleeping off the drink and has been in for 16 hours you can only bail them for 8 hours.

That's later that day and you still need to chase up that CCTV and the alibi statement.

What with every other job police officers have to do these days, how can they complete a thorough investigation within the given time slot?

A short time ago, Ken Clarke reversed his decision on halving prison sentences.

I think he got his wish in a roundabout way, as there will be no one charged to court any more to be sentenced to prison.

Call me a conspiracy theorist but it all seems too convenient to me.

Prove me wrong on Thursday, MP's when you vote against this stupid ruling and impose the emergency legislation.

Also I think the DJ needs to be shown how a night in custody works or out on patrol.

He may feel differently from our side of the fence.

.....Who am I kidding?!

In Sickness And In Health

I've not been a well Response Plod these past couple of days.  I won't disgust you with the exact details but needless to say Essex and Suffolk Water want to speak to me urgently.

I was sent home yesterday after feeling and looking like (apparently) "death warmed up" however, it took them half the shift to decide that I was no good to them and if I was in for half then it doesn't count as a sick day.

What annoys me most about that is I had spent since 4am not feeling at all well but decided to go in for many reasons:
1. I don't like calling in sick because
2. No one ever believes you so
3. You go in to prove you're ill but
4. Everyone moans at you for bringing it in and no one thanks you for actually making the effort but
5. You only went in so it wouldn't count as a sick day if you got sent home.

What angered me however, is today, I had to take a rest day in lieu rather than phone in sick.  Why is it that the job has made us so scared of phoning in sick when we are genuinely ill?  Why is it that I face the wrath of the part one sickness warnings if I dare have one day of sick then God forbid I'm ill at a later date?

I can understand the need for some sort of sickness monitoring.  There are many officers out there, some I know personally, took the piss out of the sickness policy and played it to their advantage on the old scheme.  However, people who are really ill are having to tread the lines carefully because if they have a 24 hour bug one day and then Lord help them, flu a couple of months later then the policy enforced could mean they can kiss good buy to that course they wanted or that vacancy they dreamed of.

We Officers face enough stress in our lives as it is.  Our long and hard shifts dealing with all kinds of incidents leaves the body weak and open to illness.  That's not including close contact with people who are also ill.

I also know that the stage one policy is discretionary but I also know that there are many Inspectors out there who have their power trips and like to bring down hard justice on their troops.

Troopers like me for instance. Some years ago, I injured my arm very badly in a fight during an arrest that went horribly wrong. My right arm was left hanging from its socket and the muscles and tendons severely damaged.  I was off for three months and returned on heavily restricted duties.  Months of physio and to this day, it's still not right.  This didn't stop my, then, Inspector collaring me on my first day back for a chat in his office.

There I was thinking he was bringing me in for an "how are you, great to have you back" chat, but no, on the desk was a stage one warning and he was putting me on it knowing this was going to severely damage my chances of the course I wanted to be on.  I point blank refused to sign the document and got the Federation involved who thankfully after many and some heated meetings it went away.

The policy was re-written soon after.

If you are ill, you are ill but why do we have to be frightened of someone who has no policing skills whatsoever who writes these policies and enforces them upon us?

The problem we now face, is that they are using any excuse to cut costs and if you are a sickly officer.

...be looking over your shoulder

Police Crime and 999

Written by John Donoghue, It’s a look at a year in his life as a front line response officer, comes with the warning:  CONTAINS HUMOUR AND TRACES OF NUTS and, amongst other things, answers those basic questions:

What REALLY happens behind the scenes in the police?

What bizarre 999 calls are made to the emergency services?

Why can wearing 2 pairs of socks make you a suspect?

What is the link between police and vampires?

Which Royal arrest never made news headlines?

What covert sign do officers make when they no longer wish to talk to you?

He's changed names and places to protect the guilty!

The book isn’t officially available until August, but it is available NOW for all readers of this blog via his website www.policecrime999.com  and John has kindly given us a  10% discount!

Quote: ResponsePlodBlog when ordering for your 10% Discount!

The Greasy Pole

When I joined the job all those years ago, I had ambitions that I would go far.

The two major problems I have that stopped me is that I failed the Part 1 Ospre, twice, although by a small margin but a miss is as good as a mile.

Secondly, I don't know when to shut up.  I will openly state to Senior Officers that something is not right when it blatantly is not right.

Putting it bluntly, I'm a coppers copper.  I don't take crap from anyone and I enjoy working on the factory floor getting my hands dirty.

However, I have massive respect for my Senior Officers.  I may not like some of them but I respect them nonetheless.  I know that they have made it through the ranks and have stood where I stood and have seen what I have seen.

This gives me faith in the people in charge that they, ultimately, know what they are doing.

They can safely make the big decisions at murder scenes, fatalities, major incidents etc. because they have been to these incidents themselves over the years and have built up a wealth of experience and knowledge as they progressed through the ranks.

Which amazes me that the "Flagship" police force of the country, The Metropolitan Police,  is toying with the idea of "Rank Skipping"

It amazes me that at a time of budget cuts and restraints that are going to affect every rank and file officer that they want to insult the officers even more.

How can anyone who has served from a recruit, only 12 months as a PC and given intense training then fast tracked to Inspector in another 12 months then expect to become a good copper earning the respect from others "below" ?

How can I trust an officer with only 2 years "police service" much of it class room based to come out as an Inspector then make the right decisions at incidents?

This officer would have had no experience in policing what so ever and just because they may have some fancy degree in policing or been a manager for a large company, why would that mean they would be good coppers?

If you or I were to go to a company like Hovis and apply to become "senior baker" (hypothetically) they would not even give your application a second glance if you have never baked a loaf of bread before!

I still cannot see you being taken seriously if you then went on to add that you spent 12 months reading cook books and occasionally kneaded some dough.

The bakers around them would lose respect for their immediate supervisor as they would expect, when a problem arose that the senior baker would know what to do, due to their valuable experience gained in the ranks below with years of bread making at their finger tips.

The person may know how to manage people effectively and may actually be great at managing budgets but dealing with the real stuff that comes to policing, well, it's not enough to just have read some books on it once.

I really hope that the Met decide against this little venture.  It's going to be a huge waste of money to train these officers to be Inspectors and have them fall at the first hurdle.

Some may crack under the strain of being thrown in charge of a murder scene as they have not built on the experience of same or similar incidents before.

It will be a shame to see these people ridiculed by their own and the public when they find out they only have a couple of years in and they are supposed to be in charge.

What about the officers who are making their way up the traditional way, only to see some whipper snapper who was in charge of DFS last year suddenly take the promotion over them?

What if, the Commissioner was suddenly ousted by someone who was once in charge of Lloyds TSB?

Would he like it?

 Follow me on Twitter 
www.twitter.com/ResponsePlod
@ResponsePlod #ResponsePlod

Sucking Eggs

After reading the excellent article in Police Review w/e 3rd June 2011 by Hollie Clemence entitled “Officers urged to ‘look and feel’ cheerful” she reports that ACPO is drafting an Olympic 'Look and Feel' strategy document which they claim will provide a 'consistent message' on how officers on mutual aid during the games are maintaining the 'highest of standards'.

Summarising, it is basically telling officers working during the Olympics how to dress, how to talk and even to remember to smile.

ACPO have also stated that every officer must be trained in the fine art of egg sucking and will be trained to NVQ level although cut backs mean that you will need to provide your own eggs during the 12 week course.

Alright, I made that last bit up, but really, are they serious?!

First of all, exactly how much money are they wasting on this ridiculous and quite frankly insulting report?

Secondly, just exactly who do ACPO think they are?

Not only are they insulting the very officers their thousands of pounds trained and the vast majority have years of experience but instead of backing us up with the ongoing dispute with the government they are basically telling us to just “grin and bear it”

What with the Winsor Report pay and conditions biting into its first year by the time the Olympics come along many officers working the long tiring hours are not going to be wanted to told to “smile and be nice”

What ACPO need to realise is that police officers will continue to do the job we were employed for. It's the job we joined for and want to do.

So please, don't insult our professionalism. We don't need to be told how to dress and how to smile. We do this every day and don't need expensive reports to be reminded how to do it.

What I will ask is for you to declare how much this farce of a report cost and why the money wasn't better used for something more worthwhile, or better still, saved.


Follow me on Twitter
www.twitter.com/ResponsePlod
@ResponsePlod #ResponsePlod

Your Attention Please!

This blog entry is the email I received this morning and it brings me no joy to post this tonight for you all but it needs saying.  This is from DC Simon Steele the Chairman of the Constables Branch Board and serves with Sussex Police.  This message needs to be sent far and wide people so, copy, paste and send to all your colleagues!  Even send a copy to your local MP.

Dear Colleagues,

For those of you that are not aware The Police Federation held their Annual Conference in Bournemouth between the 16^th and 19^th May 2011.

I don’t apologise for the length of this document. You have a right to know all that has happened over the past week. Please read it in its entirety. YOURS and YOUR COLLEAGUES FUTURE are at stake and we need your support. Please feel free to forward this email internally to all of your colleagues. Now more than ever we need to stand as one.

This report is intended to update you on all the relevant points and issues that were discussed last week. It will also give you an insight as to what the Federation are doing to protect your pay and conditions.

Firstly let me make this abundantly clear, the next twelve to eighteen months are going to be the most financially challenging period that you will have faced in your lifetime. This is not scaremongery, this is not spin this is FACT. You will not like what I am about to say and you need to prepare for the tough months that follow.

On Monday I attended the Eve of Conference Meeting.

The Olympics.

The key dates for policing the London Olympics next year are 1^st May 2012 to 16^th September 2012.  The opening ceremony will be on 26^th July 2012.

Policing of the Olympic Torch Run will be conducted on a regional basis with mutual aid provided where necessary.

Each Force has been told of its Olympic Commitments in respect of Officer Number’s and specialist skills. (Apparently).

PFEW has issued guidance to Chief Officers suggesting they set an overall 7% restriction on leave during the Olympic period. Individuals with caring responsibilities should be given priority when leave is allocated at peak periods. Further support has been requested in terms of approaching schools regarding removing children classes during term time.

The more specialist the role you perform, the more likely you WILL be subject to restrictions on taking leave during the Olympic period.

The PFEW will support a minimum of doubling of the normal carry over allowance without prior approval i.e. 10 days or 80 hours. (I guess in Sussex’s case doubling nothing leaves nothing but I would hope a degree of flexibility will be offered and I will update you when a decision is taken).

The mutual aid pattern will be:

Day 1 Travel to Accommodation Venue,

Days 2 - 6 deployed on an 8 hour tour of duty with a minimum mandatory 4 hours overtime period (12 hour day)

Day 7 return to Force area.

It will then be down to each individual Force to manage returned officers rest days.

Two main accommodation sites have been identified. The vast majority will be housed at Hatfield University in Hertfordshire (subject to on going contractual negotiations).

The main accommodation for mutual aid to Dorset is a mobile home park on the outskirts of Weymouth.

Onto the gloomy bit!

The Economic Outlook.

To say that the economic outlook is gloomy is somewhat of an understatement.

We are now 18 months out of the longest recession since 1930. It has been the deepest recession since World War 2.

It lasted 1.5 years through six quarters. (Quarter 2 - 2008 through to Quarter 3 - 2009).

The cumulative loss in national income and output over this period amounted to 6.4%.

The economy has been stagnant for the last 6 months. It fell back 0.5 % in the final quarter of last year and this 0.5% loss was recovered in the first quarter of this year.

The economy is predicted to grow slowly this year and next year.

Inflation will be high and running ahead of pay. There will be severe cuts in expenditure and investment will remain weak.

The government are pinning their hopes on strong growth in exports but the truth is the gap is still growing.

The labour market is weak with unemployment standing around 8%.

Given the weak economic recovery it is likely that employment will start to rise again soon.

In the 20 years up to 2006/7 public spending averaged about 40% of GDP. Government receipts also averaged around the 40% of GDP mark.

HOWEVER in 2009/10 spending increased to 48% of GDP and receipts totalled 37% of GDP resulting in the government borrowing 11% of GDP to make up the shortfall. This is known as the Public Borrowing Requirement (PBR). In 2009/10 this stood at 11%.

The Government debt (Accumulated PBR) stood at 71.3% of GDP in 2010.

In the June 2010 budget government announced their intentions to raise 113 billion pounds to combat the government’s debt deficit. 29 billion from tax increases and 84 billion in expenditure cuts. This includes 18 million (11 million initially) in benefits cuts and 63 billion in spending cuts.

Cuts in departmental budgets (other than health and overseas aid) amounts to a 19% cut in real terms over 4 years. 2011 to 2015. (Labours planned cuts would have amounted to 12% in real terms).

Police funding is to reduce by 14% by 2014/15 in real terms.

Central government funding is to reduce by 20%.

In real terms the reduction will be greater than 20% as the governments Inflation assumptions are unrealistic and too low.

The cuts are concentrated on the first two years so over the next 18 months we are all going to start to feel the pain.

These savings are going to be achieved by a saving in back office functions, modernising pay and conditions (Winsor Review), an increase in pension contributions (Hutton Review) and by reducing Police Numbers.

Effects of the Winsor Review Part 1. (REMEMBER THESE ARE PROPOSALS AND HAVE NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED)

Abolish incremental Pay Progression from September 2011.

This will affect 55 - 60% of Constables.

On completion of training Constables will lose two increments amounting to a loss in wages of £3,186.

Don’t forget that you will lose the first increment in both years 1 and 2 meaning the cumulative loss will be £4,695 over the two years.

Pay Point 5 will result in a loss of £1,671 and a cumulative loss of £2,556.

This one recommendation will generate savings of £250 million over the next two years.

The abolition of CRTP will mean that 35 - 40% of Constables will lose £1,212 of pensionable pay saving 145 million over 2 years.

The abolition of SPP will affect 43% of Constables with an average payment in 2010 of £1203 and will affect savings of £175 million.

The reduction in casual overtime from time and a third to plain time will result in 82% losing a further £422 from your pay packets.

Replacing double time with time and a half for working rostered rest days will affect 65% of you with an average loss of £273.

The introduction of an interim Expertise and Professional Accreditation Allowance will benefit only 33% of you and amounts to £1200.(Non Pensionable).

The On Call allowance of £15 for each session beyond 12. (The downside to this is that The Chief Constable could instruct every single officer in the Force to provide 12 periods of on call cover during the course of the year without it costing the Force a single penny.)

Tow Winsor estimates that if implemented his recommendations will save the government 485 million.

You will not get a pay rise either this September or next September as a result of the Public Sector Pay Freeze. We are told that “We are all in this together” and yet the private sector experienced the pay freeze during the recession and at a time when inflation was in the negative so effectively real pay for the private sector rose. The pay freeze in the private sector lasted for one year and NOT two. Subsequent pay awards have made up some of the lost ground.

We are about to experience our pay freeze at a time of high inflation. The Bank of England predicts inflation at 6% for the remainder of this year and 4% for next year. The BoE persistently under estimate these figures so the likelihood is that these figures may in fact be worse than predicted.

Increased pension contributions are extremely likely with 3% rises recommended.

There is a likely reduction in real disposable income in excess of 10% over the next two years. For an officer earning £35,000 a year this equates to a reduction in pay of around £3,500 . (I did say you wouldn’t like what I had to say).

Unemployment is likely to increase due to the fragile state of the economy and there will be an increase in numbers looking for jobs due to welfare cuts.

A final word of warning, if you haven’t got the message yet - The next two years are going to be very, very tough and you need to start budgeting now for this difficult period.

A recent Federation survey revealed the following: From over 42,000 police officers who responded to the online survey, a 98 per cent said that morale has fallen owing to planned police budget cuts, the possibility of a reduction in police officer numbers, possible changes to terms and conditions. Meanwhile, 86 per cent of police officers believe cutting police officer numbers will have a detrimental effect on crime levels. As a result of the reduction in police officer numbers 78 per cent of respondents believe their workload has already increased or will increase in the future and 91 per cent of police officers believe there will be a decline in service delivery due to planned budget cuts.

At the Constables Central Conference the chair Julie Nesbitt called on the Home Secretary to reject the proposals to freeze incremental pay and scrap the CRTP. She accused the government of being dishonest when they say cuts are needed to protect officer numbers. She also accused ACPO of attempting to become more powerful than it is today.

Policing Minister Nick Herbert attended conference on Tuesday and was attacked from all sides. He was asked by one delegate “If crime goes up as a result of a reduction in Police Numbers will you tender your resignation”. Like almost every other question he was posed he failed to answer it satisfactorily. He appears to hide behind refusing to answer “hypothetical questions” as he uttered the same response when asked if he would make the findings of any future arbitration panel binding, as his party had promised whilst in opposition.

Chairman of the Sergeants committee John Giblin asked “Is it not too late to call off your pack of hounds, return them to their kennels and do the right thing before others cry havoc, and let loose their dogs of war”.

Mr Herbert defended the governments decision to spend billions of pounds on foreign aid stating the money was “saving lives” across the world.

It is clear that those in the Home Office do not wish to listen to officers concerns. There appears little willingness to engage on their part and both Nick Herbert and Theresa May avoided the many difficult questions that were posed of them. It will be particularly difficult to influence a government that has thus far shown no desire to listen and they are using the public debt to legitimise their actions.

The highlights of Conference week for me were the key note speeches by our Chairman Paul McKeever and Home Secretary Theresa May.

Paul McKeever gave a quite brilliant speech in which he systematically dismantled the Home Secretary. For 40 minutes he spoke without notes, without auto cue and he did not let the Home Secretary off the hook for one minute. I have copied a link below which you can cut and paste into your browser and see the contents of his speech in its entirety. I would strongly urge you to read it especially if you care about your future.

http://www.polfed.org/Paul_McKeever_conference_speech_2011.pdf

Mid way through the speech he switched to a recorded video message from David Rathband the PC who was shot by Raol Moat. He told the Home Secretary how much he earnt last year (£35,000) before posing the question “Do you think I’m worth it - Home Secretary).

Our Chairman accused her of being absent without leave at a time when Liam Fox had been fighting and winning to get the cuts in the defence budget lowered .Theresa May did not fight our corner and remained silent.

Paul McKeever received a three minute standing ovation following his speech and the Home Secretary took the floor to complete silence, endured complete silence throughout her speech before leaving the stage to complete silence. She was left in no uncertain terms how angry the rank and file officers are with her and her government.

If you wish to see the Home Secretary’s response you can find it on the Federation website. Its fair to say she came out fighting, all guns blazing and like another famous Conservative female it is abundantly clear that this Lady is also “Not for turning”. We have a fight on our hands to protect our rights, our pay and conditions and it is vitally important that we all stick together over the coming months.

Ian Rennie our General Secretary and Chief Negotiator on the Police Negotiating Board also addressed conference and started by attacking the absence of ACPO Chief Sir Hugh Orde who was otherwise engaged in Canada. He was also critical of Tom Winsor who also declined an invitation to attend conference and explain his proposals for reform of the Police Service.

He emphasised that the Winsor recommendations would have a negative effect on female officers and “could make them an endangered species in policing”.

Mr Rennie highlighted the fact that the removal of CRTP would result in officers being £800 a year worse off in their retirement. Mr Rennie reiterated that Windsor’s report contains little or no evidence to support recommendations. Mr Rennie was further critical of ACPO and damned them for expecting us to pay an annual fee as a membership subscription at the same time that they supporting a reduction in our pay and conditions. He called for ACPO to stand up and support those people they purport to lead.

The phrase “More for less” has crept into the Police Service recently and Mr Rennie highlighted the point that the only thing that you get for less is in fact “LESS”.

He too called for a Royal Commission in Policing, a theme that was repeated throughout the week but apparently falling on deaf ears.

On Thursday we held our annual general meeting and two significant motions were passed at conference.

The first has instructed the Joint Central Committee to write a letter to ACPO stating that the PFEW have no confidence in them to act in the interests of British Policing. As you are no doubt aware ACPO have remained silent of late and appear reluctant to stand at our side in protecting our pay and conditions.

Secondly a motion was proposed to deal with the issues of lawful orders and the motion instructed the JCC to seek changes in this regulation so that the words Lawful Order are replaced by the words Reasonable Request. The motion also calls for the right to challenge such decisions at an employment tribunal.

The Treasurer Martyn Mordecai reported a further welcome drop in expenditure and he assured Conference that he intends to continue to drive costs down further. He has reported that there is no need to increase Federation Subscriptions next year which in this current climate should be applauded.

On a personal note I thought that it was a hugely successful week. It was exactly the response I was looking for from the Federation. Mr McKeever was undoubtedly the star of the show. The delegates that attended Conference were challenging and forthright in their views and have left both the Home Secretary and Police Minister in no uncertain terms how angry we are about this unprecedented attack on the Police Service. Paul McKeever has shown to me in this past week that he has started the fight back to protect our futures and the future of The Police Service. He has shown to me that he is up for the fight and we now place our trust in Ian Rennie as our chief negotiator of the PNB to secure the best deal that he possibly can at the negotiating table.

Negotiations of the PNB start in earnest this week and there is a table of meetings scheduled to take place between now and the 26^th July which is the deadline set by the Home Secretary. If no agreement can be reached then a failure to agree motion will be tabled and the matter will be referred to the Arbitration Tribunal for them to decide on the outcome. The Home Secretary will then have two options - accept or reject the proposals. She has the power to impose all of Tom Winsor’s recommendations but she has been put on notice that this would be a particularly dangerous path to follow.

One thing is clear and that is there will be NO winners. We are all going to have to sustain some pain over the coming months.

Prior to Conference Ian Rennie asked you all for a “call for assistance”. We need your support, now more than ever. Please continue to lobby your MP’s. Please continue to call for a Royal Commission in Policing. Please continue to support the fight for fair pay and conditions.

Over the coming months I will continue to keep you updated on developments. If any of you have any ideas as to how you would like to see the Federation respond over the coming months please let me know and I will pass your views on. What would you like to see the Federation in Sussex doing over the coming months? We are here to represent you so please give us your views.

If any of you would like to become a Federation Representative then please let me now as we still hold some vacancies.

Ensure that your voice is heard over the coming months and remember one thing “WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER”.

Detective Constable Simon Steele CS597,

Chairman of the Constables Branch Board

Detective Constables Federation Representative

Sussex Police Federation.