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

Oh! Mr. Winsor, What Have You Done?

The second part of the Winsor Report was published Thursday much to the misfortune of police officers in England and Wales.

According to the recommendations by Winsor, Police officers' fitness could be checked annually with disciplinary procedures facing any officer who fails the test three times.

Whilst I do agree that there are certainly some officers who need to get fitter, the nature of the job doesn't always allow this as easily as it seems.

We rarely get down time. Eat poor food, usually reheated several times due to racing off for calls. So fast food and microwave meals are usually the order of the day as its quick to eat.

We don't get the time to sit as a team and eat a cooked meal. Mainly because we aren't all allowed to be back at the nick at one time. Even allocated meal breaks don't work as assistance shouts or I Grade calls take priority over every thing.

We don't get the down time to work out. Unlike other services we can't stay in the nick until a call comes out then react. So therefore we don't get a chance to work out on equipment and even if we did, there's rarely the room to store it or the budget to buy it.

And thanks to pay freezes etc, gym membership is now considered a luxury. Thats if you have the time to fit it in with your shifts and family life of course.

If it's recommended that we have annual fitness tests. Who's time do we get fit in? Ours or The Jobs? Either way, The Job should then provide equipment or subsidised gym membership to assist.

Winsor, says there should be higher minimum educational standards for new police recruits.

I cannot understand how he thinks that someone with higher qualifications are immediately better than someone without.

A colleague of mine, left school with no qualifications at all. After lazing around for a bit he joined the Navy. After leaving there he joined the Prison Service finally becoming a copper 15 years ago. He is now an Inspector and one of the best Inspectors I've ever worked with. He has common sense, a nose for the job and is a good leader and listener.

Why will someone with A Levels or a Degree immediately make them a better prospect than him?

Winsor says some should join directly as Inspectors and Superintendents.

This will create an "Officer Class" amongst the ranks. A division that cannot be crossed where possibly the rank of Inspector will become the equivalent of the Military, Non Commissioned Officer.

What chance has a Private becoming a General? What chance then has a Constable becoming a Superintendent or even Commissioner?
I was told that I was sensationalising on Twitter when I said that an inexperienced cop could end up running a Borough or investigating a major crime.

I don't think it's sensationalising at all.

It could end up with someone who's been fast tracked through their probation and given a rank ending up in charge of officers with many years of experience just brushed over.

I've seen many officers including myself, fail the Sergeants exam by a mere one or two percent and whist I appreciate that a miss is as good as a mile. I still see brilliant officers fail to meet the grade because they cannot pass an exam. Whilst those who can, some of those make crap senior officers because they were crap Constables.

How can you have direct entry to the police as Senior Officers?

How can, for example a Director for Hovis suddenly decide to apply to become Superintendent?

They will know as much about policing as I do about baking bread.

Whilst I appreciate that senior levels are about managing budgets and people which a director will be very good at but at times that senior officer will need to make tactical decisions based on years of experience and consultations with their colleagues.

How will a director for Hovis make tactical decisions about the Notting Hill Carnival?

How will that stand up with other people from the likes of the local council when they find out that the senior officer in their meeting about the carnival has only about two years policing experience and most of that was in a class room?

Who will they trust to make the right decisions?

The officer who has made it thought the ranks with experience behind them?

Or the one bundled through the ranks?

Chief constables would have powers to make police officers compulsorily redundant to cut costs - at present they can do this only if police have served for 30 years or more.

So you can see where this is going.

Officers with years of experience who cost too much will be made redundant. Eventually replaced with new starters costing a lot less. The front line will be replaced with cost effective youngsters with little or no experience and no one to learn from.

There would also be new powers to remove police officers who are on restricted duties and cannot return to work.

So under these plans the likes of David Rathband would have been sacked.

It's the same with many other jobs and services. There are always those who swing the lead. Take the money but want to sit at home with their feet up on long term sick. Yes I agree, these do need reviewing and if necessary get them off the expensive wage bill but if you are a genuine case of ill health especially if its been brought on through an incident at work then The Job should help them, not get rid of them purely because they cost too much.

Constables would be able to move up the pay ladder more quickly but a "specialist skills threshold" should be introduced at the final pay point of all officer pay scales.

So they'll be massive queues for courses and the course grabbers especially those I know who sit behind desks getting a shiny backside and apply for courses because "why not" never use them and take up the quota for those genuinely want and need them.

What courses will be classed as "specialist" in order to get this wage increase?

I am a Response Driver, CBRN, Public Order, Search Trained and Optical Intelligence Evidence Gatherer. However, I use these skills regularly (apart from CBRN, one I hope I never have to use)

Those who gather courses to build up their wage but not experience will effectively be on the same wage as me and if not controlled properly, they will sit on these courses and watch them gather dust whilst their money rolls in.

At the moment, these courses are voluntary. That way, The Job knows that those who want to do it, are doing it for the right reasons.

The retirement age would be raised to 60 and a new system of negotiating pay rates set up.

So, I assume that this fitness test will allow for age like the military?

Also stated, it's going to be raised to 60 to bring it in line with other public services.

Do these public services suffer the same amount of stress and abuse with their jobs? Are they frequently having their days off cancelled, changed, lengthened? Do they have to work nights putting up with the evils of society while everyone sleeps?

Who wants a burnt out copper still walking the beat at 60? Theres a very good reason we do 30 years and that's because we're burnt out after!

I can't see anyone getting to 60 as they will probably be made redundant as they cost too much to keep them.

....or collapse under the stress of it all.


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

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

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.