515 replies to this topic

[andituk]

This annoys me.

I'm an intelligent individual. I write well, I can do maths better than 90% of school leavers these days, and I hold down a well paying job. At this rate, I won't be able to apply to the Regs because I couldn't be bothered in College and didn't try hard enough. Yes, it's my own fault, but I see it as the Service's loss.

Guess I'll have to go do some A-Levels if I want to join the Regs.

Exactly the same here

[Burnie]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Mr Winsor was so kind as to list all of his reccomendations in Appendix 1. Here they are.

 Winsor Reccomendations.pdf   49.17K   67 downloads


I've not read it in depth but most of the recommendations so far (I'm up to reccomendation 88) seems pretty fair actually.

Alright so there are a couple of unpleasantries such as he's asking for a basic fitness test every year for everyone that is required to have OPT but only the 5.4 shuttle run for the first few years though the kicker is that in 2018 he wants the annual test to be moved to the same as the PSNI entry test (can be seen here) but I still dont think it's unfair



Personally I think that part 2 is a lot better than it could have been.

Edited by Burnie, 15 March 2012 - 01:08 PM.

[Stumblebum]

Hants already have compulsory annual fitness tests

[Gallifrey]

Those poor metcall folk, having their rest days cancelled. You wouldn't get that on Team!

I got it when I was on team too, but I can say personally that I have never been messed around as much shiftwise and rest days cancellation wise as where I am now, no one is allowed to transfer out as another block on transfers out.

[Machiavelli]

I just don't see the point in having grade requirements for jobs which simply don't require them; especially seeing as these A levels could conceivably be in the sciences (Biology/Physics/Chemistry) which have no relevance whatsoever to policing.

If the police want you to have academic skills, they should make you sit their own tests to prove it.

It's not like I'm saying this from the position of someone who doesn't hold these qualifications either, I just find it ludicrous when any job has a qualification requirement upon which the ability to do the job does not depend.

[CSC1]

Starting pay to be made to 19k or 21k based on qualifications.

Well that's me never joining then

[andituk]

Not seen the full report yet, but apparently it's actually three a-levels grade a-c, although according to twitter, Specials and PCSOs will have an exception, hope thats right..

[SC Meerkat]

£19-21k starting pay is a joke - I earn that as a department manager for a supermarket, and I have far less responsibility, disruption to my home life and take far less grief for simply doing my job.

Staying in the private sector has been made much more attractive - and I've only read a few of the recommendations so far....

[MacGregor]

Yes so when an experienced detective, who may be an expert in their field with excellent detection rates, fails the shuttle run and gets a pay cut - is Winsor really that ignorant that he thinks that is in the benefit of the police force or (more importantly) the wider public?

If it is only having to reach 5.4 then anybody without medical conditions which would have a detrimental impact on their performance should be able to reach that.

[Hades]

Some key points:

- Winsor recommends a new annual fitness test for police officers - with a reduction in pay for those who repeatedly fail

- New annual fitness tests for police officers to be brought in by September 2013
Winsor recommends

- Winsor recommends increasing the pension age for police officers to 60 - in line with other public sector jobs

- Winsor recommends raising minimum educational standards for police officers on entry to the service

- Winsor recommends 'reserving higher payments' for demanding police officer and staff roles

- Winsor recommends pay scales for PCs reduced from 10 to 6. Progression linked to skills and performance rather than length of service

- Winsor recommends 'Unqualified' new recruits to start as PCs on 19K. 'Qualified' to get 21K. Reduction from 23.5K says Tom Winsor

- Winsor recommends a power for all chief constables to effect 'compulsory severance' across officers of all ranks

- Winsor recommends direct entry to inspector rank and - after rigorous testing - at Superintendent rank

- Winsor recommends scrapping the Police Negotiating Board and replacing it with independent pay review bodies.

[Adamski]

..., although according to twitter, Specials and PCSOs will have an exception, hope thats right..

Maybe in your force

[Gallifrey]

I have a sneaking suspicion it will be raised far beyond that

[SBG]

Back to topic - I don't see an issue with JRT every year!

[Giraffe]

If it is only having to reach 5.4 then anybody without medical conditions which would have a detrimental impact on their performance should be able to reach that.

I would love to agree with you (genuinely, I'm not just saying that), but sadly I have seen quite a few officers fail to reach 5.4 - sometimes even officers who you wouldn't expect to fail it. I agree completely that 5.4 is very very low, and there is no excuse for front line officers to be failing it (which in my view should include all Special Constables regardless of grade), but my point was that if you have an experienced detective, someone who is not a front line officer but despite that is an asset to their force because of the work that they do - is it right that someone in those circumstances should take a pay cut for failing a beep test even though they are never likely to be running around as part of their job?

Winsor has put a justification for senior officers to undertake the test as it motivates their officers. Our former CC (who only very recently left) used to do the fitness test every year, and the fitness trainers would point this out to everyone, so I can see where Winsor is coming from on that front. What Winsor forgets is that as a police officer you could be employed in a wide range of different roles - it's not just a case of PCs on the front line and senior officers behind desks. You could have a DS working in an e-crime unit for example - they may be able to solve all sorts of crimes - why should they take a pay cut for failing something that isn't relevant to their job role?

Also, what about police officers who've been injured on the job? If someone is no longer operational because of an injury sustained on duty, I don't think it's fair that they are penalised through no fault of their own.

It is basically a giant cost cutting measure and nothing more.

[Burnsy2023]

Hants already have compulsory annual fitness tests

Indeed, an asthmatic hamster with a hip complaint could pass that test though.

[CmdKeen]

Giraffe the report does give scope for paying that detective more for their skills. They've likely gained extra qualifications and that can be recognised.

But they also frankly shouldn't be going out and about doing investigations. I'd rather they faced an incentive to get fit and be both a good detective and one who is much less likely to be off sick or die in service!

A healthy workforce is one with higher morale, less sick leave and is more adaptable. As the riots showed there are times when all that matters is the number of constables (of any rank) that you can put out on the street capable of performing front line policing.

[MacGregor]

I honestly think anyone should be able to pass that, frontline or not. As long as there is suitable warning (and perhaps advice given on a training programme for those who fail) before any action is taken then it sounds perfectly fair.

I don't think anyone was suggesting those who have sustained injuries should be penalised, I certainly wasn't. I know what it is like to have a serious medical complaint and not be able to exercise for a period of time.

[hathaway]

I just don't see the point in having grade requirements for jobs which simply don't require them; especially seeing as these A levels could conceivably be in the sciences (Biology/Physics/Chemistry) which have no relevance whatsoever to policing.

If the police want you to have academic skills, they should make you sit their own tests to prove it.

But it's in terms of general ability - some of the spelling, grammar and general use of English I've read in reports, statements, PNBs and on this forum is absolutely appalling. Also being a PC (not to mention higher ranks) still requires a huge, huge level of independent action and thought. Three A levels in the sciences (or 5 including maths and further maths like I have) may not be relevant to policing at all, but they show a basic level of intelligence beyond that of your average person.

[Hades]

If the police want you to have academic skills, they should make you sit their own tests to prove it.

Thy do and it works perfectly well and opens the job up to a wider range of people, with the different experiences that they bring...

[CmdKeen]

They also demonstrate an ability to apply yourself for a period of time to academic study, whether you enjoy it or not. Passing a single test the police set is not the same.

Your training and probation will feature massive amounts of academic learning, and with ever more laws and a more litigious society we need officers who can learn - look at the number who keep getting things like there not being a law preventing filming in a public place wrong.

Modern policing has changed massively from the recruitment model which is based on the pre-PACE days of far fewer offences and a more accepting judiciary and magistracy. Now you need to be perfect in your work across vast amounts of paperwork.

Edit to add: This is witnessed in the growth of "Criminal Justice" departments in forces dedicated to checking paperwork. It seems bonkers to let people in who just create more work for others.
(I'm not saying no checks are ever required, given the complexity of laws these days that will still be needed, but the degree could be reduced)

Edited by CmdKeen, 15 March 2012 - 01:27 PM.

[oohraa]

What force is this? I left college after completing a GCSE equivalent at college so I could do my specials and clock up experience that way. Would be extremely cheesed off if this is true!!!!


EDIT: Reference please

Edited by oohraa, 15 March 2012 - 01:34 PM.

[Burnie]

Some key points:

Some of those seem like 'fed' generated things


"Progression linked to skills and performance rather than length of service" means that you move up if your annual PDR is at "satisfactory" or above, if it is unsatisfactory (under his new 3 choice PDR, rather than the current 5 choice) then you don't move up. Thus only the ones who dont perform to an acceptable standard don't move up.

"'Unqualified' new recruits to start as PCs on 19K. 'Qualified' to get 21K." is offset by the reduction in pay points which means that after 'qualification' you move up the pay scale to the maximum (which he reccommends keeping at the £36,550 point) much faster

"raising minimum educational standards for police officers on entry to the service" means either having PLC or 'appropriate service' as a PCSO or SC. Though he does reccommend increasing the SEARCH pass mark to 70%

"direct entry to inspector rank and - after rigorous testing - at Superintendent rank" isn't quite direct entry... For the inspector course he reccommends a 3 year process (for the public) before Insp rank is attained. The first year after basic training is as a PC on the ground doing the job, the next 2 are as a Sgt with a mix of residential training at the "Police National College" (i.e. Ryton/Bramshill) and 'in force' including 'operational policing' (i.e. actually doing the job) before you can get the rank. If you are already a PC (as he wants a 50/50 split between external and internal applicants) you skip the first year (i.e. the 'working as a PC' year) and go straing to Sgt and the 2 year Leadership training program.


The fitness test I've already discussed.


Again having not read it fully and in depth, only the reccomendations the only major kick in the teeth appears to be the ability for CCs to undertake 'compulsory severance' though he does make provision for such people to have access to tribunals if they feel their 'compulsory severance' is unfair.

[CmdKeen]

Well done Burnie for making it clear that many of these proposals aren't quite as outrageous as the hysterical media reports make out.

[andituk]

It's part of the Winsor review. It's only a recommendation for now, but as I said above, I think it also recommends an exception for specials.

[oohraa]

I think it also recommends an exception for specials.

Well I think we all hope that is true