515 replies to this topic

[Sam Vimes]

If you read a report into the nation’s health which claimed that 95 per cent of the population was sick or injured, you would be amazed.
If you then discovered the report was, in fact, based on a survey only of patients in doctors’ waiting rooms you would understand how it reached its ludicrous conclusions and dismiss it out of hand.
Readers of certain sections of the media were doubtless amazed to learn recently that three quarters of male officers and staff in the Metropolitan Police are overweight or obese.
A shocking revelation? Or ludicrous?
Think doctor’s waiting room, here.
The claim about all these overweight officers and staff was culled from information contained in Tom Winsor’s second report into police pay and conditions in which he recommends fitness testing for personnel.
In it, he refers to a voluntary health programme offered by the Metropolitan Police Service to help any officer or staff member who was worried about their weight or other aspects of their fitness.
Are things becoming clearer?
Yes, the 75 per cent of officers branded by the media as being overweight were, in fact, actually 75 per cent of those officers WHO ATTENDED A PROGRAMME FOR, AMONG OTHERS, THE OVERWEIGHT. And who, moreover, voluntarily joined the programme because they were determined to lose weight and get fit
Tom Winsor actually opens his comments on police fitness by admitting: “There is little data on the fitness of those in the police service” adding that when Hampshire Constabulary conducted a trial fitness test, 97 per cent of those who took it passed.

Source: http://www.metfed.org.uk/news?id=1676

Now a few issues here for me;

1. Where does Winsor get off using data from what I assume for a confidential and voluntary health check to draw conclusions about the state of the Police as a whole?
2. Surely this is a breach of Data Protection? Does anyone know any Met Officers who attended this health check thing and have now had their details used as part of this 'report'?
3. If this proves to be true then is there any legal action that can be taken against Winsor and his report, or can we ignore it because it's been done on behalf of the Government?

If this is true I want the Federation screaming for his head on a block pronto. No other group would get away with twisting information and manipulating information the way these scum in Government have.

Edited by Cheetah, 18 March 2012 - 12:20 AM.
Font changed for ease of reading

[DGP]

How is £19k a liveable wage? Perhaps I am out of touch, but that I'd assume someone on that wage would be living in poverty?

If you pay £500 rent per month, ow could you ever save up for a mortgage. Let alone afford to live.

Experience in some countries is that lower paid police wages can lead to corruption. For the sake of just £4k per officer, is it worth being so stingy in cutting wages?

I think direct entry is a good idea. Inspectors would still start as a constable and work their way up, albeit in an accelerated manner. Superintendents would enter at that rank but would spend 18 months being trained as a police leader.

Superintendents manage resources and implement plans. Being a police officer at lower ranks does not provide experience of this. Whereas those who are talented in other professions- health, local autorities, civil service or private industry- may make excellent police leaders.

The fact is many police leaders are quiet samey and there is a lack of talent. If someone is exceptional, then why shouldn't they be appointed on merit?

[MacGregor]

How is £19k a liveable wage? Perhaps I am out of touch, but that I'd assume someone on that wage would be living in poverty?

If you pay £500 rent per month, ow could you ever save up for a mortgage. Let alone afford to live.

£19k is hardly poverty (bear in mind it would go up once you complete training from what I've read). Plenty of people in the UK earn far less than that and get by. I live on about £8-9k a year, if you are sensible with your money it is more than enough to get by on. It just means I can't really afford any "luxuries".

[Sam Vimes]

I appreciate £19k isn't poverty, however from your £9k a year are you expected to pay 11%+ into a pension? Life insurance cover? Extended sickness cover baring in mind a good likelihood of injury at work? Etc etc...

Remember we don't take home anywhere near what they say we earn; I have almost £800 coming straight out of pay every 4 weeks... £800 x 13 which doesn't go anywhere near my bank account.

[MetPaul]

I really do sympathise with the serving officers who will be affected by the Winsor recommendations.
I'm sure the Govt must have expected more resistance to them than they've received so far.

Just one question I need to ask....
Do those of you who are regulars not resent having to pay your Fed subs when the Fed have seemed so ineffective at defending their members from such disgustingly ravishing cuts to pay and conditions?

[mdon]

I really do sympathise with the serving officers who will be affected by the Winsor recommendations.
I'm sure the Govt must have expected more resistance to them than they've received so far.

Just one question I need to ask....
Do those of you who are regulars not resent having to pay your Fed subs when the Fed have seemed so ineffective at defending their members from such disgustingly ravishing cuts to pay and conditions?

No, not at all. The fed are only as strong as its members and I know that if I should end up on a disciplinary I would have the full backing of the fed. This is only one small part of what they do and unfortunately without the ability to strike the fed only have limited influence.

[Nelson]

As for the starting wage being lowered to 19k, if the money is your main motivation for joining then it might possibly be the wrong career? As previously mentioned you still rise to 30k within six years which is impressive for any job!

You hit £30k at 4 years service on the current scales.

[MacGregor]

I appreciate £19k isn't poverty, however from your £9k a year are you expected to pay 11%+ into a pension? Life insurance cover? Extended sickness cover baring in mind a good likelihood of injury at work? Etc etc...

Remember we don't take home anywhere near what they say we earn; I have almost £800 coming straight out of pay every 4 weeks... £800 x 13 which doesn't go anywhere near my bank account.

I've tried my best to work out what I'd take home as a freshly minted PC and as far as I can work out, even with those deductions I'd still be far better off than I currently am. I certainly wouldn't snub £19k a year (which will rise in a matter of months).

[Whopper MacBig]

I appreciate £19k isn't poverty, however from your £9k a year are you expected to pay 11%+ into a pension? Life insurance cover? Extended sickness cover baring in mind a good likelihood of injury at work? Etc etc...

Hold on though, Winsor is proposing that you will get paid £19K while in training. Most students get no pay, some are charged £9000 per year fees, and most amass huge debts in the process. £19K from day 1 when you are more into 'learning' than 'doing' doesn't sound like a bad deal to me if the alternative is that you pay for your time at College like the rest.

[Whopper MacBig]

The Twiiter latest direct from the Met Fed is that they are to take emergency motions to conference re full industrial rights. What are peoples thoughts on this?

For the record after having read the full reports both 1 & 2 I am in full support of the Fed on this.

I think that's just posturing to placate an angry membership.

For a start, the Federation doesn't have a leg to stand on in terms of issuing demands. If full industrial rights are wanted then the Federation will have to come up with what it is going to surrender as part of the negotiation.

There is a whole apparatus in place to make up for the fact that the usual options available to employees don't apply. This includes the PNB and the PAT. Cops might say that this has been a bit of a joke of late, however it hasn't always been the case - it's how the relatively good terms and conditions that Winsor is trying to change were delivered for a start.

No Government will just roll over and give the Police full rights because the Federation asks for them. They could just tell the service to get lost, or if there is something else that they want, they could negotiate a deal. Which means identifying some things that the service is prepared to give up in return.

On that basis, you should be careful what you ask for.

[CmdKeen]

I don't mean to be rude but those of you who think you'll have any public sympathy for striking over those proposed conditions are in for a nasty surprise. The right to strike simply will not happen, especially after the belligerent attitudes of the Fire Brigade Union and their "let's threaten to strike on bonfire night".

£19k is a pretty decent starting salary for what the requirements are: no previous experience, a few A levels or equivalent and some "life experience". They are building in directly relevant experience (PCSO and SC) as starting on higher - those of you in better paying jobs or coming out of the forces are victims of the previous police campaigns that "our job is so unique that we must all start from scratch and be paid the same".
As Nelson points out even under the existing scales it went up to £30k in 4 years, and the new reforms want it to max out even quicker!

Reforms and changes are coming - the way to deal with them is to get the Fed to put forward suggestions and improvements. The whole "unsocial hours" thing should be something those actually on the front line should be jumping up and down on, stories of office based departments having their hours slightly changed so they receive the money.
Or the officer disciplined for saying on the web how few officers were on duty in his area and available for calls. The Fed should be shouting that from the rooftop. Instead the "we're all equal, except over half of us are now inside and non-frontline" line is pedalled - and it is far too easy for the media, think tanks, government and the public to point out the massive inadequacies of it.

Every one of the regulars, and most SCs, will be able to point out the existence of at least one constable, be it PC or higher ranked, who sits in an office, facing no danger, working regular, social hours, often whilst hindering rather than helping front line policing. They even exist in Scotland!
Those people are the ones, by their existence, driving these changes. They are the ones pointed out as not being deserving of extra pay, early retirement and everything else. Benefits, pay and perks to genuine front line officers would be supported by every law abiding citizen out there, but the citizenry also have a pretty good idea quite how few officers actually fall into that category.

[Ben.]

I don't have a contract. My terms of service are enshrined in the Police Regulations and Determinations. Is it different with BTP then as they're not a 'normal' police force?



A family member of mine has worked closely with him in the past. Says he's a twat.

My dislike/hate has grown even more after this video, thanks for linking...

God...

[Sam Vimes]

Removed.

Edited by Sam Vimes, 19 March 2012 - 11:40 PM.
Profanity removed

[fence]

Let's not talk about 21k a year being good enough to live on.

Let's talk about would YOU risk your life day in day out as long as you wear that uniform for 21k a year? Not to mention, tax, pension, and NI, you'll be taking home very little. This job is full of risks as everyone knows, and you might not have had an accident yet but everytime you put that uniform on you are a target, and some people depise it and will try their luck.

As explained, if Winsor wants brighter people in the police they won't come with that pay EVEN if in how 4 years it goes up to 30k that's still nothing compared to what new PC's earn now (met wage) and to what they could earn using their qualifcations.

I'm still quite new so to see winsor part 1 already start next month I was a bit upset, but saying that I'm young and at the moment it pays well, I wouldn't say it's the same as being a special theres too much politics involved in every day policing, and you don't always see that as a special. If part 2 gets implemented, I will strongly think about not paying for the fed, part 1 I can live with but part 2 will be too much to take in a short space of time.

[adslegend]

I often wonder why someone who regularly appears so anti-Police spends so much time on a forum full of people you seem to think are arrogant and think themselves above everyone else, but hey... As to the 'requirements'.... A few A-Levels, no practical experience perhaps, but the requirements of the role go beyond that.

Would the £19k recompense me for the screams of the two people I've seen burnt alive in front of me? Will it make up for the many missed family occasions and the endless phone calls I've made about how I won't be off on time? What about the endless list of injuries, assaults and abuse I've sustained merely for turning up and doing my job? Will it make me feel better about the period of time when I had increased security around my home after threats to my family? Telling the family there will be no summer holiday this year because of the London Sports Day? Putting up with that is the 'requirement' of the job, so - no offence - you can stick your couple of A Levels and no previous experience, along with your 'rather good salary compared to a librarian or a teacher on 12 weeks of leave a year' and everyone sticking the boot into us can come and do our job if it's so easy and so highly paid. No? Thought not.

I'm finding more and more that the people with the most to say about my pay and conditions are the people who know the least about it and who I'm sure would never dream of lowering themselves to my level. They're happy for me to go and do my job, have my life dictated to both in and out of work by regulations and rules, which enable them to booze it up on a weekend knowing I'll mop them up off a pavement, or drive along roads that I try to keep safe. They're happy for me to put my body on the line but now won't hesitate to first dock my pay if I'm injured and then kick me out on my rear altogether.

I gave up a VERY well-paid professional career to come and do a job I thought was a vocation and which I planned on doing my entire life. I never planned to end very high on the rank ladder because I wanted to be at the sharp end. I anticipated giving 35 years of service to society, bettering my community, with the odd laugh and adrenaline rush along the way. 35 years of shift work, fights, abuse, mental turmoil, family trouble, ditching lifelong friends because of their iffy past, watching my back in a pub, checking my personal vehicle hasn't been keyed after a shift. 35 years of being the first person you call in your hour of need, being the face that delivers the news you dread most, being the person who would go above and beyond to catch the person who has violated your home, or your pride, or your family. 35 years of turning up half an hour early, going home an hour late, claiming nothing for it, agreeing short notice shift changes to make a broken system work, eating a microwave meal in front of a keyboard whilst on a phone. Well not any more.

I knew the risks, the role, the requirements and the restrictions. I agreed to them all in return for 35 years of loyal service during which I would receive a certain salary and certain benefits and at the end would receive a certain pension. Yes I chose to do the role and yes I know what was being asked, but I accepted that job in return for that pay deal. Now I have to do 38 years, lose pay, pay more into a pension, get less of a pension at the end. My job for life will no doubt end in redundancy when I become too expensive for my Force to pay, my family life will be disrupted even further with no financial reimbursement when I get a short notice cancelled RD. The argument of "well if you don't like it, leave" just doesn't wash either... will that line be trotted out to everyone in every job when they're losing substantial amounts of money? If someone told you that you stood to be up to 10,500 a year worse off, when you complained would you be happy with "don't like it, leave"? Thought not.

I don't want the right to strike whatsoever, striking goes against every reason the majority of us ever signed up to this job. The reason we don't want to strike is the same reason why we will break away from a meal, or paperwork, or another job to respond to a request for help from the public. That reason is that we actually give a damn. It really is that simple.... the majority of us - and I have no idea why - actually care, actually want to improve society and look out for the decent, honest, law-abiding members of the community when they're having a tough time. We want to lock up scum, and improve the lives of the decent. But if you're telling me the goalposts are going to continually be moved regarding what I can expect in return for my work, that I can now be made redundant, then yes I want the right to withhold my labour in protest at unfair treatment.

Not because I want to see people hurt, or criminals get away with things, not because I'm a selfish, money-grabbing, morbidly obese, lazy, blue-collar retard as Winsor would have you believe, but because it's time this country and it's pathetic Government realised what a fantastic group of people their Police Service is. How much time and effort and care is given every day for free. How people at the bottom of the food chain bend over backwards to make it work when those at the job tuck into prawn sandwiches at the golf club. And if we all stopped turning up to work one day, the country would collapse. It is that simple.

Tube drivers strike, business loses money, commuters are inconvenienced, the roads are a nightmare. Teachers strike, you need to find childcare for your darlings or take a day off work. Police Officers strike, people get hurt, raped, burnt, killed, property is damaged, stolen and not recovered, unrecoverable evidence is lost forever. Get the picture?

I don't want the sympathy of the public, I've never had it before and I don't want it any time soon. What I do want is the public to understand just what it is we ACTUALLY do and to appreciate us just ever-so-slightly for it and to understand the ramifications of Winsor beyond the smokescreen fitness test idea which is being repeated and joked about. But if it takes us disappearing for a day or two to get the point across, so be it. I don't like it, not in the slightest, but maybe it's time HMG realised what they have... And maybe it'll be a case of them not knowing what they have until it's gone.

Bunch of angry people wanting to burn down Westminster again Mr Cameron? Terribly sorry, I've had a beer... Try calling your 9-stone 21 year old media studies graduate, I bet he'll hold a shield really well and fight like a trooper too. If he asks them nicely they may just put the bricks down after all.

Sorry, I've run out of 'I like this' but I am in complete agreement

[Gallifrey]

I am also in complete agreement

[Whopper MacBig]

I often wonder why someone who regularly appears so anti-Police spends so much time on a forum full of people you seem to think are arrogant and think themselves above everyone else, but hey...

Those are your words, nobody elses. If you don't want to discuss this on here with a broad range of views then go and find a board that is filled with people who all have the same view as you do.

As for the rest of the post, I'm sure you've made some interesting points - others seem to think so - but if your starting point is that anybody who disagrees with you must be anti-Police then unfortunately some people aren't going to bother reading beyond the first paragraph.

Finally, bear in mind that being "pro-Policing" is not the same as swooning before all Police officers.

[Killicksparker]

I agreed to them all in return for 35 years of loyal service during which I would receive a certain salary and certain benefits and at the end would receive a certain pension. Yes I chose to do the role and yes I know what was being asked, but I accepted that job in return for that pay deal. Now I have to do 38 years, lose pay, pay more into a pension, get less of a pension at the end



Welcome to the world that the rest of us live in, and have lived in for quite a while, only we will have to work 52 years for our pensions

[Whopper MacBig]

Let's not talk about 21k a year being good enough to live on.

Let's talk about would YOU risk your life day in day out as long as you wear that uniform for 21k a year?

If your point is that nobody is forced to join the service and everybody is completely free to decide whether the reward is worth it, then I agree. As Winsor said, at the moment people are falling over themselves to get in (NYP had 300,000 requests for applications forms with respect to 70 posts?!?) which says something about what a lot of people are prepared to accept at the moment. If you think your salary should be set at a level that you decide why not become an MP?

As explained, if Winsor wants brighter people in the police they won't come with that pay EVEN if in how 4 years it goes up to 30k that's still nothing compared to what new PC's earn now (met wage) and to what they could earn using their qualifcations.

Have you read the bit about direct entrants? Because is seems to me that is what that bit is trying to do.

[Whopper MacBig]

Source: http://www.metfed.org.uk/news?id=1676

Now a few issues here for me;

1. Where does Winsor get off using data from what I assume for a confidential and voluntary health check to draw conclusions about the state of the Police as a whole?
2. Surely this is a breach of Data Protection? Does anyone know any Met Officers who attended this health check thing and have now had their details used as part of this 'report'?
3. If this proves to be true then is there any legal action that can be taken against Winsor and his report, or can we ignore it because it's been done on behalf of the Government?

If this is true I want the Federation screaming for his head on a block pronto. No other group would get away with twisting information and manipulating information the way these scum in Government have.

If he had been this slap-dash then I agree it would have undermined his report. Which is probably why it suits some people to encourage the idea that he has been regardless of the facts.

You need to go and read it before lapping up the propaganda - page 217 is where it is at. The Metfed isn't criticising Winsor on this - they are criticising the media who have mis-represented what the report says.

Winsor is quite clear that the figures apply to those WHO TOOK PART in the "For a Healthier Met" campaign in 2011 and that the tests were not mandatory. Around 11,000 took part, of whom, around 60% were Police officers. It is from this group that e.g. 52% of participating male police officers were found to be Obese.

Data protection is about protecting the details of individuals. There's nothing in a table collating the results of 11,000 tests that identifies anybody's results. How could there be? Do you REALLY think there is something here that would warrant the Fed taking a case ?!?

[Sam Vimes]

Removed.

Edited by Sam Vimes, 19 March 2012 - 11:42 PM.

[GJB]

A lot of this wouldn't be so bad IF the police forces did something to help officers and applicants reach & stay at the required level.

For example:

With the annual fitness test, just sacking officers who fail does nothing to help anyone. However, forcing officers who fail to undergo an on-duty training programme to improve their fitness helps the officer, helps the work they do, and means the force doesn't have to recruit and train new officers.

With the qualifications required, forces should have a programme whereby good-but-unqualified applicants can gain the base skills they will need before joining (in literacy etc). So rather than failing everyone at the sift stage, give those who pass the recruitment process something they can do to bring them up to the required level, such as a 1-year college/uni course (in their own time). This would also be a good idea to bring unqualified applicants up to the higher pay band, if they choose to spend that year studying before starting work.

I really dislike the idea of forcing applicants to do a course for a couple of years before they have any idea if they're suitable, could pass recruitment or even pass vetting. Rejecting good applicants out-of-hand without helping to skill them up is a complete waste, and don't forget with the rubbishy conditions and pay being introduced, there will be fewer qualified applicants applying.

[Whopper MacBig]

Yes quite, but give me a comparable job in terms of it's restrictions and expectations which is proven to shorten your life expectancy and which in many cases cannot physically be done by people in their 60s.



Do I REALLY think there is a case? Yes I do. Was it made clear to people participating that their results would be used in this way? If it's anything like a recent voluntary health check which was offered in my Farce it would probably have been sold as a free health-check, obligation free, worth £250 with BUPA. Would people have gone to it if they knew their results would have been used to cripple their pay and conditions? Unlikely i'd have thought, and if I was one of those Officers I would not be pleased. Am I cynical enough to suspect that this free health check probably came into being exactly for this purpose? Yep.

It was a rhetorical question - the answer is a clear "no".

Think of it along the lines of when you go to vote in an election and you expect how you voted to remain a secret, but not to the extent that nobody announces the result.

As for the conspiracy theory around the rationale for conducting the test .....well if the extent of your cynicism is such that you can't accept that somebody somewhere might actually have the health and welfare interests of Police Officers at heart then I have to wonder about how objective you can be about any of this.

Winsor has based his report on facts using available data on recrutiment, pay and fitness and in doing so has been both prudent and efficient. It would hardly be good if he'd just made it up, or worse, paid some market research company thousands to do it all over again?

No confidences have been betrayed, and nothing that he has used could really be considered as "a big secret".

I've given you the page number - if you can identify the personal details of any of the 11,000 people who participated in "For a Healthier Met" from what was published then let me know and I'll start a petition for you to be made Chief of all the Detectives.

[mdon]

A quick note to the regulars who are arguing with the SCs ant MOPs who seem to be in favour of the cuts, you'll never win the argument as these are wannabe regulars who will accept any terms to become that so its better not to try and reason with them, they only see a snapshot of police life. At this point I would say something like I'll await the -1's but since we can't do that anymore I would be able to see how many people I have upset with these remarks.

[CmdKeen]

A quick note to the regulars who are arguing with the SCs ant MOPs who seem to be in favour of the cuts, you'll never win the argument as these are wannabe regulars who will accept any terms to become that so its better not to try and reason with them, they only see a snapshot of police life. At this point I would say something like I'll await the -1's but since we can't do that anymore I would be able to see how many people I have upset with these remarks.

Damn straight you'd be getting a -1. I'm not a "wannabe regular" and some of the specials on here, far better people than I, aren't either. The whole point of the Special Constabulary is to bring in people, and the experiences, from the outside world into the police.
Personally I'm not joining up full time because what I enjoy doing full times doesn't have a direct utilisation in the police, and someone has to stay in the private sector and generate the wealth to fund the police!

Sam I don't mean to be rude but the things you've listed as not having £19k make up for - would any amount make up for it? And we're not asking you to take a pay cut to £19k, just paying those who have no prior experience that during training and their initial probation. They'll be joining up aware of the money they're going to be paid. They'll also be getting pretty quick pay rises to take them comfortably ahead of the average pay for a member of the public, let alone one with only a few years experience.

You also seem to be implying an entire career on the frontline, shifts, microwave meals, 30 minutes for the queen. Brilliant if that is what you do, and you'll not find anyone (well...) on this site who doesn't think you and other similar cops shouldn't be paid extra for doing that. But why should the officer inhabiting an office, working 9 to 5, who has an hour for lunch in a canteen? Why do they deserve to have the public treat them better than the millions of other people doing similar jobs?

You ask the public to have the decency to understand what you do and have regard for that. I'd ask you to have the decency to try and understand what the public, as well as specials see when they look at the regular branch. They see a small, and dwindling, front line of cops, mostly young in service, most amazing, some marking time or not quite incompetent enough to get fired, backed up by an army of office dwelling or non 24/7 teams with cushier conditions.