Resident Power User
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

151 Excellent

About karmapolice

  • Rank
    Lifetime Power User

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Bonnie Langford's country retreat
  • Interests
  1. The Future Workforce of Police

    PLC is a necessity. I believe, however, that successful candidates should be reimbursed by the Force if successful. For a job that has no formal educational requirements to entry, £2k versus what is still a job that pays respectable sums versus other public sector jobs and affords a job for life is cheaper than nurses having to go to university and train for 3 years and get a qualifying degree before they be registered. I have little doubt in my mind that this is the beginning of the process to implement formal entry standards for the police. This is part of the professionalisation of the Service, which is lo overdue by any measure. Nursing has had it teaching has had it...it's coming.
  2. The Future Workforce of Police

    OP, the world will continue to spin. People will still be leaving school in four years from now. There will always be people who want to join up. I'm not really getting the thrust of this thread? Is it that we should continue to recruit now with money that we don't have? As if it's the last time on earth that the police will ever recruit people of good standards? 2 to 5 years isn't "long term".
  3. Pensions of the public sector variety

    I will come back to this later this week when I'm back...but split from the "barely literate" thread.
  4. Pensions of the public sector variety

    Lordy. Another topic beckons!
  5. Pensions of the public sector variety

    I don't think I'm hard done by at all @boroughtrainer. My contributions are my choice and they're based upon the terrifying lack of awareness provided to most people in DC schemes about just how much they should be saving to avoid pension poverty. I simply have a genuine issue with the public sector wanting their cake and eating it. You have a gold plated, guaranteed pension. It's not unreasonable to expect to have to pay a premium for that. You have a choice to be in a public sector job. Don't like it? Leave. Find a job that doesn't have all the shift work etc as you rightly pointed out Edit: the other issue with the public sector is that the pension scheme structure ignores the demographics of the UK bearing down on us like a freight train. This is what nearly bankrupted General Motors.
  6. Man jailed for drunkenly abusing staff

    We take a pretty hard line with people who are clearly drunk on the railway down my way, as it happens...they don't tend to mix well when they topple onto the Underground platforms especially with all the people in enclosed space. Anyway...the point here is that offence is present and can be dealt with if you see fit. And that being drunk on a plane is more serious (the sentences confirm this, just search through Google) for all of the aggravating reasons that I've already mentioned. No, you were saying that the Captain can give permission for someone who is drunk to be boarded, when in reality the boarding staff at the gate can deny boarding to any person who they suspect to be under the influence of alcohol. Think of it in the same way as you can deny someone entry into the railway station without necessarily nicking them for being drunk. +1 But God forbid I ever do!
  7. Pensions of the public sector variety

    Work well past 55! Woooah, is this Greece? Seriously - I don't care about the large contributions the public sector are having to make now. You are getting a guaranteed pension, i.e. underwritten by the Government which means the taxpayer. Ditto every other public sector worker. If you didn't have such a pension, then if you had been unfortunate enough to due to retire in 2008, then your portfolio would probably have been 40 - 50% down from a peak in 2006/7, meaning that you would have only been able to buy a much smaller annuity. Instead, you get the value of your number of years contributions paid out to you when you retire, irrespective of whether the stock markets are covered in companies that have had their balance sheets ripped apart. Yes, it's a lot, but as someone in a DC pension scheme, I am having to put in even more than the amount above to make sure that I don't end up poor in retirement, AND I have to make the decisions myself about where my money is invested. I think the police are doing ok
  8. Man jailed for drunkenly abusing staff

    Where do you get this stuff from?! Simply not true. It is an offence under two sections of the Civil Aviation Act to be drunk on an aircraft. The pilot is legally responsible for the safety of all passengers and crew and to give "permission" as you describe above, a) would knowingly allow said person to commit an offence, b) would in itself be a breach of the CAA and codes of conduct, which would mean (s)he would lose their job and c) is a work of fiction as no such mechanism exists. Alcohol is served onboard and may be withdrawn in the same way as you can be refused service in a pub. As it's already been mentioned, the aggravating factors are being in a confined space, not having access to police, safety and welfare of others, endangering safety of an aircraft, risk of the pilot having to reroute and land elsewhere (with associated disruption) and alarm and distress caused.
  9. Length of Training

    Possibly. Or, as is mentioned above, people are being told one thing at the open evenings and then told another post application!
  10. Length of Training

    There's simply no way that that's appropriate. On GMP can say that they're widening access by delivering training to volunteers (key word) in the very time that the majority of them will be working is crazy. It should be enough to put most people off applying.
  11. Length of Training

    Sorry, did I read that correctly? Specials have to do their OST over seven working days?! For some people that's nearly half of their annual leave. Absolutely ridiculous. Do these people not realise how stupid such arrangements are?
  12. Cheers, every now and again I play a blinder! (not too often, mind...)

  13. We're volunteers...

    Top quality topic, btw, folks. Loving the banter and the interaction on the site lately. Big up to you all.
  14. We're volunteers...

    Voluntary roles are littered with people who feel undervalue, underused, and under-respected. You don't have the shake the search engine on this site very hard to find all manner of threads bemoaning the bloody awful attitude some forces have to their SCs, sometimes at a Force-wide level, sometimes at a very local level. If the Service wants to start directing me to undertake XYZ duties on such and such a date, then they can do what my employer does, which is to compensate me for my time by means of a salary, a formal contract offering both sides rights and obligations and clear attendance requirements. I think a lot of Forces run their Special Constabulary purely on goodwill, semi-bullying attitudes and the hope that none of us will grow a spine and say "no" to being spoken to like idiots and guilted into doing work over and above our required hours for poorly-planned, badly-supervised and zero-value duties simply as the Regular service doesn't have the bodies to cover it (which itself is usually down to poor planning and the never-spoken reality of Regulars being worth more on a time-cost basis to the Force so why stick them on a cordon duty at a disco?)
  15. We're volunteers...