What Winsor Means

I’m one of those people Tom Winsor told you about. You remember, he and his barrister friends pontificating around the dinner table about all those coppers with no formal qualifications? But unlike what Mr Winsor said, I am not illiterate, nor am I stupid. And I won’t be fooled by his nonsense that 40% of us will be better off, low morale isn’t his fault, and his recommendations are a good thing.

I didn’t finish my a-levels or go to University because, having been well educated at a Grammar School, I decided to join the police instead. Safe in the knowledge that although I would do a job that shortens your life expectancy, makes relationships difficult, changes your outlook on life, comes with many restrictions, is stressful, and sometimes very dangerous; I would be looked after, I would do my 30 years, I would have some fun along the way, and I would be rewarded for putting other lives before my own with a reasonable pension. It’s not ‘gold plated’ and, by God, you have to earn it (as well as pay more than any other public sector worker for it) but I made life choices based on the pay and conditions at the time. Had I known how policing, let alone the pay and conditions, would change in the ten years from then to now I would not have done it, and instead of a detective, I’d be an architect or a journalist, or maybe even a barrister, eh Tom?!

Anyway, this is my interpretation of Winsor 2. Digest it with the last ten years of policing in the back of your mind, the constant erosion of discretion and de-skilling of the office of constable. There is now an S.O.P. for almost every conceivable eventuality. We follow ticky box lists of things we have to do – whether they are relevant to the job at hand or not – like mindless call centre drones. Why is this? Well, coupled with the recommendations in Winsor 2, it is clear that the office of Constable is not going to be around much longer. We are going to be replaced, unless we do our best to fight it. Not only because we all stand to lose out financially, but because Winsor 2, the Conservatives, and ACPO, are going to ruin one of the only good things left in this Country of ours. One of the last things I am proud of. They have sold us down the river for thirty pieces of silver.

I start with chapter 10 of 10, because the preceding chapters make reference to something critical contained right at the end of his recommendations:

Recommendation 115 – No more PNB, no more PAT, an independent police officer pay review body to be set up by 2014

Recommendation 116 – Terms of reference for the new pay body specified by Winsor in chapter 10 of Winsor 2.

What this means is that an outside body will have control over our pay and conditions. It doesn’t take a genius to work out whose side they’ll be on – especially as Mr Winsor himself has written their terms of reference. We will, no doubt, have little or no recourse to challenge or influence what they decide, the Federation will be even more sidelined than they already are, and they will do whatever they want with us. This is like putting me in sole charge of deciding how many benefits and council houses DSS claimants receive, or a railway regulator in charge of police refor…oh.

Sounds awful just on its own doesn’t it. If we go back to the beginning of his report it gets worse.

Recommendation 1 – the terms and conditions of officers and staff should remain separate for the foreseeable future.

Recommendation 2 – The new police pay review body (chapter 10 above) should undertake periodic reviews of the police workforce…including the feasibility of attaining a greater degree of harmonisation of the terms and conditions of police officers and police staff. Where it is feasible, it should be done.

What these two mean is they want to make officers and staff the same. Hmmm, will the majority of staff be brought up to officers’ levels of remuneration or will we be dragged down? I wonder?! What this also means is that their plan in the long term has to be to make officers and staff so similar that the roles, terms and conditions of employment, and ultimately the people employed, are interchangeable. Why else would they want to ‘harmonise’ them? Coupled with the relatively recent changes to legislation such as the ability to make civilian staff as well as private sector employees ‘designated’ or ‘authorised’ to administer certain powers or functions (DDOs, PCSOs, Local Authority Wardens etc) it is clear where this is headed. Also the fact that it is periodic means that this will never go away, they will be doing it again and again and again, chipping away, little by little, until it’s all gone.

Now onto direct entry, and another piece of the jigsaw:

Recommendation 8 – from August 2013 there should be a direct entry Inspector Scheme. Around half the scheme should be candidates from outside the Police.

In tandem with recommendation 2 I think that what this will lead to is an underclass of minimum wage slaves; existing low ranking officers, police staff, and private sector employees, doing the leg work, and an ‘officer class’ sat above them, managing. A bit like the way the Army is divided with regular soldiers and the officers, but much much worse, the ‘officers’ not getting stuck in, and it certainly won’t work like it appears to in the Army. It is another way of differentiating the role at the coal face currently carried out by constables and sergeants and the management carried out by inspectors and above, so, eventually, there is a two tier system with, ultimately, G4S or whoever carrying out the constable role.

This is very dangerous. Police ‘officers’ will end up being the tier above, supervising police staff or G4S (or ‘harmonised’ constables) who will be carrying out the role of constable as we know it now, only they won’t be constables, they’ll be private employees on fixed term contracts earning minimum wage or thereabouts.

Onto the next few pieces:

Recommendation 16 – Police officers should be able to be seconded to organisations outside policing for up to 5 years.

Why would they want to do this? Send us to G4S to train up the wage slaves who are going to take our jobs? Send us to the new NCA (National Crime Agency) because they are going to take functions away from the police, give them to NCA, but will still need us to do them (E-Crime, Terrorism etc?) Why is it up to 5 years? Could that be the length of our contracts in the future? Don’t forget, the director of SOCA already has the ability to confer different powers on different members of staff as he sees fit (today you have the powers of a customs officer, tomorrow an immigration officer, etc)

When you read some of the following recommendations the intent becomes clearer:

Recommendation 17 – Regs should be amended to provide for the return to the police service of officers at the rank they last held. There should be no right of return and there must be a suitable vacancy. Return after 5 years should not be allowed other than in exceptional circumstances.

So if you are shipped out to train G4S, or seconded to the new NCA or wherever, you might not have a job to return to?

Or is it so that if they can make us redundant, one year they can sack us because money’s tight, but two years later they can re-employ us when there’s a larger budget?

On its own this recommendation doesn’t make a lot of sense. But when you consider Winsor wants to be able to make us redundant, it gives them a quick and easy way to re-employ us. And let’s face it; many of us would have to return for financial reasons even if we didn’t want to.

Now a few really idiotic ideas, not obviously to do with the master plan, but they will certainly help it by diluting the culture of working your way up from the bottom in the police:

Recommendation 19 – Direct entry at superintendent level, from Sept 2013. (The scheme should be 15 months long, with 18 weeks of training at a ‘police college’!)

Recommendation 20 – There should be a target that 20% of superintendents are direct entrants within ten years.

I don’t think I even need to make a comment about the stupidity, and inevitable result, of those two do I?!

Recommendation 23 & 24 – People who have been police chiefs outside the UK can become chief constables in the UK

We know Cameron et al love Bill Bratton, but I cannot think of any foreign country from which you’d want to have a police chief that has a legal system, society, culture, and manner of policing anything like ours – New Zealand maybe, at a push? This is a disaster waiting to happen. Our idea of ‘Zero Tolerance’ is a bit different from America’s!

Recommendation 30 – ‘Rank skipping’ should be used so that officers don’t have to serve at each rank prior to promotion.

So you’ve never been a custody officer, but you can be the PACE inspector? When will these people realise you can’t learn it all from a book. Yet another way to dilute the culture within the police and remove the emphasis on relevant knowledge and experience.

This recommendation typifies the philosophy of Winsor’s reports as a whole – that police officers should be exercising their powers, if they don’t they shouldn’t be police officers or the role they do should be civilianised. So the point I will make here is this; experience you gain using your powers stands you in good stead for roles that require the experience of a constable, but not the powers. This is what Winsor doesn’t understand (or deliberately ignores). He sees it in black and white – either you use the powers of a constable or you don’t. If you do it’s the front line, if you don’t then the role should be civilianised. He obviously thinks the same way about management, if an inspector never nicks anyone, why do they need to have the power of arrest, or any experience of having ever done it? Sadly, this is a very naïve, and also completely incorrect, way of looking at it. I suggest that to carry out many roles that don’t require the use of a constable’s powers (including supervision of people using those powers for God’s sake!), you need to have had the experience of using them to do them effectively, or in some cases at all (source handlers, people involved in delivering covert methods, intelligence, training, policy & strategy, etc.)

Onto the next chapter – Fitness tests:

Recommendation 33 – Fitness test should be introduced in 2013, from 2014 if you fail it three times you get stuck on.

Recommendation 34 – The fitness test should be equivalent to the one they have in Northern Ireland.

I don’t have a big problem with these to be honest, they’ll be easy anyway won’t they?! The bleep test is level 5.4 at the moment isn’t it?! The problem with them comes when coupled with other recommendations about unsatisfactory staff, and illness/injury. Instead of having these to increase fitness amongst police, I believe these are recommended so they can be used as workforce management tool (as will become apparent if you continue reading)

Recommendation 38 & 39 – Changes to ‘restricted duties’. In short Winsor wants us to lose pay if we can’t do a role which requires us to exercise the powers of a constable after a year. If after 2 years you still can’t you get medically retired (only if you are permanently disabled), or and this will be most cases; you will be forced to resign and become police staff (only if a suitable job is available at the time).

So the fitness test becomes a bit clearer now doesn’t it, can’t do the fitness test because you got run over, or beaten up, or shot in the face? First have a pay cut, then get thrown out on your arse. Easy. No difficult mitigating circumstances to contend with, no judging cases on their own merit. Fail. Out. But if there’s a job available you could be very lucky and end up on 12 grand a year as the garage hand or property store guy. Obviously, this will lead to Officers being less likely to take risks incase they are injured. I’m not going to go jumping over fences after baddies or dive into a pub fight if I think I’m going to lose my job if I get seriously injured, am I? Remember, this is very different from being medically retired, which he only recommends if you are ‘permanently disabled’.

Recommendation 43 – The big one about pensions. Mr Winsor agrees with Lord Hutton that the normal pension age should be set at 60. This means, for me personally, I’ll have to work a little over another decade. That’s more than a third of my original service. What he doesn’t cover is what that pension will be. But you can almost guarantee it won’t be the one I signed up for (nor the one officers who joined after 2005 signed up for either).

This creates another dilemma. I think we can all agree that it’s totally unrealistic to expect a 60yo to chase 15yo gangsters with knives and handguns around a council estate. So what will we all be doing when we’re in our late 50s? Working in the back office, command and control, training; doing jobs which don’t require us to exercise our powers? But hold on, Mr Winsor says all of us should be doing jobs where we exercise our powers, all other jobs should be civilianised, and if police do them we should get paid less by not progressing up the pay scale (recommendations regarding this further on). So what are we going to do with a generation of elderly officers? Cut their pay because they can’t do what Mr Winsor says is the ‘front line’? Force them to become civilian staff? Ignore the problem and send them out to deal with people 40 years younger?! Or maybe it won’t matter because by then we’ll be on fixed term contracts, compulsory redundancy will be available (the next two recommendations) and they’ll be able to get rid of us before our pensionable service is up anyway?

Recommendation 46 & 47 deal with ‘severance’ or redundancy as normal people call it. Basically we should be able to be made redundant before reaching full pensionable service, and our redundancy package should be the same as the 2010 Civil Service Compensation Scheme. Which, I believe, is a months pay for every year you’ve been in the job – up to 12 years. So, a maximum of 1 years pay. This is certainly part of the master plan to remove the office of constable, ties in with the earlier recommendations about reemployment within five years, and, when considered with recommendations 79 & 82, will be used as a blunt workforce management tool.

Recommendation 50 – a little sweetener for chief constables and DCCs. Compensation payments for CCs and DCCs whose fixed term appointments are not renewed should be ‘fair and more generous’ than the compensation available to officers who leave the police through compulsory redundancy. Why? They earn a lot more than us in the first place don’t they? If you’re on a hundred grand a year what do you need a ‘more generous’ package for?

Recommendations 53 – 58 cover pay scales and the like. Basically they are going to be shortened, and the initial salary will be less. Why would they do that? I think it’s so once we are all much closer together in terms of pay it will be easier for them to remove the scales completely and move over totally to performance or role related pay.

Recommendation 71 – This is Tom Winsor telling us what our ‘X’ factor is worth. You know, how we’re special because of the office we hold and the job we do. He says it equates to 8% of a constable’s basic pay. I don’t know about you, but I’d rather my ‘X’ factor was worth being looked after if I was injured, rewarded properly for the danger, stress, and restrictions I face, a decent pension, the upholding of bargains made to us previously, and a little bit of respect from the sections of society that are insulated, in part because of us, from the real world.

Recommendation 72 – The 8% figure described above should be reviewed every 5 years by the new police pay review body. No prizes for guessing what that means.

Recommendation 73 – Regional pay. The new police pay review body should review the level and scope of regional allowances for police officers. I do agree that an officer living and working in London should be paid more than one who lives and works somewhere where the cost of living is considerably less. However, Winsor goes onto to say that the national rate of basic pay should only be raised if justified by recruitment and retention problems, and local (regional) allowances should be used more often instead. So, if lots of people want to join the police, the pay will be kept low. It’s not about regional pay at all, it’s about paying us less, but dressing it up as something different.

Recommendations 79 & 82 – These are really bad. Winsor thinks that 10% of the Police should be classified as unsatisfactory, regardless of what the real figure is – 0.3%, 5%, 7%, 15%, 30% – it doesn’t matter, it has to be 10%. The least effective 10% should be dealt with by considering (and therefore using) unsatisfactory performance procedures. Ultimately, this could lead to dismissal. This includes whether you pass the fitness test or not. So, if you are injured or on restricted duties for another reason, mental health for example, you are going to be included in the least effective 10%. And if we have compulsory redundancy, where do you think the axe will fall? It doesn’t matter if you are, in fact, competent and completely satisfactory, if you are in the bottom 10% you aren’t. How can someone proscribe a number to the amount of people that have to be unsatisfactory? Unbelievable. It’d be like having targets for the amount of people stop and searched, regardless of lawful authori…oh.

Recommendation 84 – Pay progression should be linked to a satisfactory annual appraisal. If you don’t get a good PDR, you don’t go up a pay scale. This sounds quite sensible to me in theory, but think of it in practice. Firstly, when has the PDR been anything but a paper exercise? And secondly, it is massively open to abuse, not only subjectively if your supervisor doesn’t like you, but what if budgets are tight? Do you think the order might come down from on high that only a certain % can be increased? People will dismiss this as conspiracy theorism and cynicism, but anyone that’s been through the trainee detective process or promotion knows – if a certain BOCU has x amount of vacancies, and the management want to keep all their staff who have applied because of pressures on resources locally, only x amount of applicants might pass the local process before being recommended to the central panel, the others will fail and have to remain as PCs. Winsor’s recommendations will make this type of abuse easier.

Recommendation 94 – A yearly allowance for having a special skill, such as being a detective or carrying a gun, but only when you are in a role that qualifies for it. So if you are a detective but have chosen to impart your knowledge and experience to others by becoming a trainer, because you are not investigating anything, you won’t get it. This was in Winsor 1 wasn’t it? Yes and it was £1200 quid then. Now it’s £600. And only until 2016 at the latest, when it will be replaced by recommendations 95 – 99 below.

Recommendation 95 96 97 98 & 99 – this is what will replace 94 above. These are very important. Firstly, there’s a ‘Foundation skills threshold’ so instead of finishing your probation and that’s it – you’re a copper – at point 4 of the constable’s pay scale we’d all have to take a test. If you fail you don’t go up the pay scale. You will have to retake this test every 5 years. Anyone in a specialist post will know that if you only do specialist work it is impossible to retain anything but a basic working knowledge of the rest of it. If you fail the test you should be put through the unsatisfactory performance procedure. So are they going to increase our training days or give us time to study for these tests? Fat chance! At the final pay point a ‘Specialist skills threshold’ should be introduced, if you pass this then you progress to the final pay point. This should be re-taken every three years, if you fail, you go back down a pay point. The ‘Specialist skills threshold’ should only apply to those roles that require the warranted powers or expertise of a police officer. So if you do a role that doesn’t qualify, you can never reach the highest pay point. The most obvious problem with this is that police have to fufill any number of different roles, often not at their own choosing. What if I am compulsory transferred to a role that doesn’t attract the allowance, for example if conditions are so bad in the command and control room civilians leave, don’t want to work there, go sick or on strike, or whatever, and police have to be drafted in to cover them for a protracted period of time? Exactly what I am told is happening at the Met’s command and control centres now in fact. I would be out of pocket through no fault of my own. This is a cycnical attempt to cut pay and increase civilianisation. I agree that standards need to, and should be, improved. This is not the way to do it.

Recommendations 101 & 102 – A public order allowance of £600 should be paid yearly to officers who do more than six public order events a year. This should be reviewed by the police pay review body every five years. So they’ll get rid of that too, when they decide it’s too costly. £600 equates to £50 a month; that’s before tax, and you can bet it’ll be non-pensionable too. So in the face of all the other changes it’s bugger all. It will also give forces with a large number of public order officers or a small number of public order events the ability to carry out workforce planning to avoid, wherever possible, paying the allowance.

Recommendations 103 & 104 – Protection officers should have their overtime bought out. Self explanatory.

Recommendation 105 – the independent police pay review body should consider buying out sergeants overtime in 2017.

So those of us who are sergeants in the Met or other urban areas with a high crime rate, or those in specialist posts (Specialist crime and terrorism mainly) where the work is often at short notice, protracted, and very disruptive to our personal lives will lose out, but those who sit somewhere quiet or easy with regular hours will benefit with a nice little bonus. And Mr Winsor claims our current pay and conditions are divisive! They did it to inspectors, they’re going to do it to sergeants, and eventually they’ll do it to constables too.

Recommendation 110 – this states that unsocial hours (2000hrs – 0600hrs) should be ‘harmonised’ between officers and staff. Another little thing that on its own sounds not too dangerous, but as part of the big picture is another little attempt to make us the same.

Recommendations 112 & 113 – These state that an ‘on call’ allowance should be introduced (it’s the same as the recommendation that was in Winsor 1). In theory this is a good idea, but sadly Winsor’s suggestion is not very good. As per Winsor 1 it’s a measly £15 a day AFTER 12 days on call. £15 won’t even buy a round of coffees for my team in Starbucks, and the first 12 times are done for free. Now, how many people do you think will be qualifying for that? Not very many is my guess. Any on call function will be shared out between officers by management to minimise the cost implications. That’s pretty obvious, isn’t it? 113 states that this allowance should be reviewed by the independent police pay review body at their first 3 year review, so if it’s costing too much they’ll get rid of it, won’t they?

So there we have it. Tom Winsor wants all the benefits of having us as private employees without the drawbacks (industrial rights). The removal of our ability to influence our pay and conditions, and them regularly reviewed and ‘harmonised’ with police staff. He wants to be able to force you to resign if you get injured and can’t do what he considers to be a ‘front line’ role (ie exercising the powers of our office), or lose pay if you do a job he thinks isn’t worthy of an officer. He thinks it’s a good idea to have people with no knowledge or experience of policing telling you what to do, after a very small amount of training (2 years to complete probation, 2 years to complete the detective training scheme, yet just 15 months with 18 weeks in the classroom to be a direct entry Superintendent?!). And he wants to be able to hire and fire us as he pleases, depending on the financial climate at any given moment.

However, he makes it clear we are still a ‘special case’ and as crown servants shouldn’t have any ability to challenge these moronic and dangerous ideas, like, for example, with the right to strike. He says that my ‘X factor’ for holding the office of constable and all the things that come with it is 8% of my pay. So that’s less than 4 grand a year; for putting other lives before my own, for never being off duty, for being forced to work whenever and wherever someone tells me to, for doing dangerous things, for helping people, and for making sacrifices every day of my life.

When you look at the recommendations together, rather than separately, it is clear, in my mind anyway, that what this really is, is the beginning of the end. This will over time erode the office of constable to such a degree that within five, ten, or maybe twenty years G4S will be doing the majority of what we do now, and policing will be in such a state the public will welcome them with open arms.

I think he’s written up the death of the office of constable. Coupled with the erosion that has already taken place and the creeping expansion of the private sector into policing, particularly in the wake of 20% cuts, I don’t think there’ll be warranted constables, crown servants, in the years to come, and for that I am very, very sad.

I also think he’s going to ruin my financial future and the life plan I had is in tatters. And for that I am very angry.

What do you think?

this article is intended to summarise the report and provide a balanced interpretation of it. It is not intended to cause disaffection (in my opinion the report does that on it’s own)

Advertisements
This entry was posted in God help us all. Bookmark the permalink.

161 Responses to What Winsor Means

  1. Abu Shafeel says:

    Very well put together. Hopefully someone in authority will study the implications as you have and not let this shower of shit happen..

  2. Stonecold says:

    Good post . The Fed really need to be on top of their game or we are all doomed. I have a theory that this govt were all infiltrated by the KGB/ FSB whilst at Uni as what other explanation can there be for what they are doing to the armed forces or Police?

    • Teresa Green says:

      What do you imagine the Fed can do? Or will do? All I hear is bluster, and all I anticipate is the same.

  3. Paul says:

    This is shocking, and a complete outrage. This is not what I signed up or 12 years ago. It’s about time the federation got their finger out, and in the words of the new head of the Met declared “Total War” against the goverment. Since we are going down this route I am also going to suggest that Google take over the running of the Police National Computer.

  4. chris says:

    Thanks for your work on this I actually have a grip of it now, what is the FED doing and when will this all happen.

  5. Lemonfresh says:

    A lot of effort has been put into this and so well done to the author……….whoever you are!
    It is so important that the reality of Winsor is made clear to all federation members. The police service is about to undergo a fundamental change that will, as the author so succincly put it, end the office of ‘constable’ as we know it. I personally do not want to be a part of the new ‘Winsor Police’ but I guess that is exactly what Winsor wants isn’t it? All the crusty expensive old gits like me will leave or be made reduntant, to be replaced by low paid security guards on 5 year contracts. I am prepared to fight as best I can to preserve what little left we have. I will vote ‘Yes’ in the federation ballot and will spread the reality of winsor to anyone who will listen. The fed MUST up their game and carry it’s whole membership with it. Time to fight dirty and hard. The office of constable is worth defending and it will be a fight to the end. As police officers we always make the system work through an honourable, if sometimes misplaced, sense of public service. If we roll over and let Winsor and this obscene joke of a government screw us, then we will have not only signed our own ‘death warrant’, but we will also have let down the public. For it is the public who will ultimately be the losers as British policing will no longer exist as we know it. DO NOT be apathetic. Get involved and defend YOUR jobs and defend YOUR police service. We have never been more vulnerable than we are now.

  6. Scarlet Pimple. says:

    Excellent
    Do us all a service.
    Copy up your post ‘What Winsor Means’ in it’s entirety and mail it with a covering letter to the office of The Prince of Wales, or better still to his mother. You never know one of them might get to read it. Failing that give me your permission and I will send it in for you. I would hate for so much thought and hard research to stay being preached to the converted alone.
    So much for not having a degree in ‘Golf Course Management’ or ‘Meeja Studies’
    My regards to you
    SP.

    • You are free to share it with whoever you want.

      • Scarlet Pimple. says:

        Thank you.
        Your posting without any of the added comments (Pages 1 to 7) has been sent to HRH Prince of Wales with a covering letter listing the difficulties the serving officer has to cope with due to poor management, poor working practices and unworkable systems.
        HRH is known for his habit of writing to Government Ministers when they upset him, so keep your fingers crossed, maybe he will write to ‘Maggie’MAY.
        Regards
        SP.

      • Showboat says:

        Thanks for this. It makes it a lot easier for my feeble police brain to understand when its put into plain English. Keep the updates coming as they are greatly appreciated.

  7. Mick Lee says:

    Have been out of the job for a year and this makes grim reading. This has been cobbled together by someone who has no idea of what the job entails. Shifts, cancelled rest days, shift changes, long hours and dealing with the dregs of society, stress to name but a few.
    My thoughts are with you. Remember the conservatives are the party of law and order………. MMMMMMMMMMM

    • Smully says:

      Remember Sheehy in the early 90’s…a certain David cameron was part of his team. Sheehy was never implemented; guess that now DC is PM he has the power to do what he wanted all those years ago. We made an enemy many moons ago.

  8. Destined for the scrap heap... says:

    Travelling in for an early turn one morning I was, like many police officers before me.. and sadly many after, knocked off my motorcycle (Drink Driver). This has left me with multiple injuries I will never fully recover from and has been a very testing time for my family and I.
    Imagine my joy when I learned of Mr Winsor’s second report and his ‘long term’ plans for making savings. It seems in Mr Winsor’s eyes as I am now not capable of performing ‘front line’ roles I should loose my job, after taking a £12000 pay cut! I fully accept if I can no longer run after the baddies or hold the line I should not earn as much as those that do… But I DO NOT accept that as I can not do those things I should loose £12000 followed by my job! I, like the author have served for 10 years as a police officer, some of that time as a ‘skilled’ police officer.. To hear that all that training should just be discarded is very very sad.
    Yes, there are many roles within the police that on the face of it perhaps could be performed by a civilian… But you could say this of most jobs in any market? The experience gained from doing the many things police officers do on a day to day basis is invaluable, it can be used to assist every other section of the police. You only have to look at control rooms.. Since they were largely civilianised, with no local knowledge, no legislative knowledge it has been much harder for all concerned. You might as well have the control room in India… That is most probably in the pipeline?
    As the author rightly points out, why would anyone put themselves in harms way knowing that there is nothing but a large pay cut and redundancy waiting for them? Maybe I am just being a bit naive.. Maybe the government.. lets be honest here, it’s them that briefed Mr Winsor.. Maybe they really don’t give a rats ass about this once great country… Perhaps that is why ex commissioner Mr Condon is an MD of G4S… Perhaps this has been in the pipeline for many years… But if it really is all about politicians looking after themselves and making money at the expense of our country then why are we all putting up with it?
    I will be voting to strike, after all if we are to be treated as civilians then let us have their rights! I already know that it will get us absolutely nowhere though.. The fate of this once great force has been sealed. Metropolitan Police… RIP 1829 – 2012.

    • fred says:

      I can sympathise with your accident as I have had restricted posts on medical grounds after my accident. I also disagree that an officer should be penalised in anyway if injured in the line of duty. However if you did this outside of work and it prohibited you from carrying out your job effectively, no employer would keep you and though I don’t like it, can see why they would penalise you.

      • It used to be that an hour either side of work, ie going to and from work, was classified as being on duty for this kind of thing. Sounds reasonable to me given that work was the reason you were where you were when the accident happened, and that house prices in the south east are such that most officers’ commutes will be around this time (in London anyway).

        They changed this to half an hour.

        What do you think they’ll do next?

        Chip, chip, slowly away…

        • fred says:

          This Government is ruining far too much, I imagine alot of true blues are even kicking themselves for voting.

          • Northernspecial says:

            I am one of those “true blues” who feels terrible about the way I voted. People moan about what Maggie Thatcher did to the UK. However, no-one has done as much damage to the UK as this government has, and will continue to do. What is more, we have no right to say we live in a true democracy. The Unions and the Federation have no power whatsoever, because the Goverment will do exactly what they want, when they want. The only thing that might change their minds – and I personally am not advocating this for a second, because it would ruin so many more lives – is civil war.

            I am not a regular (paid) officer, but intend to become one soon in spite of everything. However, I am very worried that the WInsor report will make the Police go the way of other branches of the Home Office, where overtime is a thing of the past, staff are paid a standard rate for the hours they work and not a penny more (regardless of whether those hours are on Monday 16th July, or Christmas Day), and the dreaded “building blocks” mean that your salary could be £5k less next year for doing the same job but under slightly different terms/shifts.

            At least the Police Service gives you challenge and personal reward on a virtually daily basis, and the option to be proactive and actually do your job (hindered only by the CPS and a few other un-necessaries) still exists. Other roles have had all interest and job satisfaction removed… we live in troubled times, among a population shared between an unhappy workforce and an overpaid non-working force. How about paying those who enforce the law and those who keep everyone else safe, be it in country or elsewhere, and stopping paying our fifth generation job-“seekers” to live the life of Riley… but that might breach the HRA or upset someone, and as British people we dare not do that!

      • penseiveat says:

        While in the process of arresting some yob who felt it was his right to throw bricks through windows, I was assaulted by a number of his friends who felt the same way he did and were upset that some bloke in a black uniform and a silly hat should stop him.
        Spinal injuries can play havoc with one’s ability to continue front line duties, as well as walk the Brecon Beacons or Dartmoor in off-duty time.The result was a medical retirement with a pension (ish). Under Winsor, I would first have my salary reduced by a shedload and then kicked out as not being able to fulfill my duties or meet the qualifying times of the PSNI fitness tests (the fact that I don’t have 3 ‘A’ level GCEs would probably also be a contributory factor). I would not be able to pay my mortgage, would lose my home, my wife would have to go on the game to pay for the space under the arches where we could sleep and my children would have to agree to be the spanking playthings of the current Ministers in Government (knowledge of judo not necessary but may be taught). However, to look on the bright side, Winsor will receive his Lordship,
        the 17,000 people who resign from the Police in protest will be sent on job training schemes in North Korea, A Minister for G4S will be installed in Parliament and Ken Clarke will show everyone his new Hush Puppies. So that’s all right then. God bless you every one!
        Plodnomore

  9. angel rangel says:

    Let’s take the power back..all police officers switch off mobile phones before during and after the Olympics.

    • angel rangel says:

      Just highlighting another thing that is taken for granted…not at all suggesting anyone should actually do that.

  10. Abu Shafeel says:

    It has been suggested to me that as a 2 fingers to the government, we stage a silent protest during the upcoming Corporate Games. Every officer to switch off his / her mobile phone in the lead up and during the games. There’ll then be bugger all police on duty if last minute aid is required. (I’ll be getting a secret pay as you go for family etc)

    • Please make sure when you make comments like this you make it clear you are being witty and aren’t actually inciting any coordinated disobedience or anything that could get you into trouble, I wouldn’t want people to get the wrong end of the stick about a ‘joke’

      • Abu Shafeel says:

        Just to clarify, the above comment is obviously Tongue in Cheek, I couldn’t live without my phone! Still…

      • Michael Manette says:

        Guess what? I’ve been chosen to go to the Olympics! Mugs out of the hat, sorry names; Yeah, I know why me? Well it must be because in 16 years of loyal service, Public Order trained for all that time and USED in more ways than one I can tell you, that I have not actually been lucky enough to get any other out force over time Or is it because the usual money grabbers realised that they will not be making killing, like they have done for years under the Hertfordshire agreement? I will now only be able to claim £50 per night on top of my normal day rate, but I can only claim this, if I will be living in conditions which fall far below those of the civilians of Afghanistan? I hope the Red Cross will be there to feed and look after our Human Rights!!!

        As I under stand it. I could be lucky enough to be put up in a minus five star tent in tent city. As this will have a stand pipe connected to the local sewer, then I will not be entitled to claim, as this would be classed as running water. I’m not sure what I’m going to do about food whilst there, as I’m confused as to who’s feeding me. Well if it’s me then I’m going to have to starve. The last time I tried to put a claim in for food I was threatened with an investigation by PSD and that was for Big Mac. Oh, those were the days when we were paid enough to be able to afford to eat out. Thank God the fed came to my rescue, no, honest they did.

        Guess I will be coming down with something before I go. No way on the planet will I be there for that pittance. They can shove the Olympic flame up David Cameron’s A**E. I hope lots of other officers have the same idea.

        I’m only joking,… Don’t want to spread descent amongst the ranks, yeah right lol.

        How’s my spelling TOM, you little gi**er weasel…Tell: 999 or call your mates at ACPO

  11. As a retired police officer I’m with you but I have a question – this is a post that opens with a statement that includes “I am not illiterate, nor am I stupid”. So is the misspelling of ‘Affairs’ in the title graphic intentional?

  12. Foxtrot Oscar says:

    Absolutely brilliant, everyone should read this

  13. 28/30 says:

    Good work on this report. The job is FUBAR if this is enacted.

  14. Beatbobby says:

    Look guys.all you need to do when the job calls you back in to work is tell them you weren’t expecting to be called in for duty and you’ve had a few glasses of wine and therefore unfit. Regulations discuss this specifically…..assuming of course you’ve had a few glasses of wine and not lying cos that would be wrong (wink wink)

  15. Pete says:

    The clearest digest I have seen of the report. Well put together and clearly written. For the record I am angry about it too. Whilst searching a putrid dead body the other day I suddenly thought that we are not the overpaid mollycoddled spoilt brats that Winsor seems to think we are. I joined because I wanted excitement, job satisfaction and to be part of making things a bit better. But I planned my life around what the terms and conditions were when I joined, mainly because I was told they would be ‘set in stone’ (the words of the chief inspector at training school). Also for the record, I have no A levels yet do a perfectly good job; shocking…

  16. Sandra carpenter says:

    Disgusted with the inference on what Winsor thinks of me and everyone of us in this job. I hope the Federation are taking this on board and making a stand.

    • You just know they’ll roll over though dontcha

      • Which is why as many people as possible need to understand the full impact – its not just our wallets that are in danger. There are over 100k of us. Together we must stand and a defence we must make. Even if we fail at least we will be able to look ourselves in the mirror and say ‘we tried’

  17. Nathan McLean says:

    Well done to the author of this report – you have put it into straight forward, plain, easy-to-understand English, as opposed to the cost-cutting, politically motivated dribble written by Winsor.

    From reading it, far too many of these recommendations are linked, with the ultimate aim of removing the office of constable.

    I would urge anybody and everybody to sign the petitions which are going around which oppose Winsor’s recommendations!

    If these get the go-ahead, they will not only have serious implications for us as cops, but also the communties that we serve!

  18. Flic says:

    I’m horrified and upset about this. As someone in their early forties with a large mortgage to pay on my own I do not need the added stress of worrying about getting injured to such an extent that I end up losing my job!! It is difficult enough to get a job when you are young at the moment but even more difficult when you are that bit older. The worry about how I am going to pay my mortgage and whether or not I have any job security is something that is terrifying me and I’m sure many other officers. These were not the terms and conditions I or anyone else signed up to. I am most definitely prepared to fight against this, I love my job and Winsor and this Government are doing their utmost to destroy it, I cannot just sit back and let them do that.

  19. Secret policeman says:

    Completely agree… Conservatives, make the rich richer… I too will have to work an extra 8 years.. This is not what I signed up for! I am a prou police officer and this report leaves a lasting taste of anger in my mouth. I for one realised that the federation are absolutely pointless. Too little too late springs to mind, and as such I withdrew my subscriptions! (at least it saves me £20 a month) for what is a very expensive diary, because lets face it they did more for the dispute over the yearly pay rise!!

  20. PC P.C says:

    What exactly am I getting from paying my
    Fed subs? I have emailed my rep twice this year about relatively minor issues-I’ve still heard nothing and now I lose almost all the benefits I had because some twit (better not be too rude) who has never had to stand toe to toe with hordes of societies dregs wants dinner with Cameron.
    What would happen if we cut the benefits sustem so deeply, quickly and without debate…Well picture Croydon, August 2011 on a nationwide scale.
    Why is it this government looks after those who have put sod all into society? I’ve had private sector jobs before this, I’ve always paid my taxes, I have never claimed a benefit, I bought my own house and I do my best to avoid using the NHS…and i get shafted.
    My Winsor, Mr Cameron and (*spits*) Ms May – come and do a month in out shoes. If you stand by these changes after that I will welcome them with open arms…

  21. Darren says:

    Very well written. I am one of the many officers that took the leap of faith and joined the Western Australia Police. Reading these idiotic proposals makes me glad of the move. I have missed the Met at times but now it appears to be dead and buried. RIP. I hope this works out in the end for you all, somehow.

  22. Rustyh says:

    Great Read! I came to the same conclusions!
    It is a sad day and we’ll all look back in 25 years and say “WE TOLD YOU SO” … but i wont be retired just then!
    I’m getting out of this country … one way or another! I love my job, love being a police officer .. but its getting harder each year .. this will be the straw that breaks the camals back!

  23. David McNalus says:

    This is absolutely spot on! BRILLIANT

  24. Very well put out, many years ago in the south African police, we weren’t allowed to strike either, so lots of officers went on a go slow and lots all booked off sick on the same day, they called it “Blue Flu”, we need the right to strike, I feel we will only be missed when we are no longer there.

  25. Lost faith long ago says:

    I was a serving officer for 10 years, knew this was coming so got myself qualified for new things (whilst still working) and got the hell out!
    The Tories only want to look after their own, the rich and those with formal qualifications.

    You may not be able to strike but you do all have the right to go sick, don’t forget that 🙂 would be a terrible shame if a mass virus knocked out all the police officers over the Olympic period!

    On the plus side when I have my phd (which should be in a couple of years) I intend on applying for the superintendent level direct entry and if successful will infiltrate and take these idiots down from the inside!

  26. David says:

    I think people need to start writing to their MPs to let them know how disgusted we are and that we won’t stand for it. With the authors permission, I’ll be sending extracts of this to my local MP with a covering letter, it might not get anywhere but at least I’m doing something. I’d urge others to do the same.

    • Please do, we have to make them aware of the strength of feeling on this matter, and make sure as many people as possible realise what this means. They might not appreciate what they had until its gone, but we must at least try.

  27. Wayne Baker says:

    That is an excellent critique of the Winsor impact which deftly sidesteps the government spin. Well done

  28. rich says:

    I join the job a fresh faced 21 year old whilst my friends were still larking about at uni or clubbing every weekend. whilst they still enjoyed young, free & single life i knuckled down hard & joined the job for a secure life and retirement. now my friends who larked about all earn 60k+ for jobs that you don’t have to be an expert in while i take home the going pc rate for the wealth of knowledge and responsibility i have to retain. now reading this report all the talk about windsor has been made clear. ive clearly made a mistake, unfortunately you cant turn back time. it is time for the fed to put their gloves on, grow a pair and fight for what is right.

  29. Concerned Civi says:

    I was pointed to this document by a friend. Thank you for clarifying it. Just so you know which direction my thoughts are coming from, I am in no way related to a employment in the police service as a constable or civilian past or present.

    I am horrified by what I have read here. Us Joe public, hear these reports banded about on the news but have no real concept of what they entail or how they affect you guys serving. I have always been proud of Police officers conducting their duties as I believe most law abiding citizens are, and 99% of us wouldnt do your job yet are so glad you guys do.

    So its time us Joe Public gave you guys a hand, I for one will be sharing this with everyone I can and kicking my useless MP into action (I know this probably wont help, but they have to at least reply, this seems ineffective now that I consider it) But it is all I can do.

    It chills me to the bone to consider that the office of constable is being so badly eroded (although I do agree with fitness tests – there are a few fatties rocking round the streets – but failure should have another outcome…. )

    Reading through the document above with the explanations provided, I am the only one hearing it scream constructive dismissal? Now that will be a huge legal bill when one after another sacked officers begin lawsuits – after all there are plenty of the no win no fee sharks out there.

    I have had a horrendous thought of civi’s dealing with the public disorder that occurred last year, and to be honest it makes me sick and angry as a UK tax payer. I would pay higher taxes (maybe cut the money grabbing local Councillors take and reassign, if it meant more guys on the beat and the forces back to what they used to be.

    As to sending a letter to Prince of Wales I’m sure he would notice when his protection officers are no longer there. It will just be too late.

    I will begin sharing this on social. Its the most I can do, I dont jump on bandwagons, but if you guys did march (I dont even know if you can/allowed) I for one would march with you. Its disgusting!!

    Who is Winsor anyway? The man who sorted out the railways….. really, I assume he hasnt travelled by train recently!! Its about as constructive as getting a Bingo caller in to shake up the Royal household….. Yet they never provide proof of entitlement to sit and make these recommendations.

    My apologies that was a bit of a disjointed rant but I am still shocked by what I have read here.

    Concerned Civi

    • lemonfresh says:

      Thanks for your support CC. Spread the message as widely as you can. This is not only about our pay and conditions, It is about the proposed wholesale dismantling of the police service as we know it.

      • tea_leaf says:

        Thankyou Concerned Civi – God knows we need all the support we can get. The more the merrier – especially non-police.

        • Concerned Civi says:

          Just been posted details of the march on 10th May, I and a few supportive law abiding friends will be there in support, leave booked 🙂
          Nearly appropriate ” All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing”.

  30. Very well written. All my colleagues should take time to read this. It chills me to the bone.

  31. Ian Morse says:

    I am a retired officer (17 years in service) and retired military (22 years in service). Throughout my career(s) I have had cause to find politicians the most untrustworthy of occupations. It is too late for me to effect change in respect of the clear erosion of role and responsibilities of a constable but it is time for the Police Federation to directly challenge this nonsense. Unless someone with influence grows some (you know what) there will be nothing but anarchy in the UK. I have nothing but sympathy for my brothers (and sisters) currently serving.

  32. KonstableKev says:

    thanks for the clear understanding, as a Fed rep at least someone has explained it all to me.

  33. Emily Jones says:

    Very powerful insight. I am distraught over these reccommendation as like you, I had life plans that have now been blown apart.
    We do not have a right to strike but that does not mean we are without a voice. The big question now is: How do we stand together and ensure our unhappiness is heard?
    How can we ensure the Government know this is shocking enough for even the most keen officer to question their ‘tactics’ upon arriving to an incident? Will they willingly engage in dangerous car/foot chases with armed victims, as if they get shot or stabbed, who is going to look after them?
    The Federation should be ashamed of themselves. They have not fought hard enough for us and they are the ones that have sold us down the river! Think what you will about the Unions but they have backed their workers and managed to secure their futures and pay.
    See you all in the Job Centre….

  34. janice says:

    What a Stupid Pathetic Blind Cretin this man is ! Where is his little idyllic ivory tower ? Does he see this country as some fairy tale where the goodies will handle the baddies ? Does he not see that we dont need to ruin the life of a bobby but we need to take care of them because one day when he has pushed them all out we will live in anarchy !

  35. Sergeant Mad Dog says:

    I’m a sergeant with twenty years service. I now suffer with mental health issues and would probably be classed as permanently disabled. I think it’s probably time to get out while I’m still young enough to set up my own business or find another skill.
    This is the end for British policing. The nation that gave the world the model of modern policing is about to give it all up because of this government’s obsession with privatisation and ‘business models’.
    The British public and way of life are being sold down the river by the chinless apparachiks of government, who have no experience of life outside of politics – people who went straight from a PPE at Oxford, into being a party researcher.
    Cameron seems to be hell bent on making his party completely unelectable, by alienating all the people who would normally be (small ‘c’) conservative, while trying to win over every minority going, and cowtowing to his rich cronies.

  36. steviee says:

    A fantastically written piece on these outrageous proposals. It sums up all parts nicely and shows them for the ill thought out political ideology that they are – a mix of clueless Winsors dreams and the rest just a cut and paste job on sheehy’s equally shite inquiry.

  37. Andy says:

    Fair play to the author who wrote this brilliant article after a nightshift. Robert peel will be turning in his grave. I can’t add anything that has not already been covered, apart from this. I feel we have turned right up an alley to reach a dead end, and the walls have crumbled behind us leaving me nowhere to turn and that I must remain here until someone rescues me. Who will this be?
    P.s if there has ever been a time for us ALL to stick together then this it. However we all know someone who will work the O/t when some refuse. God help us.

    • Sector Inspector says:

      Tom Windsor’s ivory tower is in the Passport Office building, by Victoria Station.

    • pullingmyhairout says:

      Sticking together is the key. But unfortunatley you are right, there is always someone willing to break ranks for their own benefit.
      I laughed earlier when I read further up the replies when Abu Shafeel suggests turning off phones during Olympics only to back down when challenged by someone with a few letters after his name.
      It is only when we’re not here when we will be truly missed. I agree with working to rule but I dont think it will be enough, as it only effects things at a local level which does not draw National attention.
      Very scarey times ahead. It would be interesting to see how civilain “police officers” cope when in times of National crisis such as the recent riots, but to wait for that would be too late.
      The “baddies” laugh in the face of the system now, with total dis-regard for authority, so imagine what it would be like if Windsor plays out.
      I’ve got to add that private “police officer” on minimal wage, no pension to protect and crucially no allegence to “the oath” would be susceptible to bribery and on a larger scale full blown corruption.
      I was pleased to see civilians reading and commenting on this page and I think that is key….hundred thousand police officers might not make a difference but hundreds of thousands of like minded civilains might, so spread the word far and wide.

  38. Anna says:

    A brilliantly executed piece, crystallizing all my fears. I did stay on at school and uni before joining the police, and then did a teaching certificate and a PhD, so Winsor is demonstrably wrong in portraying us as uneducated thickos.

    Incidentally, I understand that to cause disaffection you have to encourage or make someone do something unlawful; I can’t see that switching your phone off would constitute this. There is no requirement in regs to be available to speak to work on Rest Days etc, it is their responsibility to ensure you get a message, not yours.

  39. Pete says:

    Nice one time for me to start looking for a job that will not attract people like May and Windsor, it will be nice to work for people who don’t stab you in the back.

  40. Cheesed Off says:

    Well that made for a pleasing read! What was that website I was going on again….. Oh yeah, Total Jobs.com! Bye bye constables, hello law Enforcement Operatives, or some other bling sounding title that means jack ****

  41. SMITH says:

    I served 18 years in the job and left because I was sick of exactly this kind of rubbish affecting my life every day. Trust me people, getting out is an amazing feeling – there are opportunities out there and I would urge you to grab at them with both hands.

    If you do choose to stay in the job, carry the following words with you everyday “the job needs you more than you need the job”. Trust me, remembering those words is empowering.

  42. Alison Walker says:

    Like the writer above, I left the Met in 2000. Having been branded a racist in the Bailey by my own Commissioner! Along with other changes and the crippling political correctness of the time, I didn’t think it could get any worse. My God, it has!!!
    Unfortunately, most police officers feel “trapped” into staying in the job for their pension. This has suited the government in the past as it has ensured a rolling programme of experience and skills.
    Newsflash! They have trashed your pay and conditions even further and are planning to pull the rug out from under all of your future plans for yourselves and your families. Can you honestly say that it is still worth it?
    By our very nature, we are extraordinary people with extraordinary personal traits, capabilities and skills. Trust me, there is life outside the job, and for me, outside the UK.
    Even overseas, I continue to be proud to have served, and praise the British Police on a daily basis.
    I was the 5th generation of my family to be a police officer. My forefathers would be turning in their graves.
    I cannot begin to comprehend why ANY politician would want to ring the death knell on an institution that has been a proud ambassador for Britain, and the envy of the world.

    May you keep yourselves safe.
    The “sensible majority” thank you for your service.
    Alison Walker

  43. BettyBoop says:

    This is scary stuff. I say this both as the wife of a serving Police Officer and as a British citizen. I seriously dread to think what the Police service will be like in 5 years if Winsor’s reforms are enacted. Sadly, I think that even if all the Federation’s members do vote for the right to strike Theresa May will just ignore them. She, and the rest of this unelected government, will never change the law to give police officers industrial rights. For some unknown reason they seem to have a real hatred of, and total lack of respect for, the Police. They have carried out a clever media campaign over the past 12 months or so to ensure that the vast majority of the public think that the police are overpaid, lazy and in need of radical reform. Unfortunately the public won’t realise how wrong this is until its too late. If my husband is able to retire in 3 years, as he hopes and if Winsor’s reforms don’t stop him, we will seriously consider emigrating as this country is rapidly going to hell in handcart.

  44. Pingback: Windsor Explained « Dysfunctionalcop's Blog

  45. Michael Raistrick says:

    A very good summary, you have obviously spent a lot of time studying the report. I completely agree with your conclusions, the office of constable will be a footnote in history if the gov take on board his recommendations and we the good old British bobby will be the laughing stock of the world. However is like to add a comment regarding the fitness test. Your points are very pertinent, but as you say will a 60 yr old be able to run after a 20yr old well no, because he probably failed the fitness test 2 or 3 years earlier and was made redundant. If you know what I mean.just another way of getting rid of us. I don’t understand how they can expect to introduce a fitness test and increase the age you retire to 60. After 30 yrs of rolling around scrapping with teenagers and the like, at 55 I think all this will eventually take its toll.

  46. Rubber Dinghy Rapids Bro. says:

    Superb article.
    I for one have written to my MP telling him to view this site to get an idea of the dissatisfaction of every police Officer in the Country. I also added that acceptence of Windsor’s Report would lead to the loss of Tory Votes by every Officer and officers family, which country-wide is quite a few.
    THREAT OF LOST VOTES=> action to regain them=> Rejection of Windsor.
    Simple really.

  47. Pingback: What May Means | I Must Have Left Myself Logged On

  48. JB says:

    Well written and entirely justified. I would offer you the outside view that you should look at the “scams” that were implimented and used on the Army. A pension that used to buy you a house that now wont buy you a shed as they had no obligation to keep the level up. The x-factor as an excuse for your lower wage because you should pay us for the excitement of your job. An external pay review body who raise your wages (just about) then take it back off you by raising your food and accomodation charges. Direct entry to higher authority instead of working your way through the ranks… The list goes on, but in Windsors reccomendations see the danger of all the shite that has reduced the British Army to it’s lowest ebb and weakest capability in 30 years.

    If I’d know they planned to change my CONTRACT without comeback you’re damn right I’d have done something else. However as my contract was with the Queen I doubt suing her is an option. Not that I would as I still kind of like her Maj.

    Good luck Bobbies you’re going to need it.

  49. The Judge says:

    As a retired police officer prehaps you should show a little more support, rather than trying to prove how well you can spell… Clearly a lot of time, effort and research has gone in to this report, it is increadabley well written and doesn’t need the likes of you (with your pension intact) discrediting it.

  50. Clive a concerned copper says:

    This is exactly the kind of stuff that needs to be made public so all the communities we serve actually realise what Winsor has planned for us, and how the quality of service provided to them WILL suffer and be COMPROMISED. All the communities we serve need to then lobby their MP’s to prevent him from completely ruining what is currently a very good service. Ultimately the Queen is our boss, we all swore that oath did we not ! Perhaps she would like to know what is in store for her beloved warranted officers ! ! ! There are calls for a Royal Commission into policing pay & conditions…….the sooner the better ! For everyone’s sake, police and public alike !

  51. Hadders says:

    I have forwarded this link to my MP along with my thoughts of the Winsor report and treatment of the police, not sure what good it will do but at least I feel that I am not just sitting doing nothing watching a 27 year career turn into something that I sadly no longer want to be in and I urge others to let their voices be heard as well, let others know what is happening.

  52. wed6e says:

    Beautifully written, I couldn’t agree more. The Government sadly will not and have not listened to anyone. Even the London riots were not the wake up call they needed. We are rapidly passing the time for action, we should “work to rule” now. Just a few hours would bring this country to its knees if every Officer deployed from their station and conducted a road check. Every single driver was stopped, queued up and their documents checked. Every single one without the correct documents was reported there and then as per the letter of the law. No discretion, we deal with each and every incident to the letter of the law and one incident at a time. No more bending policy to make the square peg fit in the round hole or rushing around chasing our tails trying to keep everyone happy and covering everthing. And absolutely no more emergency response, after the Bannister case and highlighted recently by R v Holden, our exemption has been deemed effectively worthless! If they want to pay us peanuts then they should get what they pay for.

  53. Nick says:

    They say that all that is required for evil to prosper is that good men stand in silence, I agree and I think that it is our duty to do what we can to protect both the Police and the public we serve from this man and his report. This is is quite literally a fight to the death. History will judge him very harshly and we should ensure that the nation does the same

  54. Frustrated Temp, Disgruntled Citizen says:

    I joined as a temp on a three month contract in a civi role. I shortly “celebrate” my third anniversary in the job. I have been prevented, in the main, from securing a permanent post due to vacancies being ring-fenced for re-deployees, where units are being merged and jobs cut and staff needing to be moved within the force due to the no redundancy policy. There are currently vacancies on my unit which are not being filled. We are over-worked and stressed to the limit. We work along-side PCs. We see what they have to deal with. We see the backroom functions of what they do “out there”. I’ve spent three years watching and listening and learning. I wouldn’t do their job for twice their money. I have felt guilt about applying for posts that have traditionally been filled by PCs (sometimes on restricted duties) and have felt anger about being offered those opportunities for significantly less pay, although I totally appreciate they’ve earnt their level of pay in front-line roles. The roles of which I speak do not absolutely require the skills and experience of PCs in order to be done most effectively although it certainly helps. These jobs are being done well in a lot of cases by civies without those experiences. I chose not to apply for these roles in the end, as the pay on offer as a civi for doing the same work would compensate me neither for the family-unfriendly shift pattern, nor the levels of stress I would encounter in the role itself. My respect for the office of constable has risen dramatically during my time in temporary post and I fear for the furture as described in this article, not as a potential civi employee with a vested interest in police work, but as a citizen of this once great country. I would stand shoulder to shoulder with my uniformed colleagues on this matter and will be posting this socially to help get the true message out there.
    With the greatest respect, and support for the constables,
    Frustrated temp, disgruntled citizen,

    Cazza.xx

  55. Teresa May Not! says:

    I find myself almost crying at the response from civil’s who have commented on this post. It is enlightening to realise it is not just us biased coppers who have views.

    It really does make me wonder what I have gotten myself into. My new pension scheme, which added 5 years more than my counterparts, is sounding more and more like a great deal than I ever thought before. This post has inspired me to write to my MP, something I have never done before and I only hope that I can express myself in such an articulate way.

    We won a great battle after the riots. We finally showed the public that policing by consent does not work. Yet the ground we thought we had gained was quickly pulled from under us, like a tabe cloth in a cheap trick. The public wanted us to police harder! What experience will a private force draw on when it happens next time? What civilian employee would risk his life or livelihood with no security when he is injured?

    I will no longer be voting conservative…. will be green or MRL party. Whatever it takes to get rid of the mess I helped create last vote!

  56. Sheila a frustrated police officers mum. says:

    Lets see who Mr Windsor would call in an emergency. If he takes this stand, there might not be an emergency service left for him to call. All you lovely selfless people out there who do this thankless job (POLICING) day after day deserve a little more respect. Lets see you out there Mr Windsor.

  57. craig says:

    Good to hear a viewpoint that speaks for many of us that have made many sacrifices over the years for the benefit of our communities. It may be a good idea for WINDSOR to take time out to speak to the families of Police Officers to fully understand the sacrifices, stresses and pressures involved in carrying out their roles. It concerns me that the lower ranks of the police service seem to be the main focus of WINDSORS sword and not the management WHY? I hope we all remember why we joined in the first place and stick together as we need to stand up for our dignity, self respect and communities or our careers would have counted for nothing. Having served for 24 years this is my saddest time yet and I did not think we would ever be viewed as so worthless by a serving Government as outlined in your comments. It is clear they want us gone but we must remind them of all the good work we do and the benefits that come with having an experienced, impartial and professional police service.

  58. Dave says:

    Thanks for the insightful and informed response to the Windsor report… As a Police Officer with 14 years experience it seems my role has been under constant review however Windsor leaves the others in its wake as a savage cut into our role and standing within the community. Unfortunately experience is something that is hard to measure but is worth its weight in gold. Mr Windsor has chosen to ignore our training and experience over a cheaper civilian Police Force. I have never supported the idea of industrial action but now is the time to take a more militant stance!!

  59. T says:

    Excellent analysis, I have forwarded a link to Sky news, dont beleive the press are that bothered about our honest opinion and are controlled by the government anyway, i.e if an investigative reporter has the balls to rock the boat what is the likelihood of them getting any further re news leaks/gossip from the governement spin machine, therefore reporters know what side there bread is buttered and unlikely to rock the boat. But there you go, very frustrated, morale on the floor, approaching 26 years service totally battle weary.

  60. Graham Pye says:

    Well written. I still have 19 years to go!! Or 21 if I have to work until 60!! Fingers crossed we all pull together in the upcoming ballot. My glass is generally always half full… Mr Windsor is doin his best to smash my glass!!!

  61. Gina Kirkham says:

    After almost 20 years proud service as a front line uniform officer, I am now one of the recently “restricted” that this report refers to. Part of my disability is as a result of an assault on duty which after operations has now left me sitting behind a desk. It breaks my heart to have to struggle to climb the stairs that I used to run down to make an IR job, to not be able to fulfil completely the role I have been so proud of. For this report to imply that because I cannot now pass a physical or perform these duties I am any less an Officer than I was before, is an insult.
    I did not ask to be injured, although I was fully aware of the risks my role entailed. These risks are accepted as part of “the job”, we are here to serve and protect. I still perform a crucial role within the Police Service, one that supports my colleagues. They are the ones that I despair for, morale is at it’s lowest, they are struggling to provide the same service with unprecedented cuts, they feel unappreciated, much maligned by the media which in turn taints public opinion, and now this report and it’s recommendations will have a seriously damaging effect on our conditions of service, pay and pensions, giving us no certainty for the future.
    Nearly 20 years ago I believed that by becoming a Police Officer I wasn’t going to be able to change the World, but that if I took the time to care, then I could make a difference……
    I still truly believe the same, I am as passionate and proud of being an Officer today as I have always been – it is just a great shame that this Government and its representatives will not take the time to care about us.

  62. Auden Ashcroft says:

    Windsor and his team obviously aren’t aware of policing in the modern world. If they were then I would not be writing this. I joined the police 18 years ago because I wanted to do something worthwhile and I would like to think that I have no matter how small. Like many reading this I have been spat at, sworn at, threatened with violence and attacked with a knife. While not pleasent I have dealt with it because it was my duty to do so, even though I have a young family I have put myself in danger for complete strangers like many of you out there have, because it is our duty. When we all joined we took an oath and made a promise to uphold the law and in return promises were made by the government and our various forces to look after us. But unfortunately decisions are being made by people who’s only worry is if they will be late for a caviar tasting. We all took the office of constable and remained in the police even after all the horrific incidents we have witnessed because we are proud to be police officers, everyday is different there are always new challenges ahead and we will always meet them head on. This however is different, because no amount of cs, or baton strikes will subdue this subject not from us anyway. So if you haven’t already done it, please lobby your mp, I believe tat this is the only way. There is always hope.

  63. Muso says:

    I am not a police officer but I do have a close family member who is. I’ve watched that person transform, from a bright beacon of light, enthusiastically facing the challenges of upholding law to barely a glimmer and before long, I fear the tiny flame that lingers, will be extinguished by despair and low morale – forever. Now I don’t need to understand the “technical” detail of changes that have already been implemented and Winsor’s proposals. I can see the consequences with my own eyes and it is blatantly obvious, the government and it’s puppets in high authority in this country’s police forces, are guilty of incompetence and mismanagement of its most valuable asset – it’s police officers. To me it’s tantamount to sabotage. I am “Joe Public” with a tiny bit of insight. If I didn’t have that I would be almost completely unaware of what’s going on and the damage that’s being done to my rights as a citizen to live in a society protected by you the professional servant’s of law and order. A privatised police force? The mere thought chills me to the core. What can you do about it? Well griping on forums like this might make you feel better but that’s all, it won’t change anything. Attend your Federation meetings, turn up in numbers and make your feelings known. When your senior officers turn up at one of these meetings to be greeted by only a handful of “die-hards”, it sends a message to them that you are apathetic towards what is being done to you and they can get away with it and more. That just weakens your Federation and they have no credibility or bargaining power. Pack your meetings, show strength and send a different message to your management. Despite what you might think, the vast majority of law-abiding citizens respect and value the job you do, the sacrifices you make and the risks you take on their behalf. In the end it is “Joe Public’s” opinion that will make the difference. Currently there is no message coming through telling “Joe Public” in clear simple terms, how disastrous all these changes are and exactly what it will mean for them. I can’t hear you – you are but a whisper. Kick your Federation up the backside, write to them, send them this post, go to meetings, support them and galvanise them into action. I want to hear your voice (the Federation) loud and clear. Tell us, the public, how to help you and make it easy for us to do it because in the end we the public, are going to suffer too and are the only ones that can prevent the demolition of the police service. Good luck – I think you’re going to need it.

  64. george says:

    Don’t worry, SuperCamDom will protect your conditions. After all, you probably voted for him.

    • Muso says:

      George that’s not very nice……I’m on your side. I didn’t vote for the CONartists,,,,,sorry Conservatives. Never have and never will. That said, I can’t actually recall any politician that did anything that benefited me!

      • SEVE MANCHESTER says:

        Firstly I would like to thank the author for an interesting and informative post.
        I am a retired Police officer who after completing 30 years service continues to work for the Police in a civilian role. I now have been working one way or another for the Police for 39 years. I have seen numerous changes and now I find myself shuddering at what I see ahead.
        I have read the numerous posts particularly the post from MUSO. I agree that we need to stand together andd show a united front totally against these changes. Unfortunately I too feel that people will cave in and work under whatever condition if they feel it fills their pocket. Unless everyone acts together coments on sites such has this are useless.
        As regards the Federation. I feel that it is nothing like what it once was. Am I being unduly cynical in thinking that it is staffed by people who are on a god number thank you very much, working days and on expenses, they wont do or say anything to jeopordise that.
        The thing is these people work for you the Police. If they are not doing the job get them out and replaced by people with objects between their legs who will fight your corner.
        Keep fighting do not let the Police service I love be destroyed by these idiots.

  65. Pingback: BREAKING NEWS | I Must Have Left Myself Logged On

  66. This is a simple, easy to read breakdown of the legal jargon in the Winsor report which highlights the fundamental flaws of his apallingly conceived proposal and unmasks with absolutely no uncertainty whatsoever the true agenda.
    It took me about 15 minutes to read start to finish and although it affects me and hundreds of thousands like me financially, it affects every citizen in the UK in terms of what a rail regulator with clearly no understanding of the nature of policing is planning to do to our police service. If this happens things will never be the same again, Think things are bad now? Wait and see what happens as a result of this.

  67. Englishelvis says:

    Let’s face it ladies and gents – we are no longer welcome in our own Job. They want rid of all of us .
    We are sneered at by politicians and , dare I say it, civilians as well (Apart from those whom we have married!) as overpaid parisites just hanging around doing nothing but waiting for our gold plated pensions. Everyone “knows” how to do our job, or at least has an opinion on how to do it ,yet it is only us who ACTUALLY do it.

    So Patrick Sheehy finally wins. We are nothing more then “civil servants” to quote the former Home Secretary of that time Ken Clarke. Well, if that’s how you all feel can I just have the SAME rights as those “fellow” civil servants?! Yeah I thought not!

    I am fortunate. Less than eighteen months to go.
    I remember a retiring PC at my first nick saying “All good things come to an end”. I used to wonder what he really meant. Sadly, now I know and simply can’t wait.

  68. Sebastian says:

    A brilliant summary so many thanks. I will pass this on to colleagues and friends.
    What really frustrates and scares me is that we have no one anywhere that is willing to stand up and protect us. The Government can do whatever they please to us and we cannot do anything to prevent it. We have no voice or rights. If they decided we were to patrol wearing only vests and pants there is nothing we could do to stop this.
    This Government is a shambles and an embarrassment with their handling of the possible fuel strike as another example of this. Unfortunately they do not take into consideration the maess they are making of peoples lives. It is not their country to ruin, they have simply been given the responsibility for taking care of it for a few years.
    I keep hoping and praying that one day we will all wake up from a deep sleep and realise we have been watching some full length feature film of Yes Minister. Unfortunately what we are suffering at the moment is not remotely funny.

  69. Christopher Norris says:

    The whole thing is like the complete madness. We all understand that changes are required in these tough times, but so many changes with such massive consequences for the role and for the public who depend on us. Clearly officers are expected to lose all pride in the roll and what it stands for. After all, how can we be expected to have pride and care when clearly the powers that be, the very people who employ us are doing all that they can to completely destroy the service. Sad sad times

  70. Thrustcadet says:

    Well, my retirement in a little over 5 years is gone.
    I will be earning less then than I am now!
    My guvnor will be some fresh faced inexperienced graduate……or worse.

    A very depressing time.

  71. Belinda says:

    A very well written piece. Thank you
    3 years left for me, 4 for my other half. I could bury my head in the sand and be selfish but this whole thing affects the whole country, including all my family for long after we retire (to another country if these changes go through !)
    The big issue for us is that so many officers cannot see the wood for trees, some with lots of service selfishly saying they’ll be about equal financially so why be bothered, but the majority are young in service 20 and 30 somethings, fit, healthy and full of life. In 10 or 15 years time, when shifts have taken their toll, when a few knocks and bumps have added up and they are in their mid 40s, still with 15 plus years left to do, they will realise with a startling clarity that they failed themselves miserably. WAKE UP FOLKS !
    I do hope that everyone is pestering their MP, you can quite imagine them at Westminster stating that ‘we’ can’t be too bothered as we aren’t writing/phoning/door knocking about this.

  72. wed6e says:

    Writing to MP’s is all very well and good but this Government is not listening… WORK TO RULE (a few road checks at rush hour would do)! And if there still not listening we do it on day one of the Olympics! Or we could just keep ticking along as we are with no voice in readiness to just accept whatever peanuts we’re given… What does a firefighter earn these days? You know those guys who sleep through their night shift, many have second jobs and… oh yeah, can go on strike!?!

    • TJF says:

      Very depressing reading. I initially thought it was an April Fool’s gag but then realised it was posted well before today. It looks like the light at the end of the tunnel has been turned off in the Govt haste to “reform” this once great Job. Don’t worry though! The Federation will doubtless write a strongly worded letter to protest…. What else can they do????? Dear oh dear….

  73. Demoralised Manchester Bobby says:

    The fear is nobody will stop this from happening. The police hardly got any support from the last Labour government so we could only expect the opposition to do anything simply for the sake of their own political ends – simply for the sake of knocking the government. They won’t have any real motivation. And the media will be useless – the only thing they were capable of picking up on in this whole report was fitness tests for fat bobbies. As for the general public, they’re too blinkered with all their moaning about speed cameras to actually give a toss about what might happen to their police service and they will sleep-walk all through this until finally they realise they are living in a draconian police state with a privatised government army acting with no feeling or discretion because they will be profit motivated and with a political agenda.

    Apathy rules. Just look at how few people seem to have even taken a look at this! This is one of the most dangerous and undemocratic things I have seen any government attempt to implement in my lifetime. It’s set to destroy the whole nature of the open and generally tollerant society we currently enjoy, and people are blind to it.

    You perhaps need to be in the police to understand the harm that this will all cause. And we will fight it to try and preserve a unique tradition of policing that we should duly be proud of. However, as usual, the government and the media will put a spin on it all to deliberately mislead the voting public. They will tell you we are simply being greedy and fighting to maintain high wages and gold plated pensions at a time when everyone else is feeling the pinch of austerity measures. And you’ll all be happy to swallow that, because you don’t like the cops because every now and then we give you a speeding ticket. But that’s not the case – this stuff has little impact on our wages and pensions which have already been severely cut.That’s already done with.

    Our politicians seem to universally have it in for the police, and the reason for that is because we act independantly from most political interference. Ever since the Sheehy report in the late ’90s successive governments have tried to increase their power and control over us. As Home secretary David Blunkett gave himself the power to sack chief constables, taking that away from the independant police authorities. By doing that he was able to exert pressure on them to bend to his will. Because of that for a decade we found ourselves subjected to a target driven regime of sanctioned detections which led to some wholly inappropriate and unethical policing – remember kids being prosecuted for throwing buns at buses? Only the efforts of front line officers raising public awareness of what was happening through internet blogs and getting the media talking about it was that put to an end. The political elite didn’t like being shown up in that way.

    Now it’s their backlash and Winsor’s proposals are all about creating a police force directly under their control. Your patrolling officers are to be supplied by private companies. We already have PCSOs who are simply normal members of the public paid to wear a uniform – nothing else. Forces are already tendering for people like Group4 to supply these services privately. Rememebr what happened when parking was decriminalised and put in the hands of private companies? No chance of being let off for gatting back to your meter a minute late now, is there? They do you because they can do you – and will do you because it’s all about profit. Just what sort of extreme zero tollerance policing will we have when the wider spectrum of enforcement is passed into private hands?

    As far as Winsor is concerned you only need proper, accountable and warranted police officers where it is necessary to exercise a power of arrest. So your bobby on the beat will only ever be used where there is confrontation. Your professional officers will become a hardline riot squad, much as they have in France. That’s what the fitness test is all about – if you can’t police a riot then you’re not wanted, because that’s what this Government of elitist, over privilaged aristocrats think a police force is for – keeping the rabble in line! And that force will be managed by their public school cronies who will be able to enter directly into the senior ranks without first having to get their hands dirty on the front line – without first getting any real understanding of the needs of the people. But of course that won’t matter – because it won’t be a police service for the people, it will be the strong arm of government. And of course it will be directed by their new elected commissioners, and do you think there’s any chance that they won’t be affiliated to the major political parties? People like Martin Bell and George Galloway getting elected into any office are as rare as hens teeth – the party campaign machines will be set in motion to ensure these commissioners are going to be party politicians using your police service to serve their political ends.

    And why would a government be so keen to exert so much direct control over the police? Think they might be expecting a bit of civil unrest as they squeeze us all yet further? Do you think it might be because we are beginning to realise that actually we’re not all ‘in this together’ and that the common people of this country are bearing the brunt of the greed of the rich so that they can carry on enjoying their privilages?

    I tell you all, ignore this at your peril. Allow this to happen and in 10 years you’ll be wondering where freedom went and perhaps then you’ll realise what a good police service you used to have – one that served you and your interests rather than the machine of political, state enforcement that you will have.

    • Belinda says:

      Well said.
      It is of note that David Cameron was a ‘Special Advisor’ to the Home secretary, Michael Heseltine…in 1993-1994. At the time of the Sheehy report. I wonder why he is so set on shafting us so much.?

    • Bernard Two Fathers says:

      Powerful post.

    • wed6e says:

      Well said. But you are too right that no one will do anything. WE must act and WE must be united!

  74. PC Garfield says:

    An excellent post. I must say, I didn’t really understand how the ramifications of Windsor might erode the office of Constable further before I read this. Now, I’m a little scared. I think you’d be surprised to know how much this post is doing the rounds on social media between officers and staff. A lot of people are behind you on this. At the bottom end, its going to discourage quality officers to join the job. At the top you’re going to have a lot of middle managers who are cluless as to what policing actually is. A scary thought indeed.

    this is a bit of a shameless plug, but what the heck, i’m here now I’m trying to address the chinks in the working bobby’s Armour and am currently writing a ‘survival guide’ to policing in the 21st century. I’d be grateful for anyone to swing past and tell me what they think. its at http://www.betterbobby.com. I’m not yet sure how useful it’ll be, so I’m ready for any feedback, good or bad.

    Good luck with your future writing.

  75. Belinda says:

    PC Garfield.
    Sorry, but you should be ashamed of yourself IMO. Above are dozens of posts from worried cops/staff and family and you seize the moment to plug your book. On the website it states you are serving cop and yet above you put ”A lot of people are behind you on this” Shouldn’t that say ”US” if you are indeed a serving cop.

  76. PC Garfield says:

    I apologise wholeheartedly if you feel that way. I’m not trying to seize any limelight, I’m a worried cop myself and I feel Windsor a serious issue. I hope you won’t view this as yet another plug, but I did blog about the issue myself this morning. My usage of the word “you” was entirely meant to reflect the author’s argument.

    I’m trying to get some feedback for my book as I’m attempting to address what I believe is a serious gap in the service and ultimately, I hope the book I’m writing will benefit the service as a whole.

    Again, no offence meant and I take your point about self promotion. Apologies.

    • Belinda says:

      No problem, I would just imagine there are better ‘real’ forums for cops where this is better aimed at as opposed to this place

  77. As a retired officer this article was e mailed to me by a friend who is still a serving officer. I am to say the least shocked at the erosion that is taking place in the police force. It is something that the general public have no knowledge about and i think care less about as they have no concept of what these changes will make to their own lives. I read the whole article as an interested party but fear no one without a conection to the job would take the time to read it, therefore i think it needs to be directed to the public as a whole in a shortened version also outlining the loss to them. Yes they pay for the police service through their taxes but what if these changes are allowed to go through and then when in effect they need to call on what will be laughingly called a police officer they are billed again ( dont laugh it could happen ) Most people in this country are honest working people who have respect for the police if this is allowed to go ahead again it is the honest working people who will suffer.

  78. A mere number on a sheet of paper ready to be disposed of..... says:

    With 19 years to go, i feel like both crying and throwing up reading this article. If i had something else to go to, i would jump ship tomorrow. Alas, with no real qualifications other than higher education at school and a mere HND at college, im stuck with it. I have no no idea what the future holds for me, my wife or our infant son, and all the dreams i had when i signed up 11 years ago are well and truly shattered. I despair at what the future holds, not only for the police service, but for society in general. This country is well and truly screwed. Depression doesnt even stratch the surface of how i feel.

    • galeforce says:

      I know how you feel. With 9 yrs service, a mortgage the size of a small country and a now uncertain work related future, I’m beginning to reconsider my decision to try and start a family with my other half!!

  79. exWMP says:

    I retired from the Police Force (not the police service) fifteen years ago and have to say that the writing was on the wall for pay and conditions even then. The Federation was toothless then, as it is today, and no one can rely on them to do anything about this debacle. So I’m afraid it will be down to the rank and file and the few active supporters in parliament that we have. Can I assume that a copy of this excellent article has been sent to The Times, The Guardian, The BBC etc? And if not, why not?

  80. sinitallafore says:

    A cynical attack on a segment of the community who deserve MUCH better. I agree with exWMP, as I, too, retired 15 years ago. The rot had set in well by then, with totally inept, frightened, effette senior management who were only interested in the next rank and to hell with their responsibilities to their subordinates. Manipulated statistical returns, a “don’t rock the boat” attittude, lip-service paid to important issues of promotion and selection, a rabid willingness to be seen to be “signing-up” to any mad-brained scheme put forward by government/local pressure groups and worst of all, a passive willingness to allow every Tom, Dick and Harry with NO experience of front-line Policing to wander around Police stations at will under their guise of such crucial roles as neighbourhood watch co-ordinators, crime prevention panel members, victim support panel members, et al and tell The Police how to conduct policing. Return policing to The Police, THEY are the experts, THEY do it best, THEY have the experience. I am appalled at the attitude of this home secretary towards The Police “Service” There has been a concerted effort to de-value the image of it in the eyes of the public since this coalition came to power. Compare the attitudes of the government to our brave, superb, armed forces with that towards The Police Service. They appear to have forgotten that police Officers are killed in the line of duty, seriously injured in the line of duty and also have their lives ruined by their CHOSEN career. I am disgusted with them to be frank. You must stand together as we had to when presented with far less potentially injurious attacks upon OUR pay and conditions. Be wary of the right to strike however; this will not enamour you to the public. 15 years ago the writing was, indeed on the wall. My former colleagues who are still serving do not tell me much which I find encouraging. This comes from a retired senior officer- one who DID care for his staff and The Job. Good luck to you all, Lord knows, you need it.

  81. JD says:

    The majority of people posting responses are Police or Ex Police who are rightly commenting on how this is going to effect us but what we need to do is educate the public in how this is going to effect them! To make people care they need to know what kind of a police service they are going to be left with…..policing being done by a bunch of disaffected clock watchers only willing to do the bare minimum – I know that is what I will become, and said as one who spent at least an hour at home on job related work yesterday whilst A/L. The only people who will be applying to join the job will be McDonalds interview rejects.

    The public need to know what kind of a Police Service they are going to be left with – and it is up to us to tell them because who else can you rely on? The Fed?

    I have a wife and daughter to support, I am prepare to do whatever it takes to ensure I can do that in the future. Rhetoric is nice but action is the ONLY thing that counts, I am prepared to work to rule and to strike to safeguard the future of my family and the future of policing – are you? (a question to all)

  82. Unhappy says:

    As a 10 year officer, I am seriously doubting why I decided to give my life and youth for the good of the Country. Frankly, what is the point if these ‘recommendations’ are followed through.
    I do fully accept that we all have to take part in the savings needed – though none of those debts are in any way our fault or based on decisions we have made. We are prepared to ‘do our bit’ but to stand back idly and loose everything we have worked for and signed up for? Hmm…
    I imagine Mr Cameron and other individuals in Government will also be making sacrifices for the good of the economy?? Perhaps a review of Governement pay and conditions would also help? And perhaps it could be carried out by an executive of Tescos (no disrepect to any Tesco employees) who has no knowledge or experience in Government. After all, that would be fair. Wouldn’t it??

  83. prickledrose says:

    Scary times. I have ten years left to serve, or will I? No-one I work with is happy. It’s a shocking time to be an officer. When earlier reforms have come in at least I was able to say, ‘Well, at least I still have my pension.’ Now I’m not so sure… Power to our elbows. This tells it how it is…

  84. The Judge says:

     

    Sit down before you read this scary news

    You may already have this, some have etc. Obviously pass it on if anyone hasn’t.

    Colleagues,

    Within the past week, 2 members on my PF circulation list have spoken to me about the ongoing review into our pension schemes (1987 & 2006) and as a result of those conversations it has become clear to me that there are colleagues who are unaware of the potentially disastrous changes that the Government wish to make to our existing pension schemes – old and new. If I have not made my circulations clear on this issue I apologise, and to rectify any uncertainty I will state the position below.

    Despite the fact that negotiations are ongoing to increase our pension scheme contributions in April 12, again in April 13 and for a 3rd and final time in April 14, it is the recommendation of the Hutton review into police pensions that BOTH police pension schemes be CLOSED in the life of this parliament. As the latest date for an election would be May 2015 we would anticipate any closures would take place in April 2015.

    The Government are keen to implement the Hutton recommendations although the matter has to be negotiated first. If the Government do close the police pension schemes in April 2015 your pension will be FROZEN at that point, at that date. It will NEVER increase (other that CPI inflation increments once the beneficiary has retired). So to put that information another way: If, in April 2015 the Government do close the pension schemes (as they would like to do) and you, at that point in time, have 26 years pensionable service then your pension will be a 26 year pension END OF STORY. To see what you would get check the last police pension tables published in Metline magazine and look at the pension that would be payable at a 26 year service point. The point I am trying to make here is that if these closures take place the pension schemes will finish on said date. It is NOT a matter of closing the scheme to new members (new recruits) it is a matter of TERMINATING the schemes there and then.

    To do this would need a change in legislation as we are (currently) protected under section 2 of the pension regulations legislation. But such a change for a Government is very achievable.

    As I said, pension change negotiations continue with the next meeting falling due on 15/9/11, but please be under no illusions, we passionately believe that elements of this Government are anti-police and that they truly wish to make the changes I have described above. Do not forget that the Hutton review RECOMMENDS that both existing police pension schemes are closed in 2015. And do not forget that Cameron was a contributing author to the horrific Sheey report in the late 90’s.

    I have a personal view of where colleagues ‘sit’ as regards service levels and the CURRENT police pension schemes.  I have recounted that view below:

    As of today’s date:

    Officers with over 30 years service are SAFE as they have achieved the FULL police pension
    Officers with over 26 years and 8 months service are perspiring but the SHOULD achieve full pension
    Officers due to retire in 2015 are perspiring BIG time
    And officers with less than 25 years and 8 months service have, IN MY INFORMED OPINION, missed the opportunity to obtain a FULL police pension.

    If these changes do take place the Government WILL introduce a replacement police pension scheme which we expect to be a ‘money purchase scheme’ and which will provide nowhere near the payout of the current schemes.

    I am sorry if this is, for some of you, hard news to read but I do not believe in keeping these significant matters from you

    • penseiveat says:

      Would it help is every Police officer stopped paying the required 14.5% of their salary into a pension scheme and did something more beneficial to them (like stuffing the money under a mattress). The subsequent lack of investment into whichever scheme
      the Government thinks up may just start a few buzzers going in the bank vaults of No 10. But then, as I don’t have 3 ‘A’ level GCEs, what do I know?

  85. The last Contable says:

    Thank you for your efforts. Very well put. This is truely the end of all that is good with the police.

  86. FormerleyTheBestJobInTheWorld says:

    I have experienced the changes from Sheehy, Police Reform Act (via back door) now Hutton, Winsor Part I and II. Has there ever been a more sustained attack on Police terms and conditions?

    I support the Federation and intend to come to London on 10th May to protest peacefully, I encourage you to do the same. Only by sticking together and showing strength in unity do we have a chance in stopping the runaway train of the former rail regulator.

    Write to your MP, visit them in the Constituency office and tell them how Winsor will affect you and your family.

    They want to turn coppering into a normal job, well if that’s the case lets have the same industrial rights as everyone else.

  87. The Judge says:

  88. galeforce says:

    I read “what Windsor means” with interest, or with only 9 yrs in should I say total panic and an ever increasing feeling of anxiety. Unfortunately due to being in work and leave restrictions I can’t show my support in London next month.
    I have however, forwarded this link to a couple of newspapers and my local mps., along with a cover note. For what its worth……….I hope you don’t mind!

  89. Andy Salt says:

    I’ve read Windsor 2 and couldn’t believe a supposed intelligent person could come up with such misguided nonesense. It is a blueprint for disaster and I fear for the future society that our kids will inherit if this madman I allowed to have his way.
    Many thanks to the original poster for articulate way the Windsor recommendations have been translated

  90. James Bryon says:

    Wonderful overview, if not completely disheartening. I hope you don’t mind but I have forwarded the post to my local MP and asked him to respond.

    I fear the country has gone mad !

  91. MinimumCover says:

    Superb work.

    This is one of the most thorough breakdowns of the assassination of Policing I have read. We will never know the depth of the hidden agendas (at least not until its way too late anyway) so your ‘between-the-lines’ analysis may well be just the tip of a terrifying iceberg!

    Keep it up…I will post it to my site if that’s ok.

    MC

  92. MinimumCover says:

    Reblogged this on MinimumCover – The Police Officer Blog and commented:
    One of the most comprehensive and insightful articles on Winsor 2 that I have read.

    This blog highlights the potential horrors that lurk between the lines of the biggest attack on Policing since…well…Winsor 1!

    Perhaps it should be re-named Sheehy 3…

  93. dave says:

    I’m in the fortunate position of getting my 30 years in this year (fortunate, not lucky – i’ve worked the whole lot!), but find Winsor a kick in the teeth. I’ll still get my full pension (including CRTP), but what of the future? My colleagues go to the same situations i go to – why should they expect to get less? I joined when people were saying “I wouldn’t join this job nowadays, young ‘un”, but i have enjoyed (mostly) all of the last 30 years – but would i do it again? probably not – and that’s a sad thought. My son (18 yrs old – studying for a level 3 diploma in Public Services, and fit) wants to join up, and I’m torn between excouraging him to do the ‘right’ thing, and seek employment elsewhere. At the end of the day we NEED good coppers – but one thing I’ve learned is not to confuse education with intelligence – many good coppers have no formal qualifications (many ex-millitary make the best ones i know), and many people with qualifications wouldn’t want to do what we have all seen, and deal with on a daily basis…
    Society is falling apart – it’s being held together with an overstretched ‘good will’ and an attitude of ‘the wheel will be kept on, if it’s the last thing i do’.
    Here’s to the future – may the Service attract good-enough people to keep us all safe – and to those who do The Job – keep at it guys/girls – the public NEEDS you, it can’t rely on the Government.

  94. Gary Hunt says:

    You are right on the mark. These changes, which part I were grasped wholeheartedly, will be the death of the service as we know it. I have never known so many long serving officers, so desperate to leave. This has been a job I was desperate to do and have loved 19 years of the role, but first opportunity, I will be jumping ship.
    There is little doubt that the statistics will eventually show what a wonderful success the changes have been, but politiicians work magic with figures. This is the death of the service which is currently the envy of the world.

  95. Steve says:

    I am not illiterate, although my spelling is not great ;-), and I do have some qualifications [I have 3 A-Levels, an HNC in Medical Laboratory Sciences, a Cert Ed, and left a BSc in Medical Microbiology to join the police as a constable] and I’ve been in the job for 18 years, man and .. younger man.
    Like all of you, I have searched dead bodies, jumped over fences in the dark chasing burglars at 0300hrs, cutting up my fingers on nails thoughtfully placed by home owners, had to miss out on family events and let down loved ones, all to serve a government that now seems bent on making me unemployed or bankrupt, possibly in the next five years.
    I am absolutely disgusted at the proposed damage to our pay and conditions and will be forwarding this outstanding breakdown of Windsor 2 to anyone who will listen.
    Sad times for all of us.

  96. Chris says:

    A well written piece, yet hardly inciteful. This is simply one persons negative opinion on a subject. Quality of grammar is in no way proportional, or even connected, to the quality of the content of any article.
    Crowd pleasing and obvious in my humble opinion, and written without any of the objectivity that is abundant in the subject matter.

  97. Homes says:

    The Winsor report is disgraceful Full Stop.

    Both my wife and I are in the Police and at the top of our pay scales and in receipt of CRTP. We both also work within the intelligence field which I’m guessing would be seen as ‘back office’ and would be the roles that would not attract the ‘Specialist Skills Threshold’ payment. We both work hard and believe that the roles that we perform are fundamental to modern day policing.
    If all the recommendations came in we would be hit twice as hard as follows:

    Loss of CRTP £1,000 each
    Increase in pension contributions – by 2015 a Loss of £1,169 each
    Failure to attarct the ‘Specialist Skills Threshold’ payment – Loss of £5,500 each
    Pay freeze for ? Years – Loss of ?????

    That’s a loss of family income of over £15,000 a year. With the pay freeze and inflation it would probably feel more like £20k.
    How would that affect us? Simple – we would lose our house.

  98. Me too Homes…

    The time has come to take control of our own destiny…

    The Arabs have a saying: “he that can destroy a thing, controls a thing…”

    My plan for action would be as follows:

    1. Sit in silence when Kittens comes in to give her speech…then get up and walk out the moment she starts to speak… then blank the government.

    2. Spend some money on a prime-time TV advert that tells it as it is and…make sure our feelings are clear.

    3. Send a letter to Kittens telling her that the consequences of adopting the Windsor Police destruction report will be the Police doing something else other than policing during the Games. I would advise our members to continue to Police ordinary people and crime-but anything games related-from public order to lost purse jobs will get the same answer: “here is the Home Office number, clal them if you have a problem”.

    They want private cops- they can start there.

    4. Spend some money on a legal team to get the ECHR to hear our case for a FULL POWER UNION, with all the rights that go with it.

    5. Tell the IPCC to go forth and multiply- we will not cooperate with ANY investigation until this is sorted.

  99. Liam Hudson says:

    I’m not a copper but more power to your elbow. The job I do is steadily being ruined by condescending para-legals and managerialists as well. The have nothing but resentment for the ‘rough men that walk the streets prepared to do violence in our name’ (Orwell I think) because they suspect themselves of being incapable of anything remotely similar, but lack the humility to admit it. i feel the same about Lionel Messi as it happens. Good luck and don’t give in.

  100. I’d have recommended paying Special Constables properly and expecting more of them so they comprise a usable Police Reserve (like the TA). Save money by getting rid of PCSOs and instead have PCSVs (civilian volunteers) who are uniformed when they are helping out on shift, and at other times have a direct line to the control room so they are backed up and empowered to confront low level antisocial behaviour when they come across it. Now that’s community policing.

  101. Pingback: Winsor's Plans To Destroy Your Police Service.

  102. Oldlrrp says:

    Well put, in a nutshell, the Police Service is being stripped, cobbled and branded. This will influence the criminal element and I do not mean suppress crime, beside the absolute delight that must be currently felt by criminals this will give considerable encouragement to those engaged or consideraing illegal activity, to have a free for all.
    On the flip side the office of Constable is all encompassing upon ones life, the constraints and expectations of officers are illustrated in so many of the excellent replies so far. There is little tolerance for low levels of honesty and integrity, these are the qualities that have members of our community open their doors to us, the bedrock of intelligence led policing. A yard tick measure , take for example, is the recent flurry of false claims discovered in central Goverment, most still in office. I spent many years working away and out of hours in the Police as a Detective, one false claim, on the scale as has been recently disclosed, would have seen an abrupt end to my 25 years service, a goverment/political postion is not a generic assurance of good order. Many officers, including myself, put their own time in as well, to support and strenghten our neighbourhoods against those who would do us harm and steal our things (to put it bluntly). If the Police Service is gutted all this may be go aswell, I for one will seriously consider my time and money as I will struggle to make up losses in household finances.

  103. A mere number on a sheet of paper ready to be disposed of..... says:

    Whilst i will be taking this with a pinch of salt, as an officer from north of the border all i can say is thank goodness for that (read this link): http://touch.policeoracle.com/news/article/id/47358

  104. Pingback: Pensions News | I Must Have Left Myself Logged On

  105. Glyn says:

    Whilst I accept in the current economic climate some cuts need to be made, these if carried out in their enitireity will destroy British policing. I have 3 years to go and feel very disheartened for the younger colleagues I supervise. I will be down in London on 10th May to show my feelings. The Government have potentially a volatile Summer ahead after last years disorder – who will be patrolling the streets and putting their lives at risk when this happens??

  106. coconuttty says:

    My biggest worry is that the vast majority of the Public, who pay their Community Charge and Taxes, and who expect and deserve a decent service from THEIR Police force, have absolutely no idea what is happening, simply because there appears to have been NO Public consultation whatsoever.

    NOW it is time that if you don’t like what is being proposed, to spread the word and CHALLENGE the Winsor Review proposals.

    Write to your local MP’s and DEMAND that they pass on your views to the Government.
    They are YOUR MP’s, you are NOT just their parishioners !

    The Police Federation have long been asking for a Royal Commission into Policing, and the Government have chosen not to.

    Instead they have commissioned their “independent” review, which has been carried out by a chap who has no experience of Policing, and who’s main claim to fame was from 1999 to 2004 when he was the Rail regulator !

    My views :

    I have served as a Police Officer for almost 29 years, and have remained totally committed throughout.
    I have served my Queen and Country, having joined because I wanted to make a difference, and felt that I could, doing a job that many people would not even consider, let alone be capable of, armed with just a few “O” Levels, 6 or 7 years getting “streetwise”, and the training I have received from within the Police force along the way.
    I have been injured, assaulted, insulted, and abused – by those elements of our society
    that the law abiding citizens amongst us want their Police Officers to deal with.
    ( Memories of sitting in A&E on Christmas Eve getting my head stitched up after the burglar I was arresting thought he would introduce me to some broken glass, rather than me going home and introducing myself to the mince pie left out for Santa ).
    All I have asked for in return is a decent wage, decent working conditions, support to carry out my duties, and the decent Pension at the end of 30 years loyal service, that I was told I would get when I joined.
    Now I feel that I am being insulted and abused by this Government.
    There is a widespread belief, propagated by the Government, that Police Officers receive a “Gold Plated” Pension.
    This is NOT TRUE. When I joined the Police in 1983 I had to pay 7% of my wages into the Police Pension fund, and within a few years this was increased to 11% – I had no choice about this, and if you check around you’ll find that there are not many people paying more than this.
    The recent review of Police Pensions has resulted in a further increase to 12% from this year,
    which will rise to 13.5% over the next couple of years, again with no choice, and with no increase to the benefits received.
    Agreed, the Pension I shall receive after completing 30 years’ service is still not bad, ( and as others have mentioned – by crikey I have EARNED it ! ), but it’s hardly “Gold Plated” – is it ?
    Not when you consider that working shifts covering 24 hours a day for 30 years,
    and carrying out some of the more physically demanding aspects of the role,
    can take a considerable toll on the human body – often reducing overall life expectancy.
    Not when you consider that :
    Police Officers are NEVER off duty ? ( Although we only get paid for 40 hours a week ).
    If a Police Officer sees a crime being committed while they are on a Rest Day, they are REQUIRED to take action, and if they don’t, can be punished under Police regulations,
    A Police Officer can only live somewhere with approval of the Chief Constable.
    There are restrictions on who Police Officers can associate with in their own time.
    Police Officers are not allowed to incur an unlawful debt, or to join any Political party.
    I’m sure most people outside of the Police Force don’t realise how difficult it is for a Police Officer to have a “normal” social life – trying to avoid confrontational situations when “off duty” just because some miscreant finds out they are a Police Officer, or recognises them because they have dealt with them previously, and, because they have no immediate back-up, might be “Easy Prey” ?
    Have you ever noticed how Police Officers, on their Rest Days when out socialising ( or trying to ) in pubs or restaurants etc. sit somewhere with the best view of the room ? It’s not because they’re being nosey – it’s self-preservation !
    In addition to being answerable to the Law like everyone else, Police Officers are also subject to Disciplinary Regulations which can result in punishments such as Fines, Reduction in Rank, and Dismissal, in addition to anything that a Court might impose.
    Police Officers are being treated more and more like civilian employees, but unlike a civilian staff member, they are simply not allowed to go on strike, no matter how unfairly their employers might treat them.
    The Winsor proposals will, in my view, result in a tiered system of Policing –
    PCSO’s , Street Wardens and Special Constables with limited legal powers will be on the Streets as the “visible presence”, but will be totally ineffective against the criminal fraternity – who must be rolling about with laughter and rubbing their hands together at the good times to come ( for them ).
    LOTS of Policing functions will be / are being put out to tender for Private contractors,
    and consequently the number of Police Officers will be cut even further.
    That’s what happens when the Policing budget is cut so drastically.
    The traditional British Police Officer as we know them today will cease to exist,
    and will only be used in roles that regularly require the use of their Police powers,
    such as in Riots and Public Disorder.
    Don’t you already get the impression just from hearing people talk about how badly off they are, with prices rising all the time, strikes coming back in – Tanker drivers, Teachers ( who next ?) , and watching the News, that there is potential for plenty more public disorder in the not too distant future, I know I do, and who is going to be called upon to sort it all out ( again ) ?
    In addition to the Winsor proposals highlighted in the information you will hopefully have read,
    I am further insulted to learn that my current role as a Police Air Observer, is NOT considered to be a Specialist role.
    This is purely because Mr. Winsor has decided, that because I do not need to use my Police warranted powers on a daily basis in that role, it does not fit with his definition of “specialist”. While to a large extent that may be correct, ( although there ARE times when we may have to land to carry out an arrest ), my previous Policing experience and knowledge, coupled with the legal requirement of the Civil Aviation Authority for me to be trained to a very high standard in my role, and to be assessed annually, conflicts with Mr. Winsor’s interpretation of the word “specialist”.
    Words are one thing, but in Mr. Winsor’s view if you are not in a specialist post, then you cannot reach the top of his new Pay Scales, and would have to stop at one point below the top. This would mean for example, that compared with the salary paid now to a Police Officer at the top of their pay scale in this, or a similar role classed as being non specialist, there would be a reduction in pay, which, when coupled alongside other proposals such as the abolition of the current CRTP, could mean a pay CUT of 19%, not to mention the 2.5% increase in Pension contributions, and a continuing Pay freeze, while inflation continues to rise.
    ( So don’t expect Police Air Support and other “non specialist” roles ) to continue to be performed by experienced Police Officers.)
    I’m sure that, like me, most Police officers agree there is a need for a review of Policing,
    But not like this, not by way of a commissioned report that is supposed to be independent,
    but is so obviously not.
    Let there be a Royal Commission into Policing – after all it is to the Queen that every Police Officer has sworn their oath, not to the Prime Minister or Government of the day, who are trying to rush and implement proposals before 2015 ( when they run the risk of not being re-elected ), without proper consultation with the Police forces, and with the PUBLIC, who elected them to serve their best interests !

    Thanks for taking the time to read this far – please feel free to pass on all or any part of this message to anyone that might have an interest.

  107. Michael Manette says:

    This post is a bit big but it’s well worth reading. See, I can’t decide if this is David Cameron or Tom Winsor! As i’ve never seen them togther. I can only suspect that they are the same person. Have a read and see if you can seperate the two people. Answers on a post card, please.

    The Guardian

    Monday 16 January 2006

    David Cameron’s speech on police reform
    The Conservative leader, David Cameron, today set out his proposals to reform the police in a speech in Dalston, east London. Below is the full text of that speech.

    • I’m delighted to be speaking at a meeting organised by Crime Concern.
    • Your organisation forges partnerships between the community and crime fighting agencies. You recognise that when it comes to fighting crime, we’re all in this together. That embodies my belief in the value of shared responsibility.
    • Crime: the scale of the problem

    Nothing affects people’s quality of life more than crime. And today, we have the highest crime rate in Europe apart from Sweden. Our citizens are more likely to be victims of crime than in any developed country except Australia.
    The police recorded 5.6m crimes last year – 10 times the number in the 1950s. According to the British crime survey, there are over 10m crimes.
    The government uses it to claim that crime has fallen in recent years. But the Survey leaves out a huge number of crimes, in particular those against children and shoplifting. The independent thinktank Civitas estimates that the total number of crimes may be four times as high as the official British crime survey figure.
    But however crime is counted, the big picture is clear. Crime is at historically high levels. Violent crime and antisocial behaviour are wrecking lives and communities. And it’s the least well-off in society who suffer the most.
    Crime Concern has pointed out that an estimated 40% of recorded crime in England and Wales takes place in 10% of neighbourhoods, predominantly the poorest ones.
    I refuse to accept that today’s level of crime is an inevitable fact of 21st century life in Britain. I spoke last week about the need to give much more power to the voluntary organisations and social enterprises that can turn communities around. In that way, we can address the long-term causes of crime.
    I’ve long supported reform of the criminal justice system, and tougher sentencing powers to act as a deterrent. But today I want to focus on the police and the need for police reform. The truth is we won’t deal with crime until we reform the police.
    This is widely understood, but not acted upon nearly enough. The police know it. The public know it. Politicians know it. I don’t want the Conservative party to shy away from difficult subjects and tough decisions.
    We need to take tough decisions about police reform if we’re going to be genuinely tough on crime. This is a key issue and that’s why I’ve appointed Nick Herbert as shadow minister with specific responsibility for police reform.
    He will be consulting widely on our proposals, engaging with the public and police professionals of all ranks.

    Police performance

    The police have been well resourced in recent years. Spending on the police has increased under governments of both parties. It’s now £11bn a year, or £500 per household.
    But there’s little evidence that the performance of the police has improved in line with this increase in resources. This year, each police officer, on average, will make under 10 arrests. That’s not even one a month. Think about it. Yet one police constable in Nottinghamshire, PC Coetzee, arrested over 300 suspects last year.
    Today, fewer than one in four crimes is detected, down from 31% in 1999. This means that there were at least 4m undetected crimes last year…despite the extra money and the continued growth in CCTV surveillance.
    Police forces differ widely in their effectiveness. Detection rates for burglary vary from over 43% to under 8%, and for robbery between over 50% and under 15%. The Conservative party has always valued and supported the police. But there cannot be a blank cheque. More resources must be matched by better performance. The public expects value for money.
    The need for police reform
    So the need for police reform is clear. The question is what is the right direction for that reform to take? My view is clear: it’s time for a fundamental shake-up of policing in this country. You can’t be tough on crime unless you’re tough on police reform.
    First, police forces must be made more accountable to local communities. Second, police pay and conditions must be modernised to ensure much better police performance. That means, amongst other things, making it easier to sack bad officers.
    Labour’s approach: centralisation and bureaucracy
    Labour’s approach has been the direct opposite. Instead of local accountability, we have seen massive centralisation. Instead of modernisation, we have seen an extension of bureaucracy. Before I set out my plans, let’s look at the two elements of Labour’s approach.
    Labour’s police centralisation

    The government says it doesn’t want a national police force. But it’s steadily taking more and more control of local policing.
    This trend will be reinforced if the home secretary implements his scheme to amalgamate police forces into regional units. His scheme is being driven through too fast, without proper debate or consultation, and reckless of the cost.
    The Association of Police Authorities estimates these to be between £500m £600m. They also point out that police forces could increase their efficiency by sharing services – a solution that I back. But the most serious objection to police force amalgamation is the implication for local accountability.
    Local police will be directed by chief constables who could be hundreds of miles away from the communities they serve. Take the proposed South West region. People living in one part, the north of Gloucestershire, are actually closer to the Scottish border than they are to people living in another part, the south of Cornwall.
    The government’s response to these concerns is what looks like a gimmick. “People’s courts” will be convened to arraign local commanders. This is phoney accountability. It gives the illusion of community empowerment, while giving communities no formal power at all over local policing. It’s about public relations, not police performance.
    Labour’s police bureaucracy
    As well as centralisation, the police under Labour have been subjected to an ever increasing weight of bureaucracy. We’ve seen endless targets, plans and agencies designed to regulate and direct the police.
    There’s a national policing plan, a policing performance assessment framework, and public service agreements. Police forces are now statutorily required to produce strategic plans. They’re overseen by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, the Audit Commission and the Police Standards Unit.
    There’s a National Centre for Policing Excellence, shortly to be subsumed into a National Policing Improvement Agency. And last, but by no means least, there is the Home Office itself.
    As David Davis has said, all this inspection and regulation is like trying to drive a car with the bonnet up.
    Our reform agenda: accountability and modernisation
    In contrast to Labour’s approach, our plans for police reform will be based on clear Conservative values: trusting people, and sharing responsibility. Real local accountability to give local communities control over local policing. And real modernisation to give police forces more responsibility for enforcing the law.
    Benefits of local accountability

    First, I want to explain why local accountability is so important. Last week, two leading US police chiefs visited London. Both of them have records which demonstrate the power of local accountability and neighbourhood policing.
    As police chief in New York City, Bill Bratton famously worked with Mayor Guiliani and delivered, within a decade, a 60% fall in crime.
    Now, as Chief of Los Angeles Police Department, he has repeated his success. In just two years, overall crime has dropped by 13%, homicides by 20%, and response times have improved dramatically. Yet he now has 100 fewer police officers than he started with.
    In Lowell, Massachusetts, Superintendent Ed Davis achieved the fastest fall in crime in the US.
    He decentralised his force, trained them in community policing, and put them on the beat. He transferred routine administrative tasks to civilian staff, freeing officers to tackle crime.
    Of course, our culture and traditions are different to those in the USA. But the principles of local democracy, accountability and strong leadership should be universal. Already there is evidence that proactive, neighbourhood policing can deliver solutions that work in the UK.
    In London, an increased police presence on the streets after the terrorist attacks of 7/7 led to a significant fall in crime, leading the Guardian to admit the value of high profile, visible patrolling.
    The Metropolitan Police has a Safer Neighbourhoods initiative. Each ward has a dedicated team of police and community support officers responsible for the reduction of crime and disorder in their area… It’s already yielding results here in Hackney.
    And in Middlesbrough, Ray Mallon’s ‘zero tolerance’ approach has cut crime by over a third in two years.
    I’m delighted that Ray is with us here today. He’s living proof of the value of local accountability and strong leadership in the fight against crime. We look forward to hearing his perspective shortly.
    So there is evidence in the UK that local accountability leads to beat-based policing, and that beat-based policing leads to less crime. How can we ensure that virtuous circle exists right across the country?
    Need for local accountability

    Historically, a tripartite arrangement governed policing in this country. The home secretary set national priorities and provided funding. Police authorities appointed chief constables and held forces to account. Chief constables were operationally independent, answering – in Lord Denning’s famous dictum – only to the law.
    But in the last decade, the balance of power has changed fundamentally. The cherished independence of chief constables has not protected them from increasing central direction. But it continues to make them relatively immune from local pressures.
    The public has very little real say over how policing is conducted. Police Authorities are relatively powerless, and they’re virtually invisible to the public.
    Local accountability: our policy direction

    I want to change all that. Instead of police chiefs answering to central government, I want them to be formally accountable to local communities. We would scrap the national Policing Plan and all of the associated apparatus of central control.
    The police would continue to have operational independence, which would be properly defined. Local politicians would under no circumstances be permitted to direct the arrest of an individual or the initiation of a prosecution.
    But they would be empowered to set strategic objectives for the police and ensure that those objectives are met, with the ultimate sanction of being able to hire and fire the chief constable.
    There are various options for achieving such local accountability. Police Authorities could be directly elected.
    They could be replaced by an individual who is directly elected, like a police commissioner. Or elected mayors could fulfil this role.
    The essential principle is that voters should have a direct relationship with the person or body who appoints the chief constable, matched by a direct and transparent funding arrangement so that they can judge the effectiveness of the policing they’re paying for.
    Of course, we would want to retain an independent inspectorate of constabulary to guard against corruption and to monitor standards. We would also consider what powers, closely defined, should be reserved to the home secretary, to coordinate policing in certain circumstances, for example in the case of a national emergency.
    And some policing functions should be conducted at the national level, answering to the home secretary. We have, for example, proposed a national border police force. The fight against terrorism requires national co-ordination. And we support the serious organised crime agency.
    Modernising the police

    So, making the police accountable to local communities is the first vital part of the police reform we want to see. The second is to ensure that police chiefs can manage workforces which are professional, flexible and incentivised to do their job – fighting crime.
    That means real modernisation. Police officers are relatively well paid – better, in fact, than teachers or nurses.
    That is a proper reflection of the value which society places on them, and the nature of their work, which is often difficult and dangerous. We should never forget the risks which police officers run for us.
    Recently we saw the moving funeral in Bradford of WPC Sharon Beshenivsky, a trained officer of only seven months who was shot dead when she answered a call to a robbery. I pay tribute to her courage and that of all the officers who have been killed or injured while seeking to protect us.
    So police officers should and will remain well rewarded. But it’s time to examine what reforms are needed to equip the police to meet today’s challenges.
    Pay and conditions

    We should start with the reform of police pay and conditions. In this area, I think there are five priorities. Today, officers tend to be paid according to length of service or seniority, not in relation to skills, competence and performance.
    So first, we need local flexibility for pay and conditions. An officer who has given good service, and for whom it would be better personally and for the force if they moved on, has a huge incentive to wait around until thirty year’s service is up before getting a pension
    So second, we need further reform of police pensions so people can join and leave the force at the right time and the right level. We must get rid of that pensions cliff-edge.
    Chief constables will tell you that today, an underperforming police officer is almost unsackable. That’s absurd.
    So third, the police should have modern employment contracts so bad officers can be sacked. Considerable progress has been made in relation to medical retirements and the days lost through sick pay – but much more needs to be done.
    So fourth, we must tackle the issue of a relatively large number of officers kept on restricted duties, on full pay. Some officers today have second jobs. In one force, as many as one in fifteen are in this position.
    So the fifth priority in reforming police pay and conditions should be to insist that policing is a full-time occupation in all but exceptional cases.
    Police structures

    As well as reforming pay and conditions, we will also look for more flexibility in the structure of policing. Today’s police family no longer consists only of regular police officers. Community support officers have begun to change the public face of policing and the nature of the workforce.
    Local authority wardens are proving popular in their communities. Support staff are increasingly being used to release officers for frontline duties.
    Chief constables should have greater discretion over the structure of their workforce so that they, rather than the government, can decide the right balance of staffing in their forces.
    Police recruitment

    More flexible policing structures will also require a new flexibility in police recruitment. Scientific and technological advances will mean that, increasingly, we will want to recruit professional experts who are now key in the fight against crime.
    So enhanced entry schemes should make it possible for talented people and professionals to join the police later in their careers and at all ranks.
    The police should be able to attract recruits of the highest calibre from all backgrounds and to provide the continuous training and career development which highly motivated people need.
    My offer to the police

    Of course, I know that police performance is not held back simply by outdated pay and conditions, structures and recruitment.
    The police are also held back by outdated working practices, and increasingly by bureaucracy imposed by central government. So today I make this offer to Britain’s police. You make the changes which will improve police performance.
    And we will stop the centralisation, bureaucracy and political interference that gets in your way.
    Less bureaucracy

    We have to cut back the bureaucracy which prevents police officers from doing their job.
    It’s a scandal that only 17% of a police officer’s time is spent on patrol. Arresting a suspect keeps officers off the beat for an average of 3½ hours.
    We want police officers to fight crime, not file paper. We will review the bureaucracy generated by legislation such as the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act.
    We will also end the requirement on police officers to record every stop they make, filling in a foot long form which takes seven minutes to complete.
    Recording a search is absolutely justified. It is essential that the police build and maintain the confidence of ethnic and other minority communities, and I applaud their determination to do so. But recording every stop is an unnecessary barrier to effective policing.
    Conclusion

    These and other reforms are long overdue. Good police officers will gain from reforms that recognise and reward success.
    There are many fine police officers in Britain, and senior officers of the highest calibre. Many are trying to do the things which I have talked about today. I want to make the changes that will help them in their efforts to provide an effective, 21st century service.
    In that way we will rebuild the bond of trust between the police and the public. The fight against crime is our shared responsibility as a society: we’re all in this together. We need thoughtful, patient, long-term action to tackle the causes of crime.
    We need reform of the criminal justice system and tougher sentencing.
    But we cannot be tough on crime unless we tackle the issues which are holding back police performance.
    This is the most difficult and controversial part of the crime agenda. But the Conservative party I lead will not flinch from saying what needs to be said, and doing what needs to be done.
    Tough on crime; tough on police reform. Unless we have the courage and the determination to pursue radical police reform, we will never build the safer communities we all want to see.

    I think they are the same person, but i’ll leave it up to you, the reader. Hardly an impartial report?

  108. Michael Manette says:

    @coconuttty
    Every house I visit I’m telling them what’s happening to policing. I’m not mentioning our pay, pension or terms / conditions of service. No one’s interested in that, as the press and the Government have done us over good and proper. No, I’m just telling them what’s coming down the line for them? i.e G4S patrolling the streets and how ACPO have been complicit with the Government in the dismantling of the police as they know it, because they and their former members have their own business interest in such organisations. To say that people are horrified is an under statement.

    Trust me; I’m just one officer getting the message out to the public. I don’t think I’m the only one. There has to be other’s, aren’t there? If not, why not? We all visit a lot of people everyday, far more than ACPO, the press or our lovely politicians. It’s called the domino effect, retail use this term all time. You tell one person they tell family and friends who in turn tell their family and friends and on and on it goes. The message may get a little distorted, but the crux of it remains, the public will soon be getting far less of a serve, delivered by un-accountable civvies with massive ego’s to satisfy. The ones who could never get into the police, those who finally had to give up there dream after their fourth failed attempt of getting it in.

    You just have to remind the public about the local council traffic enforcement officers. No discretion, if your bumper is over hanging the double yellow lines, you’re having a ticket and that’s that mate. Jobs worth the lot of them and that’s what they will be getting. Mark my words.

  109. Zulu99 says:

    Reblogged this on Zulu 99.

  110. Lord Vader says:

    Excellent article, even if I’m left a little deflated by it all. That said, never have I felt so angry or disillusioned by anything in my 15yrs service and will look to do all I can fight for our futures. I for one feel the need to question those in my organisation of ACPO rank that that have been anonymous during this whole sorry saga. Given we demand the utmost in honesty and integrity from our staff, it’s seems there’s direct correlation between the rank of chief constable and an OBE or MBE when they retire……….Hmmmmmmmm, so where’s the integrity in that? ACPO = Living in the pockets of politicians. You ve let us down badly, not as though I should be surprised.

  111. jayne hall says:

    Our local councillor was quoting the terns of the INDEPENDANT review before it wad written and published. Draw your own conclusion. Plus we are servants if the crown and queen. There to serve and protect. It we are top if the hit list. Then is the monarchy next. An attack on us has to be seen as a direct attack on the person we serve. After all noone is safe

  112. jayne hall says:

    Thirty thousand officers attend London. No probs we needed to try. But cost payments to officers and transport in the tune of 1 to 1.5 million. Would that not be better served on a world class barrister and team to fight for the great British bobby. Something the federation don’t seem to be capable of doing. But then how many of them actually have more than 10 years to go. ????????

  113. huw says:

    I have been subscribing to FED for the past 17yrs. This is the worst the Police has ever got ….yet we still do the job we love and probably wouldn’t do anything else…..but for god sake, FED….do something!!??!!
    I’ve got 13yrs left to do. I cannot understand how anyone would want to join now…..something needs to change.

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s