The Policeman's Blog

"Does anyone else get told to 'F*ck off and die, pig, I know where you live and I'm going to rape your wife and kill your kids?'"
Only teachers and people who work in A&E. I feel sorry for the police but at least unlike private sector workers will retire. I will die in my job as Gordon has eaten my pension.
 

Lets hope the federation meeting today in London come up with something a bit more original than a vote for the right to strike. I dont think the federation have judged the mood of its members correctly. It members want to do something now like some sort of work to rule or not completing home office forms etc rather than something that will directly effect the service we give to the public anything that directly effects them will only lead to alienation. Fingers crossed
 

GOrwell, there is nothing to stop you from paying into a private pension scheme and retiring early. We pay into a pension scheme to the tune of 11.5% (8.5% and an extra 5 years service for less pay out for new people though) every month for 30 years. I knew long ago that by the time I get to pension age there won't be state pension any more but we still pay the same tax and NI as every one else, and if you think that I'm going to be able to retire after 30 years then you're sorely mistaken. I don't know any police officers who have hit 50-55 and just been able to sit back and play golf, virtually all have kids to pay for and families to support.

As for the point about teachers and A&E staff getting abuse, yes they do, but who's fault is that? I will happily deal with anyone who abuses those people, but the point that scrotes think they can get away with it is becuase there are no consequences for them if they do so. Kick off at A&E and get banned from the NHS for life?? I think that would address a few problems. Kick off at teachers and have to serve a prison sentence or have your pay docked directly at source to compensate? whether on benefits or not it might give some people pause.
 

Interesting hearing what you have to put up with for your pay disputes and bargaining. In Queensland we have just voted on our latest enterprise bargaining agreement. The agreement will see us get 15% over 3 years.
 

'Er, which comparable public sector jobs would these be, then? As far as I know, the police are the only public sector employees who are regularly spat at, assaulted Does anyone else get told to 'F*ck off and die, pig,'

Yes there are. Those who work with children in care homes get this every day. They have to call in your lot who complain about having to come out again. They also say they would not do that job. The pay starts at nmcbh£16500.
So get real.
 

Being a normal(ish) citizen.
I don't think the police should strike, I think that would be the wrong thing to do & not have the public support.
But I'm in favor of other measures "work to rule or not completing home office forms etc"

Good luck on the pay deal
 

Homecare: Yes, I think the above post made the point that all public sector workers suffer unacceptable shite most days of their working lives. It's a result of years of Guardian reading sociologists saying that everyone has rights and all punishment and boundaries are wrong.
But we are where we are.
The fatc is, the police do have a unique job: as the above post points out, you get abused but you don't have to walk into a pub full of 30 blokes when it's kicking off, you don't have to go round to houses to break the news to parents that their daughter is dead, you don't run after bank robbers when everyone else is running the same way, you don't kick a door in and find an old lady cover4ed in maggots, and you don't drive out to the same house for the third time this week to sort out a domestic argument revolving around nasty text messages.
The police don't call you when they have problems, do they? You call them. And the reason, as you surely know, that they get fed up with attending calls like the one you mention is because they know nothing will be done to protect you and punish the offenders. But at least they come out!
But as others have said, public sector workers falling out is just what the government wants - it muddies the water.
This is just about the government honouring its obligation; if they'd been upfront and said 1.9% is your lot, different argument.
 

Homecare, I notice that you edited Foxtrot Oscar's post. What s/he actually wrote was (my capitals):
Er, which comparable public sector jobs would these be, then? As far as I know, the police are the only public sector employees who are regularly spat at, assaulted AND EVEN KILLED.'
That 'killed' bit is quite important. And while I know you guys get abused - which I think is disgusting, we should lock the scum up - every day coppers are getting stabbed, punched, kicked etc.
I wouldn't do your job, no, but who comes out when it all goes tits up for you? I don't dial 999 and ask for you, do I?
 

We recently received a very blustery e-mail from the service fed rep, unacceptable this, strike that, blah blah blah. They recently shafted us over the 8 vs 10 hour shift pattern vote, their advice went something like this:

Bosses offer a 10 and an 8 hour pattern to replace existing 12 (which we all like ta very much). 8 hour was drawn up by bosses, its awfull, mainly so you wont vote for it, 10 was also drawn up by bosses, its not bad, its the shift they want you to take as it involves less overtime. Fed says, "Vote 8, the bosses dont want that! We can negotiate a better 10! Some, well, most, voted 8. It nearly killed me. So we ask the fed whats going on, what are you negotiating. Fed forgot the 8 hour pattern was worked for years, bosses couldn't care less. After 9 months on the hellish 8, we have just managed to get a vote again for the original 10. Cheers fed...

My point is the Federation are a dog with rubber teeth. All bark and no bite. Whatever the crap they spin about the 2.5% the Govt will do whatever they want, full stop. We have no trade union, no industrial rights.

Any officer who refuses to fill a form in will end up getting disciplined and possibly sacked. We cant strike, and wont strike. There is however the growing argument that as traditional Police roles and responsibilities are becoming more business like, so our rights should as well. A sector inspector is now a "Community safety manager", we have business managers, "corporate development", more and more civy terms for police roles. I don't like it!

As for the other comments, Metcounty has some very valid points. Pension crap? Get a good one. Taking abuse in your job? Lobby government for harsher penalties or a specific offence with specific penalty. Otherwise, stop your whinging.
 

As a recntly retired Police Office I have just taken a deep breath of fresh air and joined the long suffering public outside the Police Service, I and can say 'it feels great' spoken to as a human being, treated with respect, don't get me wrong I had a good thirty some years but I feel the time is right to leave, there is too much change for no good reason. Because of the actions of Smith and McNulty over the recent pay award I have had hard earned money stolen from my back pocket, they have in one action removed all trust in this bungling government which crashes through hard fought agreements without thought.
It seems to me that these two common criminals should arrested immediatly and dragged slowly through the Criminal Justice system.

I hope that for once the service sticks together, the Federation grow some claws and takes decisive action for those still in the Service and those who still have good memories of a great Police Service.

McNulty and Smith, take your head out of the sand your own MP's can see what your doing.

What next? remove MP's expenses, freeze MP's pay for the next ten years, in fact stop paying them altogether........sorry I'm not in heaven yet.

To all the Boys and Girls out their keep your heads up your time will come.
 

"GOrwell, there is nothing to stop you from paying into a private pension scheme and retiring early."
I could do but not with the same guarante that you get. My colleagues did that - with equitable life oh dear.
Don't get me wrong I think the police have been badly treated as have ALL workers under Labour public or private sector. Public sector with poor salary rises us with high taxes on our employers - who reduce our pay as a result.


"think that would address a few problems. Kick off at teachers and have to serve a prison sentence or have your pay docked directly at source to compensate? whether on benefits or not it might give some people pause."
Good idea it could go to tax payers.
 

GOrwell - re the police pension, you're right, it is guaranteed.
But just because yours isn't, that's not an argument against a fair police pay deal. It's a separate argument (albeit with the same incompetent, lying, cheating government).
To be fair, I think you accept that so not having a go at you.
 

The main point to take from all this was mentioned in a post earlier. In short
'when there's trouble who do the Police call ?'
Where I work Ambulance and Brigade staff won't attend to many estates without back up from us This means staff are tied up and we can't cope with our core responsibilities.
Ambo wouldn't attend a 30 minute old job recently without Police. We were dealing with a major disturbance nearby. Victim had a head wound, third party ringing in and offender long gone. The reason was that the victim might play up !!!!
So while it's true to say that many public service staff face abuse and danger only the Police have nobody to call to help.
Deserving of that £200 don't you think.
 

personally, i hate the police and i couldn't give a stuff about your pay
 

"personally, i hate the police and i couldn't give a stuff about your pay"

Well that's fine, but just pass onto us your name and contact details so that the next time you or one of your family is being punched/kicked/raped/murdered/involved in a domestic dispute/hassled by violent yobs/assaulted by drunks/lose your property/get your house burgled/get mugged/die/need to complain about the rowdy kids in the flat above,etc, we can politely tell you where to stick it.
 

"It appears to us that if an award is made, if that is what arbitration feels our police officers are entitled to, it is duty bound upon a government who signed up for arbitration to deliver the outcome in the terms of the arbitrated deal." - Kenny MacAskill Scotland's justice secretary.

Scottish police will get the pay award backdated.
 

WHat is deeply frustrating to me over this is that I do not want to go on strike. It's crap. I hate striking, and applaud the policy for not doing so. This Government has broken the covenant with the Armed Forces, and now they've done it with us. They are liars, cheats and have no honour. They say they'll be tough on crime, then make our jobs impossible. They go to war, and fail to provide the kit to the forces. They are out and out cowards, liars, cheats and need to be got rid of.
 

"But just because yours isn't, that's not an argument against a fair police pay deal."
I don't think the police have got a fair deal. However the pay and benefits for Police is not too bad compared to the rest of us.
Saying that I would quite happily take money from the single mums I know living in luxury and give it to you. (And yes they do live in luxury - their houses are a lot more expensive than mine)
 

need to go on the offensive...publicise smiths MP expenses (£178k?) and expose what a bunch of hippocrites they are. we won't strike because of our consciences....need to make direct attacks on the gov re their pay/expenses/pensions and ours...and then what they actually do compared to us.
 

Dont froget that prison officer have to put up with all that as well.We got shafted on our pay deal too. It against the law for prison officer to strike be we did it. I would fully support any action the police took over pay.
 

Strike (which most don't want)= Possible prison;loss of public support;family put at risk

Work to rule (which we can't) = Discipline measures by Force

Stop working overtime (which most can't afford to)= Poor living standards/house repossession for some.

Continue working for a morally corrupt, greedy, jack-booted government (which we have to) = shafted again!
 

Please see the below information it may be of some interest to those who take up the fight against these two faced members of parliament.

Introduction
This Factsheet looks at the rates of pay, pension and allowances for Members of Parliament. It
takes each of them in turn, looking at the current rates and any changes to the system that have
occurred over time. Members’ salaries are increased annually by an agreed formula that is
based on senior civil service pay bands and subject to review every five years. Members of
Parliament also belong to the parliamentary pension scheme, a final salary scheme that was first
introduced in 1965. In addition to salary and pension arrangements, Members also receive a
number of allowances including a staffing allowance, travel and car allowances, communications
allowance, additional costs allowance and London supplement allowance.

Members’ pay
Current rates
From the 1st April 2007 the annual salary for Members of Parliament is £60,675. A full list of
salaries since 1911 is given in Appendix A. The following table summarises the current levels of
allowances that Members are entitled to:
Summary of current rates with effect from 1 April 2007
Members' parliamentary salary £60,675 from 1 April
Allowances
Staffing Allowance Maximum of £90,505
Incidental Expenses Allowance (IEP) Maximum of £21,339
IT equipment (centrally provided) [worth circa £3,000]
Pension provision for Members' staff
10% of employee’s gross salary
London Supplement
£2,812
Additional Costs Allowance
Maximum of £23,083
Winding up Allowance
Maximum of £37,281
Communications Allowance
Maximum of £10,000
Car Mileage (per mile)
40p (for first 10,000 miles)
25p (after 10,000 miles)
Bicycle allowance (per mile) 20p
Motorcycle allowance 24p
Members’ pay, pensions and allowances House of Commons Information Office Factsheet M5
3
Changes in pay
Every three years the Review Body on Senior Salaries (SSRB) conducts a review of parliamentary
pay, allowances and pensions. The latest reports were published in October 20041 and 2005.2
The report recommended that salaries should continue to be increased by the formula that had
been used since 1997. This formula increases the annual rate of pay for Members of Parliament
by the average of the increases in mid-points of the Senior Civil Service pay bands.
Dual mandate Members
Members of Parliament who are also members of devolved parliaments and assemblies are
known as dual mandate Members. Before the European Elections of June 2004 Members of the
European Parliament could also be dual mandate Members. Since then, MEPs elected to serve
at Westminster have to resign their position as an MEP. Dual mandate Members receive a full
parliamentary salary but a reduced salary of one-third of the full rate in respect of their
membership of the other assembly. The reduced rates are currently:
Northern Ireland Assembly - £10,606
Scottish Parliament - £17,408
National Assembly for Wales - £15,397

Pay for Select Committee Chairmen
On 14 May 2002, during a debate on a Modernisation Select Committee report5 on the select
committee system, the House approved a motion that the Senior Salaries Review Body (SSRB)
should be invited to consider additional pay for chairmen of certain select committees. In its
report, the (SSRB) recommended that an extra payment of £12,5000 per annum should be
made to chairmen of departmental committees, and to the chairmen of some ‘crossdepartmental’
committees such as Environmental Audit; European Scrutiny; Human Rights;
Public Accounts; Public Administration; Deregulation and Regulatory Reform and Statutory
Instruments.6


The recommendations of the SSRB report were considered by the House during a debate on 30
October 2003.7 The House agreed a motion in the name of the Leader of the House that from
the beginning of the new session of Parliament 2003-04 (26 November 2003), a salary of
£12,500 per annum would be paid to the chairmen of the following committees; those
appointed under Standing Order No. 152 (select committees related to government
departments), Environmental Audit, European Scrutiny, Public Accounts, Public Administration,
Regulatory Reform, Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Joint Committee on Statutory
Instruments. Payment of the additional salary for Members who were already chairman of a
relevant committee began on 26 November 2003. For Members appointed at a later date, the
salary is payable from the day on which they become chairman of the particular select
committee. Payment ends on the day on which a Member ceases to be chairman of a
committee. The salary to be increased annually from 1 April 2004 in accordance with the
formula used to uprate the annual pay rate for Members of Parliament. From 1 April 2007, the
salary increased, in line with the increase in Members’ salaries, to £13,326

Members’ pensions
Current scheme
Members of Parliament belong to the parliamentary pension scheme. This is a final salary scheme
with a current accrual rate of 1/40th or 1/50th. It is a contributory pension with the contribution rate
now set at 10% (40th accrual) and 6% (50th accrual) of salary.13
Background
A pension for MPs was first introduced in 1965. The Committee on the Remuneration of Ministers
and Members of Parliament (the Lawrence Committee, Cmnd 2516) recommended that a pension scheme for MPs should be introduced. This was done by the Ministerial Salaries and Members' Pensions Act 1965. The scheme was unusual in that both benefits and contributions were fixed in money terms.
In December 1970 the Government announced that the recently established Review Body on Top
Salaries (TSRB) would undertake subsequent reviews of the arrangements for salaries, allowances
and pensions of Ministers and MPs.
The first report of the TSRB (Cmnd 4836) recommended a restructured pension scheme with
pension related to "final salary", accruing at 1/60th for each year of service. The scheme was to be
extended to include Ministers and certain other office holders who wished to participate. The new
scheme was established under the terms of the Parliamentary and Other Pensions Act 1972.
Subsequent reviews resulted in amending Acts in 1976, 1978 and 1981.
The next major change resulted from the 20th Report of the TSRB (Cmnd 8881) which
recommended an accrual rate of 1/50th, with effect from 20 July 1983. The contribution payable
by Members was increased to 9% of salary. These changes and other minor matters were given
legal force by the Parliamentary Pensions etc. Act 1984. The 31st Report of the TSRB, (Cm
1576), approved by Parliament on 18 July 1991, then recommended that the contribution payable
by Members be reduced to 6% of salary; this took effect from 1 April 1992.
Pressure for a single consolidation document had grown throughout this period, and resulted in the
Parliamentary and Other Pensions Act 1987. This Act meant that the detailed arrangements could
be set out in regulations. This led to the Parliamentary Pensions (Consolidation and Amendment)
Regulations 1993 (SI 1993/3253) and the Parliamentary Pensions (Additional Voluntary
Contributions Scheme) Regulations (SI 1993/3252), which came into force on 21 January 1994.
The AVC Scheme enables Members to purchase additional pension benefits within limits proscribed
by the Fund Regulations. In 1995 the House voted to increase the accrual rate from 1/60th to
1/50th for service prior to 20 July 1983, for Members who were serving as at 1 April 1995. Other
regulations affecting the scheme have been laid. A comprehensive listing of the entire scheme’s
primary and secondary legislation can be found in Halsbury’s Statutes.
Recent changes
The latest SSRB report on the parliamentary pension scheme was published in March 2001.14 It
included 8 main recommendations. The Leader of the House tabled a motion for debate on
5 July 2001 which included four of the recommendations of the SSRB. These included the increase
of death-in-service benefit from three to four times annual salary and that non-concurrent service in
devolved assemblies should count towards the qualifying period of an early retirement pension.
This motion was agreed and the trustees of the scheme were invited to consider how to implement
the remaining recommendations.
The House also approved an amendment to increase the accrual rate of pension from 1/50th to
1/40th of salary. The Government did not accept that the cost of this should fall on the Treasury and
it referred the cost of this measure back to the SSRB and invited their advice on how it should be
funded.15 The SSRB estimated that this faster accrual rate would cost the equivalent of 5.1% of
pay and recommended that to fund this increase in the short-term an additional 3% contribution
should be taken from Members’ salaries, taking the total contribution rate to 9%. It also
recommended that cost of the remaining 2.1% would remain with the Exchequer in the short term
but that this additional Exchequer contribution should be taken into account in future reviews of
Members’ salaries so that eventually the full cost of the increased accrual rate would be borne by
MPs. In 2003 the Government Actuary calculated the current net cost of the pension accrual rate
improvement as 4.6% of pay, lower than the initial estimate of 5.1% of pay as not all Members
have opted for the higher accrual rate.16
The Government introduced a Statutory Instrument17 on 15 July 2002 to bring most of these
proposals into force. As there were drafting errors in these regulations the Parliamentary Pensions
(Amendment) (No.2) Regulations 2002 (SI 2002/1887) were laid on 22 July 2002.
The SI provided that:
• active members would accrue pensions at 1/40th and members’ contributions would
increase from 6% to 9% from 15th July 2002;
• active members had until 31st December 2002 to opt to backdate contributions and accrual
rate increases to 5th July 2001
• active members had until 31st December 2002 to opt out of the increases, and remain with
6% contributions and 1/50th accrual rate.
There remained two outstanding proposals following the SSRB report. These were whether survivor
benefits should be extended to unmarried spouses and whether survivor benefits should continue if a
spouse remarries. They remained outstanding until 2005 when the Government introduced the
Parliamentary Pension (Amendment) Regulations 200518 to provide survivors benefits funded by
an increase in contributions from 9% to 10% from 1st April 2004.
On 25 November 2003 the Prime Minister asked the Senior Salaries Review Body (SSRB) to carry
out a review of parliamentary pay and allowances. Part of the remit was to look at “the implications
for the Parliamentary Pension Scheme of the recent Pensions Green Paper and the associated paper
on the reform of pensions taxation”.19 The SSRB made two major recommendations regarding an
increase in contribution rate and to ask Parliament to look again at the outstanding issues from the
2001 report.
Recommendation 4 of the SSRB report was that the contribution rate for those MPs who have opted
for the 1/40th accrual rate should be increased by 1%, to 10%, with effect from 1 April
2004.
Recommendation 3 of the SSRB report was that the scheme trustees should decide what action to
take on the recommendations outstanding from the SSRB’s March 2001 report.
Specifically these are:
1. That the provision for curtailing widow(er)s’ pensions upon remarriage should be
removed, at Exchequer cost;
2. That the scheme trustees should explore with managers of the MEPs’ pension scheme
and the trustees of the pension schemes for Members of the devolved assemblies the merits
of establishing a Parliamentary Transfer Club; and
3. That the scheme trustees should canvas the views of scheme members on the issue of
survivors’ pensions for unmarried partners.
The House subsequently passed a motion on 3 November 2004 resolving the following:
That this House notes recommendation 3 contained in the report of the Review Body on
Senior Salaries on parliamentary pay and allowances (Cm. 6354-1), a copy of which was
laid before this House on 21st October, and is of the opinion that, subject to consultation
with the Trustees of the PCPF and the Government Actuary as to the detailed
implementation, the proposals set out in paragraphs (1) to (3) below should be adopted as
a package which is, overall, at least cost neutral to the Exchequer:
(1) Pensions calculated on the same basis as pensions for widows and widowers should be
introduced for surviving unmarried partners of members in service on or after 3rd November
2004.
(2) Pensions for the widows, widowers and unmarried partners of members in service on or
after 3rd November 2004 should be payable for life.
(3) The early retirement provisions which permit a member who has accrued at least 15
years service to retire before the age of 65 on favourable terms should be removed for those
who become members of the scheme after 3rd November 2004 and phased out for existing
members from 1st April 2009, or the day after the general election after next, whichever is
the later.20
Other changes have been made such that:
(i) service in the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern
Ireland Assembly will count towards the qualifying period for an early retirement pension
(except where the service is concurrent with membership of the House of Commons) (SI
2004 No 2416);
(ii) the Principal Regulations were amended to provide an exception to the abatement
requirements in respect of pension. Former Members of the House of Commons who
become paid office holders in the House of Lords will not have their pension abated.
However, abatement will still be applicable to any part of the pension earned as a paid
office holder in the House of Commons (SI 2002 No 1807);
(iii) in case of Members dying on or after 1st April 2001, all dependant children will receive
equal treatment in respect of benefits (SI 2002 No 1807);
(iv) the lump sum death in service payment was increased from 3 x annual salary to 4 x
annual salary (SI 2002 No 1807).
The PCPF rules were subsequently altered to take account of the requirements of the Pensions Act
2004 and the Finance Acts 2004 and 2005. These changes were introduced in
SI 2006 No 920 and laid before Parliament on 23rd March 2006. The main changes were:
(i) the maximum tax free cash on commutation increased to 25% of the total value of
benefits;
(ii) Members over 75 at 5th April 2006 were given the option to take their tax free cash
prior to 6th April 2006 but with the pension abated until they leave the House;
(iii) Corresponding changes were made to the death benefits for those over age 75 at the
date of death;
(iv) The maximum contribution for Added Years was increased to 10% of salary with no
restriction on those who might reach maximum benefits by age 65;
(v) The maximum contribution to AVCs was increased to the HMRC limit
(vi) Up to 25% of the AVC Fund may be taken as tax free cash (within the Lifetime
Allowance) at retirement;
(vii) Provision has been put in place for those who wish to exercise the Primary or
Enhanced Protection afforded under the new legislation;
(viii) Transfers from personal pensions (including Stakeholder) and AVCs must be made
within a year of joining the PCPF or 6th April 2007 if later.
In 2006 (SI 2006 No 1965) amended the Fund regulations to permit the office of Speaker of the
House of Lords to participate in the Scheme with effect from 5th July 2006.
SI 2007 No 270 amended the Fund regulations to permit Members reaching the age of 75 after 6th
April 2006 to be given the option to take their tax free cash just before their 75th birthday and abate
their pension until they leave the House. Amongst other minor changes, the SI also provided for two
of the trustees to be pensioners.
In March 2006, the Government Actuary assessed the deficit in the Parliamentary Contributory
Pension Fund at £49.5 million. The Exchequer’s share of the cost of accruing benefits was
assessed at 18.1% of payroll. Amortising the deficit over a 15-year period was said to require an
additional 8.7%. It was recommended that the Exchequer’s contribution rate from 1 April 2006
should be 26.8% of the pensionable salary of scheme members.

Members’ allowances
Members are now entitled to a range of allowances to cover expenditure on staff and other items.
This has not always been the case. This section looks briefly at the allowances that Members
had previously been paid before concentrating on the allowances currently available.
The Lawrence Report
At the time of the Lawrence Committee Report in 1964, there were only a limited number of
allowances available to MPs. These consisted of various facilities in kind, such as free telephone
calls from the House within the London area; the use of a limited number of rooms where Members and Members' private secretaries might do their secretarial and typing work; free postage for correspondence with Government Departments, nationalised industries and officials of the House, and free copies of Parliamentary and certain other official publications. There were also certain travel allowances including a car mileage allowance covering the cost of motor fuel and a railway season ticket for Members travelling from their homes to the House. Since then, the number and variety of allowances available to Members has been increased.
Prior to the review of Members’ pay and allowances in March 2001, Members claimed
reimbursement of expenses incurred in the performance of their Parliamentary duties for
secretarial assistance, general office expenses and for the employment of research assistants in
the form of the Office Costs Allowance. This allowance was formerly known as the Secretarial,
Research and Office Costs Allowance.
The SSRB's report of March 2001 recommended fundamental changes to the way in which
Members of Parliament are funded and reimbursed for their office expenses. The House of
Commons debated and agreed the proposals on 5 July 2001. The system of allowances which
these changes brought in is outlined below. In 2004 the Speaker of the House of Commons
decided, on the advice of the House of Commons Commission (see Factsheet G15 ‘The House of
Commons Administration’), that details of the allowances claimed by individual Members would
be made available on the Parliamentary website.
Figures for the allowances claimed by each Member for each year since 2001-02 can be found
at: http://www.parliament.uk/site_information/allowances.cfm
Staffing Costs Allowance
A Staffing Costs Allowance was introduced in June 2001 to replace the Office Costs Allowance.
The Office Costs Allowance was abolished after a transitional period ending on 31 March 2003.
Members who served in the previous parliament were able to retain their entitlement to OCA
until 1 April 2003.
Under the Staffing Costs Allowance, salaries of staff employed by Members to help them in their
parliamentary duties are paid centrally by the House Authorities, together with pension
contributions equivalent to 10% of each employee's salary.
All MPs’ staff should be employed on agreed pay scales, linked to job descriptions and standard
contracts prepared by the Department of Finance and Administration. Members may employ up
to the equivalent of three full-time staff.
For 2007/08 Members have a maximum staffing allowance of £90,505.. This maximum is
increased annually according to movements in pay for similar jobs outside the House of
Commons. The Operations Directorate will set ceilings for individual Members at the start of
year.
Incidental Expenses Provision
Incidental Expenses Provision (IEP) is an allowance designed to meet any other expenditure that
Members may incur in the course of discharging their duties as MPs. The current maximum is
£21,339 and it is increased annually in line with the Retail Prices Index. Examples of the sort
of expenditure covered by IEP are office accommodation costs, equipment and supplies or costs
related to security, disabled access or health and safety improvements.
Members’ pay, pensions and allowances House of Commons Information Office Factsheet M5
13
Computer Equipment
Computer equipment is now centrally provided and maintained. A standard package of IT
equipment including printers, scanners and three PCs is available for all Members.
Temporary Assistance
The purpose of this allowance is to meet the additional costs incurred by a Member in obtaining
secretarial or research assistance while an employee is absent from work due to illness or
pregnancy. To qualify for payment of the allowance, a secretary or researcher for whom
temporary cover is being provided must be absent from work because of pregnancy or be absent
on sick leave for more than two continuous weeks and continue to receive a salary paid from the
Member’s allowances. The absent employee must submit supporting medical certificates or
maternity forms and name a valid contract of employment specifying the periods of paid
absence. The maximum entitlement will be determined by the absent employee’s salary – 12
months for sickness (available for use over a four-year period) and 24 weeks salary for each
maternity absence.
London Supplement
Members whose constituencies are within inner London are entitled to claim a London Supplement.
This is paid as an addition to salary. From 1 April 2007 this has been worth £2,812.
The House resolved on 27 June 1997 that with effect from 2 May 1997, the following
constituencies are "inner London constituencies":
Battersea; Bethnal Green and Bow; Camberwell and Peckham; Cities of London and
Westminster; Dulwich and West Norwood; Eltham; Greenwich and Woolwich; Hackney
North and Stoke Newington; Hackney South and Shoreditch; Hammersmith and Fulham;
Hampstead and Highgate; Holborn and St. Pancras; Islington North; Islington South and
Finsbury; Kensington and Chelsea; Lewisham, Deptford; Lewisham East; Lewisham West;
North Southwark and Bermondsey; Poplar and Canning Town; Putney; Regent's Park and
Kensington North; Streatham; Tooting; Vauxhall21
Members representing outer London constituencies must choose to take either London
Supplement or Additional Costs Allowance.
Additional Costs Allowance
The Additional Costs Allowance reimburses Members for additional expenses incurred in staying
overnight away from their main home while performing Parliamentary duties. Members for inner
London constituencies are not entitled to ACA as they receive London Supplement automatically.
Members for outer London constituencies who choose to take London Supplement are also ineligible
for ACA. The maximum allowance is £23,083 for 2007/8.
It is recognised that MPs have two places of work, Westminster and their constituency. Additional
costs can be only claimed in respect of one of these places, and a Member is required to notify the Operations Directorate at the Commons of the location of his or her main residence. The additional expenses can be claimed when the Member stays overnight away from the main residence. For example, a provincial Member with a home registered in his or her constituency would be entitled to additional expenses incurred in staying away from home overnight for the purpose of carrying out parliamentary duties either in London, or within the constituency, if he or she would otherwise be involved in an "unreasonably" lengthy journey home.
Previously, under Resolutions of 20 December 1971, Ministers and paid Office Holders were
deemed to have their main homes in London; if these Ministers did not have an official
residence, they were entitled to London Supplement and could not claim Additional Costs
Allowance. This has now changed and Ministers can claim for overnight stayds in London if they
spend more nights in their constituency home than in any other.

Travel allowances
In 1984 an independent inquiry was set up under Lord Peyton of Yeovil to look at how MPs were
reimbursed the cost of their motor mileage. It was recommended that MPs should be reimbursed by
a payment per mile, appropriate to the engine size of the car, based on the RAC schedule of
motoring costs, and subject to an upper limit. A higher rate should be payable for the first 20,000
miles per annum, a lower rate for mileage beyond that.
The report also recommended that when a Member claimed for mileage in excess of 25,000, he or
she should be required to provide details of all journeys covered by the claims.
The Government accepted the report's findings and they were approved by Resolution of the House
on 20 July 1984. On 3 November 1993 the House amended the earlier Resolution to allow for a
2.3% increase from 1 April 1994 in each of the allowance rates.
On 10 July 1996 the House decided by resolution that with effect from 1 April 1997, motor
mileage allowance should be payable to Members at the higher rate of 47.2 pence per mile and the
lower rate of 21.7 pence irrespective of engine capacity increased by the percentage (if any) by
which the Retail Prices Index (RPI) has increased over the March 1996 index. Increases in
subsequent years were to be linked to the retail prices index (RPI) for March. The higher rate is for the first 20,000 miles.
However, in line with SSRB recommendations, from 1 April 2005, the MMA has been reduced. It is now set in line with approved Inland Revenue rates which are calculated to “represent the actual cost of motoring, including fuel costs, wear and tear (including servicing and depreciation), road fund licence, and insurance”.22 The current rates are 40 pence per mile for the first 10,000 miles and 25 pence per mile thereafter.
Following a request by the Leader of the House, the SSRB examined and proposed a Bicycle
Allowance as set out in its January 1998 report. A Resolution of 20 March 1998 introduced the
allowance for Members in respect of journeys that they have undertaken by bicycle while on
Parliamentary duties in the UK. The Resolution set the rate at 6.2p per mile, to be uprated by the
RPI from 1 April each year. The rate from 1 April 2005 is 20p per mile.
In addition, Members are currently provided with travel warrants that may be exchanged for an
appropriate ticket, for journeys by rail, sea or air on Parliamentary business. These cover journeys within the same triangle of home, constituency and Westminster as the car mileage allowance.
Costs of journeys outside this triangle, on Parliamentary business, may also be reimbursed if the
Member notifies the Operations Directorate at least three days in advance - the three day rule may be waived in exceptional circumstances. Members may also use parking spaces, for which no charge is made, in the Parliamentary car park.
Special travel warrants are available for use by the spouse, and children under the age of 18, of a
Member between London and the constituency and/or London and home by rail, air or sea. This
concession was extended to include Members' children on 10 June 1982, where previously it
applied to Members' spouses only. Each child may make up to fifteen designated return journeys
during the year and the same limit applies to spouses.
Under the terms of a Resolution of the House dated 6 December 1991, Members were entitled to
be reimbursed for travel costs incurred on Parliamentary duties between the United Kingdom and
certain European Community institutions. A Member was allowed one visit a calendar year. This
Resolution was rescinded on 26 May 1999, when the House decided that provision should be made as from 1 April 1999 for reimbursing Members for the cost of travelling on Parliamentary duties between the United Kingdom and any European Union institution in Brussels, Luxembourg or Strasbourg or the national parliament of another European Union member state. The scheme was limited in that it should not exceed the aggregate of the cost of a return business class airfare from a London airport to one of the designated destinations and twice the corresponding civil service class A
standard subsistence rate in operation. Additionally, a new resolution passed on 9 May 2002
provides that, from 1 April 2002, Members can now claim the cost of travelling on parliamentary
duties to European Union candidate countries. The new resolution also increased the number of
visits to three. A Member must submit a statement to the Operations Directorate in advance about
the purpose of the visit including the location and duration and the persons or organisations to be
met.

General Services Budget
Central funding by way of a General Services Budget was introduced as part of the changes in
2001. It provides for relevant training of Members and their staff, appropriate insurance
provision, exceptional expenses incurred by Members who have constituencies with particular
problems and reasonable adjustments to working conditions and equipment of Members with
particular needs.
Before 2001, Members with specific disabilities received additional allowances expressed in
multiples of the OCA. Additional provision was made by a resolution of the House. Examples
are given below:
On 16 December 1987 the House decided to increase the allowance given to Rt Hon David
Blunkett MP by 50% of the basic allowance, to take into account the increased difficulties he faces
in being a visually impaired Member. This was increased to 2.57 times the basic amount on 14
July 1988, a figure which was subsequently renewed on 14 July 1992, on 13 July 1994, and
again on 10 July 1996.
On 26 November 1998 the House decided to increase the allowance given to Miss Anne
Begg MP to 1.55 times the basic amount of both the Office Costs Allowance and the Additional
Costs Allowance. Previously, on 20 March 1998, the House had decided to increase the
allowance paid to Miss Begg to 1.33 times the basic amount for both the Office Costs Allowance
and the Additional Costs Allowance. The House also agreed on this date that the limit on
Members' staff travel for Miss Begg should be 34 return journeys in the 12 months beginning
1 January 1998.
The 2001 SSRB report recommended that the House find an alternative means of providing
additional help for members with disabilities in order to protect individual Members’ privacy. The
resolution agreed by the House on 5 July 2001 incorporated such allowances into the new
General Services Budget:

Winding-Up Allowance and Resettlement Grant
An allowance of up to one third of the annual Office Costs Allowance was paid for the
reimbursement of the cost of any work on Parliamentary business undertaken on behalf of a
deceased, defeated or retiring Member after the date of cessation of Membership. On 5 July
2001 the House agreed to change the allowance to one third of the sum of the staffing provision
and Incidental Expenses Allowance in force at the time of cessation of Membership.
A Resettlement Grant to assist with the costs of adjusting to "non-parliamentary life", is payable
to any person who ceases to be an MP at a General Election. The amount is based on age and
length of service, and varies between 50% and 100% of the annual salary payable to a Member
of Parliament at the time of the Dissolution.
Communications Allowance
On Wednesday 28th March 2007, the House of Commons approved the establishment of
a Communications Allowance, effective from 1st April 2007. This was in accordance with
recommendation by the Members Estimate Committee 2006-07 (House of Commons Paper No.
319).
The allowance is designed to assist MPs in communicating with the public on parliamentary
business and will provide £10,000 per year for each Member, uprated annually in line with any
increase in the Retail Price Index.
Detailed rules and guidance for the Allowance shall be determined and reviewed from time to
time by the Members Estimate Committee.

Staffing Allowance since its introduction in June 2001
Date Minimum Maximum
Jun 2001 60,000 70,000
Apr 2002 61,980 72,310
Apr 2003 64,304 74,985
Apr 2004 66,458 77,534
Apr 2005 84,081
Apr 2006 87,276
Apr 2007 90,505
Maximum Office Cost Allowance since its introduction in October 1969
Oct 1969 500 Apr 1988 22,588
Jan 1972 1,000 Apr 1989 24,903
Aug 1974 1,750 Apr 1990 27,166
Jun 1975 3,200 Apr 1991 28,986
Jun 1976 3,512 Apr 1992 39,960
Jun 1977 3,687 Apr 1993 40,380
Jun 1978 4,200 Apr 1994 41,308
Jun 1979 4,600 Apr 1995 42,754
Feb 1980 6,750 Apr 1996 (b) 43,908
Aug 1980 8,000 Apr 1996 (c) 46,364
Jun 1981 8,480 Apr 1997 47,568
Jun 1982 8,820 Apr 1998 49,232
Jul 1983 11,364 Apr 1999 50,264
Apr 1984 (a) 12,437 Apr 2000 51,572
Apr 1985 13,211 Apr 2001 52,760
Apr 1986 20,140 Jun 2001 52,760
Apr 1987 21,302 Apr 2002 (d) 53,446
(a) On 20 July 1984 the House decided by resolution that the allowance be uprated from 1 April each year
by the increase in the maximum point of the pay scale (excluding allowances and overtime) for a senior
personal secretary in the Civil Service in receipt of Inner London weighting. However, on 16 July 1986 the
House decided to reject the Government recommendation of a 6% increase in Secretarial/Research
Allowances, and instead voted for an amendment which raised the base figure for allowances in 1986-87
by over 40%. On 21 July 1987 the allowance became known as the Office Costs Allowance. The
allowance is revised from 1 April each year, though the actual amount cannot generally be calculated until
late April. On 25 July 1991, the Leader of the House, Rt Hon John MacGregor, asked the Top Salaries
Review Body to undertake a review of the whole subject of the Office Costs Allowances. The TSRB
reported in July 1992, following which the Government recommended an increase in the OCA of just over
£4,000, to be assessed on a quarterly basis in the future. On 14 July 1992, however, the House rejected
this and voted instead in favour of an increase of 38%, also to be assessed quarterly. On 13 July 1994,
the House voted for a 2.3% increase in the allowance limit effective from 1 April 1994.
(b) As first paid
(c) Increased following a resolution
(d) Office Cost Allowance was abolished in April 2003. Members who served in the previous Parliament
could opt to retain their OCA entitlement until then or transfer to the Staffing Allowance as set out above.


•
Tony McNulty MP

• Labour MP for Harrow East
• Minister of State (Security, Counter-terrorism, Crime and Policing), Home Office (since 1 Aug 2007)
• Majority: 4,730 votes. — 484th out of 639 MPs.
Expenses
Figures in brackets are ranks. Parliament's explanatory notes.
Type 2006/07 (ranking out of 645) 2005/06 2004/05 (ranking out of 659) 2003/04 (ranking out of 658) 2002/03 (ranking out of 657) 2001/02 (ranking out of 657)
Additional Costs Allowance £12,400 (534th) £8,251 £9,350 (573rd) £8,600 (582nd) £13,997 (540th) £7,400 (591st)
London Supplement £0 £0 £1,618 (joint 1st) £1,574 (joint 1st) £1,527 (joint 1st) £1,130 (joint 83rd)
Incidental Expenses Provision £20,888 (245th) £20,000 £18,898 (253rd) £18,714 (337th) £18,173 (joint 299th) £27,662 (47th)
Staffing Allowance £86,641 (215th) £83,156 £77,572 (73rd) £74,985 (joint 8th) £71,857 (51st) £42,831 (444th)
Members' Travel £0*
£0 £0 £0 £0 £2,465 (583rd)
Members' Staff Travel £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0
Centrally Purchased Stationery £379 (580th) £358 £460 (joint 529th) £445 (543rd) £145 (640th) £1,109 (joint 292nd)
Stationery: Associated Postage Costs £899 (596th) £590 £1,350 (522nd) £1,288 (514th) N/A N/A
Centrally Provided Computer Equipment £777 (608th) £0 £2,033 (33rd) £2,033 (29th) £2,033 (29th) £2,033 (28th)
Other Costs £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0
Total £121,984 (535th) £112,355 £111,281 (534th) £107,639 (540th) £107,732 (451st) £84,630 (419th)

Jacqui Smith MP

• Labour MP for Redditch
• Home Secretary (since 28 Jun 2007)
• Majority: 2,716 votes. — 525th out of 639 MPs.
Expenses
Figures in brackets are ranks. Parliament's explanatory notes.
Type 2006/07 (ranking out of 645) 2005/06 2004/05 (ranking out of 659) 2003/04 (ranking out of 658) 2002/03 (ranking out of 657) 2001/02 (ranking out of 657)
Additional Costs Allowance £22,110 (joint 1st) £21,596 £20,902 (joint 1st) £18,295 (360th) £16,560 (482nd) £16,503 (118th)
London Supplement £0 £0 £1,618 (joint 1st) £1,574 (joint 1st) £1,281 (joint 104th) £1,227 (joint 1st)
Incidental Expenses Provision £16,112 (538th) £19,853 £19,310 (128th) £18,778 (joint 274th) £18,157 (308th) £13,874 (383rd)
Staffing Allowance £85,611 (271st) £83,838 £66,361 (512th) £64,241 (499th) £61,980 (joint 397th) £46,540 (294th)
Members' Travel £10,188 (208th)*
£9,935 £9,700 (345th) £7,659 (414th) £9,857 (330th) £9,228 (261st)
Members' Staff Travel £598 (199th) £697 £637 (249th) £547 (joint 251st) £458 (270th) £450 (258th)
Centrally Purchased Stationery £4,332 (20th) £5,788 £5,777 (16th) £3,591 (19th) £2,237 (56th) £2,082 (joint 63rd)
Stationery: Associated Postage Costs £13,222 (19th) £16,458 £15,035 (18th) £8,905 (31st) N/A N/A
Centrally Provided Computer Equipment £510 (633rd) £148 £1,962 (joint 166th) £1,962 (joint 161st) £1,962 (joint 159th) £1,962 (joint 152nd)
Other Costs £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0
Total £152,683 (66th) £158,313 £141,302 (58th) £125,552 (196th) £112,492 (339th) £91,866 (235th)
* Car £2,234 (395th). Rail £7,954 (67th).

Yes they do cost more than most Police Officers
 

I went on a residential course last week. Have been told today that I can claim overnight allowance!

Fed Reps, LIST ALL THE CLAIMS THAT WE CAN CLAIM! Email us and we'll claim every penny.

Fact is, there must be loads of claims that we don't bother to claim.

My goodwill towards the government is nil. To the public, it's as high as it ever was. I don;t want to strike. But I'd like to claim every last penny - just like the dishonest thieving MPs do!
 

The only way to get you lot on the streets is when you strike.
 

I saw Tony McNulty being interviewed today on lunchtime news. When asked to comment what strategies would be implemented if the Police went on strike, he repeatedly interrupted the interviewed stating; "It'll never happen. It'll never happen".
 

Anonymous said...
The only way to get you lot on the streets is when you strike.

4:27 PM, December 12, 2007


The fact that Police Officers are rarely out on the streets doing what they signed on to do is thanks to the Government....NOT the Police.
 

We need to vote "YES" for the right to strike... A NO vote would polarise the Police service..
Look at the facts.. This is not just about a .6% snip that the home secretary is on about .. It's about more..the erosion of our Pay and Conditions of service..the lack of officers on the street (with more and more engaged on stats filing)the lack of safety for frontline officers.. the lack of support of the courts and judicary..
DONT disapoint make your views known..
CARPE DIEM (seize the day!)

Anglian Militant
 

It seems to me that there is a huge misconception among the public that the police are well paid, but they seem to fail to take in to account not only all the restrictions on our private lifes but also the massive 11.5% we all pay in to our pensions which leaves out nett pay a lot less than it would appear from our annual salarys.
both me and my husband are in the job and have 4 and 6 years in respectivley, yet still find oursleves struggling to afford a decent house in which to raise our two young children which believe me is not uncommon in the relativley cheap north so good knows what it's like for the poor bobbies down south. most of our non police friends working in offices or on building sites enjoy a much better lifestyle than us and laugh at us for being stupid enough to put ourselves in the situations we do (we're both frontline) for the amount of money we take home each month. but despite this we still both enjoy our jobs and love the rare occassions that we get the chance to make a difference. nobody i work with wants to strike because they joined the job to try to make a difference and do their bit to make the streets safer despite regularly being assaulted and abused. it seems that this government are dishonest through and through, if they wanted a 1.9% pay deal then why agree to 2.5% and then get what they wanted by stealth!! if the police service give in over this issue then what will happen next year and the year after that?
also just a point re prison officers striking as my husband joined the job from the prison service we know for sure that we were better off each month when he was, and equally me i came from an office job where i spent each day nice and warm and the closest i got to confrontation was a nasty phone call!! yet the actual difference in take home pay is less than a hundred pound a month!
so a plea to members of the public before you all go making comments about us earning too much already please realise that our main argument is the dishonest way that the government have brought this about and secondly in actual money in the bank each month we're probably worse off than you, ask yourself whould you take a pay cut to put yourself in a situation where you might not get home to your children of an evening because you were protecting someone else? no, thought not!
 

Last time I looked carrying firearms was voluntary (Except in MOD Police ). Just out of curiousity what would happen if every protection trained firearms officer in the MPS put their ticket in for 'personel' reasons. How would the palace of westiminster and various protected persons go anout their business? Just asking.
 

Eh, that'll never happen. Gun bunnies love oiling their barrels far too much to put their mid life crises toys aside and slum it with mere stick jockeys.

Incidentally, how can you be disciplined for a work to rule? By definition, you are fulfilling your contract, exactly as your employer drew it up.

You can't unionise, but you do still get the benefit of employment tribunals. Ali Dizaei (among others) seems to have done pretty well out of putting various Forces on the defensive by banging on and on about his rights. You just have to accept the (admittedly radical) idea that white men have rights too.
 

Given how deceitful the police are,it is a delicious irony to see the government renege on a previously agreed pay deal.HAHAHAHAHAHA.Enjoy,you poorly paid losers!
 

Have to say, I'm a bit embarassed by all of this strike nonsense.
I think we are paid fairly well in the big scheme of things. compare our basic to that of the (sometimes degree level) qualified other public workers fire, ambo, teachers, nurses.
We have made ourselves out to be spoilt kids. We haven't drummed up much positive support from the MOPs and I'm not surprised.

Nowadays if you want extra cash, you put yourself out and work 24.7 and get a bonus payment (I know it isn't that straight forward but it sort of works like that)
I have over 16 year doing this so feel qualified to make my point.
 

in relation to the last comment my sister is a nurse and takes home £250 a month more than me for working 36 hrs a week, don't get me wrong she works really hard and has to put up with abuse all the time and i think she deserves every penny and much more besides but just thought i'd point it out (we both started our careers within months of each other). i am glad that you feel well paid and am guessing you must have a long time in the job and still have some of the protected rights which have been eroded before i joined, but please spare a thought for the rest of us who struggle to pay the mortgage and bills on a £90,000 house each month and believe me you don't get a lot of house for £90,000 but that's a different issue.
 

Did your sister get the same pay as you started on when you were training,i doubt it very much.

The police force is not as unique as you all seem to believe,
Almost any job dealing with the public leads to injuries and threats,i worked in public transport for a while and recieved little or no help when i asked for it from the police.
i once tried to report and accident at my local station and was told i had to report it at a different station "thats the law" the constable said,lazy liar!
I am not saying politicians are perfect and police are always in the wrong,but there are far too many uniform carriers with their eye on their pension from the start.
no way my greater the 11% pension contributions would allow me a half decent pension after 30 yrs.
 

Rogerborg 5:37 - I know what you mean about those "Gun Bunnies" ...

....I saw a bunch of them in a conference setting in a hotel in Kent recently

Suave and sophisticated - and mostly short and a bit dweeby- looking and desperately trying to chat up some rather mature Saga holiday reps

I can look back now and see exactly what you mean about " Gun bunnies oiling their barrels" and the associated psychological over- compensations. Definitely not the sort of guys who would really do much for their buddies and the common good at all.
 

NEWS RELEASE FROM THE LIBERTARIAN ALLIANCE
In Association with the Libertarian International

Release Date: Monday 10th December 2007
Release Time: Immediate

Contact Details:
Dr Sean Gabb, 07956 472 199, sean@libertarian.co.uk

For other contact and link details, see the foot of this message
Release url: http://www.libertarian.co.uk/news/nr059.htm

"POLICE: VOTE TO STRIKE: GO ON STRIKE: STAY ON STRIKE", SAYS FREE MARKET AND CIVIL LIBERTIES THINK TANK

The Libertarian Alliance, the radical free market and civil liberties think tank and pressure group, today calls on the Police Federation to urge their members to vote for the right to strike - then to call them out on strike and to stay on strike.

Dr Sean Gabb, Director of the Libertarian Alliance, comments:

"The idea that the main function of the police is to protect life and property requires a firm resolve not to read the newspapers. There was a time within living memory when the worst the police did was to resell porn and drugs, and license burglars, and hang round public lavatories arresting any man desperate enough to fancy them. In addition to this, to be fair, they did provide the occasional protective service.

"But this is history. The police nowadays are little more than an increasingly trigger-happy pro-government militia. They spend much of their time listening to radio discussions in search of people to harass for saying something politically incorrect. If they do leave the fortified compounds we used to call police stations, it is to arrest householders for protecting their lives and property, or to breathalyse every tenth driver on the local A roads. The police are politically and financially corrupt. They are personally dangerous to be near. The only thing still to be said in their favour is a tendency to laziness and incompetence. Thanks to that, we do not get all the oppression we pay for.

"England has become a country where if you see a police officer knocking on your door, you panic.

"We welcome the calls for the police to be allowed to go on strike. We urge all police officers to vote for this right, then to exercise it. We further call on the authorities not to negotiate with the strikers.

"A police strike would be the biggest blow for liberty since the abolition of identity cards in 1952. Free from the hot breath of PC Plod on our necks, we could all speak freely again, and take whatever steps were needed to protect ourselves and our loved ones from the other trash infesting this country."

The Libertarian Alliance believes:

* In the abolition of state policing:
* In the repeal of all the Firearms Acts from 1920 to 1997, plus any other laws limiting the right to keep and use firearms;
* In the repeal of all laws banning the carrying and use of other defensive weapons;
* That the money thereby saved should be used to cut taxes.

END OF COPY
 

Bobbies on beat for one hour in seven

By John Steele, Crime Correspondent
Last Updated: 2:42am GMT 12/12/2007

Police officers spend more time filling in forms than they do patrolling the streets, new figures show.

The average time spent on patrol by all officers in England and Wales is now barely 13 per cent, while paperwork ties them up for nearly 20 per cent of their shifts.

Despite Government claims about reduced bureaucracy and more visible policing, the Home Office figures show that "incident-related paperwork" - primarily forms relating to arrests or interventions such as stop and search - is keeping officers off the streets.
advertisement

In 2006/2007, the average police officer in England and Wales - including beat Pcs, traffic officers and detectives - was out on the streets for 13.6 per cent of their time, while paperwork accounted for 19.7 per cent, with 11.4 per cent of that taken up with "incident-related" forms.

The balance has deteriorated since 2004/2005, when patrol time was 15.3 per cent and paperwork was 18.4 per cent, including 9.9 per cent spent on incident-related bureaucracy.

The figures, released in answer to a question by the Tories, show the position is not much better for uniformed Pcs classed as patrol officers, who might be expected to spend most of their time on the beat.

In addition, they underline police concerns that, while the traditional bureaucracy of duplicate forms has been tackled, simple arrests generate even more paperwork.

David Ruffley, the shadow minister for police reform, said: "Police paperwork is on the increase but our police want to be crime fighters not form writers.

"Despite all the talk, the amount of time all police officers spend on incident-related paperwork has risen by 1.5 per cent.

"After 10 years, five Labour home secretaries and five red tape reviews, the police still spend more time on paperwork than on patrol.

"To the amazement of beat officers, ministers claim that they have abolished 9,000 forms. The Home Secretary refuses to list the forms that she has allegedly cut. These figures, which will depress police officers, show why."

In giving the figures, Tony McNulty, the police minister, highlighted the Government's controversial "front-line policing measure" as an indicator of its success on bureaucracy.

It suggests more time is spent on front-line duties, now at around 64 per cent. But the definition of "front-line" includes attending court and incident-related paperwork.

He said: "Time spent on patrol refers only to time when an officer is patrolling but engaged in no other duty.

"It is therefore inappropriate to look at this element in isolation from other activities.

"The front-line policing measure provides a fuller picture of police officer activity because it assesses time spent on core duties such as patrol and responding to 999 calls."
 

Skiving away from the front line for 6 hours ot of 7.

For most of the time comfortably tucked up in a warm cosy office, well out of harms' way.. and how many of you lot subscribing to these police blogs are actually doing so on police time?

You really do overvalue yourselves and your worth to society at large. Both are minimal
 

It is accepted that going on strike is a non starter BUT other simpler action is available. Why not adopt some of the techniques that unions make use of. Temporary disruption - Lets suppose that it is publicised well in advance say 3 or 4 days that ALL firearms officers, without exception will hand in there permits for the four days and revert to ordinary duty. (I think start with the MPD or a county force with lots of VIPs) They are all volunteers and would have no fear of falling foul of any discipline problems. I think that once members of the Govt realise that their bodyguards have access to CS and a baton should they come under threat perhaps you boys and girls will be a little more appreciated. In hand with that ensure that every officer claims for every allowance and expense they are entitled to and that all overtime is taken for payment, while the issue of the right to strike is followed up in Europe.
The Govt have taken the gloves off they appear intent on treating the police service in the same way they are treating our armed forces. I have sent an email to my MP telling him that he can kiss goodbye to my vote over this issue.
 

'Er, which comparable public sector jobs would these be, then? As far as I know, the police are the only public sector employees who are regularly spat at, assaulted Does anyone else get told to 'F*ck off and die, pig,'


Fraid so. Try working in the acute psychiatric wards and you'll soon see what goes on. I can't remember how many times I've told to F*ck off...I know where you live...blah blah blah. Not to mention the delightful rolling on the ground and restraining. The difference is if you assault a police officer, you get arrested and done for it. If I've been assaulted by someone who is mad, don't know what they're doing and away with the fairies, fair enough. But it's the ones you just know who are responsibile for their actions, know exactly what they're doing and hide behind their illness and get away with it time and time again that annoy me. Sure being a copper is tough. I imagine you get assualted fairly regularly and told to Foxtrot Oscar on a number of occasions but thankfully it shouldn't be every day. As for the acute psychiatric wards, the attack alarms don't exactly ring out on a daily basis - usually it's about three or four times a week. As for A&E, I bet a lot of nonsense kicks off there but sadly in mental health although thankfully not on a daily basis we get the same nonsense you coppers go through...
 

Here's a suggestion; What if all the Officers on VIP protection insisted on carrying out the paperwork to the letter. For example no VIP escorts (Especially for members of the Cabinet) until the full 21 page 'elf & safety risk assessment has been carried out for each journey, preferably by a civilian 'support' worker on sick leave.

That might work better than any threat of strike action. Threaten to strip the politicians of their close 'protection'. Why should the Government enjoy more 'rights' than the rest of the population?
 

I don't want the right to strike. I am a crown officer and proud of it. To be given the full package of employment rights would make us employees, working for the government of the day, not the Queen, devoid of what shreds of independence remain to us. As employees, we could be made redundant, for example. In fact, maybe HMG want us to have the right to strike?
 

""Gun bunnies love oiling their barrels far too much to put their mid life crises toys aside and slum it with mere stick jockeys.""

Just to correct this stereotype- im a female officer in my twenties and am a firearms officer in the west mids.
Yes i do regulary back my colleagues up because that is what i am there for - the last line in defense in many jobs. The buck stops with me.

Would i hand my ticket in? no - that would put many, many lives in danger including my colleagues whom rely on me to turn up to firarms jobs.
 

Gordon Brown in his patronising way today asserted no police officer would want his or her pay rise to be reduced by inflation. Well Stupid it's because of inflation we need the rise. That's why we asked for more in the first place but because we're reasonable people who play a fair game we agreed to binding arbitration. It recommended 2.5% backdated to September. It could have recommended 1.9% backdated - we'd have accepted it. What rankles is Jacqui Smith's duplicity and the trite statements in her support from the feckless lap-dog McNulty. He suggested, with only the odd dropped consonant, there has been more money spent on the police than ever before. Well Tony let me tell you I spend more on groceries petrol and children's clothes than ever before but we aint eatin' or dressin' so well or drivin' so far. Its called inflation!
 

Why don`t the Police stop playing victim !!....It`s true that they are a special case...They put them selves above the law, and when they are in trouble, low and behold.."It was a mistake" ..or no one ever takes responsibility for the innocent people that they murder ?? Institutionally racist/corrupt when it suits them (even if innocent people are imprisoned)Sorry, but you have lost the public`s respect, and have a history with miners and the news corporations, for being bully boys and the governments malitia, as well as gloating at other people`s less than fortunate circumstances.You are well paid and can retire at 50 when no one else can, so stop winging or find yourself a more cosy job.
 

Amazing, some of these comments are child like, I can't believe what I have read, regardless of whether you are in the job or not, carry a gun, have had a bad experience with the Police, the point is this, the goverment have gone back on their word, If it had happened to Nurses or any other public sector, I would be annoyed and disgusted.
It just goes to proove the Goverment cannot be trusted, and Mr Brown is as bad as the rest of them.
As for the last posting by Mr anonymous at 10.50pm, I wonder which way he votes??? I think I can guess, and he clearly wants to wake up and smell the coffee, and should realise the Miners strike has finished, and the Police Force of then is very much different today, i am not saying we are all saints, but I personally don't know anyone I work with who would risk their pension doing one of the things he clearly thinks we all do!
I wonder if he would make his views clear to the Officers attending his house when he calls for assistance as Billy Burglar breaks in?
The crux of the matter is the country might be in a state of decay, but without the Police it would be pure anarchy! Like us or not.
And who is sat outside the Home secretary's house tonight, a couple of Police Officers, maybe that should be taken into account by her!
I, like the majority of Officers do not want to strike, I would work to rule, but we shouldn't have to be doing this, we are not being greedy, we are just trying to keep a reasonable standard of pay!
If this continues, and the wage becomes poor, Officers will have no other option but to start looking elsewhere, and as the saying goes, pay peanuts and you'll get monkeys!
 

im a female officer in my twenties and am a firearms officer in the west mids.

No you're not. I know this because I have superpowers and I flew over your house and watched you through your roof with my X-ray vision - Barry.

By the way, in the private sector our pay rises are based on the higher RPI (Retail, aka Real Price Index) rather than the joke CPI (Chancellor's Price Index). If you do settle for CPI raises (and even the 2.5% counts as that), then you have to throw your toys out of the pram every decade or so in order to get a major 'correction' to your lagging salary.

Anyone saying that they don't want the right to strike is clearly very confused. Not wanting to strike today is quite different from not wanting the right to do it tomorrow. If you were told to go out and randomly arrest every tenth citizen and fit them up (I mean, told to do that explicitly, rather than just implicitly through sanctioned detection targets, as you are now) you wouldn't want the right to strike?
 

You have missed out low paid shopworkers in your list of abused workpeople. However, it is understandable that you have a less than frosty relationship with the numpties in the Home Office.
 

The award of 2.5% would in any case be below inflation. The RPI for October (the last I can find) is 4.2% So even before canceling the backdating you were going to be earning less than last year.

(If you believe inflation is only 2.1% shown by the CPI you must live in a tent and not pay council tax and all the other things that are increasing quickly.)
 

While there was the extraordinarily long post on how much MPs earn, does anyone know the rate of increase for the police compared to MPs?

I can guess which one has gone up most
 

HEARD IT ON ITV NEWS......
Gordon in the House of Commons, saying that HE cannot allow the backdated pay rise to September...because of inflation!
So it is NOT poor ol' Jacqui's fault at all. [told you ner ner!]
[Is that too childish?]

AND that just PROVES Gordon's blatant treachery as he clearly has a different set of principles for Scotland!

Jacqui Smith was set up by Gordo to take the sh*t for his betrayal and be the scapegoat. Told you he was SNEAKY! Now do you believe me?
 

Once again this government have shafted another hard working group of people.....nurses, teachers, firefighters, the armed forces and the police...the list goes on.
This government seem intent on upsetting the very people that keep the fabric of everyday society running 'normally'.
The sooner we are rid of 'Tony Brown'(as that wonderfully confused US politician called him) and this bunch of self centered, egotistical, idiots the better.

Vote 'yes' for stike action....We don't have to exercise the power but would be in a much better bargaining position if we showed we were united and could, at the very least, threaten the gov't with it.

Q the Inuit.
 

Aren't there some very childish comments on here by non cops.

Our job is a lot harder than than most. We do deserve a better pay.

I believe that the public does support us. Ignore the mupties on here claiming otherwise.

For the numpties, if we do such a bad job and you have little faith in us, please don't ring us at your usual 0300 hrs with a complaint about your on/off partner sending threats via text.
That way, we'll all be happy.

I'd like to point out something else, there have ben a few comments linking Gordon Brown and the Scottish forces getting the full 2.5% rise.
This has nothing to do with Gordon Brown and Labour. SNP are in power up here, they want to cock two fingers up at the Government, hence we are getting the 2.5%. Do you believe that has anything to do with Gordon ! If Jack McNugget was still in power with the other Labour idiots, we'd be getting the 1.9% version.
 

Brown and Jacqui Smith clearly think their is a benefit in attacking the police at the moment. A cynic might suspect that when your party is being investigated by them it is a good time to remind them who is the boss.
 

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?WT.mc_id=071213daily&storyID=9902

Follow the link to the First Post for some interesting reading.
 

its very easy to make a small protest and work to rule. Nobody can order you to use your power of arrest. Unless its a serious offence report everybody for summons the courts would soon clog up and grind to a halt. Dont do any fixed penalty notices anymore again report for summons, its easy. Hit the government where it hurts ruin there statistics
 

Could the police find some way of withdrawing service and protection to politicians i.e. bodyguards for the prime minister and home secretary etc-while at the same time continuing to provide protection for the general public?
Just a thought. I realise this may unfairly expose a few officers to retribution from the higher ups.
 

Some what confussed at the article attached to the link posted. Being a front line officer of nearly five years I know for a fact that my average wage, nor my colleagues is anywhere near the £36021 published. Maybe I should look for a transfer to the police force where that average was found.
In relation to sriking i dont see it ever happening and agree with the above comments on summons instead of issuing tickets etc.
 

Frontline - you took the words right out of my mouth. £36,000 pa!!! Where??? And anyway, where in London (if you're Met) can you buy a house on that?
I agree that nurses etc are also underpaid but did anyone else watch Gerry Robinson's interesting programme about the NHS on BBC2 last night? If so, that will give you some idea of where all the billions of pounds are going. Same as with the police, the money goes to managers and bureaucrats - not frontline nurses and doctors actually getting their hands dirty.
 

I find the whole thing quite insulting.

We're only asking for a wage that keeps pace with the cost of living, which if you live in London or the South is ridiculous.

I would be in favour of the right to take industrial action, i'm not advocating that we leave the streets to the mob but a measured response to fight our case.

Why are we denied these rights when some US and European colleagues have them?

This Goverment goes on about everyone else's (including Criminals) rights so why is the Police Service any different?

As for the MP's (self awarded) pay increase??!!! Oh I forgot their a "Special Case" or something.
 

I joined to lock up thieves, i didnt expect to have my future financial security arranged by one.The home secretary surely has sunk to new depths.
 

Someone mentioned MDP Officers,unfortunately for us our Federation (DPF),seems to be as toothless as yours, if not more so, our Fed are basically jellyfish and spineless to the last and seem to take orders/requests from the CC, MDP and not give a damn regarding its membership.

MDP get a rise of whatever the HDPF gets, so we are in the same boat. As some of you may know we dont exactly get the cr*p from mop that you get, although it isnt the want for trying for some of us trying to get our hands dirty and give you guys a helping hand on the streets.

We could however let the force know our feelings by stopping any secondary duties we have, such as Dry Weapons Training, LIO, Tutor Constables and so on. The Force wouldnt know what to do with themselves.

Anyway just a show of support from behind the fence (sometimes). Good luck in your/our fight.
 

Anon 6:47 wrote:

"pro-government militia"

have you read any other comment on this site? Your whole argument is predicated on the above line and therefore worthless.
 

I read the Libertarian Alliance's post. I'm just off round to burgle Prof Sean Gabb's gaffe, and I'l;l be taking a baseball bat with me - scrub that, a shotgun - in case he wants to get arsey about it.
After all, he doesn't believe in calling the police doesn he?
 

I am quite suprised by the comments on the blog - I am a 6ish year service PC on the frontline working full shifts - I average (with O/T) around 24k a year. How many MOP's think that we get shift allowance? We dont.

I worked for the same Constabulary prior to being a Constable, I took a wage drop to join. My previous postings (working full shifts)gave me a shift & weekend working allowance.

Community Support Officers
(C3PO's) get paid more than a starting PC - they work between
8am & 10pm, recieve shift and weekend working allowance. They do have the work load that we have and guess who they call when the sh1t hits the fan???

YES the Police!

Give us a break - we work hard - mainly because of the red tape that the bloody government produce.

If an MOP calls in saying "i've been assaulted by may brother coz I wanted to watch BBC1 and he wanted to watch BBC2" - then guess what we have to deal with it - even if there is no complaint. This is the Governments fault - Home Office Recording!
 

There also seems to be an opinion that Police Officers commit crimes - I know of no one in my area that does - it really is not worth risking the pension.

ALL of the Police Vehicles have black boxes - these record, speed, hard cornering/acceleration/braking, whether the lights/blue lights/sirens were on. WE have to write reports to justify going through speed cameras when its clear that we were answering an emergency. Not only that we have an excemption under the law.

Apart from that ALL computers are monitored - any time spent on the internet, what we are looking at etc. And then we can get into trouble for looking at it.

If we do wrong they can bug our offices and watch us. We say BOO to the wrong MOP and they complain - we get it resolved against us whether we were right or wrong.

DONT tell me that any other profession has this distrust.

We just want fair pay for our job - at the end of the day if the Fire & Ambulance Service won't do it then it falls to the feet of the Constable.

If you dont agree that we deserve the rise then I suspect that you dealings with the Police have been negative or you are just misinformed.

And 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 BREATH.....
 

I read the Libertarian Alliance's post. I'm just off round to burgle Prof Sean Gabb's gaffe, and I'l;l be taking a baseball bat with me - scrub that, a shotgun - in case he wants to get arsey about it.
After all, he doesn't believe in calling the police doesn he?

You just don't get it do you?

He also wants gun ownership laws repealed - so you try and burgle him with a shotgun, you better know he will try to shoot you - because protecting your own property with deadly force would be perfectly legal.

As opposed to somebody trying to burgle him with a shotgun now. You seriously think you lot would even turn up in time to be of any more use than just calling a coroner? Or maybe, just maybe, if he managed to brain the gun wielding bastard with whatever would be to hand (because he hasn't been allowed to own a gun to protect his own property in this country), you might turn up in time to nick him for excessive force.

We gave up our right to protect ourselves in exchange for a working effective police FORCE a long time ago.

We don't have one, and yet STILL aren't allowed to arm ourselves to protect ourselves from the scum that already ignore the law and carry weapons.

Make no mistake, the majority of the population of this country that don't waste 80% of your time with domestics do not trust you, and do not feel safe under your 'protection'.
 

The problem is with the government who have tied honest, hardworking police officers up with red tape.
This is what the public are disgruntled about, the fact that no police officers on streets because we are all "ticky boxing" and form filling.
I just want to do my job - i want to protect the public and its property.
I dont want to be in this silly argument over pay and beurocracy.
Give the police descretion back, ditch form filling, targets and CPS. Give the police the power back and pay a fair wage.
Now - please let me get on and do the job i signed up for.
 

The police are unbalanced.... discuss
 

Sorry. While The Police do a difficult and dangerous job it is back to my original statement. Not happy with you job, then quit. You know what is involved before you start it. Not happy ? try Job Centre Plus. If the company I work for in the private doesn't make money, it closes. This issue I suspect will not happen in the public sector. i know my concil tax raises at 5%, my pay does not. The police increase as part of this tax rises almost to the 5% each year, so the money goes to the local force and is wasted, sorry, spent somewhere. The police need to become more efficent (again by reducing red tape etc) however tough that the pay does not always increase by 3%. That dont always happen in the private sector either so why should the public sector be different. Not happy ? Burger King is always hiring.
 

Flip I am perfectly balanced. I have a chip on both of my shoulders.
 

Actually James, I do 'get it'.

Firstly, I'm not a policeman, so 'my lot' would not turn up, no.

Secondly, I'm no great fan of the current system; as a long time reader of this blog, and someone whose eyes were well-and-truly opened by Dave's book 'Wasting Police Time', I would like to see more officers in front line roles, supported by courts who actually jailed people for decent stretches.

I'd also like to see the introduction of Castle Doctrine - the right to use deadly force against intruders in your own home.

But your suggestion of a fabulous new world in which we are all armed with shotguns and left to protect ourselves is the stuff of lunacy.

You repeal all gun laws and what you will have is rule of strength-by-gun; those who have the most guns and are most ready to use them (because they care little about injuring others) will rule the streets.

OK, it might be good for you to have a gun. You're not a psychopathic, paranoid drug addict with a grudge against society. Throw away gun laws, and the psychopathic, paranoid drug addict with a grudge against society is now tooled-up.

And don't say 'He already is', because very few of them are, and where they are it's usually with re-engineered cap guns, not RPG7s and GPMGs. (I'm assuming you wouldn't have any licensing - so if he wanted, he could buy a GPMG? Have you any idea what a GPMG will do? It will go through the brick walls of your house like a knife through butter, and then it will do the same to the house behind yours, and it will STILL kill anyone within 200 metres. Let's have a dozen of them set up in Peckham, shall we?)

Currently, at least there are sanctions for those who own or use guns inappropriately (assuming they're caught, I accept). Under the lunatic Gabb's manifesto, there would BE NO POLICE. I've seen Gabb on his website and the thought of him hunting down the local scum like some weedy little Man With No Name fills me with horror (and would quickly fill him with lead).

The Policing system we have in this country is not perfect but it's the best in the world; let's concentrate on fixing the things that are wrong with it, not changing it wholesale on the say-so of a nutter-fantasist like Gabb, eh? Thank God people like him are restricted to talking rubbish on websites!

(I've used a name this time for ease of response).
 

Has anyone heard Sir Ian Blair make any public comment in support of his men?
 

Having been a serving pc for over 13yrs, I am not surprised that there are some quarters out there not supportive of our predicament.

I have seen the job I loved doing being strangled by red tape and worthless form filling/stat recording/etc, etc..

We are not alone, the education system has also been screwed as has the health service, all driven by this obsessive desire for forms/stats/tests, from this shower of shite we commonly refer to as govt. I would also say that for me at least it would make not the slightest difference had it been the-Tories/Liberals in power, they are all liars.

Is it any wonder the public are frustrated, they are mostly unaware of a. the number of officers covering the area. b. The ludicrous form filling we are expected to do. c. The stat mad Govts directives. This has neutered the job completely.

Everyone I work with is hacked off with what has happened to the force, they loathe the fact that we fail the general public, criminals get off lightly, we have no real say as to what happens re charge or release. I do not blame the CPS either, they are merely suffering the same fate we are, target driven with all the usual crap associated with it. Whatever happened to the adversarial system....

I personally care not a jot about this sum of money I will not get, I would gladly donate this to either the Education system/Health Service or similar, but only on the proviso it actually went on this and not some trough out for MP's.

Sadly I do not see this changing, it would take someone with immense courage, insight and support to repair the damage that has been wrought.

The biggest problem of all is that those with the power to change the system dare not grasp the nettle for fear of being stung...
 

Then grasp the nettle.

Stop whining. Do something
 

I have heard that our Chief Constable has decided that it is not appropriate to pass on the traditional Xmas/New Year message from the Home Secretary. He has also let us know that the full 2.5% pay rise was in the budget
 

Mel I would gladly do so, but being a lowly PC unfortunately I do not have the power to do so. I do not whine this is my observation, those with the power to do so will not rock the boat for fear of losing their position and all that goes with it.

I have seen too many ACPO ranks who would sell their children, grannies or souls to get their next pip to have any faith in that bunch, over to you...
 

Copsdad - Yes, Sir Ian Blair did make a comment on the Mets intranet, he said he was 'disappointed' about the situation. Nice to know he has our backs, isn't it.
 

Anon 9:35 you probably worked on that last aphorism of your for some time. To be fair, it's a reasonably affective metaphor.

However, to whine is to complain in a plaintive tone or a childish,impotent fashion.

I'm afraid, the simple truth is that you - and a lot of your colleagues - are whiners. Pure and simple.

However, if enough of you were to act in concert, things would probably change. They truly would. Any study of the labour movements of the 19th and 20th centuries will illustrate that.

Sitting in the dark of cyberspace complaining and yes, whining, maybe cathartic but it'll get you nothing... blogging the new opiate of the masses.
 

Right,
for all those nuggets who are saying that we whine and do nothing.
If the troops in the army/navy/air force were not happy, would you expect them to strike etc - or believe they have no chance because they are part of a disciplined organisation ?

Yes, the Police is a disciplined organisation too. We just cannot throw a strop like the civvies can in any job. We are subject to discipline, which on reading your posts is something you know jack didly about.

Yes, I just cannot tell my boss I disagree with him and tell him no. It doesn't work like that I'm afraid.

Discipline - remember that. We have it in abundance - you do not.

As for those who say we should jack it all in, perhaps we should for a day or so and then listen to you whine cos we aren't there to help you out.
 

From reading the BBS Have Your Say discussion...I think if I were Job on that side of the Atlantic I'd quit. About 2/3 of the posters there are frankly not worth my life.

We know it in the US: Pretty much every UK copper who actually gets off his backside and goes out and does real police work is probably a good working cop. The house mouses are all strokes, but we already knew that. It's a damn shame that your government can't even just follow the dang law.
 

My post to GOrwell was deleted, because I justifiably refered to him as a "person who indulges in self sexual gratification" - begins with W and ends in R!!!

Justifiable I thought, considering HIS ignorant snipe about single mums. He would "happily take money off them to give to the police", because he thinks they live in luxury. HA! What planet is he on?
He's obviously been brainwashed by the constant snipes against single mums by GOVT and THE PRESS. Any who are fortunate enough to be living in "luxury" either WORK for it, and/or have ex partners who pay child support. Life as a single mum on benefits is ANYTHING BUT a life of luxury. It is a BREADLINE "safety net" allowance.
Get a life GOrwell and get your facts straight. Single mums on benefits struggle to survive as MANY would tell you. What a big "man" you must be, wanting to take money off vulnerable women AND their kids.

IT IS THE OVERPAID GREEDY POLITICIANS, local and central, WHO SHOULD TAKE A CUT IN PAY TO ENSURE A FAIR SOCIETY.
The deleted description of you still applies.
 

If the government promised 2.5% and delivered 1.9%, that is the only argument required. No need to muddy the waters with ancillary arguments. EVERY group of public sector workers is, by definition, essential to our society. We're hearing conflicting arguments that, on the one hand, police are rarely getting to front-line duties because of paperwork and messing around with "diversity" projects. On the other, that they are performing daily acts of heroism. There's probably truth in both. But they have no relevence to the simple fact that a pay rise was agreed but not delivered. If there's any subtext to THAT issue, that is what we should be discussing.
 

For the people who feel that we are lazy,over paid, wingers (amongst other things)who dont do our jobs with total dedication, i would invite you all to contact your local police force and arrange a ride along. It might open your eyes when your stood next to the single uniformed officer trying to split up two drunken brother kicking ten bails of crap out each other only for them to in decided they will round on him and start laying into the officer with pure intent to inflict as much injury as possible. Whilst your stood there watching the officer take time to look at your watch and count the minutes it takes for the second single crewed officer to turn up as it appear you two are the only officers covering your section for the night and he has had to travel some 10 minutes to get there.

Whether you like the police or not is not the issue, its the fact that labour has once again gone back on its word and shown what a lying, backhanded, scheming bunch they are. Never mind the other "BIG" issues that Brown has had to deal with in his short time at the top
 

Merciamonner (says more about you than the public)

Amazing, some of these comments are child like,

...and when you don`t like public opinion (and fact) you resort to name calling.

I can't believe what I have read, regardless of whether you are in the job or not, carry a gun, have had a bad experience with the Police,.....

....Exactly, "you don`t care about anyone but yourself" The FACT is that the police DO select what they choose rather than collect ALL FACTS,( Which is their only role) so they manipulate the law and feel entitled to do so to enhance THEIR case in a majority of circumstances....this pay issue being just an example !!

the point is this, the goverment have gone back on their word,....

...the FACT is that the government haven`t gone back on their word. You always knew that you were bound by arbitration and that it is not binding on the government ??

If it had happened to Nurses or any other public sector, I would be annoyed and disgusted.....

Do nurses get the same pension as the police ? I think not so stop playing victim as i don`t hear too many policeman voicing their opinion in support of nurses pensions..or any other public sector workers, including the fire fighters recently ( where was your voice of support) ??


It just goes to proove the Goverment cannot be trusted, and Mr Brown is as bad as the rest of them....

...and the Police can be trusted ??
Public opinion says NOT !!


As for the last posting by Mr anonymous at 10.50pm, I wonder which way he votes???I think I can guess,

...Please do !! You just may be so wrong, something that many police officers refuse to accept.


and he clearly wants to wake up and smell the coffee, and should realise the Miners strike has finished,.....

.....Ah, you make my point perfectly about abdicating responsibility. Your "it`s not our fault" mentality still presists whether it`s the miners strike, The Hillsborough Disaster,News Corporations, Andy Hayman, Ian Blair,or Charles de Menezes.
I don`t hear any police officers standing up and saying that retirement is wrong rather than their "buddies" facing the FACTS and the so called arm of the law ??...they close ranks and protect those that have broken the rules.

and the Police Force of then is very much different today,....

...but is it i ask ?..as it still protects those within that should clearly face charges when innocent people are murdered by "THEIR MISTAKES !! Come on, lets hear your voices protesting at these FACTS then??

i am not saying we are all saints, but I personally don't know anyone I work with who would risk their pension doing one of the things he clearly thinks we all do!....

...i only gave you FACTS of what does happen within your organisation...and i never said ALL ?? but we never hear your organisation do anything more that keep quiet about such matters ???

I wonder if he would make his views clear to the Officers attending his house when he calls for assistance as Billy Burglar breaks in?......

....Yes !! Why are you saying that my opinion would effect the way those people would do the job they are paid to do ?So we are not entitled to voice FACTS today according to you ? You have lost public respect due to your organisations history of actions, inaction, choices,and lack of responsibility as well as accountablity, and then you complain because the public don`t see it your way. Sorry but until the police take responsibility then public support will continue to wain.

The crux of the matter is the country might be in a state of decay, but without the Police it would be pure anarchy! Like us or not.
And who is sat outside the Home secretary's house tonight, a couple of Police Officers, maybe that should be taken into account by her!...

.....getting well paid for it as well !!


I, like the majority of Officers do not want to strike, I would work to rule, but we shouldn't have to be doing this, we are not being greedy,....

Compared to nurses, teachers,fire fighters,social workers etc, you are far better paid so lets see and hear you support their cause and you may just claw back some of the respect that you as an organisation have lost and still losing!


we are just
trying to keep a reasonable standard of pay!.....

...that is still far in access of other public sector workers ??


If this continues, and the wage becomes poor,......

...so you accept that your wages are NOT POOR ??


Officers will have no other option but to start looking elsewhere, and as the saying goes, pay peanuts and you'll get monkeys!..

....Life is about the choices we make, so don`t play victim to the choices you have made."if you don`t like the bed you`ve made then get out and make it again" !!...But be honest with yourself and take responsibility for it, and then some respect and support may return !!
 

The nature of the Police job is we are going to upset people. Criminals really are incensed and feel aggrieved at the Police when they get arrested.

So many criminals have the uncanny knack of psychologically divorcing their own causative acts from their predicament. Which leads me to the above poster-

Your posts aren't about pay or fairness at all-You have an axe to grind about other issues such as deaths in Police custody which you attribute to being murders by the Police.

You obviously have your sources which you choose to believe- The local rag paper or the bloke in the pub and I can't even begin to start trying to get you to look at facts here but face this one.

You have issues that are nothing to do with Police pay and conditions and are using this as a vehicle because you have the hump with the Police.

-Take your grievances to the correct forums and if officers have seemingly done wrong get them investigated.

Spiteful attempts to take verbal revenge for imagined historic grievances don't exactly unmuddy any waters.

As for the law you clearly have a very limited understanding of it-"Murdered by mistake" doesn't exhibit much of a working knowledge to me.

Grind your axe in the right forum and don't bend the truth to suit your emotional ends here please.
 

An observation from a "two thirds there" chap!
With all these talk of anger, I must say I find alot of my coleagues attitude rather lame.
A large proportion of my junior constables either do not care about this pay dispute or know nothing about it!

Can anyone explain how the media keeps mentioning the line" Police will refuse to carry firearms"
Is this true or is this just some hacks rumour?

I must say I rather like the idea of a firearms put down...

Picture the scene. "Ok Prime minister you have all these meetings today, but we have had to cancel them as your protection officer has refused to carry a firearm!"
What stay in all day at number 10"
"Yep, fancy a game of tiddly winks"
 

As a former protection officer I would love to see the reaction if all the ministerial prot teams handed in their pink cards. They would probably call in the Army and have the Royal Military Police out in civvies.
 

Anonymous (12-07)is right about giving you facts and why you haven`t got the support of the public on this matter anothercop.

The fact that YOU are obliged to accept the arbitration decision and the government does NOT have to is all there is to it.
You have ignored the facts as to why, exactly as he said. His comments are about pay and conditions, giving you some of the reasons why the public do not support you on this issue, and historically as well as in fairness,rightly so......your post has nothing to do with pay , so why criticize him ?...and without accepting what is fact? You may not like it, however it remains as fact.

While you may have your opinion, please don`t ignore or confuse it with fact and attempt to muddy the waters.

Stop whinging and making assumptions....stick to the facts, something you are suppose to deal with in your job.It is your attitude that has and is alienating the public !!
 

I've still not made it to the end of the comments yet, but wanted to make this point:

I'm an MOP, and my understanding is that the Police receive a pay rise each September based on the rate of inflation in June of that year.

Could a serving Police Officer confirm this for me?

Many thanks
 

Surely one argument that all Police Officers could make is the fact that their loyalty isn't to the Government, but to the Crown?

Police Officers take an Oath when they are sworn in, so couldn't they approach Her Majesty and asked for her to intercede on their behalf?

This MOP supports all Police Officers in their fight to have their pay rise backdated to September 2007.
 

James said...
I read the Libertarian Alliance's post. I'm just off round to burgle Prof Sean Gabb's gaffe, and I'l;l be taking a baseball bat with me - scrub that, a shotgun - in case he wants to get arsey about it.
After all, he doesn't believe in calling the police doesn he?

You just don't get it do you?

He also wants gun ownership laws repealed - so you try and burgle him with a shotgun, you better know he will try to shoot you - because protecting your own property with deadly force would be perfectly legal.

As opposed to somebody trying to burgle him with a shotgun now. You seriously think you lot would even turn up in time to be of any more use than just calling a coroner? Or maybe, just maybe, if he managed to brain the gun wielding bastard with whatever would be to hand (because he hasn't been allowed to own a gun to protect his own property in this country), you might turn up in time to nick him for excessive force.

We gave up our right to protect ourselves in exchange for a working effective police FORCE a long time ago.

We don't have one, and yet STILL aren't allowed to arm ourselves to protect ourselves from the scum that already ignore the law and carry weapons.

Make no mistake, the majority of the population of this country that don't waste 80% of your time with domestics do not trust you, and do not feel safe under your 'protection'.

2:39 PM, December 13, 2007


In response, as a member of the public, I'm repeatedly infuriated at people's ignorance.

The POLICE do not decide whether and how home owners are able to defend their homes. This is regulated by laws passed by the GOVERNMENT.

The POLICE don't sit behind desks in Police Stations filling in forms out of choice. They're there because the GOVERNMENT requires Officers to complete specific forms, usually in triplicate, for every incident.

The POLICE don't decide which incidents to attend and when. POLICE CALL HANDLERS do, trying to deploy what few Officers are available at the time on a priority basis. Most Officers are trapped completing paperwork stipulated ny the GOVERNMENT.

The POLICE don't decide to pay 11% into their pension schemes each month, that has been set by the GOVERNMENT as a minimum contribution.

STOP blaming frontline Police Officers for things which they have no control over. Lay the blame at the appropriate door; CURRENT AND PRECEEDING GOVERNMENTS!

The lads and lasses in that Thin Blue Line have my full support, because I know the shortfall in what I expect from a Police Force is down to the Government, and not them.

Stay safe x
 

Anonymous said...
Sorry. While The Police do a difficult and dangerous job it is back to my original statement. Not happy with you job, then quit. You know what is involved before you start it. Not happy ? try Job Centre Plus. If the company I work for in the private doesn't make money, it closes. This issue I suspect will not happen in the public sector. i know my concil tax raises at 5%, my pay does not. The police increase as part of this tax rises almost to the 5% each year, so the money goes to the local force and is wasted, sorry, spent somewhere. The police need to become more efficent (again by reducing red tape etc) however tough that the pay does not always increase by 3%. That dont always happen in the private sector either so why should the public sector be different. Not happy ? Burger King is always hiring.

6:54 PM, December 13, 2007


Joining the Police isn't a job, it's a vocation. No one joins the Police for the pay, they join because they want to make a difference to the community they live in. They want to protect members of the public and their property. They want to uphold and enforce the Law.

The Police have always been unhappy with their pay, but this isn't the issue with the current dissatisfaction.

Arbitration said "2.5% pay rise backdated to Septmber 2007". The Government have rescinded on the agreement by backdating it to December 2007.

THIS is the issue, nothing else.
 

Mel said...
Anon 9:35 you probably worked on that last aphorism of your for some time. To be fair, it's a reasonably affective metaphor.

However, to whine is to complain in a plaintive tone or a childish,impotent fashion.

I'm afraid, the simple truth is that you - and a lot of your colleagues - are whiners. Pure and simple.

However, if enough of you were to act in concert, things would probably change. They truly would. Any study of the labour movements of the 19th and 20th centuries will illustrate that.

Sitting in the dark of cyberspace complaining and yes, whining, maybe cathartic but it'll get you nothing... blogging the new opiate of the masses.

11:07 PM, December 13, 2007


Mel:

If these Officers "whined" at work to their superiors, they'd be disciplined.

If these Officers wanted to take action, they have to vote on it within their Police Federation before any action would be considered.

If these Officers took action without seriously considering the consequences, they could find themselves facing disciplinary proceedings and possibly dismissal.

How many OTHER domestic jobs place their employees under these kind of restrictions?

And no....I'm not a former or serving Police Officer....I'm a member of the public.
 

Anon 5:57 you obviously weren't listening the first time around to the score of historic examples of the effectiveness of organised labour acting in concert.

Go back and read some more.
 

WHY DON'T ALL THE PUBLIC SECTOR WORKERS GET TOGETHER AND DO A COMBINED "VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE" IN GORDO? NHS,EDUCATION and POLICE.
 

The POLICE do not decide whether and how home owners are able to defend their homes. This is regulated by laws passed by the GOVERNMENT.

And the POLICE have discretion as to how they apply and enforce these laws, do they not? So are they really obliged to arrest an old lady who gave some abusive yob a poke in the stomach, and had her arm broken by that same yob (Diane Bond)...are they obliged to arrest in that case, or not?

And are they obliged to arrest and seriously pursue murder charges against an elderly gent, near blind, who killed in self defence a young man who kicked his front door clean off its hinges (Thomas O'Connor)...how could they possibly justify going for a murder prosecution in that case?

Why do the police expect support from the public when they persecute the victim, for the sake of the yobs?
 

Anonymous 1150.

In short answer to your question. Yes they are required to Act. To not bother investigating would be deemed as us being judge an jury. Its for a jury to decide in some circumstances if an act is lawful. Go back a few years and crimes could go. However due to the governments requirement for a 'true' picture of crime, every allegation has to be recorded and as a result investigated fully.

You the public demanded to know what the police did, that you needed statistics to show that crime was falling or that your force was working. The government decided to monitor everything and as a result we spend more time form filling than ever and our hands are tied more than ever regarding what we investigate or don't.

The environment we work in is a construct of this government. We just try to do our best working within its constraints hoping that eventually common sense will prevail and we will get back to policing.

As for comments about the private sector. The very fact that civilians have control of budgets and they try to run as private companies leads to limited uniform budgets, no overtime, cheapest kit possible, vehicles that cannot be used, limits on miles allowed to patrol in a shift, no breath test boxes, stab vests that don't fit the list goes on. Its one of the biggest hinderences to my job.
Oh and I can earn a lot more money in the private sector than in the police but for me its a vocation not an occupation.

Also in real terms my force has had to lose 12,000,000 from its budget and is expected to perform the same. Policing is a finite resource.

You can do better then you join.
 

Most comments have made the point that the job involves nasty and risky situations and that justifies a bigger wage. How many coppers actually leave the station these days? Lots of coppers blogs have said in the past that the town had maybe 2-6 coppers on duty! All the rest of em are overpaid desk jockies.
 

Yipeee! 3 numbers on the Lottery.
That's Christmas dinner sorted for my little brood. Single parents and disabled don't get a Christmas bonus and the poor bloody pensioners get a paltry £10. The press reported they had been getting that same amount at Christmas for the past 30 years. Which just shows you that SCROOGE is alive and well running the Treasury. But he does manage to find big wads of cash for civil servants Christmas bonus. Unbalanced or what??????
They are another lot, at the top of the ladder, who should take a FREEZE on their pay and gold plated pensions. The greed of these people DISGUSTS me when it is clear that the workers, ordinary folk and the vulnerable suffer. And Peter Hain is now Gordon's "big clunking fist" against the sick and disabled. :(
 

Yes they are required to Act. To not bother investigating would be deemed as us being judge an jury.

So then now you have to explain why they don't bother to arrest yobs who've been put under citizen's arrest for causing criminal damage or a public nuisance - but they will arrest the citizen or threaten the citizen with prosecution if he doesn't let the yobs go. They won't, however, investigate allegations of criminal damage or public nuisance, no, they let the yobs go on their merry way. I consider the police letting the yob go as 'not bothering to investigate', so where does that fit with your 'required to act', hmmm?
 

anon 9.59-in response to your question,i am a serving officer and if attended a call where by a member of the public had detained someone for damage then i would, providing their was sufficient evidence arrest the suspect without a doubt. however i have attended many similar calls whereby the "evidence" provided by the member of the public amounts to nothing more than guess work and assumptions, whereby they would be leaving themselves open to allegations of assault/unlawful imprisonment etc etc.
 

anon 9.59. Yet again, I would direct you to ask your MP why this has arisen. The fact is, that the government has drastically altered the powers of "citizens arrest" so that it does not in fact even exist for a large number of offences. Your concept of "public nuisance" is very much one excellent example, since your idea of what constitutes that offence, and the actual legal definition will be two very different things, meaning that if you do grab hold of someone, then under the law today, you would be committing an offence. We didn't create that situation, we don't like that situation, Nulabour has put all of us in this situation where the lunatics have taken over.
 

Yes, you guest it, the lieing common criminals Smith and her every ready lap dog McNulty have been at it again, they have lied and misled, not only Police Officers but also the public, they made the decision in June that they would not agree to any type of pay award either by the Government of the day or the people employed to settle the disputes between the employer or the employee.
How two faced can you get..............nothing should suprise us they are two faced lieing B.......d's.
What will change, I would suggest that all of the Emergency Services should join together, strike a blow for the people who respond to any situation and fight together, it starts with one but will come to all.

I actually feel sick that serving Members of Goverment are able to lie and deceive people in this way
 

I know how you feel Norman, but this is nothing new. It's been going on for DECADES and is an accepted way of doing business, noy only in govt, but also in the legal and medical professions....and lets not forget also the press....who provide the printed lies as "evidence" for the rest of them. It's a disgrace.
 

I've always thought that Judge Dredd from 2000AD had the right idea. No backtalk there, else off to the ISO cubes for the scrotes.

And no, I'm not in the police. But being law-abiding I don't care what they have to get up to to get their jobs done, they've never done me any harm, and have come round very quickly when yobs have been wandering around the area.

Being in the US now though, I only regret that my state isn't one of those that allows lethal-force to defend your home against intruders regardless of whether or not they're armed. Ah well...
 

Norman and VE - you feel appalled that public servants distort and misrepresent the truth against you.

Welcome to a taste of your own medicine, coppers.
 

It seems from reading this thread that there are a great number of folk out there who are completely ignorant of what police officers deal with each day of their working lives. They have no clue of the restrictions placed upon both our work and our personal lives by legislation, codes of practice, policy and guidelines. If they knew then they'd be surprised that we ever get out of the station at all. These folk will never understand the risks we face, the impact that telling a parent of the death of a child has upon us or the grief we feel at the death of a colleague who was murdered in cold blood. Officers face many physical, psychological and emotional stresses every day and yet they continue to turn up each day to do the duty they swore to do.
A lot of these folks are simply mis-informed, they read a bad story about police in the news and that represents the whole police service to them. It's true that one bad story has far more power than a hundred good ones. How often do you see a positive police story in the news anyway? There are many to be told but they very rarely are because the press just aren't interested in publishing them. On the occasions that they do, it's usually tucked discretely away inside the paper and involves a cute pet or child or an officer who plays Santa some charity event.
There are others that have had bad experiences of police and then use that to colour their view of the whole service. Yes, there are some bad, incompetent and lazy officers but they are very few and the vast majority of us do our utmost to ensure that the service we provide is the service that society deserves. To tar us all with the same brush is as unacceptable as officers assuming that all people who drive BMWs are drug dealers because we locked up a dealer who drove one. It's also worth considering that such bad experiences may actually have nothing to do with officers but owe more to the policies and legislation that restrict what officers can and can't do.
Then there are those that will be anti-police no matter what. Some of these may be 'career criminals', some mis-guided idealists and others have their own agendas. To you people I simply say that you are welcome to your ill-concieved views, keep them, cherish them and remember them when you or a member of your family are subject to a serious crime or accident. There's no point in even trying to explain anything to you people (and yet strangely some of the most anti-police folk are the first to call us when it suits them... go figure).
Whatever your view, it is a fact that police officers are unique in our society. The factors that shape our uniqueness have already been outlined in this thread. The issue here is one of trust, here we have a government that agrees to arbitration and then ignores it when the result doesn't suit them. This is the same government that demands great integrity of police officers, obviously this is a one way street.
 

Can you imagine working for a company that has a little more than 600 employees with the following statistics?

29 have been accused of spouse abuse

7 have been arrested for fraud

19 have been accused of writing bad cheques

117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses

3 have done time for assault

71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit

4 have been arrested on drug-related charges

8 have been arrested for shoplifting

21 are currently defendants in lawsuits

84 have been arrested for drink driving in the last year

Which organization is this?

It's the 635 members of the British House of Commons, the same group that cranks out hundreds of new laws each year designed to keep the rest of us in line.
 

BAZ....You make assumptions about me. I am appalled by the fact that the press often make serious allegations against innocent people. Plus they can be quite nasty, vicious even in giving people a bad name when they do not know the facts. Doctors have been known to do the same in medical records. They do not appear to give a damn about how much hurt they cause to people, innocent people. And, I have NOT distorted the truth dear boy. I have in fact got into all sorts of hassle BECAUSE I have spoken the truth. It's a sort of "police tourettes". I tend to call a pervert a pervert and a dick head a dick head, and shout F**K OFF when the occasion demands it. But people do not always want to hear the truth, do they?

Peace and Love sweetie.
 

Save your your Sweetie Love salutations for Paddick those certain senior and ex senior officers of the Met.

Next time you're down the Hellfire Club.

In the meanwhile, the simple fact is that coppers routinely distort and misrepresent. They routinely abuse the little bit of power with which they have been entrusted - that you claim to be different doesn't surpise me: you all do.

But why don't you have the support of the public at large? Is it really all the fault of the "meejuh" ?
 

"...the simple fact is that coppers routinely distort and misrepresent. They routinely abuse the little bit of power with which they have been entrusted"

Baz... I guess when you make a statement like that it's a short cut to thinking! It has no basis in fact, it's merely a supposition that seems to be based upon your own prejudices. If not, I'd love to see the 'research'.

The fact is that much of what we do is so heavily monitored that it's simply not worth doing what you suggest we all do, even if we wanted to.

I don't know what it is that's shaped your views, whether it be bad experiences of cops, 'facts' you've gleaned from the papers or that you've found yourself on the wrong side of the law, you've got your axe to grind with us and you'll probably stick to your opinion no matter what.

Nothing you and others like you who present their ill-founded opinions as 'fact' have to say does anything to present an effective argument. In my experience the vast majority of officers continue to do their duty with integrity. Your opinion doesn't change that, it just illustrates your ignorance of the real issues.

"Peace and Love sweetie"
 

Proper Charlie 1:43 For all your pretensions and resorting to a thesaurus you still contradict yourself greatly in your efforts to create a smokescreen...

.. to misrepresent and distort in fact.

To compound this Black Comedy, watching lower echelon Plod trying to sound educated is rather like watching a dog try to play the trombone. Sad.

When you say in your first tortured paragraph: "a shortcut to thinking.." presumably you mean an alternative to thinking?

I suspect you've probably been on a few crappy courses or done a bit of night school or sociology or something.

Something that requires mere rote scholarship rather than reasoning
ability.

I could go on and point out each of your nonsensical tautologies: your saying, for example,that my statements are based upon supposition, is iteslf a supposition.

Oaf.

As for some of the rest of your waffle and prevarication: who closely monitors you at the road side or in the interview room when there's just you and a fellow Brain and a substandard para-legal?

You play the system,you suppress evidence, you go for b*llsh*t "detections", you criminalise decent honest people and actual victims of crime in your relentless and gutless pursuit of targets

All the fault of the media I suppose? Not one word of truth. Not even posted in all these blogs?

As for your basic reliability here's a datum for you to consider: approximately 80 percent of the contributers to these blogs who also claim to be serving police officers, bemoan the fact that only a few PC's actually make it out onto the streets. Everyone else is a desk jockey, an eternal flame, a trench dodger and so forth.. so assuming that that those do who write in represent a statistical universe and are representative of the force as a whole - then if the majority of contributers are claiming to be front-line officers then the numbers just don't add up...

... unless perhaps most of the PC's contributing to these blogs, though they might actually venture out for a couple of shifts a month before scurrying back behind their desks, are actually mostly office-bound desk monkeys with plenty of spare time on their hands to slack off and log on to these sites during comapny time? Bragging and swaggering inflated little nobodies who couldn't make it any any real job .


Ill founded opinions? - a lot of people have experience of you and your ilk . A hell of a lot of people. The public know you lot for what you really are.

You willingly collude with a system that most of you purport to despise.

Fact is, the modern constabulary is the sad end to a proud tradition.
 

BAZ..Yes I am different, very different from your average PC, but I really cannot be arsed to argue with you. You have a narrow fixed opinion which I doubt anyone could change, unless a thunderbolt decended upon your head. The trouble with "educated intellectuals" is that ALL of them are ARROGANT beyond belief. You are probably a journalist.

Just as all journalists are not scum, neither are all coppers, nor all sick people claiming Incapacity Benefit. It is the MINORITY within those groups who get the rest a bad name.

For the record, sweetie, I was a child victim and survivor of serious sexual abuse at the hands of cops and judiciary. But the "group" who hurt me THE MOST were the press who jumped to conclusions, printed lies and speculation and generally RUINED my life...like THEY have done to many.
I don't hate the police for what a few evil bas***ds did to me. It was certain paedophile members of the judiciary that made sure it never came to light in the 50's.

And I have not got a clue what or where the "Hellfire Club" is and whats this "Meejah"?

I live an undercover sheltered life, sweetie. Peace be upon you at this special time of year. X
 

Ve - sorry to disappoint you but you're not really "..different.." at all.

Not in the slightest

You were a victim of... blah blah blah -and you've been dining out on it for years, no doubt.

Newsflash: everyone has a sob story.

Tell me, how long is it before you bring it up in conversation with total strangers? As much as 5 whole minutes, perhaps?

Wake up: nobody cares. So stop whining and just do your bloody job.

"..Intellectuals.." you say? No. I actually prefer the company of thinkers.

That you see the world filtered through the narrow channel of your own peculiar set of prejudices does not surprise me. No, I am not a journalist and truth be told, I deal in abstractions that are quite probably beyond your powers of comprehension. But no matter


FYI "meejuh" = Media and as for Hellfire Club, I suggest you google it with cross reference to Lord Byron.

(However, I don't believe that anyone could be as dense and impervious to genuine human empathy as you purport to be. You're being disingenuous, aren't you, you rascal you?)

And in response to your salutation , peace be yours and upon you to at this time of year

Shalom
 

BAZ. Well I am shocked at yourrather cynical attitude. You are quite wrong to make assumptions about me, really you are. Dining out on my "sob story"? Hardly. You appear to get such a lot totally wrong, which makes me think that you are perhaps a politician, or a civil servant.

I have a great deal of empathy for victims of abuse, which is WHY I did my "job" and we NOW have a Child Protection System...albeit highjacked by a lying abuser who passed it off as his own idea. And you are right, nobody cares and that is just a symptom of the crap system EVERYONE is suffering under.

The REAL culprits for the mess we are in, and the fact that the police force got sabotaged and undermined, are the politicians. The problem goes back to the 1950's and the 1980's under the Conservatives, Home Office and judiciary. The police took the brunt of all the flack over the North Wales child abuse scandal, whilst the judiciary were untouched. This is the CAUSE of the sorry state of affairs which the NewLab govt in 2004 FAILED to put right.
And IF you met me and talked to me you would soon find out that I am in fact an individual free spirit and NOT your average plod.

Shalom, and that IS from the heart.
 

I have read most of this thread and am amazed at the many Police officers who complain about assuptions and then go on to make their own assumptions ?

I am also amazed at how many complain about fact, but turn a blind eye to it....whether that is to the fact that the government are NOT bound and have never been bound by the arbitration( and refuse to accept it !!)..and there are far too many instances, not only present but historically, where Police officers will conveniently disregard facts if that suits their agenda, and in some instances their cases,......and that includes the fact that they chose to do the work that they do, so take responsibility for your own choices exactly as you appear to ask the general public to do...and when serving officers can retire rather than "face the music", as well as when members of the public are killed and no charges appear ever to be brought against them, then the public will continue to feel that, in the wrong way and wrong attitude,the police are a "special case"
 

Ooh Baz, you wound me with your words... I'll have to go lie down now!

'...shortcut to thinking', it's a phrase I heard once and I liked it, don't much care if it's correct usage of language, it got my point across. Rattled your cage anyway.

You know only that I am a cop, nothing else. I may not be as educated as you are or able to use words as eloquently, but then who could match your intellectual might?

It's quite apparent to me now that no other opinion but yours could be correct, how foolish of any of us to have an one that challenged your own! You're quite right, all we cops are very naughty people. Very, very bad indeed. Except me, I'm different. I just wish I could use big words like you so that I could present an argument devoid of fact and people would still think I was right.

Praise be to the great Baz,

The Oaf.
 

PAPPA....I'm shocked. I thought I was "different" and now you tell us that YOU are naughty too. I'll have to go and lie down! But it's good to know that I'm not the only "naughty" one in the police family.

Baz's words wounded me too, SO mean coz I'm not as clever as him. Well I must be "dense" not knowing what the "Meejah" is, and the Hellfire club. Silly me thought that Mee Jah meant I am God. And yes it IS all God's doing, to punish us for being naughty. But what I CANNOT understand is WHY do the really naughty people get away with it, or appear to.

I never could get my 6 year old head around how his Lordship, a high court judge and his judiciary mates, could sit there telling me to "Suck it like a lollipop" [Give him a BJ] And if I didn't they would kill my mum, blame my dad, defend him very badly, and hang him very badly so it chopped off his head.

And they LAUGHED, oh how they laughed. But they didn't laugh when I told them quite firmly that THEY were nothing but a bunch of PERVERTS and what they were doing was against the law.
They were in fact most offended at my outrageous audacity in actually speaking the truth. How naughty can you get!

So naughty I set me on a life path to do something about evil bas***ds like them, especially as they murdered my half sister, Lynne Whitely 1956 Manchester, just before Christmas 51 years ago, STILL covered up by government. The high and mighty judiciary don't want the truth to be told about that.
So if anyone abuses the power they have it is government and the judiciary. HYPOCRITES.

I wonder if Baz is judiciary?

Anyway...any invites to dinner gratefully accepted, as "they" have had me isolated for years....trying to wear me down and break my spirit...won't work...always was a spirited awkward madam with great faith in a higher power than them! [Ner ner]
 

Hey VE, maybe we can start a naughty cop's dinner club? We could invite Baz as guest speaker and he could tell us all how clever he is and how naughty we are! As long as he doesn't use too many big words 'cause we're too stupid to understand them and will get very confustificated.

:-D
 

PAPPA....Sounds good to me but I have to confess to already being confusticated to the point of screaming out loud. Read in the Mail yesterday that the govt have instructed local authorities to send out really nosy questionaires, asking all sorts of highly personal info about people, including sexual orientation...at a cost of about £15 MILLION....AND they cannot guarrantee confidentiality of the info. Great, they can stick that where the sun don't shine. And what was the total sum of the backdated pay to September? £3 Million.
Nuff said.
 

Whilst I agree with everything PC Copperfield has written in his book, I don't really want to give the police more of my dosh? Why? Well, largely for the reasons in the book - it's an appallingly ineffective institution. That may seem a little tough on the ordinary bobby doing his or her job, but as a victim of crime (on a number of occasions) I am sick to the back teeth of the bureaucratic, sometimes incompetent, and always ineffectual response I have received.

I am also a little hacked off with the sickness absence levels, which are the highest in the public sector and simply eye-watering. In many forces, the average police officer (and the average civilian working for the police service) throws a sickie one day per month. Those of us in the private sector who are paying for this nonsense, whilst working ridiculously long hours for no additional pay and no pension, sometimes grow weary of the outstretched hand.

So PC Copperfield - you've definitely touched a nerve with your witty, and brave, account of the realities of modern policing, and I wish you well. But don't mistake this for a general view that our police officers are noble souls who deserve more money.
 

In the private sector your not as part of your job assaulted. You cannot look at sickness in isolation. One officer in my force had 365 days of the other year (selfish bastard) I mean he can barely walk was the victim of attempted murder but why let that be the issue, another officer had a few months off as someone kicked out his kneecap, On my team alone this year one of my team had 3 weeks of with a broken hand from being assaulted and 2 officers were off for a few weeks with stab wounds. You cannot look at stats like highest sick rate etc. in isolation. The roatating shifts the enviroments and contact you come into, the fact that your not allowed to report or do anyhing that will make you unfit for duty or if you are subject to flu then the last place I want you is at work giving it to a team of officers. Compare like for like jobs rather than the role of a police officer with that of a civil servant in an office. Or a chap working in a factory.

So far this year I have been assaulted on average 2-3 times a month.
 

that's not often enough
 

I read Copperfield's book too, but didn't agree with his attitude towards single mothers "on the sick with nerves"....and I told him so! Didn't I Dave?

It's not an easy life being a single mum on benefits, despite all the BOLLOX in the press about how "generous" the money is. And ADHD kids are an absolute handful, draining, exhausting and would test the patience of a saint. FACT, from personal experience, and the CAUSE of that condition is CHEMICALS in the environment and our food.

It is true however that policing is a very stressful job, made 100 times worse in recent years because of all the paperwork and oppressive attitude of government.

My own health took a hammering because of stress caused by assaults upon me from a young age. I am also a survivor of attempted murder [more than once I might add] which really does mess up the nervous system. The end result for myself has been to develop a neurological illness, for which there is no treatment and no cure.

Being an officer of the special constabulary there was no pay anyway. When an incident of attempted murder disabled me many years ago, leaving me unable to work to pay my way, I was discriminated against by the benefits agency and denied Invalidity Benefit.

That had a long term dramatic effect upon my quality of life and a knock on effect upon my children. That one is another long story of abuse of power by the "welfare state", who actually CONTRIBUTED to making the illness worse!
Yeah yeah BAZ, I know...everyone's got a sob story.....

Anyway, despite numerous attempts to sort the problem out, they STLL aint playing fair. THEY appear to be a law unto themselves with NO EFFECTIVE complaints system to resolve unfair treatment in a satisfactory and dignified way.

Merry Christmas Mr Scrooge, but I do thank God that we have evolved since the days of the workhouse!
 

....and that should read..
And the STILL aint playing fair!
 

"So far this year I have been assaulted on average 2-3 times a month."

Daz said...

"that's not often enough"

Anon, if you take nothing else away from this thread, let it be the fact that there is no point whatsoever in trying to explain to some of these people anything about policing and the difficulties faced by front-line response officers. They quite clearly have their own issues with the police and their opinions will never change so don't waste the effort. We waste enough effort on such people already.

We know we'll meet these folk time and again so when you do give them the only answer you can, that is do your job professionally and with integrity. No-one can argue with that.
 

Why am I not surprised that MPs are pushing for above inflation rises? The poor little darlings... so badly done to. I mean how the hell are they supposed to make £60,675 a year plus expenses and allowances stretch. It's no wonder that so many of them have to take second jobs as consultants to make ends meet.

As of 1 April 2007 this is all they get;

Members' parliamentary salary £60,675
Allowances
Staffing Allowance Maximum of £90,505
Incidental Expenses Allowance (IEP) Maximum of £21,339
IT equipment (centrally provided) [worth circa £3,000]
Pension provision for Members' staff
10% of employee’s gross salary
London Supplement
£2,812
Additional Costs Allowance
Maximum of £23,083
Winding up Allowance
Maximum of £37,281
Communications Allowance
Maximum of £10,000
Car Mileage (per mile)
40p (for first 10,000 miles)
25p (after 10,000 miles)
Bicycle allowance (per mile) 20p
Motorcycle allowance 24p
Four months holiday.

Maybe we should have a whip-round... oh yes, I knew those lire would come in handy...
 

Proper Charlie - now that you have felt a sudden surge of numeracy overcome you..

..why not answer the question from Dec 20 at 10:55 that you so far have somewhat less than artful at avoiding?
 

But oh great one, I did answer your question... Did I not accept that you were oh so right and that I was so wrong to have an opinion that does not reflect your own? Did I not accept that you are much cleverer than I and therefore can't be wrong? Did I not also accept that you don't need facts because you can use big words?

Others might think that your only point in posting here was to wind people up with baseless accusations disguised as reasoned argument, dressed in eloquence and self righteousness. Not I for I am not that clever and bow before your big words, superior education and inflated ego. You are right, how can you not be? We cops are bad, naughty people. Except me, I'm different.

Hail to Baz THE Great
 

So, still nursing the inferiority complex that you try to hide behind exaggerated attempts at sarcasm..

... the genuine petulance and the sulking and surliness of one who knows he's outclassed,..

.. and still the waffle and smokescreen tactics that are the only recourse available to the mediocre.

Shame.
 

Ooh, once more you wound me. I feel very poorly now and must lie down.

Did I touch a nerve? Actually your choice of words is very revealing... "...one who knows he's outclassed", that phrase says more about you than I, dear Baz.

Inferiority complex? I'm quite happy and confident with who I am thanks. Petulance? But I don't have any pets! Mediocre? Sorry don't read the papers, far too depressing.

Truth is Baz, I have met many folk like you. The ones that feel aggrieved when they get pulled over for doing 40 in a 30 zone. The ones that had to answer their mobiles whilst driving through a red light because it was such an important call. The ones that had only had a couple of pints, know their limit and anyway, the car clearly missed that old dear by at least a foot. Maybe you're not one of these folk, maybe you called the police after you lost your dummy and was very displeased that we were not the the instant you put the phone down, probably because we were too busy dealing with real emergencies. Don't know and honestly, don't care.

Grind your axe, keep on winding for whatever I say to you will fall on deaf ears (or blind eyes in this case).

Merry Xmas
 

Ah, more examples of your "..shortcut to thinking.."

You're still a a whiner who thinks that you and your lot deserve more than receive and do and keep bleating on about how unfair it all is.

You repeatedly emphasise your trustworthiness, probity, integrity and so forth. Why? If true, doesn't it speak for itself ?

You are a weak "man" whose endless protestations of his own worth are part of the typical pattern of behaviour of those who lack real character and genuine integrity.

More pay? For what? Have you barged into people's houses at the start of the school day and finger-printed any 10 year old girls for chalking on walls lately? Are you so way over-quota for nailing motorists with dud tail-lights that now you feel that now you deserve commission or some kind of production bonus? ...

... your self-deluding hero complex and other rationalisations aside, why do you think that you are actually worth anything?

Incidentally, no one chides you lot for not rushing to the scene of serious crimes quickly enough anymore - because everyone knows that you're absolutely bl**dy useless when you get there anyway. Public expectation of the police is effectively zero. And you know it.

Why?

Answer...if you can.


Shalom
 

Hmmm... nice to see the issues being discussed so meaningfully here. The name calling and personal put downs are getting the points across really well.
I'm not a cop and I respect what they do although I haven't had much contact with any. What little I have had has left me with the impression that they do have a hard job to do. I support them in their pay dispute. From what little I know of the system that they work in they deserve it.
I have some of observations about some of the posts here. There are a few egos on the loose that are more intent on making personal attacks than talking about the real point here.
VE, I am very sorry for the things you seem to have suffered in your life. No one should have to go through such ordeals. However, is this really the place to air all this?
Baz, Charlie has a point. From reading your posts I can see that you don't have anything to back up what you're saying. It IS supposition as you haven't offered one single fact to support your claims. There is also no excuse for your personal attacks upon others here. You come across as a self righteous, superior snob with no respect for anyone or anything that isn't you or yours. Has it actually occurred to you that the 80% of officers to that you refer to might actually be what they claim to be? It could well be that the 'desk jockeys' you mention can't be bothered to write here.
Charlie, you DO make some assumptions in your first post about some of the posters. In some respects you're probably right but you can't bleat on about 'facts' when you haven't presented many yourself. I do like the way you disengaged yourself from 'Baz THE Great' though. As you say, there's no point in arguing with someone who's mind's already made up. I see you found your thesaurus too.
In all though I have to say that it's a shame to see that this topic has degenerated into a slanging match of sorts. Whichever side of the fence you're on, please don't rise to the bait of others. Let's get back to a sensible discussion about the topic.
Thank you.
 

Baz.. Gil whomever you are. You are a sad sad individual whose mark will be nothing upon this world. I have nothing but pity for you. Clearly you have a severe personality disorder. I would suggest that no-one respond to this 'person' they are to be pitied rather than argued with.
 

Sorry Baz, not taking the bait. I can answer but refuse to be drawn into a battle of words with you. You have your own opinions that will not be changed, no matter what. The truth could hit you in the face and you will not be moved. I actually feel sorry for you. You have clearly had some experience that has left you bitter and shaped your narrow view. You seem to feel the need to hit out at someone and when the the answers they give you don't suit you, you resort to personal attacks upon them.

As the sensible chap above points out, "...this topic has degenerated into a slanging match of sorts." I agree and will take no further part in tit for tat personal exchanges.

Give us some evidence to support your opinions and I will gladly try to answer you.

Merry Xmas.
 

Proper Charlie - So, you "..can answer but refuse to ..."


Pathetic

Each of the valid criticisms presented to you have been pointedly ignored because you are incapable of defending them.

It's that simple

Stop hiding behind women's skirts and your glove-puppet post at 2:38 is really fooling no-one

You say that you "..will try to answer you.." Try harder. Be honest.

For once.


You gutless schmuck
 

Although I do not generally like stats, I found these for anyone interested in actual research, some interesting figures taken from Warwickshire Police's Public Satisfaction Survey for 2006/7. http://www.warwickshire.police.uk/library/PublicSurveys This survey is one I picked at random and the figures shown are below the national average. It was conducted in accordance with Home Office guidelines which can be found at http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/news-and-publications/publication/performance-and-measurement/user-satisfaction-survey-guide/PPAF-user-satisfaction-survey?version=1 Regional and national surveys can be found at http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/performance-and-measurement/performance-assessment/assessments-2006-2007/ I hope this goes some way to answering some questions raised.

For those that wish to present their opinions as 'valid criticism', I cannot offer you any answers without knowing the foundation upon which you base them. I strongly suspect that any answers I were to give would only be rejected as a distortion of the truth anyway.

Merry Xmas.
 

"..Sorry Baz, not taking the bait..."


Indeed.


Your comedic value still has some mileage left in it after all...

...priceless



So, Proper Charlie, when you say that you: ".. do not generally like stats.." is that because you don't really UNDERSTAND statistics or statistical analysis and its attendant techniques?

Any discussion with you based upon the statistical data that you mention in your post, would inevitably have to take into account things such as a consideration of the analysis of variances that assume fixed-effects models and lots of other concepts that you so eloquently lumped together as "big words" - even basic stuff such as correlation and ranking and rudimentary chi- squared test....

... all of these would be the thrust of your argument would they?

Good man.

Watch that dog play the trombone

... or you could stop straining yourself and just say what YOU personally have found the reaction of the general public to be towards the police.

Happy? Thrilled? Ecstatic? People stop you in the street to shake you by the hand........?

Honestly?


Happy Hannukah
 

Actually Baz, since you're now asking for a personal perspective, the general response I get from the majority of the public with whom I come into contact is pretty darn good. It does even on occasion lead to a shaking of the hands and a thank you for my help. But then I know how to be civil to people. Even those that I arrest are rarely 'get the hump' with me. Why? Because I treat all with respect no matter what my personal opinion of them may be. Try it sometime, it can work wonders. I do my job and I do it well. You probably won't believe it but I gain their trust and I live up to it.

Yes there are the odd occasions where some folk are not going to be happy no matter what I do. These people usually expect something of us that we simply cannot do for them, such as a taxi home, or they want their neighbour arresting for cutting the hedge too low, even expect us to sort out their plumbing. That or they think they have the God given right to drive through the lights at red, risking the lives of others, swear at and abuse other people in public or assault others for looking at them the wrong way. Then some will cry police harassment...

There you have it, an honest answer. Not that I expect you to accept it.
 

I posted a comment a few days ago about sickness absence levels, and somebody quite rightly pointed out that a serious injury can significantly affect the average. I realise this, and wouldn't begrudge an injured (or sick) officer the time they need to recover - I know there are one or two nutters 'contributing' to this thread, but (I hope) I'm not one of them.

In fact, when I first saw police sickness absence figures, that was my initial assumption - one or two really badly injured officers skewing the figures, and bless them for the price they've paid. And I still feel that, naturally. But then I noticed that civilian sickness absence levels in the police are just as high, and that's when the alarm bells went off. Tell me if I'm wrong here, but I have a sense of a sick organisation, with poor management and low morale. I've only known one guy in the private sector to have 12 days sick leave in a year, and that's how long he lasted - a year. Yet this level is common in both civilian and police officer staff in the police service.

You're also right about assaults - private sector workers don't generally get assaulted. And that distinction is well understood by most sensible poeple, I think. But with all these qualifications, my point is unchanged : you guys have great conditions of service but unfortunately you deliver a very poor service. PC Copperfield hits the nail on the head time after time in his book. So I don't begrudge you, personally - I'm sure you're all fine people - but I don't want to pay a penny extra until we have a service which is worth having. Just as I wouldn't want to pay for a useless plumbing service.

So if you want a grateful public to cheerfully vote for more money for the police, you'll first have to knock some sense into politicians and senior managers so that the service delivers something we'd be happy to pay for.
 

Therein lies one of the problems we face with public opinion, the public quite often blame the inadequacies of the system we have to work in upon the individuals in the organisation. They see no line differentiating the two (in general, I realise that you, Jim, have cited the organisation as the problem). A bobby can put all his effort into a job, but because the systems are quite often so inefficient, the outcome doesn't reflect the hard work and poor old bobby gets it in the neck.

As for civvy sickies, I guess that some of that is down to the rigours of working shifts and a certain amount of stress but I wouldn't know for sure, don't work with too many civvys.
 

To put this a little more forcefully - why on earth should I pay a penny more for such a poor service? If it was an option, I'd pay less for the 'service', because it's so poor. Police officers want more dosh - naturally - but those of us left in the wealth-creating bit of the economy really begrudge the sums we're already paying, for a pretty poor service.

I expect you'll get your pay rise, in part because the Government has behaved both disgracefully and incompetently, and they're perceived as the villain of the piece. But please don't imagine that Joe Public is full of respect for the police - I'm as law-abiding as they come, with friends and family in the police, but even I want my money back.
 

RESPECTFUL MOP....You asked was this blogg really the place to air such things. Ah the elephant in the room! Nobody wants to admit it's there. Well petal, when there is a wall of silence and cover up by government, YES, this is the place to air such matters. The regulars [paid] are not the only ones who are disgusted by the actions of government. My personal story was valid and relevant and I have as much right to be heard as anyone else in the force.
Too right this was the place to air it. Thank you DC.

Jesus loves you sweetie pie.XX
 

Ok Ve, I do get what you're trying to say, I just felt that a discussion about pay wasn't the place for your story. I DO respect what you guys & gals do and didn't intend to diminish your argument. I apologise if I offended you, looking back at it I suppose I didn't really think of it in the wider context.
 

Respectful MOP.
Thanks for your kind words, above and previously. Regarding "pay", I have had a good old rant on previous blogs about the bad faith of government regarding a special "bonus" payment agreed a long time ago, which government has failed to hand over. A clear breach of contract, even though I am an officer of the special constabulary, who do not usually get paid. The fact that I became disabled during my long term mission and was DENIED the correct benefits just adds insult to injury. The fact that the government cover up this scandal IS OUTRAGEOUS.

Rant over. Peace and Love