Tackling the last great unreformed public service

startledcod

The last unreformed public service? Has no-one noticed the dinosaurs that are the 'Fire Service'. Their whole structure is built around fighting fires and yet it comprises less than 10% of what they do. What is more fire fighter is a misnomer as they only fight fires where life is threatened (very rare) and instead let buildings burn out for their own Health and Safety.

Reform is long overdue. What is the point in taking 800 gallons of water in a truck to a car accident? Van, cuttin equipment, extinguishers.

Perry

How about cutting the innane PC paperwork?

How about some real policing?

How about . . . oh never mind!

charles hercock

Ms May may have bitten off more than she can chew
Is she up to it?

Jon Stack

So, why not have police officers paid lower rates of pay for the office tasks, and higher rates for being "on the beat". All the mindless paper pushing would soon stop, and the interests of the police and public would be the same once again.

TGF UKIP

A question I put to Fraser Nelson two years ago when he wrote about the police, was what are the average earnings, including overtime and supplements, for a constable with say five years experience with the Met and with a northern provincial force.

Predictably, I got no answer, but if one comes from Mr Gibbs I would guess that most of us will be gobsmacked at what the figures are.

HJ

When I suggested to a friend of mine who was a policeman at the time and who has just retired on full pension at age 48, that the police get a pretty good deal, he was quite indignant. According to him (I kid you not) they aren't well paid compared to "teenagers who leave school at 18 and get jobs in IT companies for £50k or more".

Much of the public sector is living in a fantasy world where the private sector are far, far, better paid than the miserable pittances they receive.

daniel maris

What a useless article!

There seems to be no recognition of how stressful a patrol officer's job is. The idea that you will expect patrol officers to work for 40 years is ridiculous. If you introduced that, all you would do is produce a huge increase in medical retirements.

My own view is that we need to reorganise the service, with a recognition that night shifts and patrolling are essentially a youg man's game. If we employ people on say 10-15 years contracts, we can reduce pension payments by reducing those early medical retirements.

It is the patrolling officers and the neighbourhood officers who need to be rewarded well. But they need hands-on management.

A lot more office jobs could still be civilianised.

Sarf of the River

I'm all for the setting up of elected commissioners and disbanding the utterly unaccountable and private talking shop ACPO while they are at it. It's not just a benign recruiting ground for new security shutter salesmen and unlicensed tazer purchasers...

Anything which may counter and dilute the apparent sense of entitlement, unaccountability and superiority the Police often display is to be welcomed.

Do the Police really need so many rather fancy BMWs and Land Rovers in the middle of London?

normanc

Can anyone tell me a public service, any public service, that isn't in dire need of root and branch reform?

In a lot of areas the coalition have talked a decent game (and in a lot they haven't), and in fairness it's less than a year in, but I'm still waiting to see any action.

Noa.

Root and branch reform is long overdue; not least in reducing the number of police forces and administrations, reforming funding and as a result, procurement and sharing equipment.

Startledcod is absolutely right; indeed to go further police, fire and ambulance services can and should be integrated. It is a great shame that, even on a phased basis, this was not within the contemplation of the Winsor report.

steve

I think most people don't really know how much a copper can earn in overtime. Its not unusual for a PC in a specialist team to be adding 2-3K pm in overtime (after tax) to their basic wage. The reasons why this happens is a lot more complex though. Some is very generous benefits, but most is made up of covering for bad management decisions and taking the slack for bone idle colleges who should have gone years ago.

I've no doubt they will just do the same as they did for inspectors, give a single payment and make any overtime unpaid. This won't work though, there will be an inevitable reduction in working hours, which will show in the crime stats.

The police service needs a complete overhaul, stupidly small forces and bad practices need ending, but I don't see this government having the balls to do that.

Ricardo

Tut tut tut, Blair Gibbs. Head of Crime & Justice at the Policy Exchange, but still publishes a seriously flawed column. Don't get me wrong, I think the Police SHOULD play their part and have a pay freeze, and I think they SHOULD be subject to a review of terms and conditions in particular about overtime. But...
You CAN'T compare their pay to Australia and New Zealand when you KNOW the pay there is less because the cost of living is less.
You CAN'T criticize their pension when you KNOW they pay the MOST PERCENTAGE OF PAY of ANY public sector body, and almost FIVE TIMES MORE than many Government Elected Representatives.
You CAN'T criticize housing allowances when at the same time there is a police regulation that empowers the Chief Constable to deny them permission to live at ANY address he/she doesn't like.
You CAN'T criticize travel allowances when many middle to senior ranks are REQUIRED to use THEIR OWN VEHICLE in the course of their job and for which those same officers have to PAY AN ADDITIONAL CAR INSURANCE PREMIUM for using their OWN vehicle for policing purposes.
You can't on one hand say officers must work more than 30 years but at the same time FORCIBLY RETIRE officers after 30 years against their will
And what makes you think it is morally or even legally acceptable to enter into a contract with an individual for their dedicated service over a SET PERIOD of time with PROMISED benefits after that period, to then turn round half way through and change your mind and renege on that agreement, and to do this at the same time as enforcing the fact that those officers CANNOT STRIKE in protest.
Well, Mr Gibbs?

victor jara 67

In the 1980s Thatcher gave the police a pay increase, prior to sending them out to crack the working class skulls.

Is this a strategic mistake as the battle lines are drawn and the cuts against the undeserving poor take hold!

JohnHW

I would have thought that the Prison Service, Teachers and certain professional groupings in the NHS have an equal claim on the title of 'unreformed'.

strapworld

I confess I know a little more than this Blair Gibbs about police remuneration. I also know that the police are heartily sick and tired of the constant changes created by political parties over the years.

The Police and Criminal Evidence Act was created by a Conservative Government. This bill created the Crime Prosecution service. Now can anyone tell me how that has aided police in their work or reduced anything? I said whilst it was going through the bill stages that it was uncosted and I have been proved right. Just look at the records, Mr Gibbs, and you will find that the conservative administration did not do their homework.

It also reduced the powers of police to stop and search. NOTE A conservative government brought in that measure.

A conservative government brought in Sir Patrick Sheehy to do the task that they have asked Tom Winsor to do now. Sheehy's report was ditched when the police federation flexed their considerable muscle and held a public meeting at Wembley which attracted over 20.000 members. No trades union, no political party can ever attract such numbers. So beware.

Then your headline calls the police the 'last great unreformed piublic service' What utter tosh. What kind of person calling himself Head of Crime & Justice can get away with this.

The last Royal Commission into policing was in the 1960's. The Police Federation have, to my personal knowledge, been calling for a Royal Commission since the 1980's. But political parties do not want a thorough, public and independent enquiry. They want to change things the way their political persuasion suggests. Hence the mess the police are in today after the Labour Party messing around with them and making police chiefs political animals.

There can be only one true independent enquiry into policing and that is by a Royal Commission.

I would not trust Cameron and co with running a shrimp stall in Southend on Sea.

Fergus Pickering

I wouldn't have thought policemen need to strike. If they can join the force at 18 then they don't need any qualifications. They seem to me to be grossly overpaid with ludicrous overtime entitlements. I wouldn't mind a fat pension at 48 either. Is there a shortage of people who want to do the job?

microcosm

The police and the big society are two facets of the same problem. We all sense that the bonds of society are disintegrating, and that something needs to be done.

But the answer is not more voluntary work; that is what people do if they are content and are willing to put in personal effort for something they feel is worthwhile. But why should we be bothered when everything seems to be run for the benefit of the scroungers and layabouts? And when the police make no visible effort to help and harmonise with the decent majority?

The big society is doomed unless the government shows leadership in linking the strands of our society. That includes an almighty realignment of attitudes in the police.

Dave James

Mr Gibbs I was a Federation member in the audience that day and one of the ones who requested an apology for your throw away remark. What you actually said was we were grossly overpaid. I am not grossly overpaid. If you want to make that sort of last minute unchallengeable remark before exiting stage left to sit at the back it is probably best left to a public bar. As for being the last unreformed public service that would be a title best reserved for Parliament. The Police service and its workforce have been subject to unremitting change with endless home office diktats as Politicians have vainly attempted to appease every media story. We can retire after 30 years because we pay 11% into our pensions which although I accept does not cover its entire remuneration is nearly double that of most other parts of the public sector as no doubt you well know. In fact our Force is Forcibly retiring 700 Police Officers at 30 years service under A19 of Pension Regulations up to April 2015 due to the Comprehensive Spending Review from an establishment of 3500. That is not fair and no doubt many would wish to work on serving their communities. Being honest about pay is not a thought crime all our salaries are publicly available to anyone with some simple computer skills. What is a crime is what appears to be your right to pontificate as some sort of consultant about Policing. I do not recall ever seeing you working alongside me when I have been assaulted, threatened by mob violence, spat on by a 5 year old child at a violent domestic, had my family threatened, had threats to burn down my house rape my wife and kill my children, suffered endless appalling abusive language or spent may years dealing with Fatal Collisions and there aftermath in all winds and weathers. I could go on however I fear I may already be boring you.

Lee

I have been a front line police officer for 4 1/2 years and I have not been off sick since I joined. I think people sometimes forget we are put in situations that others do not want to face in their jobs. There are two fundamental reasons why pay the pay is not unreasonable;
1. very unsociable hours including many evenings,nights and weekends which effects many relationships (high divorce rate). For example, the shift pattern I am currently on only repeats itself every 11 weeks.
2.The risk factor, last week I went to a call for a serious assault (GBH)with one other colleague, on scene there were 5 alcoholic/drug addicts all intoxicated. As we arrived the suspect (a lot bigger than me)attacked the victim again and I had to jump on him to restrain him to prevent further injury. This could have gone very wrong and the pay reflects the inherent risks as a police officer.
As for the pension, I joined just as it changed so my deal is not as good as some of the 'old school' deals which were admittedly good. However I would say that one reason for a high pension is due to the amount paid in. I pay 11% of earnings towards pensions which is far higher than many other public services. In addition the life expectancy for a police officer after retirement is below the norm.

If you want to reduce costs the main thing you need to do is REDUCE THE PAPERWORK. Less paperwork = more time on street + less O/T = lower police costs. Funny enough not all police officers want to stay late and get O/T, some would like to see their family, but if someone is in custody it's not like a nine to five job!
In any case most officers stay late for free to make sure things are handed over in good order, why shouldn't we be given O/T if we are made to stay? Would you rather police officers avoided responding to jobs near going home time?
I'll give you an example of the madness of paperwork: If you have a verbal argument with your partner and Police are called, paperwork has to be submitted for a non-crime domestic report by the officer. At scene I would obtain details of both partners, all children (many of the families we deal with have lots of children, a risk assessment form with about 3-4 pages of questions, then back at the station all these details are input onto the computer, then you have to get a non-crime no. via an automated answer phone system where you give all the same details again. You can imagine how frustrating this is for any officer, this isn't even for a crime so imagine how much there is for a domestic assault!
Before I get off my soap box, ultimately I am a tax payer if cuts are to come from anywhere look at the bosses of any public service, why should they earn so much more than front line staff (many with more than the prime minister). The private sector is just as bad where both public and private senior management wage brackets have fed off each other causing them to become unsustainable.

Rebus

Mr Gibbs. I understand that the word you used was 'overpaid' rather than 'not badly paid'. Rather than an 'orchestrated' campaign, have you considered that it was just a number of individuals who were disappointed in your comments. As a former advisor to the police minister they may have misconstrued your comments as being representative of the government's view. Also, I don't think any police officer regards anyone having a view on police pay as a 'thought crime'. They may have a different view to your, that's all. It appears that you have no time for the Police Federation but I'm sure they value the views of the Head of Crime and Justice at the Policy Forum.
I don't believe that police officers are as resistant to change as your article would suggest. I do think that they are concerned though when they hear the Home Secretary appear to pre-empt the independent review of the serious and credible reviewer Mr Winsor. After today, we await his recommendations with slightly less bated breath.
The changes mooted today would result in me, as an example, taking home roughly £500 less per month. There is no will in the police for industrial action. That's not what we're about. But how can I tamely accept this type of hit. This without increases in pension contributions and Inflation. If nothing else,I owe it to my family to do something.
It is clear that the government can and will do as it pleases. Many good people will be worse off. Then I suppose the current circus can move on and vilify the next targeted group of public sector workers.
Fairness does indeed work two ways but I suppose the idea that the government might honour agreements on terms of service with police officers was always a forlorn hope. It seems odd that allowances negotiated over the years with various governments (often in lieu of salary rises) suddenly become 'perks'. By the way, I don't get paid any overtime.
'Respecting the police is less about financial rewards and more about . . .' Please give us some credit Mr Gibbs! We know BS when we hear it - it's part of the job.
Good luck with your modern police service but don't be too surprised if some of us who care deeply about our work and have some knowledge of it raise some objections along the way. To your surprise, we might even be right.

Andy Mason

Police should have to work more than thirty years ....... I have a friend who was a policeman (DC) with thirty years service and was forced to retire in November - he tried every avenue to stay, but had to go - he loved his work but was forced out. And as for teachers being one of the last unreformed public services - it's frightening that such uninformed people who say this are allowed to vote, their ignorance is stunning.

call me dave

Police force/'service' or the Crime Reporting Service as Auberon Waugh used to call it.

daniel maris

Lee -

I couldn't agree more - I think you've completely exposed the detachment from the real world of the article.

How do you think of my idea that night shift/patrol work shoudl be part of a 10-15 year contract. I think it's unreasonable to expect people to deal with the sort of stress you reference beyond that sort of time frame. We could then have a structured career progression into Police office work and crime prevention, or people would still be young enough to pursue a second career.

Fergus Pickering

Lee, I think your ltter to be very reaonable, and to make some good points. But my daughter, who is an Occupational Therapist, has been threatened with a knife at last twice (I expect she doesn't always tell me, and threatened with violence by drug addicts and drunks on numerous occasions. So you are not the only ones. And you must agree that some of the entitlements to overtime and such are a bit over the top - that is if the press are to be believed, which I agree is a big if. Your letter nevertheless made me think I was intemperate in my first post and I am quite sure you are right about the paperwork. Teachers would have the same to say. The general culture is that individuals are not trusted at all and that nothing has really happened unti it is written about in triplicate. I don't know what is to be done about this.

Archie

What "patrolling officers" might they be Daniel Maris? I consider it extremely auspicious if I see one officer - in a car or otherwise - once a month! When I was young, however, some fifty odd years ago, the police seemed to be everywhere.

TomTom

"A conservative government brought in Sir Patrick Sheehy to do the task"

and the Home Secretary got a job at BAT....funny !

Is it true that NY policemen are paid less than the Met ? They are certainly better !

neil starland

i have been a serving police officer for 15 years. i rarely recieve overtime and after my pension contributions and tax etc do not consider to be paid too much.
The Police service survives on the goodwill of the rank and file officers.
They stay on beyond thier shift often missing family gatherings etc. They come into work on rest days again disrupting thier family life.
Once you attack the rank and file you will lose the goodwill and believe me officers will turn off thier phones and stay at home on their rest days.
The public will suffer, crime will increase.
Too many senior officers get bonuses, this must stop,as they will try and massage figures in order to fulfill thier targets.
Outside the MET most rank and file officers are not paid vast amounts.
if these proposals are brought in the public will suffer. remember the old adage, pay peanuts and get monkeys

boulay

wouldn't it make sense that instead of having the police retire at 48 or 50 there is a system where you work the beat7physical policing until your late 40s (or until you cannot handle the physical requirements) and then you move into the office and do all the bureaucracy for those who are now on the beat etc. this would mean that they could carry on working until 65 and save paying so much in early provision of pensions.

Nicholas

Two quotes from the police officers who have commented stand out here:-

"The Police service and its workforce have been subject to unremitting change with endless home office diktats as Politicians have vainly attempted to appease every media story."

"At scene I would obtain details of both partners, all children (many of the families we deal with have lots of children, a risk assessment form with about 3-4 pages of questions"

They say it all. Legislation driven by risk obsessed hysteria. And the removal of the police officer's discretion, the nouse that allowed a police officer to act independently using his experience and common sense.

These should be the eradication targets of Theresa May.

strapworld

Never having heard of this author, Blair Gibbs, I visited the Policy Exchange site and it kindly gave me a small description of the man:-
"Blair Gibbs joined Policy Exchange in June 2010 as the Head of Crime and Justice policy. He leads the research programme and is responsible for setting priorities and managing projects in this area.Prior to joining Policy Exchange he worked as Chief of Staff to the Policing and Criminal Justice Minister, Nick Herbert MP (2007-10); as Campaign Director of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, and as a Home Affairs researcher at the Reform think tank. He read History & Politics at Merton College, Oxford."

So another career politician in the making!!

But when you note his considerable connections to the Conservative Party one can say that his article is part of this Conservative led government's attack on the police. It also discredits him and also the Spectator for using this blatent attempt at government propaganda.

It is just not good enough for the Spectator to just use the job title of any author they bring along. May I suggest they give a pen picture of new authors so that we can guage whether it is, as this is, government propoganda posing as 'independent research' or actually independent.

Mind you I find it strange that the Conservative led government are attacking the military,police and the unions. Who wrote about not attacking on too many fronts at the same time?

It will end in tears.

"

Andy Leeds

Afraid I'm not great fan of the Police. I find them rude and arrogant and basically thick. Not so long ago I was stopped by Police at 2am. I was addressed as 'Mate'. Had it not been for the hour I would have said to this dimwitted lump 'I'm not your f****** Mate, I'm a 'Sir'. Yesterday I passed 3 Police cars: 2 were BMW 4x4's and one a BMW Estate. Why do these idiots need such flash cars in the suburbs ? The Police, like the Fire Service, badly need to be reformed.

RCE

This whole debate is yet another red herring that will have the Gramscians laughing with glee.

I for one believe that police officers should be well paid in order to attract high calibre individuals who then contribute toward reducing crime, thus providing the public with greater safety and security - supposedly the primary role of government.

Instead, the liberal elite seems to accept that we should increase our net contribution to the EU (ie give French farmers even more money to produce nothing), pay benefits to immigrants who are are destroying our society, and give money to other countries with space programmes, whilst cutting funding to the things that keep us all safe.

jazz606

Maybe the reason that the Police are well paid is that they have a lot of information on folk in power.

jane

I do think the time has come for the police service to be overhauled. I say this as they are well paid and yet their productivity is poor. The purpose of the police is to detect crime and bring the offender to justice. Yet their detection rates are appalling. The average sanction detection rate (charged and prosecuted) is some 14%. Of course they add to this percentage cautions etc which brings the figure up to over 20%. Lest those police officers who have commented above feel aggrieved, I do not at all blame you. Rather, I blame your highly paid management. I find it astonishing that my own police service is at the bottom of every inspection league and yet the senior management continue to draw bonuses and earn huge sums of money. I also feel they pay lip service to local communities in terms of how we want resources directed. Neither do I have faith in police authorities as far too many members do not have the knowledge or abilities to challenge Chief Constables.

We have police officers and PCSO's doing lots of nice jolly things in my area such as attending parish council meetings, schools, inter agency meetings etc etc. Smaller forces operate as Metropolitan forces which is patent nonsense when you do not have the staffing levels. We have specialist officers for everything which means that there are insufficient resources to police the streets particularly after 5pm. Many of the specialist officers work daytime hours. We also have far too many officers on restricted duties too. It seems awfully hard to remove officers who are unable to undertake the full range of duties. I add to this the growth in civilian staff particularly HR. Noone has demonstrated to me that a workforce the size of my police force requires so many HR personnel.

A report by the Chief Inspector of Police which stated that it is not only central government who demands paperwork but local forces too. Just think of all the employees we need to analyse this data. The police duplicate much documentation and it seems to me this needs to be sorted out.

Pensions are a great problem as officers receive a full pension after 30 years. There was a report earlier this year giving details of one force were they had many pensioners at aged 51 years. The rules state that such people can continue in employment and indeed there have been many cases were Chief Constables have been to tribunals for not being able to fulfil this request. Human rights and Disability Rights are important but surely too is the ability to undertake the job. The last government tried to deal with this issue and changed contribution level etc but did not do enough. Police Officers cannot expect the taxpayer to fund pensions for 30 years in retirement. No private pension even at 11-15% of income would provide such high pensions.

If my Chief Constable was the CEO of a company he would be ousted by the shareholders.

In2minds

The police like the MPs just don't get it. The latter still cannot understand why the expenses scandal sent their reputation with the public down further. The police look set to give us a repeat performance with their version of this show.

WetherspoonThree

I am sure there is room for improvement. There are far too many ranks...no so much a pyramid more like shard. Similarly, the number of forces is quite ridiculous. Two in London for example plus a separate force for the transport network.
But, on the other hand, it is difficult to identify a public service which has been successfully reformed over the past 30 years.
Well, I can't think of any.

daniel maris

Some of the comments here underline what I'm saying: that Police patrol shift work is a thankless task with many attendant dangers and scenes of unpleasantness in all weathers. Very few people in their 40s want to carry on with that sort of lifestyle. But what's been happening up to now is that lots and lots of office jobs have been invented for the Police so that older officers can escape the rigours of the street.

We need to recognise the reality by making it a shorter career of 10-15 years, after which the expectation is that officers would pursue a second career either within the Police or more likely in a different area.

David Raynes

There is certainly an awful lot wrong with Policing nowadays. At the very core is the gross waste that comes from having 43 Constabularies in England & Wales. By common consent among those who understand law enforcement, this is around 30 too many.

This creates too many Chief Constables with all the acessories a Chief Constable needs, from a car and driver to expensive HQ buildings and numerous back-up departments. In short, in commercial terms, too much money wasted on "back office".

In relation to any other business the Conservatives would understand this concept. On policing they have a blind spot. Their ideas including those on Commissioners are one giant mess. It is possible to forsee now, that Policing will not be made more effective during the life of this government and lots of effort (and money) will be wasted.

Many smaller Constabularies, the old "County" or "Shire" forces are too small, they lack critical mass to perform many functions, they are based on a structure that preceded the telephone, the car and the radio net. A time when most criminals came from the next village, not (possibly) a village in rural eastern Europe.

Apart from these structural problems, there are much wider issues of quality of recruitment, probably a need for a direct entrant Officer grade and a need to trim out some layers.

Detectives and Investigating (CID) Officers need to be valued, too many senior Officers of Police pass through CID only briefly on their way to climbing the greasy pole, just getting a box ticked. Indeed there might be an advantage in direct recruitment of specialised detectives. The CID Officer, to be truly effective in the modern world, needs very differrent qualities to the traffic Officer.

On retirement at 50, too many Officers especially detectives, retire at the peak of their experience, increasing costs, removing effective Officers, damaging corporate memory. Most, are quite capable of continuing to perform in many roles. Instead the private sector and their pension beckons, even note, their pension and a further job in policing or a closely allied public sector job. No wonder they want to leave.

The pay structure is ridiculous. Overtime is no way to pay for a 24 by 365 all hours service.

As budgets get tighter, overtime can mean senior Officers spending more time managing the money that doing the job and the cost of overtime will and does, frustrate or prevent activity, which there is a public interest in it being done.

So the coalition is being noisy but showing no signs of knowing what is most important or how to set about it. It is not just Theresa May's fault. The problems began in oppossition.

Mike

What needs to be defined is the total police remuneration package:-basic pay, overtime pay,extra pay for skills, hours worked per week,allowances, holidays, shift patterns, sickness leave, years of employment before taking pension, pension contribution by indvidual and employer, percentage of time on the beat, in court and undertaking paperwork. The total remuneration package then needs to be compared with say member of the Armed Forces. In the Met I have heared of constables earning £41K /yr.

Clive Chamberlain

"Is it fair that officers can retire after thirty or thirty five years, when the rest of the population is being asked to work longer?"

Police Officers' pay 11% of their salaries towards the pension - which is why they are able to retire after 30 years. (In a more recently introduced scheme they pay less in contribtions - so have to remain longer).

Many of course do not retire after 30 years and continue serving - but currently these officers are being forced to retire due the current cuts - thrown out some as young as 48-49 years old. (strangely ACPO ranks are not subject to these compulsory retirements)

"Being honest about police pay is a thought-crime the Federation does not tolerate" is a bit unfair- particularly when the author has not himself portrayed the complete facts in his article - perhaps because he hasn't properly researched the subject or may be he wishes to slant it in a particular way?

It is good to see that other comments posted from non-police officers, also recognise this.

Neil

Ok, as usual there appears to be an 'all or nothing' argument here that misses the real points.
There are many allowances in the police that have quite frankly had their day, and I have always thought ridiculous. Working an hour into a rest day and being able to claim 6 hours miminmum compensation. The same for doing something off duty. Allowances for going outside your force area, travelling time, refs allowances. The federation should have been more fexible about seeing the need to change these and negotiating with government rather than simply trotting out their ususal line of 'this is an attack on morale' etc.
As to overtime, yes the bill is ridiculous but I make two points. Yes some officers are overtime bandits who will work as much as they can to earn whats going. I know many however who simply don't want it and work it becuase they have to. One simply can't leave in the middle of a public order situation becuase your 8 hours is up.
The fault equally lies with senior managers however who are inept at managaing resources effectively. There is a risk averse culture where it is seen as better to have hundreds of officers sitting around for hours, for example during public order, just in case. Just in case rarely happens.
Another myth is that there aren't enough police. Everyone who works in the police knows that there are plenty, the problem is that there aren't enough employed on core duties.
Whilst I don't welcome the prospect of a cut in pay (who would?) I personally think the cuts to the budget are good if it provokes senior managers to think about what each officer does and what they actually contribute and bring to the table. There are alot of wasters and simply not very effective officers around.
I work on the assumption as a manager in the police that for every five, two are exceptional, two are effective, and one is an idiot.
The federation and senior management need to get real with the times, stop its simple messages of we want more and more officers and work out how with government it can do better with fewer. It can, if it gets back to cutting crime and arresting bad guys - its simple.

Pramston

Fergus, if you wanted a fat pension and to retire at 48 why didn't you join the police? By the way you can leave school at 18 with A levels, which are still technically a qualification even after many years of New Labour education policies. I don't mind the police bashing but I do wonder how many of the more verbal critics on here would have the gumption to do it themselves, I'm guessing relatively few.

HJ

Clive Chamberlain:

"Police Officers' pay 11% of their salaries towards the pension - which is why they are able to retire after 30 years."

11% of salary is just a small fraction of the cost - which amounts to around two-thirds of salary. The rest is paid for by the taxpayer.

James Sykes

Oh please, do me a favour, you are not telling me that police (as well as the Fire Service) put their lives on the line every minute of every working day. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of police do ot work on the "frontline",wahtever that is. Thye wouldn't know what to do if they cane across a member of the public,so anathema is their dislike of us mere mortals. I suspect taht most uniformed officers are hiddne in back offices and call centres. 99% of their wprk is routine , and they are only called upon because people do not know how to think for themselves. The police are very well rewarded for what they do and give in return . If you don't like it , leave. Get a job in the real world like the rest of us. Talking of which, why do some of them still receive housing allowance, I don't get subsidised by the taxpayer, and I have to aoy the same price for houses and food etc, as police officers.

DeeJay

Overtime, properly authorised and supervised, is a more cost effective method of paying for additional manpower than employing even more police officers.

A conscriptive police service would,of course, be very much cheaper but might be resisted in some quarters.

Most of the posts so far seem to suggest that police officers are paid too much. Perhaps a body of conscripts dragooned for say five years would be answer. Personally, I doubt it.

william

The answer is privatisation.No more county or metropolitan forces,just the three home countries.Serco et al would run the police , administratively,for a fee.Get rid of all the different computer systems, coordinate communication systems with fire and ambulance,no county headquarters,etc

WetherspoonThree

Those who cast such an envious eye at the police pension may wish to ask themselves, if it so delightful, why do so few remain in post for the 30 years to collect it....?

HJ

WeatherspoonThree:

Those who cast such an envious eye at the police pension may wish to ask themselves, if it so delightful, why do so few remain in post for the 30 years to collect it....?"

Because it has been even more advantageous to retire before then on "medical" grounds.

WetherspoonThree

HJ
Perhaps it illustrates what an unhealthy occupation it is? In any event I was under the impression that the number of ill-health pensions awarded annually, by the various Chief Cosntables up and down the country, has been 'restricted' by the Home Office for a number of years.

david

The author states 'Remuneration in England and Wales is relatively generous, certainly compared with officers in Australia or New Zealand.

Probationer pay for Australian NSW Police- $57000= £37000GBP. Probatoner pay UK police £23000. Cant work out how this is more generous, but then i am not a member of the TPA.

Paul Geddes

I agree that police services need to be reformed in order to reduce costs. However, as a number of others here have said, tinkering with days off in lieu and so forth will not solve much of the problem the problem.
I worked for some time as a "back office" staff member (or Support Staff, as they are actually called). Part of my role involved helping to co-ordinate witnesses for trials. In doing this, we were continually being frustrated by court staff and the CPS. After being sent all of the dates witnesses could be available (including police officers duty schedules), court scheduling staff would frequently schedule dates which went completely against the information they had been sent, meaning that police officers were called out on their rest days and witnesses were sometimes unavailable. I never once encountered an officer who was happy abut being called to attend court on his rest day, overtime payments notwithstanding.

Regarding conviction rates compared to arrest rates, mentioned by someone above, I used to hear frequent complaints from officers that since the creation of the CPS, many cases that the police would formerly have pursued to conviction were now being dropped by the CPS on the basis that there was insufficient evidence. Sometimes I got to see the files of the cases in question and often they were packed with corroborating witness statements and paperwork reflecting scores of hours' work by multiple individuals and yet they were not thought worthy of being brought to court by the CPS. Other cases, which seemed to be much less secure, were often happily taken on by the CPS. Officers such as the crime assessor sergeant whose desk was near mine often used to be heard complaining that since the creation of the CPS conviction rates had fallen through the floor (to use his words).

Thirdly, much has been made of the cost of back office staff. Well, certainly three or four decades ago police officers performed all of the functions now undertaken by support staff themselves but, as has been pointed out many times, with the vastly increased level of administration and administrative tasks, requiring officers to take of the 'back room' functions themselves would further tie up resources which should be going into actively fighting crime. A sensible reduction in the required quantity of administration, along with a lessening of the present 'watch-your-own-back' mentality which encourages people to dive into excessive levels of risk assessment, along with the all too common wish not to be in a position to have to take responsibility unless you really have to.

Most officers I have known have been keen to do a good job and I have no problem with them having a pay rate which is higher than that of many working people. It should be remembered though, that support staff are often very poorly paid by comparison, so cutting their numbers would not make nearly the saving that some claim.

Since leaving the police, I have worked for the last eight years as a senior support worker. Support workers are typically paid well below the average salary, but that has never meant I did not not have to go on my own into houses occupied by drug addicts and similar risky categories of people with nothing more than a mobile phone and a vague plan of how to get out of the house again if things turned ugly for protection. I have had to intervene to prevent people from coming to blows and on more than one occasion have felt the need to position myself (physically) between individuals much larger than myself to prevent violence. Some things go with the job and if you do the job you accept its realities.
So, I admire the police for their fulfillment of the duty to do things which sometimes place them in danger, but feel that I need to point out that their's is not the only job to require this, and the company I work for has never been granted the funding by the local authorities we have contracts with to equip us with stab resistant vests or back-up which can be called out to arrive within a few minutes. I enter a house with a pen, paperwork and the confidence to know that it is more likely to go well than badly, but nothing more.

Fat steak

Police officers work a 40 hour week on a varibale shift pattern changing from nights to days and afernoons. Most public sector jobs are either a 35hr or 37 hour week.A bobby starts on 23000 working that shift pattern. After 10 years it will build up to well... 34000 if you base it on 37 hours a week. Is that unreasonable ? if you stripped out a shift allowance from that figure what would it be down to then? Is an extremely stressful vocation which totally retricts private life to the point where wifes, husbands find it diffcult to find work that fits in with the job. I am a front line Police officer and now looking for a job which is 9-5 weekends off even if its just 15000 a year. I have discussed this with my wife and realized she could get back to full time work on a similar wage if I left and we woudnt be much worse off. That way I can get back to a normal way of life spending more time with my family.