Discussion:
We won't carry our guns, warn armed officers....
(too old to reply)
Mr X
2006-09-06 13:05:06 UTC
Permalink
Police threaten action over pay

We won't carry our guns, warn armed officers

Jamie Doward, home affairs editor

Sunday September 3, 2006

The Observer
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1863762,00.html

Britain's 170,000 police officers could soon begin a work-to-rule that
would severely effect the force's ability to combat crime. The threat,
by the Police Federation, the body that represents rank and file
officers, would see police refusing to carry firearms, drive police cars
above the speed limit, carry riot shields or attend public order
training programmes.
The work-to-rule is being planned in response to the government's
decision not to award an index-linked pay rise to the police for the
first time in almost 30 years. The Police Federation of England and
Wales said its members would look to register their anger by refusing to
carry out anything other than their core tasks.

'There are a number of things that officers do voluntarily, such as
carrying firearms,' said Alan Gordon, the federation's vice-chairman.
'The police only operates as efficiently as it does due to the goodwill
of the officers. If that goodwill is withdrawn, then it creates severe
operational difficulties. Working to rule would cripple the service.'

The federation will also hold rallies across the country, including a
possible march on the Labour party conference, a prospect that will
alarm ministers attempting to boost the government's flagging fortunes
in the polls.

The decision not to give police an index-linked rise has shocked rank
and file police officers. They are barred by law from striking, a
formula established in 1979, but thought they were guaranteed rises
based on an index of awards to other public sector workers.

But for the first time in living memory, the Home Office has declined to
approve a pay rise - which was expected to be 3 per cent pay this year -
despite pledging last October that it would do so. Instead the Home
Office is believed to have offered 2 per cent. Police negotiators are
furious at what they claim is a betrayal of promises which appears to be
linked to attempts by the government to curtail public sector pay
increases. The Home Office, like all government departments, is being
ordered by the Treasury to make efficiency savings and wants to
negotiate a new deal with the police.

The extent of police officers' anger is revealed in the current edition
of Police magazine, published by the federation. 'Reneging on a 27-year
pay deal and pinching coppers from coppers may yet make you the most
unpopular Prime Minister this country never had,' it warns Gordon Brown
in an editorial.

'Chief police officers are facing stark choices,' Alan Gordon said.
'Either you start reducing the numbers of police officers or you reduce
police pay increases. This is a critical time.'

The matter will now go to arbitration. But the room for manoeuvre for
Home Secretary John Reid is limited. Agreeing to an increased offer
would risk a feud with the Treasury.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

I wonder how long it will take for the Government to cave in to
blackmail this time?
--
Mr X
IanAl
2006-09-06 13:18:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr X
Police threaten action over pay
We won't carry our guns, warn armed officers
Jamie Doward, home affairs editor
Sunday September 3, 2006
The Observer
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1863762,00.html
Britain's 170,000 police officers could soon begin a work-to-rule that
would severely effect the force's ability to combat crime. The threat,
by the Police Federation, the body that represents rank and file
officers, would see police refusing to carry firearms,
No more innocent people being shot then.
Post by Mr X
drive police cars
above the speed limit,
Fewer people run over.
Post by Mr X
carry riot shields or attend public order
training programmes.
Freedom to protest restored.
archierob
2006-09-06 20:51:00 UTC
Permalink
Well said, you beat me to it. Remember Harry Stanley shot for the
grievous crime of carrying a coffee table leg.
Rob
2006-09-06 13:56:23 UTC
Permalink
Mr X wrote:
|| Police threaten action over pay
||
|| The Observer
|| http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1863762,00.html
||
|| I wonder how long it will take for the Government to cave in to
|| blackmail this time?

Oh I expect someone will try to defend this, claiming that 'unvolunteering'
unless they get more cash is neither a strike nor blackmail, even though in
the police federation spokesperson's own words, "...working to rule would
cripple the service".
--
Rob
Phil Anthropist
2006-09-06 14:16:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr X
Police threaten action over pay
We won't carry our guns, warn armed officers
Jamie Doward, home affairs editor
Sunday September 3, 2006
The Observer
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1863762,00.html
Britain's 170,000 police officers could soon begin a work-to-rule that
would severely effect the force's ability to combat crime. The threat,
by the Police Federation, the body that represents rank and file
officers, would see police refusing to carry firearms, drive police cars
above the speed limit, carry riot shields or attend public order
training programmes.
The work-to-rule is being planned in response to the government's
decision not to award an index-linked pay rise to the police for the
first time in almost 30 years. The Police Federation of England and
Wales said its members would look to register their anger by refusing to
carry out anything other than their core tasks.
'There are a number of things that officers do voluntarily, such as
carrying firearms,' said Alan Gordon, the federation's vice-chairman.
'The police only operates as efficiently as it does due to the goodwill
of the officers. If that goodwill is withdrawn, then it creates severe
operational difficulties. Working to rule would cripple the service.'
The federation will also hold rallies across the country, including a
possible march on the Labour party conference, a prospect that will
alarm ministers attempting to boost the government's flagging fortunes
in the polls.
The decision not to give police an index-linked rise has shocked rank
and file police officers. They are barred by law from striking, a
formula established in 1979, but thought they were guaranteed rises
based on an index of awards to other public sector workers.
But for the first time in living memory, the Home Office has declined to
approve a pay rise - which was expected to be 3 per cent pay this year -
despite pledging last October that it would do so. Instead the Home
Office is believed to have offered 2 per cent. Police negotiators are
furious at what they claim is a betrayal of promises which appears to be
linked to attempts by the government to curtail public sector pay
increases. The Home Office, like all government departments, is being
ordered by the Treasury to make efficiency savings and wants to
negotiate a new deal with the police.
The extent of police officers' anger is revealed in the current edition
of Police magazine, published by the federation. 'Reneging on a 27-year
pay deal and pinching coppers from coppers may yet make you the most
unpopular Prime Minister this country never had,' it warns Gordon Brown
in an editorial.
'Chief police officers are facing stark choices,' Alan Gordon said.
'Either you start reducing the numbers of police officers or you reduce
police pay increases. This is a critical time.'
The matter will now go to arbitration. But the room for manoeuvre for
Home Secretary John Reid is limited. Agreeing to an increased offer
would risk a feud with the Treasury.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wonder how long it will take for the Government to cave in to
blackmail this time?
--
Mr X
It seems to me that we will all be a bit safer then. When was the last time
that an armed criminal was shot by the police? They seem to go in for
shooting unarmed people.
Cynic
2006-09-06 21:25:24 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 15:16:07 +0100, "Phil Anthropist"
Post by Phil Anthropist
It seems to me that we will all be a bit safer then. When was the last time
that an armed criminal was shot by the police? They seem to go in for
shooting unarmed people.
If it is suspected that an armed person is in the vicinity, H&S rules
won't allow them anywhere near.
--
Cynic
Phil Anthropist
2006-09-07 06:51:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cynic
If it is suspected that an armed person is in the vicinity, H&S rules
won't allow them anywhere near.
--
Cynic
How perverse to spend tax payers money on firearms that can only be used to
shoot unarmed persons.
Cynic
2006-09-07 08:43:30 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 07:51:10 +0100, "Phil Anthropist"
Post by Phil Anthropist
Post by Cynic
If it is suspected that an armed person is in the vicinity, H&S rules
won't allow them anywhere near.
How perverse to spend tax payers money on firearms that can only be used to
shoot unarmed persons.
Yes. I expect that sick people will be banned from hospitals next, on
the grounds that they put the staff at risk from infection.
--
Cynic
Richard Miller
2006-09-07 06:44:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cynic
On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 15:16:07 +0100, "Phil Anthropist"
Post by Phil Anthropist
It seems to me that we will all be a bit safer then. When was the last time
that an armed criminal was shot by the police? They seem to go in for
shooting unarmed people.
If it is suspected that an armed person is in the vicinity, H&S rules
won't allow them anywhere near.
You mean their false interpretation of H&S rules, I think.
--
Richard Miller
Mike
2006-09-07 08:11:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr X
Police threaten action over pay
We won't carry our guns, warn armed officers
....
Post by Mr X
The work-to-rule is being planned in response to the government's
decision not to award an index-linked pay rise to the police for the
first time in almost 30 years. The Police Federation of England and
Wales said its members would look to register their anger by refusing to
carry out anything other than their core tasks.
....
Post by Mr X
The decision not to give police an index-linked rise has shocked rank
and file police officers.
Perhaps it's about time the police took notice of the real world where
salaries aren't paid by the taxpayer and where index-linked pay rises
are unheard of.

Why do the police, who are already generously paid, expect public
sympathy for their campaign that they should receive pay rises higher
than everyone else?

Mike.
--
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Richard Miller
2006-09-07 09:52:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike
Post by Mr X
Police threaten action over pay
We won't carry our guns, warn armed officers
....
Post by Mr X
The work-to-rule is being planned in response to the government's
decision not to award an index-linked pay rise to the police for the
first time in almost 30 years. The Police Federation of England and
Wales said its members would look to register their anger by refusing to
carry out anything other than their core tasks.
....
Post by Mr X
The decision not to give police an index-linked rise has shocked rank
and file police officers.
Perhaps it's about time the police took notice of the real world where
salaries aren't paid by the taxpayer and where index-linked pay rises
are unheard of.
Why do the police, who are already generously paid, expect public
sympathy for their campaign that they should receive pay rises higher
than everyone else?
Or, indeed, the other side of the criminal justice system: legal aid
rates for criminal defence work are the same in cash terms today as they
were in 1994 - for solicitors, anyway. Barristers seem to have done a
bit better. They have just been promised a 16% increase to compensate
them for their losses as a result of rates not having been increased in
line with inflation.
--
Richard Miller
Loading...