Saturday, 9 October 2010


The independent review of pay and conditions of service for police officers and staff began on 01 October 2010. As of today, there have been over 4,500 responses from officers. We have created an RSS feed of the latest responses to the questions posed in the link at top right of this page "Review of Remuneration and Conditions for Officers and Staff". 

The review site can be visited at

The Home Secretary has asked the reviewer, Tom Winsor, to ensure that police pay and conditions and the structures around them are the best they could be given the challenges facing the police service, which will see forces being required to achieve more with less, while also being fair to officers and staff.

If you are a police officer or member of police staff, including PCSOs, they want to hear your views on where inefficiencies are to be found and where resources - including pay and allowances - are spent badly.

They are separately consulting with national staff associations and trade unions, but this is your chance to have your say.

What the review will cover

The review is looking at several areas, including: 
  • How officers enter the police service
  • The deployment of officers and staff (including overtime and mutual aid pay)
  • Post and performance related pay (including special priority payments, competency related threshold payments and bonuses at all levels)
  • How pay progression up the pay scales could be made fairer to officers, staff and the taxpayer, and whether the typical service length should be made more flexible
  • How officers leave the police service (including ill-health retirement and possibly redundancy terms)
  • How officer and staff pay and conditions of service are decided (including the structures of the Police Negotiating Board and the police staff council)

What they are asking from you

Your ideas for how pay and conditions should be changed to increase flexibility and efficiency, as well as reducing costs given the historic budget deficit, would be particularly helpful. All submitted ideas will be considered. The best ideas may be included in the review's recommendations.

The deadline for giving your views is 29 October 2010.

As the review is reporting in two parts, there will be a second opportunity to give your views in March 2011. More details will be given closer to the time.

This is a relatively new approach to consultation, so you are asked to bear with them. If there are problems with the system they will solve them as soon as possible. The forum's posts will be moderated to remove offensive language.

So that the review can consider all proposals, they have limited posts to 200 words. If you have suggestions or comments that you believe require more space, send them to    Please note, however, they cannot respond to all individual emails.

The questions

Please take the time to consider each of the short questions below and submit your suggestions, or comment on others' ideas. All ideas can be treated anonymously if you wish - you do not need to leave your email address unless you want to.

We have reprinted a few of the responses below each question to give you a flavour for the ongoing debate. In addition, we will capture ALL of the responses and update them regularly until the deadline date of 29th October. The total responses will be posted as a link below each question as they are compiled.

I wouldn't change anything. I've been a police officer for 20 years and in that time I've worked a moderate amount of overtime. In my experience officers have usually earned what overtime they get paid and let us not forget that when a police officer is working overtime it is time they are not spending with their family so why shouldn't decent renumerication for it. Leave things as they are.
9 October at 13:36

Because of the unique role police officers perform and the restrictive home life afforded to us because of our vocation we should be re-numerated properly for extra hours or work incurred. There is an overtime burden because there are too few officers, or too many inside flying desks. Recent programmes to reslove this haven't increased officer numbers on the streets, because of the recruitment freeze and natural wastage. The only fair way I can see to resolve this is to salary Sgt's and Constables, like with the Inspectors, and to ensure and monitor that all officers share the burden. I don't agree with that, but its better than reducing the rates, because all goodwill will go out of the window.

09 October at 11:12

I came here from the inspector gadget blog. PLEASE READ IT.
Overtime payments do not require changing. The correct deployment of officers in the first place would negate the need for much overtime to be paid. Governmnet targets such as the Policing Pledge have emphatically not been scrapped but have been rebranded/renamed and continue to blight our working lives with meaningless "public satisfaction" targets. If these teams of office dwelling officers would put back onto the streets to actually Police them, there would be enough officers to meet demand without excessive overtime payments. It would also "increase public satisfaction" as the public would see more uniformed Officers, which is what they always say they want. The Government could also say that it had put X amount of officers back onto the streets, saved money, cut red tape and increased public confidence. A win win situation for all involved.
08 October at 14:59



Absolutely not. The bonuses awarded to Superintendents and ACPO have led to the performance culture which now pervades this organisation. You now hear quotes like "its all about performance" and even "performance, performance, performance." Funnily enough coming mostly from Superintendents.

If the Home Secretary wants crime reduction to be the main focus then stop giving "performance" related pay.

Whilst at it you could look at the perks given to most ACPO officers by way of subsidised vehicles. In my force I reckon the bill is about £150,000 for what amounts to a personal vehicle. Mercedes - Lexus - Range Rover.

CRTP is a nice reward for top of scale officers but no-one is seriously expecting it to survive this review.
9 October at 13:13

M S:
Superintendants and ACPO bonuses should be scrapped they are paid enough as it is. Any bonuses for target delivery should be paid to the front line officers.
9 October at 12:53

As a service we are here to prevent and detect crime! It is what we are paid to do so why are ACPO and others receiving bonuses for what we are already paid to do? This should be stopped, this breeds a culture of chasing performance targets which effect bonus payments rather than putting the victim first.

Figures are regularly manipulated to portray the image ACPO and below who receive such bonuses want to portray. This puts pressure on those responsible for delivering performance to 'massage' statistics.

CRTP should remain and all other bonuses should be removed!
09 October at 11:42

Patrol 24/7:
Why should higher ranks within the police force get bonus payments for the work that staff who get paid half their wage are completing?? Why is it the one holding the whip is  receiving a bonus? I've been in the police force eight years and 99% of the time the highest ranking officer at incidents during the times of 1700hrs and 0900hrs is an inspector.

Generally higher ranks don't work 24/7 shifts, they work 9-17hrs only work monday to friday, behind a desk. Do other companies in the private sector spend the same amount on their bosses?

Take away all bonuses and increase the basic wage of those officers who are working 24hr shifts 365 days a year, are missing time with their families, being injuried on duty and keeping this country safe from within.

The current SP payments are unfair and badly allocated to departments and persons who know they shouldn't really have it! the objective was to reward frontline officers and help retain staff in those posts... The goverment need to focus on keeping the PC's, PS's and inspectors and look at what those on over £45,000 a year are doing to earn it!!!!
08 October at 11:06


I think one major one would be to look at how the pay of non front line officers who work nice 9-5 weekends off hours could be reduced to take into account that they no longer work nights and anti social hours, and are not in a possibly confrontational and dangerous role so they should be therefore paid more in line with what a civilian post would be paid for the same job. As I think that would discourage people applying for these office jobs just to get paid the same for not having the hassle of hours that affect your family and social life.

I obviously realise that some more office based jobs require a great deal of skill such as high tech crime officers etc but as an example lets be honest are the civvy intell officers being paid over 30k a year I think not.
09 October at 11:18

Vince Smallbone:
Very simple...this is what you signed up for. It should be two yrs probation min 5 yrs patrolling before you can apply for promotion et al. As a graduate I am dismayed that accellerated promotion still exists. Graduates are qualified to pass exams NOT police. You have to gain the knowledge and experience on the streets!
08 October at 13:10

Glen :
Pay those who work 24/7 shifts pay a shift allownace and those who don't work 24/7 have the shift allowance deducted from their pay. In almost every profession (even police support staff roles) working shifts attracts a shift allowance. The police service needs to reflect modern pay and awards on this thorny issue and reward those working physically demanding shifts. It is a nonsense that officers working nights are paid the same as someone with a Mon-Fri job. I accept that Mon-Fri jobs come with a different set of pressures it is high time that 24/7 front line officers are properly recognised and rewarded. P.S I work Mon-Fri ! I often hear that it will be difficult to administer such a system and it will only lead to officers wanting to leave Mon-Fri posts to obtain the enhanced rate of pay. In this IT age administering such a pay system should not be a barrier to implementation and if there is a migration to 24/7 posts individual services can manage that.
08 October at 10:44

The main thing about SPP is clarity. They should be paid to certain roles published in the year prior to the payment then if you chose to jump from one role to another you know whether or not that role is subject to SPP. There will always be arguments, complaints and dispute until it is made clear.

On a side note Response/Front line policing has become the most attractive role due to recent structural changes so is this trying to suggest that these would not get it. There is now a waiting list to go on response.

I see the SPP as a 'danger money' type payment. SPP should be seen as a way of recognising that the officer faces confrontation, works shifts and gets their hands dirty on a regular basis and should be recognised apart from those who work in offices, never sees an angry person, a volatile witness or attends a dead body or nasty RTC. It cannot be right that all officers (as above) recieve the same renumeration dependant on level of service.
09 October at 14:02

SPP should be scrapped. It has always been devisive and leads to the "haves" and "have nots". It has also been abused by some forces in its allocation and used as a "weighting allowance" for being stationed in a certain area. 

its to be maintained then Government should stipulate who gets it to ensure consistency.
October at 13:58

I think SPP should only be awarded to Officers in a front line shift working role. It should also only be offered to Officers below the rank of Inspector.

However, if it is to be offered to front line shift working roles, then it should be offered to all front line shift working roles. Not some, all.

I do agree that there should be certain criteria, such as you are not eligible if you have less than 3 years service.

Although, if the organisation can not organise this properly and fairly, then don't have it at all. Instead put it towards a better use.
In its current format, it is not fairly distrubuted at all.
09 October at 13:32

SPP should be given to all officers in front line who work unsociable shift patterns. It is not fair that officers who work 24/7 shifts and deal with the public face to face day in day out should not be rewarded for it.
09 October at 12:52

SPP's are divisive and should be scrapped for all Officers apart from those working on response in a 24/7 capacity. All other SPP's for specialist posts and departments should be removed.

The way the system is worked out is extremely subjective and does not take account of how many applicants there have been for a particular post in the previous 12 months.
09 October at 11:25

It depends on the circumstances. It is never "nice" to force someone to retire due to reasons beyond their control.

That said - there is widescale abuse of the current system with officers using it to their advantage.

Money would be wasted having trained an officer and experience lost if they have to be medically retired.

The system could be left as it is providing more robust action is taken against the lead swingers. In genuine cases I am sure no-one objects.

If officers working shifts received shift allowance (which was removed from officers not working shifts) then this would reduce the overall cost of officers on restricted duties.
9 October at 13:08

Patrol 24/7:
Any officer who is on restricted duties due a work related injury should be fully supported by the goverment and the people of this country the same as our soliders currently fighting abroad.
However a seriously reduced fitness entry programme has now seen a influx of over weight and underfit officers who are a disgrace to the uniform now wearing it rather tightly!!
***Bring in mandatory yearly physical's and health checks.***

Some officers worked very hard on fitness to get into the job and still look after themselves where others do not and the one's who don't take more sick leave and cost the force more money!

Speed up ill health retirement and use civilian staff to fill the posts and pay them less then half to officers who are being paid £30,000 a year to answer the phone or carry files from one floor to the next.
08 October at 11:41

This is a tricky one 'There for the grace of God go I'. I have been injured both on and off duty and on each occasion I have been fortunate to return to full duties. However when officers are barely out of their probationery period and then obtain an injury, how fair is it on the Tax Payer to pay that officer for the next 10-20 years or so as a sworn-in Constable, who will never be allowed to carry out the duties of an operational officer again. A suggestion would be to give that officer up to a two year period for full recovery and if this is not achieved, depending on the cause of the injury i.e. duty related, give them a lump sum £10,000 and offer them a support role in the Police Service,which they could accept or refuse and resign. This is just an idea and something that might encourage those individuals that have and expect a full Police pay for the rest of their service and who are quite happy to sit back and let that happen, which as mentioned could be for 20+ years. Harsh but where else would this be allowed?
07 October at 19:52

Ben Gillard:

I feel strongly that if someone is injured as a result of their job, then the job should look after them. I have less sympathy for people who get recurring injuries as a result of sport for example. I think one of the obvious solutions to redusing sickness is to provide incentives and facilities for people to keep fit and healthy - a decfent initial fitness test (the current one is a joke), an annual fitness test, and subsideised force gyms. People who have good sickness records should also be recognised.
07 October at 19:11

With the appropriate level of support that the individual deserves. Base ill health retirement on proper impartial medical evidence and eliminate the culture of dissaffected officers discovering back injuries as they near the end of their service.
07 October at 18:18

Restricted duties occur for many reasons and officers injured in the course of duty should retain full pay and lots of support during their restricted duties. Officers who can't perform police duties for various other reasons and who can't or won't return to operational duty should be civilianised and paid accordingly.
07 October at 17:04 

I would suggest that this stays as it is, time served with the proviso that you gain a suitable appraisal (PDR) each year. If there are no issues you progress, if not you don't until the issues are addressed.
09 October at 15:30

As you spend longer in the service then rates should increase. Likewise, if you make a point of gaining invaluable skills, I think you should be rewarded. Maybe then, those who choose to take the easy way out might think about bettering themselves for their own benefit and for the benefit of the Police Service.
09 October at 15:12

Time served is by far the best and fairest way of moving up the pay scale. If you do the job and are good at it then you get CRTP when you reach the top scale. If you dont do the job very well, then you should be dealt with regards reviews etc. Do you not think that reducing someones pay because they dont meet performance targets is going to demoralise them even more than the police service is already.

Leave things as they are and look at ways of reducing costs involved in the running of the job not messing with police officers lives and pay with which they and their families rely on.
09 October at 12:58

I would like to say that individual performance should be rewarded and a pay structure should reflect that. However as a Senior Manager I know how subjective this could be and would urge that this course of action is not taken. This would be down to the manager's interpretation on what constitutes good performance.

There are a number of variables that effect performance and figures cannot be the only measure. If managers are relied upon to implement this in a fair and equitable way then there is too much room for personalities to come into the equation.

Therefore the only fair way would be an incremental scheme based on level of service. Bonuses for Commanders etc who achieve performance should be removed as the individuals that achieve them are further down the rank structure!
09 October at 11:31

senior officer should be made to be more accountable since time and time again i see money wasted (in millions) in pursuit of projects that fail or are planned with lack of vision. This is for the manager to prove they have achieved a particular competency and hence gain promotion. they do this to the detriment of the force and should be dealt with accordingly. so the above question could be dismissed with the savings made.
09 October at 8:15

I can't strike, talking about striking could lead to imprisonment. When I got married I had to seek permission. When I moved house I had to ask permission. There are jobs that my wife can't do. I'm limited in doing other work. I can have no political affiliation. There are organisations I can't join. I'm on duty 24 hours each day, being accountable for my actions/inaction off duty. I search decomposed bodies, deliver death messages, give medical attention when there are no ambulances, sort out people's issues when there is no social worker, negotiate with people wanting to commit suicide when no-one else will listen. Society's buck stops here. I've been assaulted, have arrested someone carrying a firearm and others with knives. I work all hours of day and night, am regularly retained on duty and my duties are changed at short notice. This all impacts on my family. My children get unwanted attention because of my job. I accept all of this because I knew I would receive decent pay and receive a pension which would compensate me and my family for this. I am too old to change career. Please consider the fairness of your decisions.
09 October at 6:12

In response to the question and in the interests of fairness, police terms and conditions should be immediately changed to give them the right to strike. Successive governments have clearly taken advantage of the fact the police lack this right and we've been repeatedly shafted over the past 17 years or so starting with the Sheehy report back in the early 90's.

I, like everyone else, signed up to pay 11% of my salary into a pension fund for 30 years which was to provide me with an agreed 2/3's final salary pension when I retired. As far as I'm concerned this is a contract and I want it honoured. The fact that the country is in a state isn't my doing - I upheld my end of the bargain and I expect the government to do the same. They're playing with fire on this one, right to strike or not. There's more than one way to skin a cat as they say and if we all suddenly decided to do everything "by the book", believe me, the system would grind to a halt.
08 October at 18:24

Over many years the service has increased support and management numbers to cover many tasks that never used to be part of policing, whilst front line services have been withdrawn (in many cases correctly - no-one regrets the end of Abload escorts) from some "traditional" roles. Do we really need 6 different ways of measuring our performance? My for alone employs 41 people on just measuring performance and checking with the public if we got it right. We have more officers from Sgt>>>ACC just at HQ than we had in the whole force when I joined. Being so bureaucratic and management-heavy is draining the budgets long before anyone gets to look at front-line resources. That is unfair on taxpayers.

This is an opportunity to look beyond merely tweaking the pounds and pennies, so we can make the organisation fit for purpose for the future. That is not a quick-fix, but would be worth taking the time to do.

What you must not do is con people who have given up their whole life for this job out of a big chunk of their pension.
08 October at 13:20

In conclusion . . .

There have been a few concerns expressed about the safety and confidentiality of posting views on the review site.

At the Police fringe meeting at the Conservative Conference in Birmingham this week, we spoke to Nick Herbert, the policing Minister and Paul McKeever the Fed Chairman.

They were anxious to state that officers should have no fear of expressing themselves, as the review team want and value genuine rank and file input. They have taken the extraordinary step of setting up a website for this very purpose. it was stated that officers should have no fear of voicing their views and this is why anonymous contributions are not discouraged. The Federation are contributing to the process through direct dialogue with Tom Winsor and his team. Tom is decsribed as a no nonsense man, who will take all views and comments into account for this review.

From the meeting and Nicks comments, they are taking an objective view and want rank snd file input rather than merely relying on ACPO contributions, which are focused more on protecting their own interests.


Anonymous said...

Some good ideas, but the insularity of a lot of the response says a lot. Public sector pay should be flexible with local-national conditions, but our poor industrial relations never got round to it. I'm not sure any side to this consultation knows the mess we are in. The battle on pensions was lost years ago when the employers in the private sector were allowed to take contribution holidays. We'll probably about to see macho-management in the public sector now under the guise of "consultation". It won't be nice.

Crime Analyst said...

Posted from the police debate discussion on Linked In:

Kim Sadler • Generally speaking, I think the police overtime model works for police officers, although I have some concerns about the hours Inspectors are required to give to "the job" free of charge. I think the question is a more fundamental one and concerns the management of flexi time - which is my experience is confused with " attendance time". Management processes need to ensure that those hours worked on "flexi" are legitimately "required" and not just earned at the convenience of the employee to take additional days leave or work reduced hours. Flexi time is necessary for the flexible work force, but, needs proactive monitoring to prevent abuse which culminates in reduced productivity and extended leave periods to suit the desires of the employee over and above those of the service and the public.

Police pay scales acknowledge the dangers of the job and the potential risks encountered during a "normal" working day. It can be a tough job and those that give their heart and soul to it should be treated with due respect and rewarded accordingly. However, there are those who choose to abuse the current system of benefits provided by the service. My view is that officers and staff who sustain injury or endure ill health as a direct result of their employment should receive the fullest support and backing of their employer. Others should not expect a life long life line, but should be entitled to demonstrate their continued dedication to " the cause" and commit to re training to undertake "police support" roles and provide a continual return on investment for the role they were initially trained for.

Crime Analyst said...

Posted from the police debate discussion on Linked In:

Dave Hasney • Pay & conditions are an 'easy target' for the government when considering financial 'cuts'. Especially if you consider that some officers in some forces are regular incumbents of the higher tax bracket simply because of o/t payments. Add to this the public and private sector misconception about police 'gold plated' pensions, and you have a recipe for adjustment measures being supported by the public, simply form a thought process based around 'jealousy'.

As ever its not the system and/or rules and conditions that are actually broken (or need to be changed). Poor management of available resources, poor control of those who abuse systems/rules and a deeper understanding of the impacts on service delivery by middle/senior managers is required.

I sympathise with those Inspecting ranks involved in frontline delivery, the ones who are working working long hours in difficult (sometimes dangerous conditions), often with short notice shift changes etc and no recompence. Unfortunately for them, their services were 'sold out' by their office dwelling peers up and down the country who were happy to adopt a single payment salary scheme. Unfortunately I can't see there being any reversal of this situation if anything, there is likely to be masive political and SMT pressure for this to be aplied to the remainder of the delivery ranks.

I agree that 'Flexi' working arrangements have had a masive impact and once again because of management. There has been a drive to dish out flexible working arrangements 'willy nilly' simply to be seen as a 'caring employer', without giving full consideration to the impacts on those who work standard shift paterns on 24/7 crews.

No matter what anyone says, there ARE sufficient police officers in the country to deliver the policing the public deserve, without recourse to constant o/t working. The problem is poor management of available resources and skewed ideas on priorities.

Crime Analyst said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Crime Analyst said...

Posted from the Police Debate discussion on Linked In:

I agree that Dave's observation that "Poor management of available resources, poor control of those who abuse systems/rules and a deeper understanding of the impacts on service delivery by middle/senior managers is required" is critical. However, we need to be clear on a number of disparate points.

Police officer pay today is thought to reflect adequately and appropriately the balance between the skills and knowledge necessary to do the work, enhanced by a premium for the risks. (I will come to injury awards and pensions.) It is appropriate that officers working longer than standard shifts receive payment (overtime) but there is scope for discussion about the rate at which such payments should be made. The notion of booking a drink driver a few minutes before going off shift in order to earn the overtime has thankfully passed and in most forces, overtime is pre-approved (but by different levels in different ways.) An alternative model (as inspectors) is to buy-out the overtime payments. How much, what terms etc I leave to the negotiators. This forum has discussed whether policing is a profession - one can't have it both ways. If the Fed/Supers Assn etc want to negotiate on behalf of unskilled, ill-educated low level workers, then that is their choice. If they want to negotiate as if on behalf of a professional body, then that's fine - but I don't know a single "traditional" professional, (doctor, dentist, lawyer, architect etc) who gets overtime after they qualify. I am not making the case for nor against, just trying to determine the parameters in which the debate should take place.

There is the clear and certain risk that managers will abuse the "free" resource as they do with inspectors in many forces now. The role of the unions/staff associations in that environment becomes clear.

The injury award legislation and regulations are fraught with difficulty and the Home Office guidance doesn't shed too much light on things. The award for the period between the injury and the normal retirment date is straightforward but the question then arises when an officer would have retired. The rules are complex, but it will suffice here to say that I don't personally think it appropriate than an officer who was injured on duty but capable of wrok in one or another capacity (not though as a police officer) should be able to receive an overall state funded pension greater than their collegaue who did 30 or more years full and exemplary service. If a payment is due to the injured officer for the injury itself (for example as a result of negligence) then that is quite separate. We have the system now that officers reaching retirment age are not being reviewed for injury impact and economic potential on a consistent basis across all forces. This means some officers (hundreds across the country) received an injury award at the time of the injury, an injury pension and a full police pension. Their income in retirment is greater than their colleagues and also than a full working officer. In these circumstances they would have missed salary (and therefore pension uplift) on promotions, but it is naieve to assume that every officer injured on duty would have made the dizzy heights. Most would not.

Posted by Benjamyn Damazer

Crime Analyst said...

Posted from the Police Debate discussion on Linked In:

Whatever happens it will be a mistake to lose the office of constable status with powers invested in the individual. Talk of the right to strike and other erosions of a role (constable) that ought to prevent the service becoming a direct tool of government to move en masse against the citizenry are misplaced and lose sight of the purpose of policing services and how they should be structured.

I don't know whether it's good to be labelled a 'profession' per se. I'm not sure lawyers, doctors et al provide better services as a result - they seem to be more inwardly focused as a result. That attitude is not synonymous with being a 'profession' but such status does seem to be used to at least maintain the status quo and create myth around their work - protectionism?

Perhaps in these straightened times it's time to move on from paid overtime arrangements? Managers would need to ensure the good and the keen were not exploited but it might underpin a change in outlook towards designing the work?

Posted by Dr Huw Evans

Crime Analyst said...

Posted from the Police Debate discussion on Linked In


Just to avoid doubt, I am not advocating that policing is a profession, nor taking a view whether it should or should not. This has been discussed extensively on the linked-in site and elsewhere. I merely seek to point out that the service can't have it both ways. If policing is a profession, this has knock-on impacts.

Posted by Benjamyn Damazer

Crime Analyst said...

Posted from the Police Debate discussion on Linked In:

Benjamyn - That's how I took your original comment. I am undecided about so-called 'professions' and what benefit that such status might have for citizens.

Posted by Dr Huw Evans

Crime Analyst said...

Posted from the Police Debate discussion on Linked In:

Isn't the substance of the individual behind the 'name tag' the most important factor? Shouldn't we be trying to value devoted 'workers' as opposed to trying to decide if we should/should not give them the status as some of their incompetent 'professional' peers? The 'name tag' is often just a means of justification for excesive remuneration packages.

Posted by Dave Hasney

Anonymous said...

What is more relevant in my opinion is the discussion on cuts are dividing the workforce. Some of those working frontline/reponse are quite willing to sacrafice those working in offices or not directly on the frontline and those who are disabled. Just what the Gov want really, divide and conquer.
There are many hard working and conciencious officers who do work in offices supporting frontline activities, there are some maybe not so.
What is needed is effective management or supervision (wheat from the chaff etc) Also don't forget there are some frontline officers that the same rules apply to.

There have been attempts to change police pay & regs for years. All were met with resistence and the Gov could not argue that our job is unique due to its nature, so could not get all their wishes to come true. They have always wanted a two tier system imo thats why PCSO's came about. We could have achieved more with half the amount of PC's. However this is the best opportunity to make changes by citing the austerity measures which they can't be blamed for but will take full advantage of.Can we really trust any politician to do the right thing.Recent history suggests not.

The police budget & staffing problems have arisen due to looney number crunching targets which tick boxes but do nothing more than hide the truth. Lots of staff are needed to crunch these numbers though and that is where the deficiency of numbers of officers on the street occur. Now that the number crunching has been abolished(or has it?) will we see more officers appearing. I doubt it.

Crime Analyst said...

Anon. Excellent response, spot on. In fact we have made some similar comments in an interview with this site that will appear in Novembers issue of the Police Magazine (Federation). Thanks again. Steve

Post a Comment

Search Site

Our Top 10 Read Posts

Related Posts with Thumbnails

Internet Marketing & Social Networking

LinkedIn Tutorials