# Winsor's plans to destroy your police service.



## Mark Davies

Tom Winsor (the barrister and former rail regulator) has recently at the direction of the Government issued a two-part plan for the future of policing in the United Kingdom. You will have seen some of the headlines in the media about fitness tests and the like but the highly detailed report holds much more than that, and it is only with some analysis and piecing together the many recommendations (over 100) that you can get a full picture of Winsor's vision for the police.

A colleague from the Met has put together an analysis of the report, equipped with an insider's knowledge of the police service and years of experience of how abstract ideas from politicians get applied in reality. I couldn't have done a better job myself and a link is posted here.

http://whatwinsormeans.wordpress.com/2012/03/24/what-winsor-means/

The police in this country get a lot of criticism, though much of it based on a lack of understanding and misconception. However it is the fact that they are accountable and can be criticised openly that sets our police aside from those elsewhere and makes them the envy of the rest of the world. Uniquely we police by the consent of the public and not by force of arms. That only exists because of the unique nature of the office of constable which allows your police to conduct their duties impartially and independant from government and politics. If Winsor's recommendations come to fruition all that will end and you will find yourselves with a privatised police force driven by profit motive and directed by politicians for their own ends.

Whatever you think of the police please take the time to read the above and get some understanding of what is being planned. I assure you that you won't get the full story from the Government or the media. You may find what's planned quite shocking but if we do nothing about it they will sneak it through the back door and before you know it the police service we currently enjoy will be gone forever.


----------



## Kell

It's very long isn't it? And probably of more interest to someone who is currently serving than someone who isn't, hasn't and never will (like me).

But while he makes some good comments, I'm not sure everything he says is correct. When he talks about Rank Skipping, for example, he surmises it as follows:

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

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

I think if you applied logic to it, it does make sense to me. I'm sure that fast-tracking already exists and if someone is clearly cut out for leadership it would seem counter-productive to make them stop on every rung on the ladder. Of course, the key would be working out which ones are the important ones.


----------



## burns

I haven't read the whole article but it all seems very scary indeed.

Thus far the most ridiculous recommendations (to me) are those relating to the 5-year secondment and the returning (if there's a job for you to return to, of course! :roll: ), plus the direct entry - seriously, WTF?!?!?! 

And don't even get me started on that "operational duties until you're 60" nonsense!


----------



## Wallsendmag

I've had 17 years of this rubbish in the Railway. New entrants as managers here today gone tomorrow new direction with every change of manager.


----------



## A3DFU

Duly read all and there are many good points made. The question is, will there be enough people to stop changes from happening?


----------



## Mark Davies

Dani,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## burns

Mark Davies said:


> Because of that for a decade we found ourselves subjected to a target driven regime of sanctioned detections which led to some wholly inappropriate and unethical policing - remember kids being prosecuted for throwing buns at buses? Only the efforts of front line officers raising public awareness of what was happening through internet blogs and getting the media talking about it was that put to an end. The political elite didn't like being shown up in that way.


Very true indeed. I used to dread summer...being called to the police station to represent a kid who has been arrested for assault, the circumstances being that he and others had engaged in a water fight, and the parents of the kid who got the greatest soaking called the police and cried assault.

And this was not an isolated incident. There were numerous similar stories I could tell.

I'm glad to say that some common eventually prevailed over the years, and I've not dealt with one of these types of cases for some time (stupid Burns, just tempted fate, now awaiting the deluge of similar crap cases), but to think that we might be heading back to those times makes me shudder.

I believe we should be grateful for the discretion that the police currently have. It prevents an octogenarian being arrested for theft of a bar of soap (this was a case my ex, a serving PC, was called to and exercised his discretion in not arresting the old man, and also took the opportunity to reprimand the store for even calling the police - other officers may have had a different opinion, but that's where discretion comes in) and means that police can make a decision based on common sense and public interest. Now some may say that they're playing Judge and jury, but when you've legitimately forgotten to pay for something small value (not a solid gold necklace!) and the store call the police, if there is no discretion then I'm afraid it's a trip to the cells for you until such time as you're interviewed (a number of hours later) and set out your defence. The risk is that it *could* find its way to court, where you *may* be found not guilty. And in that case, wouldn't you rather the officer who attended the shop in the first place had had the discretion to decide that it's in no-one's interests to lock you up, and that it was a genuine mistake?


----------



## A3DFU

I fully agree with your statements, Mark, and as I've said on numerous occasions I've never had a bad experience with a police officer yet. When ever I was pulled up there was a genuine reason but I was let off each time with a friendly remark by the officer at the time (for an illegal number plate, skidding into a junction on dark amber while sorting three arguing kids out in the back of my car and stopping on a double yellow line asking directions on my mobile)

The problem is what can we, as the public, really do to stop Winsor's plan from being implemented? A petition? Will anyone listen?


----------



## Mark Davies

Dani, you could start by signing your name to this petition.

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/32177

If you've seen enough to be concerned you can find a copy of the full report via this link:

http://review.police.uk/publications/part-2-report/

It is lengthy but have a read for yourself and see if you agree with our interpretation of it. If it still concerns you then please write to your MP. It may help.

Thanks.


----------



## A3DFU

I'll do both Mark. Thanks for posting the links


----------



## les

All part of the New WORLD order (Google it) which is slowly but surely becoming more to the fore. Problem is we are being spoon fed government propaganda as we have been for years and we swallow it. Who won Britain's got talent or am a celebrity etc is more important to most people while evil is at work eroding you rights that includes guilty until proven innocent. The NHS is being more and more privatised so why not the police force then the armed services. 
Think its just conspiracy theories well here we have our police force heading towards privatisation and just who do you think will really be behind it all and pulling the strings. If a police officer told you 2 years ago the force was heading towards privatisation you would call him nuts or a rouge conspiracy theorist. Wake up and smell the coffee these is more much more to come. When people do wake up it will be too late of course as is often the case and has mark says don't expect the daily rags to tell you the truth the spin doctors will ensure you don't get that.
There are no political alternative parties to even vote for anymore. This is a one party state only the names are different. However you ain't seen nothing yet that's for sure. Privatisation of the police force will be the (not so thin end of the) wedge towards a new kind of police state. The reason why they want fit police as riot police is because they are expecting more and more "civil disturbances". Agenda 21 is yet another which will amongst other things stop you from using your car. Democracy will be a thing of the past in 20 years not that we are that democratic at the moment with our one party system.


----------



## Spandex

les said:


> All part of the New order (Google it) which is slowly but surely becoming more to the fore. Problem is we are being spoon fed government propaganda as we have been for years and we swallow it.


I googled 'new order' and I have to say, it's pretty dark and oppressive stuff. I'm not sure I'd agree it's coming to the fore though - their early eighties stuff was definitely their best, and the last few albums weren't really up to scratch.


----------



## les

Spandex said:


> les said:
> 
> 
> 
> All part of the New order (Google it) which is slowly but surely becoming more to the fore. Problem is we are being spoon fed government propaganda as we have been for years and we swallow it.
> 
> 
> 
> I googled 'new order' and I have to say, it's pretty dark and oppressive stuff. I'm not sure I'd agree it's coming to the fore though - their early eighties stuff was definitely their best, and the last few albums weren't really up to scratch.
Click to expand...

Of course I missed the word "world" off New world world order amended now. However try the more mainstream stuff which maybe more you style such as take that.
http://educate-yourself.org/nwo/


----------



## Mark Davies

I'm not generally a conspiracy theorist - far from it - though I know Les is into that kind of stuff. However, reading back what I've written and I appreciate it does sound like that sort of thing.

But let's just look at one of the recommendations and see how it pans out - direct entry at the rank of Superintendant. Sounds sensible, doesn't it? Makes sense if you want to attract high calibre people to allow them to enter directly at management level and there's been a lot of talk surrounding this about getting more graduates into the police and make us more professional. To the non-police outsider it makes sense and seems perfectly reasonable. Of course it does.

Hang on a minute though. You see, from the inside every police officer knows we've got _loads_ of high calibre graduates in the police. I very much doubt there is a single officer of the rank of Superintendant in my force who is not only a graduate but who doesn't hold a post graduate qualification as well. In fact, even at the lowliest rank of constable, on my own shift more than half of them, like myself, are graduates. In fact, amongst the younger, more recent recruits, I think of the 12 on my shift under the age of 30 only 1 doesn't have a degree. We've had an accelerated promotion scheme for high potential officers for over 20 years. The people that Tom Winsor says we need to attract into the police are already there, so why the changes?

When you know all this and think about it you realise it's not about getting graduates into the service as they would have you believe. It's all about being able to get into the controlling ranks of the police without first having to go through the distasteful process of getting your hands dirty dealing face-to-face with the British public, and specifically 'the great unwashed' who make up our stock in trade. It's only the unpleasant nature of the front line work we do that has so far deterred the Eton educated cronies of our political elite class from getting involved. They naturally think that sort of thing is beneath them. But this plan of direct entry opens the door for them. You can just imagine them all sitting around a table and making plans about how they can get 'the right sort' into control of the police.

So you don't need to get caught up with arguments about how it is necessary to work on the front line first in order to understand the nuts and bolts of the job before you can be a manager. That's not really the main issue. Far more worrying is the way that this appears to be a plan solely to grasp control. There's clearly no need for it because it's purporting to address an issue that doesn't exist, so what other explanation is there?

Very worrying.


----------



## les

Mark, as you know I myself was a middle manager who came up through the ranks as you put it. I retired 3 years ago and took up a PT job with ASDA. When you have come to a level via the hard way you have walked the job been there and done it and with that you get respect from the rank and file. Your experience stands you in good stead and you can see and understand where your staff are coming from. You can also see when they are trying to pull the wool over your eyes and they know it so are less likely to try.

Now in ASDA there are post grads learning middle management skills. They play with calculators and mess around with shifts mostly cocking it up and then spend more time trying to cover up their mistakes and blaming the computer. They also lie often and they have been proved time and time again to be liars. ASDA had a staff survey not so long ago they said they would share the results with us. We never got to see them as even though they talk the talk they can't (or won't) walk the walk. A manager let slip the result were so poor they would not release them, great hey.

ASDA has a culture of pettiness and a do as I say not as I do way of working and few managers hold any real respect. Not that that worries them as they make no attempts to change the culture. I don't know if ASDA have every applied for the investors in people award but I would guess not as the results would be a joke. The faceless ones in high positions must think they really do treat the shop floor staff well and I am sure they can't understand why staff rate ASDA so lowly even when they have the evidence in front of them.

I see the police in a similar way to ASDA as I am sure you could draw comparisons with the above. I could give you lots of instances of very poor management ,very poor health and safety and poor understanding about the jobs undertaken. I have suggested to our section manager that she comes out and does a shift with us pushing trolleys. etc. She does sit on the checkout from time to time but it appears as far as us porters are concerned she does not want to know and we only ever see her when she wants something. After all its rains and snows out there and who wants to get wet, be cold or dice with idiots who think the car park is some sort of race track or fairground dodgems

There are two a management tools ASDA would do well to employ. One is called "walking the job" the other "the slice of cake" I won't go into what they entail but the titles give you a good clue. If the police all but get privatised they will become another ASDA employer. Welcome to privatisation and profit driven capitalism.


----------



## Danny1

On the above regarding ASDA, as soon as Walmart took over everyday has just been about figures, you hit a target sales,waste,hours etc and that is all that matters. The shop could look like a bomb has hit it, or stock left off sale for hours it doesn't matter, figures figures figures is all that is driven, and i can see the police going that way with privatization very quickly. Its much easier to take a graduate in and mold them into the manager "they" want them to be, and seems to be happening more and more everywhere you look.


----------



## les

Danny1 said:


> On the above regarding ASDA, as soon as Walmart took over everyday has just been about figures, you hit a target sales,waste,hours etc and that is all that matters. The shop could look like a bomb has hit it, or stock left off sale for hours it doesn't matter, figures figures figures is all that is driven, and i can see the police going that way with privatization very quickly. Its much easier to take a graduate in and mold them into the manager "they" want them to be, and seems to be happening more and more everywhere you look.


Sounds like you have some experience working there then :wink:


----------



## Danny1

les said:


> Danny1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the above regarding ASDA, as soon as Walmart took over everyday has just been about figures, you hit a target sales,waste,hours etc and that is all that matters. The shop could look like a bomb has hit it, or stock left off sale for hours it doesn't matter, figures figures figures is all that is driven, and i can see the police going that way with privatization very quickly. Its much easier to take a graduate in and mold them into the manager "they" want them to be, and seems to be happening more and more everywhere you look.
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like you have some experience working there then :wink:
Click to expand...

A little :wink:


----------



## wazman999

Standby..... [smiley=argue.gif]

As a serving Police Officer, you're right, there is a lot of 'scare mongering' going on, but is worse within the job. Most of these changes are not being announced. More akin to stealth taxes.

When I joined the job 6 years ago, the old sweats who started in the early 80's all said "the jobs f***ed, you've joined at the wrong time"

Then we had the student and teacher demonstrations followed by the riots of last summer. Too many 'knee jerk' reactions to what could have been better planned for.

-------

There is a common misconception that we are always on overtime. We should be so lucky. Any extra shifts are usually cancelled rest days with more than 15 days notice, meaning we get a day back. Then when you try to get the day back they say "sorry, too many off".

Losing he rate of overtime at double pay will simply mean people don't pick up the phone on their days off.

Going back to the riots, being a public order officer in London, that Sunday when it started in Tottenham, I (along with every other officer I know) worked a 24 hour shift without food or breaks. We had 4 hours off, then another 24 hour shift. This was a pattern repeated for the next week. It was the toughest challenge we'd ever faced but we loved it.

In what other job would you be expected to do this? And soon, at a rate of time and 1/3 with no operational feeding.

The decision makers, in particular Windsor and the Home Secretary, should speak to those of us actually doing the job, chasing 15 year old kids armed with knives and getting blood spat in our eyes.

Then they may make decisions hat would benefit the public that we 'Police by consent' rather than save a few pennies.

Rant over :lol:


----------



## Mark Davies

In the news today - South Yorkshire Police planning for PCSOs to routinely be your main and first point of contact with the police. When you call the police in your time of need who do you want to respond; a pseudo security guard in a meaningless uniform or a professionally trained, experienced and warranted officer of the crown?

Even David Blunkett - the former Home Secretary who created PCSOs in the first place - is complaining this is a step too far. If that's not a warning bell I don't know what is.

All the above is not scaremongering nor is it some picture of a dreadfull, dark Orwellian future - this is happening already; now, today. The police service as you knew it is disappearing and we're sleeping through it. This week we've seen Professor Robert Winston appearing in a Labour party political broadcast - something he says he wouldn't normally dream of doing but which he felt was necessary given the threats of privatisation to the NHS. There's plenty of debate and noise going on about plans for the NHS that are still only just that - plans. Nothing has actually been implemented, yet there is political uproar. But with the police service the cuts are already done, the tenders for private firms to supply policing services are already submitted, the changes are already taking place. Where has the debate been? Where is the political mandate? Did anyone ask you if you wanted this doing? No - they're just going ahead with it on the quiet and hoping they get it all through before anyone notices.

Don't just let it happen.


----------



## A3DFU

Good video Mark! I hope enough people sign the petition to stop those changes!!

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/32177


----------



## Tangerine Knight

as a serving police officer as well it is going to the dogs but in all fairness what are the federation doing about it

they said we were to be balloted on industrial action nothing has transpired yet

i pmd a serving officer on here the other day i have had a few health probs recently [still at work tho doing 3 shifts] and because i have got 28 years they are possibly going to pension me off why ?

within my force the only dept that has been increased is psd i have never seen as many cops being disciplined in my life some for minor things all to get rid of people we are all constantly looking over our shoulders seeing who is looking at us and what they can get us for all to save money

there are not enough of us doing the job my workload has increased when im on patrol and the amount of paperwork is on the up

i think that when things get better a lot will leave the job there is no incentive to stay anymore it will go back to the late 70s when they had to have edmund davies look at why so many left


----------



## ViperOneZero

What are your thoughts on the police pension revisions?

Lots of cops have left are leaving the scheme for alternative investment plans such as buy to lets , stakeholder pensions etc.


----------



## woodwood

The pension is more like a pay cut. A final pay which will be what you've paid in anyway, it will probably be taxed more, then the pension allowance which by the time we retire wont include state so will like not being on a state poor pension but one not that much better, you just get the money you could have been enjoying at a young age back so you can buy some nice carpet and Zimmerman frame


----------



## Mark Davies

Well, I doubt I'll be staying until I'm 60! I'm in the transition group, so at least I get to stay in the current scheme until I'm 50 and with 25 years of service. After that I go onto the new package which as far as I can see is in comparison worth bugger all.

Bearing in mind in the old scheme the last 5 years of service made up quarter of the value of the pension I'll be running rather short on what I was promised, and working an extra 10 years in the new scheme won't make up even a fraction of what I'm losing. I've yet to do the full calculations but after making me work an extra 5 years and taking an additional 2% of my salary (as a minimum, as no doubt they will soon be increasing our contributions to the statutory maximum of 15%) I'm guestimating I'll be down some £60k.

I can go at the 25 years service, so I think if I can find alternative employment I'll be going. If I'm lucky enough to get a salary close to what I'm already earning my pension can be put away, or I can use some of it to make up the difference, and the rest can be re-invested into some savings. That way I'm probably going to be better off than staying in the job, so paltry is the new pension provision. Either way, all those life-plans that my wife and I have been working towards for the past two decades are lying in tatters.


----------



## woodwood

'Honesty, integrity, transparency' lol you got to wet yourself realty. If enough people just pulled out of the pension or sent it to their own pension then that might cause a reaction. Its the same tactic used used fuel prices. If they get away with thus - which they will as they have people in fear of their jobs, what will come next.


----------



## Mark Davies

woodwood said:


> 'Honesty, integrity, transparency' lol you got to wet yourself realty. If enough people just pulled out of the pension or sent it to their own pension then that might cause a reaction.


Well not really. It's got to be said, that even for someone joining from scratch today the new scheme is still a decent pension, comparative to what else could be had out there. But that's mostly because most private investment pension schemes have been paying bugger all for the last 10 years.

What is angering most in the public sector is that we were told from the start that our pension provisions could be relied on - that they were set in stone and couldn't be altered retrospectively. Consequently we've been spending decades planning our futures around the pensions we've been promised. But now we find those promises are worth nothing and we're not going to get what we were expecting.

Had I known 20 years ago that I was going to finish up on this new pension I could - *and would* - have made additional provision to ensure I'd be reasonably comfortable in my retirement. I didn't because I was told what I'd be getting and felt I didn't need to. Now I'm not getting that and of course it's far too late for me to do anything about it. And that's the story right across the public sector.

So no, people won't be leaving the scheme because frankly it's far too late for them to do anything to salvage their futures. We are well and truly stuffed, our plans in shreds, and there's very little we can do to retrieve it.


----------



## woodwood

I am new but my bro has done 13. Doesn't bother. Me that its changed, what bothers me us the fact they promised you guys 'in concrete' so to speak, what they did and the. Its changed. 
It may still look like a good pension, but that's based on trusting them again, lol if someone is a known runner, do you trust them when they tell you they wont fight and you don't need to handcuff them?
what's happened to you guys is, as the fed guys stated actually illegal yet they have done it and will do it again for sure


----------

