The Country’s Cops look set to take another financial hit with news that the Home Office wants pension contribution rises to 13.5 and 11.5% from 1 April 2013. The Majority of English and Welsh officers – on the 30 year pension scheme (PPS) – face a 1.25% rise to their monthly contributions – up to 13.5%. If Police officers are on the newer 35 year scheme (NPPS), they face a 1% increase to a monthly contribution rate of 11.5%. In July 2011, the Home Secretary Theresa May consulted the Police Negotiating Board (PNB) on her proposals to increase the amount paid by police officers into the police pension scheme (PPS) and new police pension scheme (NPPS) by an average of 3.2 % over a three year-period beginning in April 2012.

Two Faced Politicians

Following representations by the Police Federation of England and Wales and Staff Side, the Home Secretary decided only to implement the proposed increase for the year 2012-13, with contribution rates for most officers rising by 1.25% for those in the PPS and by 1% for those in the NPPS. In making this decision, the Home Secretary did state that the Government was still committed to increasing police officers’ pension contributions in the following two years, but that she would consult the PNB on any further increases.
On Thursday (24 January) Police Minister Damian Green wrote to the Independent Chair of the PNB asking the Board to consider an increase in contribution rates for 2013-14, which would take effect from 1 April 2013.

The consultation on these increases will close on 20 February. The Police Federation of England and Wales stated it “will work with Staff Side colleagues to formulate a response to these proposals.”

This top cop is the lead on Police professional standards and was addressing other Association of Chief Police Officer wallers in respect of risks and threats for the future in respect of corruption. As I have outlined consistently on this blog the main issue is, as always, curbing the amorous advances of the male officer. Any officer who should meet someone on duty, arrange to meet them after work and then have any subsequent form of relationship with them is, by ACPO definition, corrupt. Despite this, remember there was a Chief Constable of a major force who subsequently committed suicide, when it became common knowledge he was just as much a shagger when a Chief Constable as he was when he was an Assistant Commissioner (and throughout his service and ranks) he was not corrupt. Wasn’t he just a bit of a lad?

You are only corrupt if you have sex with someone when you are below the rank of Chief Inspector if you have told them you are a cop to impress them. Unfortunately ACPO are obsessed with this subject.

Getting back to the drug riddled steroidal officers coursing through our forces. Perhaps Mr Cunningham could outline why there has not been a consequential upsurge in the number of drug test failures of officers despite there being random drug testing for well over four years now. In fact, there is also a “with cause drugs test” which his officers and other buffoonery ranks could impose on any officer they wish, the parameters of which are so wide that anybody is open to a “with cause” test. What we actually have is a non-problem invented by ACPO as a precursor to something else which they need to impose on our police.

As a sport loving person, I regularly trained and visited gyms and other sporting establishments and drugs flowed freely in the form of Bitter, Lager and Guinness. Yet I was still able to achieve Adonis stature through hard graft and exercise. Cunningham does look a bit of a lardy so maybe he and his ACPO colleagues are just jealous of the honed officer. ACPO were convinced when they brought in drug testing that they would be able to reduce their workforces considerably in these times of lower budgets and reductions in funding. Perhaps, they could sack officers now for looking like they train in a gym

I once worked with someone called Cunningham but he was a bit of a prat. I wonder if they are related.

In fairness to him, he denied it. There is no independent recording of the actual conversation so you made your own mind up. It intrigues me that Mitchell did not deny the abusive language but seriously denied the use of the word pleb. I often apply the missive, having been accused of making up stories in my own career, that if the officers on the gate really wanted to stitch him up would they use an innocuous word such as pleb? Of course not, so my opinion of the incident for what its worth sides with the officers at the gate.

Then came the cctv footage which showed that Mitchell was forced to use the pedestrian gate. Somehow, even experienced journalists managed to infer that from a silent video the words attributed to Mitchell could not have been used! However, it did call into question the evidence of one person who happened to be an off duty cop posing as a member of the public and present at the scene. Unfortunately for him, the cctv does not appear to show him there. Of course, the utter b*llocks being spouted now is that because he is accused of lying it must be the case that all the cops are lying. The reality of it is that the behaviour which Mitchell admitted should have led to his resignation not just the use of the word pleb.

If it is true that now 800 officers are to be interviewed in this case then it is an expensive joke. However, we know that this witch hunt fishing for information over a poxy dispute instigated by a pompous MP will cost hundreds of thousands of pounds and will demoralise all those involved. Why doesn’t Andrew Mitchell do the decent thing and insist to Hogan-Howe that the Met Police Professional Standards Department should wind their necks in and get on with law enforcement. That way he gets a bit of credibility back – far more than a pathetically posed snog of an Inspector in his local constituency

On the way we passed through a City centre. We stopped for some cash at a cash machine and I noticed broken glass and blood on the pavement a few feet away. I also saw a silver button with a Crown on it, probably an epaulette button rather than a tunic button but I picked it up to stop it being collected like a trophy. My mind wandered and I thought that some cop must have been involved in a fracas near this location overnight. I just hoped that the blood wasn’t his/hers.

We got to the venue and I was amazed throughout the day just how busy we were so it came as no surprise when the tally up at the end of it revealed that we had taken a substantial amount of money. A profit of just over £1000 to be split 70% to my partner and 30% to her mate due to their initial outlay. 5 hours work for £700 – not bad in my opinion but an average day according to her indoors. Considering that on the 16th November 2012 Greater Manchester Police Federation reported national Federation findings that 56% of the police in this country are considering whether they want to remain in the police. Well now, make that 56% + 1. What a great time I had speaking with people without worrying whether I was saying the wrong thing. I did not have to have eyes in the back of my head.

In January this year a Metropolitan Police survey revealed that only 47% of the Met were satisfied with their job. Another more damning statistic was that only 34% of the Met Police believe that they provide a good service. Yet still we need to cut and chop the service to bits. The Manchester Evening News uncover that road deaths are soaring following a significant reduction in Road Traffic Cops in the force, yet still Sir Pete cuts deeper.

I felt the silver button in my coat pocket and thought of my times dealing with drunken idiots, the blood and gore, the violence and the sheer stupidity that often symbolises an average weekend in the city. Then I thought of the great time I had had committing a misconduct offence and earning £700 in the process. No nights, three days a week, no blood, vomit or drunken dickheads, no pain, just early mornings and a great deal of hard work for two grand a week. On the other hand, I could stay as I am and have to work longer for less, have my pension reduced whilst I pay more for it, work for butterfly senior officers who constantly spout the ACPO mantra. Decisions, decisions?

Years ago, people who had visions were sent to the loony bin or just generally besmirched in society but not our great British Police leaders. The cost of this pointless exercise could be justified if it was a video to be watched on the internal computerised system or even an email to all officers followed by a poster campaign. I tell you now, if you put important posters on the back of bog doors they would be read and digested over and over again. However, Sir Pete has decided to go one costly step further.

He has ordered every officer in GMP to attend a seminar where His Vision will be passed on. Then the officers will face workshops to ensure that they understand the Vision. It appears that swathes of officers are being bussed around the force to central locations for this process which is a 3 hour session plus the travel time. The conservative estimate for the cost of this debacle must be in the region of £1/2 million. Any rumours that, to offset the cost, there are deific offerings of Sir Pete available or lifelike Toby Jugs with a reminder of the Vision on are purely speculation. Surely in these austere days, stunts like this one should be consigned to the bin in favour of spending the money on real policing.

I mean, isn’t he famous enough? Why does he need to have these Visions and then send his apostles out to spread the word like some latter day messiah? Could he have rigged up one the paintings at his brand new HQ to start weeping or alternatively have a loyal Chief Superintendent cut into an orange and find an image of Sir Pete inside? That way they could display it and have all come and pay homage to something tangible and realistic! Perhaps, he has finally succumbed to the jolly-boys roistering that takes place when he meets his immediate underlings when they gather to laud over him – or at least I think that’s what they do!!

Perhaps the honour Sir Pete got was the wrong honour and it should have been a sainthood.

The difference nowadays is that many senior officers and officials in senior positions don’t possess the wherewithal to handle the pressure nor can they actually understand that the truth is often the best form of attack. However, truth and many senior police officers of ACPO rank don’t go hand in hand.

The blame game is seen as the way to deal with scandal by many in high authority. In reality I am not sure why people are asking questions of George Entwhistle, I mean, would you really expect a Chief Constable to know what his uPSD are doing? Of course they don’t otherwise a significant number of the unProfessional Standards Staff would get locked up for criminal offences.

Eyes Peeled

Well, it appears that the worm may be turning. I know I have been quiet for a few weeks but it has been because of a recent court case which had to be seen to be believed. As it now happens keep your eyes looking north as a little birdie has told me of a storm of hurricane proportions coming the way of a north west force. This force has only recently concluded a Crown Court Trial in which an officer accused of corruption with an investigation costing hundreds of thousands of pounds has been told by a Judge that his case should never have come before a court and, at worst, is a minor disciplinary matter. The case should have been dealt with in-house. The corruption investigation carried out by the force’s “elite” anti-corruption unit was riddled with lies and inconsistencies that the judge paraded the uPSD Chief Inspector in charge of the investigation in the witness box and had him give evidence about the methods of evidence gathering and obtaining of Authorities. Other than a minor breach of the Data Protection Act for which the accused officer received a conditional discharge, there was simply no evidence of corruption other than the evidence fabricated by the uPSD. A request for costs by the force was dismissed with contempt by the Judge.

Who has been a naughty Police Force then?

The upshot is that the Anti-Corruption unit of this force is going to be investigated by another force for……..well corruption! No longer can these uPSD officers hide behind their Noble Cause Corruption mask as we know they are coming unstuck. They will now attempt to shift blame sideways, downwards, in fact anywhere but their own backs. Already I have heard that senior officers in this force are distancing themselves from even the remotest connection to this matter. A far cry from the postulating and self-righteousness when they actually manage to get one of these evidential cock-ups through the courts when they queue up to lambast the poor unfortunate on the receiving end of their criminality.

They should face the same consequences that a number of officers in the same force have faced only the evidence against them will come form resolute and unbiased investigation by real investigators not some arbitrary decision at first report and then a biased presentation of the evidence. I only feel sorry that it has taken this long to come out into the open.

Are the general public beginning to see through the ACPO facade which designates the two rules of the police service:

1. ACPO are never wrong
2. When ACPO are found to be lying, cheating and conniving, close ranks and refer to rule 1

Of course, there are many good ACPO officers working hard to get the job done efficiently and properly without treading all over the backs of honest, hard working officers who risk their lives on a daily basis. If only we could get back to the times where the support of the front line officer from those on high was a genuine sentiment rather than a passing fad. The Chief officer commanding his force and ensuring proper discipline rather than looking for people to blame and persecute when things go wrong. Apparently, subject to any appeal process, Mr Price is a liar. The simple truth is he probably got sacked because he couldn’t find anyone else to blame.

The first comment was on Sky News at about 11pm Tuesday 18th September 2012. I wasn’t really paying much attention to the balding male who was giving his opinion to the question about arming the police. Until, that is, he said comments similar to the fact that he did not see that the police needed to be armed because the numbers of police being killed in recent years was reducing.

Think about this. His argument effectively suggests that whilst some police are killed but not many, then the basic protection a firearm may offer should not be afforded to the police. He was advocating an acceptable loss attitude!!! The Sky News presenter did not pick up on this, neither did the other guest on the programme at this point and it matters not to me whether the comment was intended to be made and accepted as it has been. Where do we get these people from who have the power to make such inane comment? Unfortunately, it is comment that people listen to from those who often have no experience or right to say what they are saying. If someone knows his name, please tell me in an email or a comment on the site. I need to send him and Sky News a complaint.

The second and third comment came from Sky News this morning. The lady who assists Eamonn Holmes to present the news decided to offer a couple of tweets in respect of opinion about arming the police. Once again, there were people there to object or comment but no-one did, including Jackie Hames who is now a TV presenter and a former detective. Therefore the tweets/comments have remained unchallenged.

The first tweet, second comment, stated that the opinion of the tweeter was that it would not have made a difference if the police were armed. How can he or she say that? Could it be that the offender knowing that armed police were likely to have a gun he might not have actually fired at them. Even if he had, could one of the officers have shot him in response before he fired any fatal shot, thereby saving both their lives? Should that decision actually be given to the women and men who put their lives on the line rather than the observations of a moron whose biggest life problem is whether his internet connection is working?

The second tweet, third comment, stated that the response by criminals to the routine arming by police would be that they would progress to bigger and bigger guns to fight back. This is absolute bollocks, pure and simple. Currently the British Police are unarmed except for a few specialists. In recent years since the mid 1980’s where the police have NOT had guns, the criminal element have progressed from knives, pick axe handles, baseball bats, handguns and shotguns to semi-automatic and automatic pistols and rifles. They have progressed to self loading handguns which can carry magazines up to 15 rounds and now, in Manchester, they have progressed to hand grenades. Listen so you understand. F*CKING EXPLOSIVES. Indiscriminate and substantial in their application against the person.

The second tweet buffoon needs to realise that the kudos of the average armed criminal is his ability to get a bigger gun than his rival. If he can afford a high calibre automatic weapon with a thousand rounds, he will buy it. He won’t refuse it because the police don’t carry guns. 

A criminal prepared to possess and use guns needs to know that his use will be met with a similar response. It is time to arm the police. Instead of viewing America as the typical arming scenario, we should look at Ireland, Northern Ireland, France, Belgium, Germany, Spain, et al. Arming the police is called self defence. At the moment we are just experiencing slaughter.

My sympathies go out to the family of both officers.

The routine arming of police officers is always resisted by politicians and criminals know this. Therefore, how can anyone justify the shooting of the officers and the exploding of a grenade in his attempt to escape. He was wanted for a previous shooting when a grenade was again used resulting in the death of a man.

This government and previous governments do not care one jot about the police. The senior officers appear to be in collusion with the government, happy in the reform of the police which is a phrase which means a reduction in the numbers of colleagues working alongside you. The same government and ACPO who want to reduce your pension and make you pay substantially more for that reduced pension. Yet, we always respond with courage, honour and pride in our attempts, in spite of everything, to make things better and to make things right.

I salute your courage simply to put on a uniform which instantly makes you a target for killers, newspaper hacks, politicians and senior police officers. Rest in Peace. We have all lost something today.