Met police firearms

[Techie1 + 2,024]

All 43 federations sign open letter to Prime Minister demanding 'a properly funded and well-resourced police service'.

Prime Minister Theresa May

Those representing rank and file officers across the country have written an open letter to the government describing the recent pay award as 'derisory'.

Representatives from all 43 police federations in the country endorsed the letter, saying “members were angry” and forces “had been put in an impossible situation.”

Police Federation of England and Wales Vice Chairman Calum Macleod said: “We feel the government has not been truthful and honest about the pay award given to officers, and that is insulting.

"The two per cent awarded has to come from existing policing budgets which means forces may have to choose between officer numbers and public safety. That cannot be right."

The full letter reads: 

 

Dear Prime Minister, On behalf of the hard working officers who are working to the bone to protect our people, who fight to protect our communities and who keep you safe, we demand answers.   And we demand that you tell the public the truth. About crime figures. About police numbers. About the ‘extra’ officers you pledge. About ‘extra’ money you say you will pay.   No more smoke. No more mirrors. No more double standards.   You expect officers to run towards terrorists one minute and then turn your backs when we ask for help so they can afford to feed their families. Families they barely see because of the hours they work to fill the void left by the thousands of officers who are no longer there because of your cuts.   Officers who are now broken. Who are unable to cope with the mental and physical demands placed upon them by having to work in depleted environments. With out of date kit .With fewer people. With no support. One chief constable has just this week told you that 40 per cent of his officers have sought professional help for stress. It is the tip of the iceberg. Our officers are committed to serving the public. And we thank the public for their overwhelming support, particularly in light of recent incidents. But with 20,000 fewer police officers than five years ago it is no wonder we have seen crime rise and the service to the public suffer. This is not fair on them.   And two per cent pay rise with no extra money to pay for it means it is the public who will yet again suffer and get even less of a service. So hear us when we say: The pay award of on average less than £10 a week is insulting. A two per cent rise is not a rise when it has to come from existing policing budgets. It’s a disgrace you have dressed it up as a pay rise. Funding must come centrally, it is unfair to make the public suffer with fewer officers available to fight crime. It’s a disgrace you have ignored the recommendations from the independent Police Remuneration Review Body – the very body you set up to advise on police pay. Forces cannot cope with any further falls in police numbers. Communities will be further under threat at the very time protection is needed the most. Community policing plays a vital part in intelligence gathering to help combat terrorism and it has been decimated. ‘Extra’ police officers are not ‘extra’ police officers. They are the same officers doing longer hours, being called back in when they are off or being given extra responsibilities. Crime is not falling. And answer our questions:  Why was the independent body, which has awarded MPs and ministers a 13 per cent rise over the last three years listened to when the independent police body on pay was not?  How can you justify these double standards?  Do you think it is acceptable that the derisory pay award is expected to come at a cost of losing more officers? Our members have been failed by: The FAILURE to heed our warnings. The FAILURE to implement the very recommendations of the independent bodies you introduced. The FAILURE to support them and the police service as a whole. The FAILURE to help officers protect the country. The FAILURE to help officers protect the public adequately. We don’t want meaningless platitudes.   We want a properly funded and well-resourced police service. The public rightly want and expect this.   For the sake of those who put their lives on the line for the public we demand you address these injustices and give us answers.   Members of the interim National Council

 

View on Police Oracle

[The Undertaker + 303]

Don't the public already know?

Lots of coverage in the media about forces in crisis, lots of stories about police not attending certain crimes due to lack of resources, lots of stories about police officers numbers being cut.

How can the public not know?

[Cathedral Bobby + 1,174]

9 minutes ago, The Undertaker said:

Don't the public already know?

Lots of coverage in the media about forces in crisis, lots of stories about police not attending certain crimes due to lack of resources, lots of stories about police officers numbers being cut.

How can the public not know?

Because the police don't deal with 95% of the public each year and unless it personally affects them they don't much care. Somebody else's problem. The public are fickle and the politicians know it, how else could they get away with what they have done.

[Mac7 808]

Is it me or is that not well written?

I'm sure the prime minister is reaching for the cheque book after reading that!!

[Cathedral Bobby + 1,174]

7 minutes ago, Mac7 said:

Is it me or is that not well written?

It is very poorly written and grammatical horrendous. But even worse than that, if I was the Maybot I would probably think to myself, 'So glad I sorted that shower out when I was Home Secretary', because it is amateurish at best, inept at worst, and reads like a dictate from Len McCluskey. My local newspaper is full of similar letters from the local jobsworth. For me the PFEW has had its day. Government, Parliament and the NPCC and CoP five it no more than a cursory notice. It is less productive than most unions and far more expensive. Sorry Fed members but it is a toothless poodle.

[Zulu 22 + 4,575]

Did you ever rise from your chair and put yourself forward as a Fed Rep, I doubt it. If you could do better, then why have you not done so.

The letter makes many salient points. You are also ready to accuse the public of being fickle and you do not get support by insulting them. Back in 1974 the Federation made similar appeals which were recognised by the public. It forced the Politicians into the Edmund Davies review which was rejected by Jim Callan and implemented, in full, by Margaret Thatcher the day she walked into Downing Street.

[Cathedral Bobby + 1,174]

8 minutes ago, Zulu 22 said:

Did you ever rise from your chair and put yourself forward as a Fed Rep, I doubt it. If you could do better, then why have you not done so.

The letter makes many salient points. You are also ready to accuse the public of being fickle and you do not get support by insulting them. Back in 1974 the Federation made similar appeals which were recognised by the public. It forced the Politicians into the Edmund Davies review which was rejected by Jim Callan and implemented, in full, by Margaret Thatcher the day she walked into Downing Street.

As I understand it you have been retired sometime now. The PFEW isn't the beast it once was in our day. I had no need to become a rep, the federation did a decent job then. However, your comments regarding Thatcher are a little ill judged. The police during Thatcher's time became a political tool used by her and we did well personally out of it. I was around at that time, like you and it was a common discussion point, but the overtime was good and people accepted being used in that way. However, the cover up of Hillsborough, plus a number of other scandals, some of which you have previously mentioned, are partly due to Thatcher's overly close relationship with the police. That's what lead to the Government giving in to the Federation's demands, because she felt obliged and owed the police for their support.

[Cathedral Bobby + 1,174]

28 minutes ago, Zulu 22 said:

Did you ever rise from your chair and put yourself forward as a Fed Rep, I doubt it. If you could do better, then why have you not done so.

The letter makes many salient points. You are also ready to accuse the public of being fickle and you do not get support by insulting them. Back in 1974 the Federation made similar appeals which were recognised by the public. It forced the Politicians into the Edmund Davies review which was rejected by Jim Callan and implemented, in full, by Margaret Thatcher the day she walked into Downing Street.

Oooops forgot, then after Thatcher along came John Major and Sheehy in 1993 and anything given by Thatcher was taken away from new officers with knobs on. As I remember the Fed weren't particularly effective then either. Housing allowance, police housing, pensions went out the window. You see Mr Major didn't think he owed the police anything, his time in the Treasury thought, like the current Government the public masses aren't too concerned if it doesn't affect them.

[Reasonable Man + 1,231]

And after the Edmund Davies formula came in the national Federation really had very little to do with negotiating our pay and conditions. I'm not sure how powerful an influence they were in getting the ED deal either, officers voting with their feet, leaving in high numbers, on benefits, their children on free school meals all painted a more worrying picture to the Government than the Fed Reps asking for more.
We had a whole generation of National Fed reps who met up every year to consider a (generally) above inflation pay 'offer'. So no negotiation and influencing skills required. Then ED goes and those people are well out of their comfort zones, what happened to that nice few days in a hotel, wine with the meal and walk away with 3-5% pay rise?
'You can have 0-1%'
'That's not acceptable to our members.'
'And what will they do about it?'
'They will be very displeased and will moan and groan about you and us.'
'0% it is then'
'We will put the suggestion of industrial action to our members to vote on.'
'Good luck with that one. See you next year.'

[Zulu 22 + 4,575]

So obvious that you were never prepared to serve you fellow officers by being a Fed Rep. CB my father saw the 1974 pay increase implemented by Thatcher and she did not need to use the Police until my time for the 1984 Miners Strike when we were there to enforce the law and protect Miners whowanted to work, and there were many of those , who eventually formed a new union.

[Reasonable Man + 1,231]

Thatcher implemented it in 1979/80 having seen the effect of the strikes in the 70s by the miners and others. She knew she had to have the police on board if she was going break the unions and further strikes were inevitable.
Just because your father saw the pay increase doesn't support your argument that the Federation of the day caused it. If the Fed were so good they would not have allowed the pay and conditions to have deteriorated to the point where the ED report was required.
My police officer neighbour on benefits with his kids on free school meals in the 70s was not impressed at the pay rises the Fed had got for him over the previous 15+ years.

[Cathedral Bobby + 1,174]

1 hour ago, Zulu 22 said:

So obvious that you were never prepared to serve you fellow officers by being a Fed Rep. CB my father saw the 1974 pay increase implemented by Thatcher and she did not need to use the Police until my time for the 1984 Miners Strike when we were there to enforce the law and protect Miners whowanted to work, and there were many of those , who eventually formed a new union.

No I wasn't prepared to serve and what has that got to do with it. There were officers who were elected. I enjoyed policing. Most police officers I suspect don't want to serve. I don't know if you know any present working officers but many are bemused by the ineffectiveness of the Fed. I acknowledge in our time it was more effective, but as Reasonable Man has said that was more to do with Thatcher needing the police. Major soon stopped any affiliation. The miners strike certainly is not a period of illustrious pride in policing history with officers fighting to uphold chivalrous acts to uphold the right of a man to work. You can look at that time through rose tinted spectacles, I don't see it that way. Thatcher was only good to the police because she wanted to use us to enforce her political and economic strategy.

[Zulu 22 + 4,575]

Firstly the remark about being prepared to serve was in response to RM. The Federation did have a campaign in the 70's because the Labour Government just ignored them until, Public opinion forced the issue bringing about the Edmund Davies report. The Federation are very much a toothless tiger because of legislation and their status. But, I repeat that their are many who snipe at the Fed from a safe distance, never raising their heads above the parapet. I found to my cost how vulnerable you could be as a Federation is with senior management. They do not appreciate being made to abide by regulations.

[Mac7 808]

I'm in the fed but only for legal cover for that "just in case" time.

I've been disappointed with our fed branch ever since joining. They talk a good talk but when it comes to it they don't have any walk. The letter above proves it. The letter raises some points but doesn't put any meat on the bone so to speak. It lacks substance and real examples of how forces are struggling. It does not paint an accurate picture of policing in modern times and how the cuts affect rank and file officers. A couple of paragraphs about conditions and the rest about the pay review doesn't do it for me.

I don't think the "putting yourself forward" is helpful. You could say that every time someone criticises politics or senior managers.

The fed are powerless and don't have a strong voice. May and Co have repeatedly shouted them down every time they have raised opposition to the cuts, which they have rolled over and taken.

Glad to see my subs are being used for someone to write a letter. Bravo.

[Reasonable Man + 1,231]

I, like the vast majority of me colleagues when I was serving, recognised the value of the local reps and the support I got in discipline cases. It is the at the national level that the Fed are found wanting. Even the Fed's greatest supporter on here @Zulu22 says they are a toothless tiger, and with the recent changes one with ulcers on its gums too.