View Full Version : Theresa May socks it to the Police Federation

21st May 2014, 12:14
The day after Andrew Mitchell revealed that one of the "plebgate" police boasted that they could "topple this government", the Home Secretary has delivered an uncompromising speech to the Police Federation annual conference.

BBC News - Theresa May: Police Federation funds to end (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27504422)

About time there was a root and branch reform of this bunch of politically motivated bullyboys. I'm astounded that we have been paying the salaries of some of their officials and I'm pleased that this at least is going to stop.

21st May 2014, 12:37
And another "Plebgate" police officer has been sacked (http://www.bbc.com/news/business-27503271), the fourth so far.

Meanwhile, the Police Federation are funding a libel case on behalf of Mitchells principal accuser over the affair. It is becoming abundantly clear who the liars are.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

21st May 2014, 13:49
Both Mitchell and the copper should each fund their costs.
Each state their case and accept the outcome.
Smilie for the looser

21st May 2014, 14:19
Before they prat about any more with this unimportant plebgate nonsense they need to seriously address the issue of all these prisoners wandering off after they've stupidly let them out.

21st May 2014, 14:26
Hopefully, next on her 'to do' list will be no more retirement after 30 years maximum, no more early retirement on 'health grounds', no more inflation proofed pensions and the introduction of financial penalties for victimising celebrities with 40 year old accusations of sexual misconduct subsequently unproven in court.

21st May 2014, 15:26
More important would be to prevent 'offenders' from avoiding prosecution by resigning (and keeping their pension).

21st May 2014, 15:29
I believe the first step to any police reform in the UK would be for the police to not have to feel "self flagellation" over Stephen Lawrence is the key to gaining public trust.

I want a police FORCE with it's higher echelons in position due to proven competence in policing, and not due to reaching targets, being in a perceived minority group or infatuation with "diversity". Currently - that's what we have and the lower ranks only see progress possible by following the mantras of the politically led leaders.

Anyone seen a police application form recently?

21st May 2014, 19:19
I am no fan of the Fed and pay the voluntary subs out of fear that I will need their legal representation following a complaint rather than for any positive feeling that they offer a good or effective service in any other respect. On a national level they are a bloated, undemocratic and unresponsive organisation, although locally my force's Fed has been pretty good at representing our interests with the Chief.

Having said that I found May's comments in many respects to be either unfair or to be kicking a dog whilst its down. The Fed has many faults but I don't think that the mistakes of Hillsborough, Lawrence or undercover policing methods or stop and search policies and practices are anything to do with it. Some of the over reaction to Plebgate can be laid firmly at its door but to blame it and by extension all PCs, Sergeants and Inspectors for the mistakes of senior managers is a gross misrepresentation of the facts and does the everyday hard working and honest bobby a disservice. Fed subs by the way have also always been voluntary and something to opt into although membership of the Fed itself is compulsory. The one area I do agree with May on is that it is strange that Fed officials effectively get paid twice for doing a single job. Many officials get their police salary as well as additional pay (honoria pay) directly out of Fed funds and whilst I can understand out of pocket expenses I can't see how two salaries has ever been justified. To me this has created a perverse incentive to become a national official in order to benefit from both the pay and pension benefits of a cushy 9-5 job.

The Fed was a creation of HMG set up to represent the ordinary police officers in a fair and balanced way with due recognition that we don't have access to many of the industrial rights or working conditions given to many of the public and private sector. Over the years that relationship got too cosy with the Fed being endowed with somewhat supernatural powers to stymy government efforts to reform police. The Condems have shown that the Fed's bark is much worse than its bite and they have ruthlessly exploited that along with supine government approved Chief Constables to impose Cameron's view of what the police should be. I am all for reform and change but what I want to see is an honest and truly independent review of policing along the lines of a Royal Commission, and not a 200 page rehash of an old Cameron speech along with added elements from Sheehy's 1992 report as well as a dash of austerity in the form of an increment freeze. Winsor was in no way an independent report and antagonised many police and the Fed officials. A lot of the Plebgate reaction on the Police side came out of frustration with that process and the perception that HMG was out to get us, along with the Fed's sudden realisation that they had very little power to influence the implementation of Winsor.

Lastly I don't think that its any coincidence that May's vitriolic attack on the police came the day before the European and council elections, as it presented her with a perfect opportunity to electioneer and to show that the Tories are trying to reform the Police.

21st May 2014, 20:24
If she compared the number of bent officers per thousand, to bent politicians per thousand she would have to dismount the high horse rather quickly.
Referring to "plebgate" and the findings of the review into the Hillsborough disaster, Mrs May said it was "not enough to mouth platitudes about a few bad apples" in the face of scandals.
I presume that would be the same in relation to corrupt thieving MPs who chose to steal public funds resulting in the expenses scandals, and those corrupt cash for questions MPs too.

22nd May 2014, 09:33
So basically what we are saying is as long as we have corrupt, thieving politicians it is ok to have corrupt thieving policemen?

Or have I misunderstood?

I don't see any problem with the pot calling the kettle black*, especially as over the last few years this particular pot (ie MPs) has had its fair share of well-deserved criticism.

(* Are we allowed to say that these days?;))

22nd May 2014, 20:18
No it's not okay to have corrupt policemen. The point is that there are corrupt and dishonest people everywhere in all occupations and there always will be. However there are many more honest Policemen than dishonest ones and proportionately there are probably more honest coppers than MPs.

23rd May 2014, 07:56
...proportionately there are probably more honest coppers than MPs.
*cough* Andrew Mitchell.


Alloa Akbar
23rd May 2014, 09:39
Without delving into personal examples etc, speaking as a member of Joe Public, I personally view most Police Officers with a fair degree of mistrust. Unfair? Yes probably, but whether its watching the news and hearing about large scale Police misconduct, or my local rag and reading about Officers engaging in dodgy tactics to catch speeding motorists, tempered with public plea's for information to help find daylight robbers, I never seem to see many examples of the Police meeting or exceeding our expectations in their role as public servants. Maybe that is getting lost on them, the fact that they are there to serve and protect, rather than act as Lords and Masters of all they survey??

TTN - Pot calling the kettle "Discoloured" or perhaps "Oxidised" old mate :ok: