Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Cops to Strike??

treelover said:
Its interesting how such major public sector strike waves seem to happen on Labours watch, no matter how right wing they are now.
Mind you, it has taken 10 years - a whole decade - to even come this close.
 
remember getting pissed with some coppers once after a ta recruiting day somebody got onto martial law if the coppers struck.
list of known offenders turn up kill them :D copper got all excited make it an annual day:eek:
lefties and protesters did'nt really enter into the discussion
 
MC5 said:
Set-up a rival union, say the Union of Democratic Coppers and close down a police station as uneconomical. Infiltrate their flying squads, build up stocks of criminals and starve them back to work.
You could actually make a reasonable argument that many of the changes over the last few years have been the policing equivalent of how the miners were broken. If the police were threatening militancy because of the dangers to their job, the role of constables in society (as opposed to PCSOs), their ability to provide policing services, etc.) rather than simply looking for a pay rise, they would have far more sympathy from me.
 
laptop said:
Fucking stupid of the Fed to call this one when Parliament isn't sitting
If it's the Met Federation Annual Open Meeting, they have it the same time every year, which is what makes me think that's what it is.
 
detective-boy said:
You could actually make a reasonable argument that many of the changes over the last few years have been the policing equivalent of how the miners were broken. If the police were threatening militancy because of the dangers to their job, the role of constables in society (as opposed to PCSOs), their ability to provide policing services, etc.) rather than simply looking for a pay rise, they would have far more sympathy from me.

Sadly though, the Government has allowed PCSOs to be part of a union (the PCS) which - thanks to the rest of the things being done to those who were once termed civvies (the getting-rid of SROs (who in my experience were the hardest working people, in the worst job, in the station) in favour of SPCSO, and the whole way in which MetCall came into being) - could well mean they wouldnt be able to rely on them in a crisis.

In any case, they (PCSO) have flip all ability to do anything that could remotely replace a Pc at present, and so its questionable whether they could rely on them in a pinch anyway.

As for striking over pay, that is the only thing (aside from pensions, and possibly arming everyone) that people would go on strike over. As bad as some of the recent changes have been, people would prefer to bitch over them (quelle surprise, I know) than do something about it. I like the idea of a work-to-rule though, one would imagine that crime would go down, and efficiency go up, as people stopped doing the various bits of duplication that fill the day.

I should point out that I have nothing against PCSOs generally, its just that the better ones should really be Pcs / SROs / CCOs instead of the walking cardboard cutout their job currently forces them to be.

Personally I would like to see the Government at least made aware that they will not be able to do this nonsense over pay every year, and go back to the old system.
 
laptop said:
I seem to recall that the last one involved a lobby of Parliament - which involved a lot of cops ambling in an entirely-un-demonstration-like fashion through Parliament Square at a time when demonstrations therein were prohibited :D

if they do it though we need to show up to line the route and take pictures and whatnot. perhaps with our numbers covered up....
 
agricola said:
Sadly though, the Government has allowed PCSOs to be part of a union (the PCS) which - thanks to the rest of the things being done to those who were once termed civvies (the getting-rid of SROs (who in my experience were the hardest working people, in the worst job, in the station) in favour of SPCSO, and the whole way in which MetCall came into being) - could well mean they wouldnt be able to rely on them in a crisis.
And which, somewhat worryingly, is now calling for them to be given more powers / PPE / training so that "they can do the job properly" ... which "job" would that be? The one PCSOs were intended for, or the one previously done by constables ... :confused:
 
bluestreak said:
if they do it though we need to show up to line the route and take pictures and whatnot. perhaps with our numbers covered up....
That would actually be quite amusing ... :D

(You could have placards with "I've got your number, 118" and things on them!)
 
bluestreak said:
if they do it though we need to show up to line the route and take pictures and whatnot. perhaps with our numbers covered up....

I was thinking of buying a digital camera - was planning a lightweight discreet one but now it has to be a fuckoff Freudian black jobbie, and this week :D
 
detective-boy said:
And which, somewhat worryingly, is now calling for them to be given more powers / PPE / training so that "they can do the job properly" ... which "job" would that be? The one PCSOs were intended for, or the one previously done by constables ... :confused:


Any bets on how long it is before PCSO's are issued with Tasers?
 
butchersapron said:
Ian Bone:

In the 1970’s when the SWP was at the height of it’s rank and filism, producing papers for rank’n file social workers,probation officers blah blah some anarchist comrades produced a one off edition of RED SCREW - purporting to be the voice of the rank’n file prison officer and full of absurd demands……….needless to say their mailbag was full of requests from Trots countrywide asking them to speak at meetings………

I assisted in producing a paper for laggers at the time. Never came across rank and file papers for social workers, or probation officers though? Nor did I come accross 'RED SCREW', which is a disappointment, because it sounds like a good read. :D
 
detective-boy said:
And which, somewhat worryingly, is now calling for them to be given more powers / PPE / training so that "they can do the job properly" ... which "job" would that be? The one PCSOs were intended for, or the one previously done by constables ... :confused:

True, but it would be interesting to see, given that the Home Office funding for them has either run out or is shortly to do so, how they get on in the current financial situation (which is probably why the job is using them to replace SROs).
 
agricola said:
True, but it would be interesting to see, given that the Home Office funding for them has either run out or is shortly to do so, how they get on in the current financial situation (which is probably why the job is using them to replace SROs).
The ending of the special (additional) funding will be a major issue - they will have to be paid for out of normal budgets which have not been increased for that purpose.

The next three to five years will also see a big peak in retirements (30 years after the peak in recruitment post-Edmund Davies in the late seventies / early eighties) ... and I have seen no indication of any additional funding for the additional recruitment / training costs associated with that. Beware the government allowing the following situation to develop:

1. Police numbers fall dramatically due to increased retirement rate.
2. Police forces say "We need more money for recruitment".
3. Government says "Well, you've got all those PCSOs ... why not extend their powers to cover the shortfall ..."

The end of PCSO specific additional funding will precipitate something - I fear it will be an extension of powers and a maintenance of PCSO numbers (politically Ian Blair, Ken Livingstone and this Government are tied to the concept and will not retreat from it) rather than a falling away to a reasonable, and maintainable, level.
 
You say that, but I see nothing in your post which suggests you've thought about the remainder of the extended policing family. Not just PCSOs, but also including street wardens, special constables, and of course the private security. The recent launch of a private paramilitary policing capability by G4S suggests that what the public sector can't provide in terms of policing, the private sector may expand into.
 
detective-boy said:
Quite a long time, seeing as they don't have batons or CS or (in most cases) even handcuffs at the moment.

Only a matter of time in my opinion after a few PCSO's get a kicking whilst on duty.
 
chymaera said:
Only a matter of time in my opinion after a few PCSO's get a kicking whilst on duty.
Why limit your scaremongering to Tasers then? Why not go the whole hog and say it's only a matter of time before PCSOs are issue with guns? :rolleyes:
 
detective-boy said:
Why limit your scaremongering to Tasers then? Why not go the whole hog and say it's only a matter of time before PCSOs are issue with guns? :rolleyes:
With any luck it'll not be long till they're issued with P45s, the only 45 I'd like to see a cop (or pseudo-cop) with.
 
Strangeways said:
You say that, but I see nothing in your post which suggests you've thought about the remainder of the extended policing family.
There may be nothing in my post about it but I'm perfectly well aware of the extended police family - it's what I now do - I'm a Policing Services Consultant.

Instead of worrying about G4S and a load of Gurkhas to fulfil the army's role in supporting policing, you'd be better off talking about the numerous companies who are now positioning themselves to deliver directly policing services (and who will undoubtedly be able to do many of them better and cheaper than the police service).
 
bluestreak said:
80% of cops approve of breaking the law rather than trying to change the law through legal means.


oh the irony.

oh the hypocritical bastards.

fuck 'em.

Nooooooooooo. 80% of cops said they approved of breaking the law....

Just because they are cops, they don't have to be honest all the time you know. They ain't stupid are they? If they all said "Don't worry...we'll never strike unless the law is changed" - it isn't going to get them a pay rise any quicker than threatening to strike, is it?
 
Strangeways said:
TBH it wouldn't be hard to do it better than the current bunch of incompetents.
That's the age-old "justfication" for any privatisation though, isn't it? Nomatter how flawed the public police service may be, I really don't think I'd like to see a privatised one.
 
poster342002 said:
That's the age-old "justfication" for any privatisation though, isn't it? Nomatter how flawed the public police service may be, I really don't think I'd like to see a privatised one.

Depends. Never say never. Would you rather your telephone line and broadband was managed by the GPO or pre-privatised BT?

Edit *opps* - I didn't see the word police in your post. 8:o
 
YoursTruely said:
Depends. Never say never. Would you rather your telephone line and broadband was managed by the GPO or pre-privatised BT?

Edit *opps* - I didn't see the word police in your post. 8:o
I doubt the old nationalised BT would be comparable to a hypothetical currently nationalised BT. It'd still have access to all the recent technolgy, for instance. The percieved failings of the old BT were probably more a product of the limitations of those times than the fact it was nationalised.

But, anyway, I doubt a privatised police service (with even less accountability) would be something I'd relish the prospect of.
 
Back
Top Bottom