10 Reasons Why Police Reform is on the wrong track

10 Reasons why the Winsor reports are wrong, from the point of view of a member of the public.

1. Winsor's report says that police officers are paid about 10-15% more than other emergency service workers. I am not in a position to say whether or not this is true, but assuming that it is, it is to compensate for the following:-
• Total lack of any employment rights. Police officers are legally prevented from striking or otherwise withdrawing labour, the ONLY sector of employment (aside from Prison Officers) so restricted.
• Restrictions on private life, including being required to be apolitical and never being off duty.
• Directed overtime, which police officers cannot refuse.
• 30 years of mostly working shifts, in dangerous and confrontational situations.
• Rest days and annual leave can be cancelled at any time.
2. The report suggests that officers who are deemed to be in the bottom 10% of the performance range are subject to dismissal, whether their performance is actually sub standard or not.
3. The execution of police duties should never be subject to targets or performance related pay, if the public are to have faith that the actions taken by officers are necessary and not simply for the achievement of targets. The oath that officers take at Attestation says that they will carry out their duties without fear or favour. Further, once you have target-led anything, let alone policing, you simply end up with more forms, more bureaucracy and less actual time focused on the activity at hand.
4. The report claims to encourage performance related pay, and yet at the same time removes Competency Related Threshold Pay (CRTP) from specialist officers such as firearms teams, whose role is especially demanding, and other officers who are able to demonstrate high levels of skill & competence. Similarly, officers who are currently Public Order (i.e. "riot") trained who receive CRTP will only do so in future if these duties are required six times per year. Imagine six separate occurrences of last summer's riots! In all practical terms, this means these officers will never receive that payment. How can that be fair? In fact, Winsor suggested scrapping CRTP in his first report, "Winsor1". This was rejected by the independent Police Arbitration Tribunal. This didn't deter Winsor. He simply repeated the proposal in his second report, "Winsor2".
5. The report made several factual errors, such as claiming that 75% of male officers in the Met were overweight. The truth is that the Metropolitan Police ran a health scheme for officers concerned about their weight. Of these officers who attended the clinic, 75% of these were indeed overweight. This is far from saying that 75% of the total officer numbers are overweight. This is either gross incompetence (reason enough to dismiss the entire report) or it's deliberately misleading.
6. Under the terms of the report, officers who are injured in the line of duty, and unable to carry out warranted (i.e. full police officer) roles or meet the fitness test standards, will have their pay reduced by 8% or £2922 (whichever is lower) and by the second year of this injury, they will be sacked. That's a great reward for an officer isn't it? Remember PC David Rathband? Under Winsor's report, he would have been sacked by now.
7. The report suggested regional pay for officers from different areas of the country, because of the different costs of living across the regions. This already exists to some extent in London. Officers serving here already receive more than officers from other areas. As a result, areas bordering London like Essex, Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire find that they are recruiting and training officers, only for them to transfer to the Met for the higher salary for doing the same job, and living in the same area. If this is implemented all over the country, this will lead to chaos. Besides, you don't hear MPs in favour of regional pay for MPs, do you?
8. Winsor proposes that candidates should be able to enter the police service at higher ranks, such as Inspector, up to and including Superintendent. What this does not appreciate, is the unique nature of policing. Using the NHS as an analogy, you could have someone "manage" a GP practice or even a hospital trust from a financial and administrative point of view, but they would not be suitable for setting healthcare policy or critiquing the work of doctors, nurses and surgeons. In fact, find someone who works in a hospital, and ask them how popular these "parachute" bosses are, and how "in touch" with the front line they are. It is possibly the worst suggestion in the entire report. Watch an episode of The Apprentice, and now imagine those same people in charge of your local police station, or even a whole policing division. That is a truly frightening thought.
9. Winsor says that he wants to make the service more "professional" and as such, wants to raise the educational requirements for entry, but at the same time reduce the starting pay for the office of Constable to less than that of a PCSO. Recently during a debate on MPs salaries, they said that it was necessary to keep the salary of an MP at the current (£65000) level "to make sure that the right calibre of people were encouraged to become MPs". How can it be right to increase MPs wages to increase professionalism, yet reduce wages to increase professionalism in the police? It seems that this suggestion is simple market economics. Each police officer vacancy is vastly over-subscribed. The logic seems to be to reduce the starting wage to discourage more people from joining.
10. Winsor says that a role which does not require the warranted powers of a constable should be paid less. What this does not account for are roles where the actual knowledge and experience of the role are absolutely crucial, such as training, control room supervisionand, perhaps to a lesser extent, call handling. Officers will not volunteer for these roles if it is going to mean a sizeable cut in pay.

There. Ten reasons, written quickly, by a member of the public. It didn't need a great deal of analysis or time to come up with these reasons why the reports should be rejected. It's simple logic and common sense.

I haven't even mentioned the cuts to officer numbers which will risk the safety of the public and officers alike. The Government will tell you that these "cuts" are necessary. Let me tell you something. This isn't about savings. It never was. How do I know? Have a look at the full speech by David Cameron on 16th January 2006. The speech can be found here. He's been itching to get his hands on the police for years. Even before 2006, in fact. Cameron was a major contributor to the Sheehy report in the early 1990s. Some of the suggestions in Winsor's reports are simply Sheehy re-heated and served on a nice plate.

Oh, by the way, Policing Minister Nick Herbert, and the Minister for Government Incompetence Theresa May, will tell you that this report by Tom Winsor was "independent". Read Cameron's speech from 2006, and decide for yourself how independent it is.