I can also understand why they be reluctant to talk openly on a forum full of other bizzies.
How many are wondering if they say something it will be reported back and they'll be for the off with no redundancy, pension etc?

feather wrote:
Thing is from talking with them and reading their forum, it seems that the higher echelons of the force get it too. I take your point that they aren't gonna come out and say yayyyy let's go burn the banks;) this is why I'm presenting things to them as I am.

It seems they've tried hard to oppose it and have thus failed. It seems they have become defeatist and resigned to it.
My mission is to encourage them to see that solidarity with people beyond the Police force is the only way for them now.
I mentioned anti globalists to them because of the way G8/G20 protests have been policed. I am hoping that with a bit of light shone there, they may question how they will approach such things from now on. And stuff

dubmeup wrote:
I admire your tenacity.

Tom Sawyer, quoting an earlier post of mine.

"View PostNoelBlakesOwnGoals, on 11 June 2012 - 02:30 AM, said:
I really do doubt this stops at back office roles though......In fact I know it wont"

"I have lots of friends in back office jobs due to being assaulted whilst on duty.In most cases the assailant was successfully prosecuted.So do we throw these people on the scrap heap? Why should they lose a single penny in wages or pension because of criminal acts against them?
This is one of the main things Winsor wants to happen.Put it into perspective David Rathband would have been one of the first to go in reduced circumsatnces had he survived.

I think those who choose back room roles early in their service and the system that allows them to achieve them is flawed.You join up to be a cop then thats what you should be expected to do.But if circumstances change through no fault of your own then you should be looked after."


Me:

"Thanks for the input Tom,

You may have spotted that I'm not an expert on the inner workings of the Police Service. My post was meant to mean that I don't think privatisation will stop at backroom jobs. I think they are gunning for the lot of you in the mid/long term. Just as they will be/are in every other area of public service.

I agree with you, why should someone who has been hurt in the line of duty, suffer a blow to their finances/pension?
The same could be said of injured Military veterans and look how they are treated when they get back? Someone had to set up a charity to help them pay for medical care etc for pity's sakes. It's a disgrace.

People give their lives to public services. It's far more than just a job. In all too many cases, people literally do give their lives... "

Should I register so we can play 'good anti-cop, bad anti-cop'?

Hahaha tempting innit.......... nah you take on the military

Tom Sawyer

"Well none of the other public sectors is taking such a hammering Winsor has massive ramifications to our pay and conditions of service.It's the same with Hutton and the pensions.
The problem is there is no real public support for us and we are taken for granted.
Having read around various newspapers who have reported on the proposed changes and the vitriolic comments after the main story.
Then my none police colleagues by and large think alot of what Winsor is proposing is fair enough.Its a very depressing scenario.I can recall similar moves in 1993 when the Sheehy report was proposed.Then though we were a united front.The team I was on had barely changed in personnel in the six years I had been on it at that time.So even the supervision would have worked to rule.Now there is no solidarity.Alot of the cops have no concept of what is about to hit us or think the federation will bat it all off to the boundaries no harm done.

Typical example I work in the same role as someone with 6.5 years service 3.5 in our role we do need to use police powers occasionally but a simple change in law or procedure could change this.So she would in theory drop to pay point 4 should she stay in role a loss of 6.5 k per year then with the abolition of competency related payments ( used as bribes to get people to do unpopular jobs in some cases.) So a paycut of 7.5 grand a year as it stands.However our role will go and she will be placed back front line probably NPT working alot of evening shifts and weekends and have the nightmare again of being shafted around with her hours and days off being cancelled.Then expected to do a fitness test and knowledge check every year.The former wouldn't be a problem at the moment but bearing in mind the PSNI test is being introduced ( as things stand) in 2018 where my colleague will 58 years old with another one to do when she is 59 or face severance from the job.
Thats just one example I have related to one person who I happen to know.

If you were under 45 on 01.04.12 or over 45 with more than 10 years to serve on that date you are basically knackered unless you really want to back a street cop on unsocial hours until you are 60 years old.
The pension is becomming less important to people so as is already happening people join for a few years and leave.

People who join up now are looking to escape the mundane drudgery of earlies lates and nights on to squads or whatever Gucci jobs they can find after as little as two years.... finally getting out of uniform !!!

Once they start recruiting again and people realise the job is more or less a total disappointment despite in alot of cases being a childhood dream and their long term future is beat work.The resignations will come thick and fast.Hard to convey on a recruitment /somewhat newbie site I admit but in 5 years time it will all have happened "

Me:

"I worked with a chap that'd recently left the service last year. He had plenty to say about the sort of things you talked of there Tom. He said that the service bears no resemblance to the one he signed up for and that there was far less camaraderie. Would it be fair to say that this is by design?

I'm certainly detecting a lot of awareness and dissatisfaction here! I'm also detecting a lot of resignation. This can't be good. It's something that I see in the other areas too.

The simple facts as I see it are that we are all being done over by greedy people with little or no concern for the plight of the people. The vast majority of us are having stress after stress piled up on us. We can all see that such things as "The Global Economic Downturn" are manufactured. There's no real reason why such a thing should be happening. It's all imaginary numbers on computer screens. But yet those numbers are really hurting people. Where did all the wealth go? There's just as much raw material as there was 10 years ago, just as many willing workers, just as much land etc. My view is that we are all victims of what I'd say was a crime. Albeit not the sort of crime that you boys and gals can take to task. The people that are perpetrating this stuff are so powerful that they're effectively above the law. Every now and then a scapegoat gets thrown out to make it look like there is accountability.

The fact you say that there isn't unity within the service is pretty concerning Tom. The cold hard facts are plain to see for all. I see unity as being our best chance at this stage as I've said before in this thread so I'd urge you all to consider that in your discussions with each other. It's not like we all have to agree on everything! Just the important bits. Like if we are going to let ourselves be walked all over by people who are laughing at us..... "

Me:

"Further to the above and with reference to Tom's comment on people signing up for the force, doing a couple of years and then heading off to "Gucci" jobs.

This is something that the chap I mentioned talked of also. It is also something that was brought up in my conversations after the accident I referred to. It really is a sign of how bad things are isn't it. That for whatever reason, people see the Police as a stepping stone to an altogether "better" career. I'm not pointing the finger at them, rather the state that the world has gotten in to that makes that the preferred option. On the G4S recruitment website, often they ask for Policing experience. The packages offered are good. Very attractive to those who've been raised I'm afraid to say, post Thatcher.

I'd suggest that this is all part of the plan. We're looking at a steady and continuous reshaping of society. One not being driven by the people but by those that have control of policy making, the media, education, economy and resources. I grew up in an age where the extended family was still the norm. Now we live in an atomised age, we've been strongly encouraged to take that path. The path to the age of the ASBO and the Chav. A totally disenfranchised generation. I can understand why the youth of today may have a bit of a chip on their shoulder... "

I think I was blathering on a bit there. Maybe time to sit back and let them digest for a while.

Ok, I sat back for the best part of a day. The post views have risen but they all went silent on me so, lets's get things a bit more um controversial

"Ok, things have gone a little quiet in the conversation.
With that in mind I'd like to throw in a little story that may possibly illustrate one aspect of the process taking place that I think is crucial to what we are discussing.
This IS contentious, I appreciate that. Before I recant the tale I'll state that I bear no grudge, am not trying to point fingers or score points. I tell this tale with all due respect to the wishes expressed by Anna32 and myself, early in this thread. It is just an illustration of an aspect of the control system that I think may well cause us all trouble if we don't consider it:

I have already mentioned that I campaigned against the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill of 1994. I perceived large sections of it to be a political tool that was aimed at restricting the right of protest.
This led me that Autumn on the evening that the Bill went through the House of Parliament, to be stood outside the Lobby of Parliament with around 200 others, waiting patiently for the doors to open. So that I could exercise my Democratic right to lobby my MP. My MP at the time was one Tony Banks, Labour MP for Newham North West. The right to do so is enshrined in British Democracy and used daily.
Obviously due to the nature of the Bill and the fears of the government, there was a fairly heavy Police presence that night. As my girlfriend and myself queued patiently, we got talking to a policeman who was literally stood right next to us. The whole conversation took place over around two hours. It was amiable, respectful and constructive. The three of us found we were largely in agreement that the bill was bad law. The Policeman asserted that he felt it would create unnecessary work for the Service and that it was targeting political dissent rather than dealing with criminality.
About 100 yards to the right of the door, a small group of around 50 had gathered. It seems their intent was not to lobby but to gain entry to the grounds of Parliament through a gate, the name of which escapes me now. They were completely separate from the lobbyists and there were a large number of police between us and them. A scuffle did break out over by that gate and I believe arrests were made. As I say this was well away from us who were there with legitimate aim to lobby.
Suddenly radios started chattering and it seems that an order was given (I know not where from) to disperse the lobbyists. Democracy was effectively suspended and we would not be granted access to our MPs. The very next thing that happened was the policeman we'd been talking to thwacked my girlfriend over the head with his shield. He then proceeded to thwack my head with a stick. We were then chased across Westminster Bridge by far more Policemen than there were lobbyists. It was incredibly frightening. What put an end to it was when a pub landlord somewhere south of the Bridge ushered us in and locked the door behind us. We then sat in the bar and watched the ten o'clock news. The news report announced that there had been an attempted riot at Parliament and that the Police Service had had to be deployed to protect the Democratic passing of the Bill.......

Now can you see what I am getting at there? The Police Service on that night was used as a political tool. The whipping boy of those that sought to restrict dissent. Nearly 20years later, things have moved on to a level far beyond the Criminal Justice Bill of 1994.

We are now standing on the brink of what I can see may well be a very troubled time. The planned Economic meltdown, Global Corporatization. Hysteria about terrorism etc. All of these things are likely to see people in large numbers out on the streets. 20,000 of yourselves did it recently. I would like to understand what the Police Service's view is on how that will be dealt with, in the light of what I just posted. And I am not referring to dealing with rioters. "

Simon T

"Dont really understand what you mean. The police services view on future demonstrations? The same as they are now. We go, we keep the peace, we book off 12 hours later and do the same again the next day. "


Me:

"With all due respect, did you really read my post Simon. In the tale I told, where was the breach of the peace in my exercising a fundamental democratic right to patiently wait to lobby my MP?

It's a rhetorical question of course. There was none. What occurred was the undemocratic politicization of the Police service. Something which from reading a bit on here, many members of the service also have concerns about. In fact some of the concern on here is pretty vocal!

At some point in the near future, protests against all this stuff are going to rise. Given the points I think we all agree on, Ie that the media/corporations/government are all essentially the same thing pushing the same profit based plan, I can see the Police Service being increasingly called upon to quash legitimate peaceful dissent of that plan. As in what happened that night in 1994. That is the point I'm seeking discussion about in this little chapter.

I'm glad you took my post in the spirit of discussion "

Anyone spotted a trend of me repeatedly using certain key words/phrases?

So far no-one has shouted those phrases down.......

EDIT: I bloody well wish they'd let me edit posts. They come out as a train of thought, my lappy keyboard has about a teenth wedged under the keys and it all adds up to some terrible grammar that I'd desperately like to correct....

Ooops, the moderators are on my arse

Anna32

"OK. I'm allowing some discussion of protest as it does relate to the Winsor report and political influence on policing/ political dissent. If anyone wants to discuss tactics in policing riots or protests in general, please take it to one of the other dedicated threads. :thumbsup:

(I'll see how it goes for now, but if we end up with two different discussions going at once I'll do a thread split so we can focus on one at at time without getting confused.)"


Simon T

"i have done many many protests, some peaceful and some not. Im not aware of oppressing anyone. With winsor and all the other cuts and shafts we have comming i see several issues:
Less officers in general, less able to cover demo's and normal duty. Reliance on specials up, workload up on public order and non public order officers.
if we get injured we skate closer to being sacked so why should we do public order as much as we do now or answer the phone for that crucial call to sit in a van on a rest day
People are going to be more angry about the cuts and that usually equates to chucking stuff at us or chucking stuff at buildings so even more abstractions and public order with less staff than needed. This frequently leads to greater use of force being required to meet the same objectives. Of course if people demonstrate peacefully there should be no issue, but it rarely happens that way.

As for being politically led, we are being told what to do by the home secretary (though she is mostly ignored) the HIMC, ACPO, police associations and the soon to be forced in and highly political PCC's. So, it would seem we are stuffed, but we are being politically led in about 7 different directions, so it generally becomes background noise while we do our job.

But no one seems too fussed, mainly because we are knuckle dragging over paid thugs hell bent on sticking on motorists and beating up people because they looked at us. So we will keep on doing our best, failing everyone and then turn the light off when the country falls to pieces.

But that doesnt mean we oppress. Every action and decision of public order officers is recorded, filmed and recorded again. ordering a baton charge without cause would totally stuff any officer who did it, everyone who got hit would get compo, officers would be stuck on, suspended and done for assault, It would be a media frenzy. "


Me:

"@Anna32.

I hope you can see that it's not actually protest policing I was seeking to discuss. Rather the political use of the Police Service on occasion. Occasion that more often than not involves the very subjects we are discussing here. Ie, Global Corporatization etc. I bring it up because it would seem relevant considering that the Police Service itself is now in the early stages of Corporatization. I also felt it relevant considering that Politicization of the Police Service is something that I know you have all strongly objected to. As I keep saying, all of these decisions that are now affecting you boys and gals are made by the same people that many many others regularly protest against. It's a kind of circle if you see what I mean.
In a way you are being asked on numerous occasions to step in to 'defend' the same policies that are now affecting yourselves. Kind of like being asked to keep kicking your own backside. It's just how I see it......

@Simon
Please don't think I am suggesting you oppress anyone.
My attention is drawn to your comment that the policies we are talking of, lead to less police at protests which leads to a greater use of force for the same return. Which in turn leads to a more negative perception of the police by the protesters and those that see videos on you tube. Do you see the pattern? Again, I suggest that this is all by design. That very scenario will have been gone over in rooms that you and I will never even know the location of. It is a divisive policy designed to put a big wedge between yourselves and the people.

Being Politically led in any direction would seem contrary to what I perceive the Police Service was set up for. Namely to protect and serve the people, not the politicians. I'm sure none of us are surprised that the politicians who are in this Corporate takeover up to their necks would choose to see it otherwise....How bloody dare they is my take on it! They're supposed to serve all of US not some offshore tycoons!

You touched on the media and again I say that the media is intrinsically inseparable from the plan. Follow the money trail of media ownership and it leads to the same tycoons I am talking about. Again, all bases would seem to be covered. If the media wants the public to think the Police are thugs, they'll offer some footage, if the media wants us to think the protesters are thugs, they'll offer some footage. Having been there, you and I know the truth of it.

This is all about divide and rule and nothing to do with the lives of you or I or the chavs or the granny down the road. It's a concerted, well thought out plan to usher in a Global Corporate State. I'm beginning to think that you boys and gals can see that too... "

I can now edit posts over there!!!! Yay

I bet MI6 are loving this hahahahahahaha Oi!!! State Fekkers!!! Fek orf!!!! I'll have the plod on our side within a week hahaha. Then we're all coming to nick you! Ummm maybe And Oi!!! Icke!! Jones!! All of you fear mongers!! Stop talking divisive shite and start actually trying to foster some unity!!!

Top thread, brother dub.

Anna32

"Quote
"I hope you can see that it's not actually protest policing I was seeking to discuss."

I know, but it's one of those topics that always seems to grab hold of a thread anyway. Just establishing some ground rules early on!

As for the rest, I can see where you're coming from to an extent, although personally I think it's a lot less organised than many people claim. IMO it's just a lot of different people acting in shortsighted self interest, rather than an organised global anything.

Police politicisation is a lot older than the current changes, and it's related to but separate from the privatisation issue. Ever since politicians discovered that they could win votes by being Tough On Crime/ ASB/ dictating police targets and interior workings, so, for 20 years or so? From what I've seen, worrying about the police enforcing state tyranny is a slightly misguided fear (protests are far too well regulated and far too high profile); the real issue is police management chasing weekly fads and putting statistics above providing a decent service.

As for privatisation- well, the private sector is already involved in policing (some support functions most people don't really think about), and sometimes it can work well. However, I have huge reservations about this latest scheme- it's not just the usual issues of corporate interference and accountability, it's that I can see it being an expensive and badly organised disaster. (There is also a very fuzzy line between back office and not back office, and operational and non operational; let's say that all the assurances are true and the private sector does not get involved in 'operational front line roles'. OK, so if a security guard is guarding a crime scene (one of those 'tasks that waste police officers' time...) and someone tries to enter and disrupt evidence, can they stop them or not? And even back office roles can have access to sensitive records of victims/ suspects. There are a lot of easy soundbites being spread around, but I'm not particularly impressed by what I've heard so far.

And then we have all the Winsor recommendations about changing the structure of policing, and then we have all the proposed changes to pay and conditions. And then we have the incoming police and crime commissioners as well, which might change half of this stuff in six months but might not. Interesting times! :whistle2: "

Will have to reply to that later. There's something to work with there

*Please excuse the change in posting style. I am trying to make the posts more readable*

May I suggest you have a brief perusal of this article which kind of backs up what I'm saying about these corporations?

www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354....-runs-the-world.html

There is quite an extensive amount of information from very credible and respected sources that says the same thing. That there exists a super connected network of trans-national corporations that have literally spread across the planet. That seemingly separate companies are in fact merely the same corporations acting under different names. it's not conspiracy, it's vaguely well hidden fact.

The prime responsibility of a for profit corporation is to it's stock holders of course. Not Nation States or people. This is why they don't bat an eye at registering in one or more of the 24 tax havens spread around the globe. It's all about the money. And then look at the money. Who owns G4s for example? I'm sure you've all looked into that already. The principal shareholders are investment funds and investment banks. Corporations tied into the super connected transnational corporation network.....G4S is listed as the biggest employer on the UK Stock Exchange, it's turnover in 2011 being £7.5 billion with a profit of £531 million. That turnover alone buys it quite a lot of lobbying power. Then think about the next step up the ladder, as in the Prudential etc, how much lobbying power would they have? I wonder if the government would ask you to "disperse the lobbyists" when they are waiting patiently outside Parliament :wink:

At this point I could link to a New Statesman article that shows who owns 13 of the 24 global tax havens but I feel it may completely derail the thread, so I won't.

*For SZers I didn't post this link at the Police Forum.....Yet.... www.newstatesman.com/global-issues/2011/...ueen-world-australia *

It's sufficient for us to concentrate on the corporate lobbyists at this stage. At this time it is they that are pushing governmental policy, across the World. The Sovereign Nations have become rather less sovereign as a result. Our politicians are "sucking the corporate teet". Ref my previous comment about the revolving door between banking and government in the USA, also such characters as one Tony Blair. A man who left number 10 and took up 'advisory' roles for those seeking to make investments and whom now it seems seeks a return to British politics...Yes you are being given zig zagging targets and objectives at the whims of the politicians who in turn are given direction on policy by the lobbyists of the Global Corporations...

Yes I agree, even if the private sector roles are kept away from "operational front line roles", I too can see serious problems such as those you outline.
How much do the serving Policemen and Women think they have been/ will be listened to in this process? Have your ideas/concerns been taken seriously or do you feel that this plan is just being ushered in regardless of your body of experience?

*now standing at 296 views on the Police Forum*

Quiet night over there so I'll just keep banging the nail I guess.

"Here's an article quoting a speech given at the University of East London in the lead up to the last General Election by the now Prime Minister:

www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/feb/08/...t-corporate-lobbying

And here is the relevant section of that speech:

liberalengland.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/da...ate-lobbying-we.html

So Mr Cameron was under no illusion as to the damaging effects of corporate lobbying and was pledging to get tough on it should the Conservatives win the election.

What has he done about it since taking up his tied accommodation in Downing Street? Um, well not a lot really has he, except get embroiled in a huge and ongoing scandal about the ties between his government and the corporate/lobbying world. The Leveson inquiry is revealing far more than a bit of phone hacking by News International shall I say...
Don't get me wrong, I'm not party political. This is not an 'attack' on Cameron or the Conservative party per se. I could just as easily turn the spotlight on the previous government. I'm just trying to make the point clear. Government is effectively acting for the trans-nationals. That's what's driving an awful lot of the policies we have been seeing rolled out. And that situation is set to continue and degenerate. Though governments don't really like admitting it do they...."

And I thought I was a pain in the arse!

I've just read through this thread to try and remind myself of the things that have been brought up and the things that really should be. Strangely, it doesn't look like I've mentioned "State tyranny" anywhere on UKPoliceOnline. But yet Anna has brought it up with regards to my post about 1994.
I did bring up "The State" at the BBC, prior to taking the discussion to the "Lion's den". I've also not exactly hidden my views on The State in (numerous ) other online platforms. So perhaps, someone is doing a bit of background homework on me?. Or perhaps there's another reason Anna used the term?

dubmeup wrote:



She's the mole!

oioioi wrote:
Anna is I-Am

dubmeup wrote:
If it wasn't for those pesky DIF mods....