UKC

twitter @righttoprotest

will help to keep you up to date on what is happening in fair Albion these days.

Mitch

In reply to paul mitchell:

Will this help if someone breaks into my house? Do I call them or a copper on 26k a year?

In reply to Knitted Simian:

26k a year?

In reply to An Triubhas:

Proby, beat copper is about 30k

In reply to Knitted Simian:

right ok! do you know this, guessing or relying on word of mouth?

In reply to An Triubhas:

Chicken bones

In reply to Knitted Simian:

Starting at 19K I believe. Not that they are taking many on at the moment.
Prequalifications now seem to involve some policing degree and usually time as a special.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21027176

To the OP:
Yeah right on stick it to the man. Liberte egalite fraternite etc etc...

In reply to off-duty:

Less than a teacher

In reply to Knitted Simian: I'd ******* hope so too

In reply to Donnie:

Put that on a little laminated card sweetness, and when you are getting a kicking you can pull it out as a plod steps in to help at his or her expense.

Why should a copper be paid less than a teacher

In reply to Knitted Simian

Do teachers spend longer training to become one? 2 years of A-level, 3 years of Degree (minimum), 1 year of PGCE and a final probationary year before you get QTS. 7 years. I don't know what it takes to become a police officer.

In reply to Daniel Duerden:

A lot of balls if you ask me. Thought about joining the force when I came out of Uni cos there were no jobs around. when I see the way the cops are treated by the general public I'm glad I manged to get into IT. A lot safer too.
(disclaimer - 30 odd years down the line I wish I'd taken up the mechanics apprenticeship the job centre offered me at 16)

In reply to Daniel Duerden:

Ignoring the fact A levels don't constitute 'training', (why not get O levels in there as well?), that sounds very similar to what you'd need to become a copper or nurse nowadays.
Both pay less than teaching, involve shift work and they have to deal with the less desirable members of society on a regular basis, (although some teaching posts are as bad).

IMHO what the job involves should be the main criteria of what it pays, not how long is spent in 'training'.

In reply to Ridge:


I don't mean to come across all Postmanpat, but I think the usual criteria for what a job pays is the amount needed to pay someone to do it. So jobs that people want to do for reasons other than the money tend to have lower salaries than jobs that require the same or lower levels of skill and commitment but are soulless and contribute nothing to society. People will always want to be teachers and nurses because they are respected professions that make tangible contributions to society, and so give some positive sense of identity and self-esteem - and could even offer some job satisfaction as reward. On the other hand, if you work in insurance with a high degree of skill, the only thing on offer is the money, so it has to be higher to attract people skilled enough to do the job properly.

Doctors get a particularly good deal, as they get the do-gooders' rewards, plus a fat paycheque. I guess if they weren't paid so well, those people have enough brains and work ethic to do a lot of other stuff if they wanted so the money is needed to draw them in.

In reply to Ridge: in that case consultant psychiatrists would be on much less

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Cue a litany of whining from various professional groups who think they are getting a raw deal. I have G.P. mate who was furious that the plumber doing his central heating for cash one weekend was on a better hourly rate than himself....



D

In reply to Dauphin:
"....for cash..." Do you mean off the books?
If yes then you GP friend is complicit in tax evasion, which is a criminal offence. Not sure about GPs but that type of offence would be good enough to get a financial services worker the sack.
Perhaps an over/under paid police person should arrest them...?

In reply to Knitted Simian:

Because salaries tend to be done based on the market. So if you can get a sufficiently good police officer starting at £19K, and you can't get a teacher for that, you have to pay more for the teacher.

I reckon I'd rather be a policeman than a teacher, personally, on balance.

Neil

In reply to hexcentric:


Why is paying a plumber in cash any more illegal than paying for a mars bar in cash? It is not a customer's job to ensure that the plumber pays the required tax.

In reply to paul mitchell: My only problem with Police pay is the ability for them to get such silly extras and overtime, we've all seen the stories in the media of compensation for not having en suite rooms and the like. Why cant we pay them like we pay our soldiers. Can you imagine the fiasco they would have created had the police had to step in instead of the army for olympic security last summer.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

I'd say that in the context of the original post "for cash" implies non payment of VAT. Why even use the term otherwise?

In reply to Totally-Normal:

They did step in.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/16/police-forces-olympic-security-g4s

In reply to Totally-Normal:

We have seen lots of stories in the media, normally on the extreme end of the scale. Because they are police and not soldiers? If they wanted to be treated like police and soldiers they would have become military police. The police didn't have the numbers to step in to cover all of the security for the olympics.

In reply to graeme jackson:

Agreed. Imo the Police don't get enough respect from the public. They arent given enough powers either. We need changes in the law to make it easier for them to do something about people whom they know are guilty of something but currently can't touch. Chavs and other scumbags.

In reply to off-duty: I stand corrected, I guess I'm more thinking about the kind of conditions endured by the troops and what the police would have been paid if they had been in the same situation. Dont get me wrong its probably a minority of cases but seems to me like many get overtime for just doing their jobs. The army are available 24 hours a day for no extra pay. I'm sure many will be on to tell me how its different by reading articles like this its hard http://tinyurl.com/6vmhz62 to really feel much sympathy for the police working extra hours.

In reply to Totally-Normal:

Silly extras? I haven't had a penny of overtime authorised for over 6 months. I'm meant to be able to take the time owing back when I want, but because there's so bloody few of us, I can't!!!!!!!!!!

In reply to Ridge:


Maybe it does, but it still is not the customer's job to ensure that VAT is paid. Now, if the plumber had said "I'll give a discount for cash since I then don't have to put it through the books and pay VAT" then the customer could be complicit, but if the plumber just says: "I'll give a discount for cash" then I don't see why the customer is at fault.

In reply to Totally-Normal:

But we aren't troops and are conditions of employments are very different. If you want us to change to 24 hour employment and barracks accommodation - then I suspect a)You will have to pay a substantially higher salary and b)it wouldn't really be compatible with what the police actually do.

Dont get me wrong its probably a minority of cases but seems to me like many get overtime for just doing their jobs. The army are available 24 hours a day for no extra pay. I'm sure many will be on to tell me how its different by reading articles like this its hard http://tinyurl.com/6vmhz62 to really feel much sympathy for the police working extra hours.


I believe the officer in the centre of this story was a close-protection sergeant - by the nature of their deployments long shifts and periods away from home are the norm. As you say this sort of overtime occurs in the minority of cases. As the article you linked to indicates it is based on less than 100 officers out of a force of 40,000 - who are in a specialist role.
Is there an argument for turning that role over to the military? Possibly.
Should those overtime figures be taken as in anyway typical? No.

In reply to Totally-Normal: I like your thinking, if you compel all public servants (nurses, firemen etc.) to work overtime for no extra pay you might make a dent in the deficit.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Yes, because they are all responsible for it……


The Police have a rough deal. I was disgusted with what I saw today in Blackpool. I was on the seafront and saw a man and a woman having an almighty domestic - in front of loads of kids without a care in the world.

Suddenly, the woman smacked the guy in the head and it all kicked off. There was a massive brawl and someone called the Police.

Poor Copper turned up single crewed and had to draw his baton. During the fight the guy managed to snatch the baton off him and began assaulting the Cop AND his wife with it.
Then this crocodile snuck up and stole all the sausages!

In reply to Paul F:

Damn you!

In reply to paul mitchell:
Hooked me too! Best post in years!

In reply to Paul F:
>
>

Is that bullshit?

In reply to PopShot:

No swearing please. Only one thing worse than a druggie is someone so debase as to swear on a forum. Do that again and you will be reported.

In reply to David Martin: I'm sorry for that chap, little lapse of attention there!

In reply to David Martin:

You sanctimonious little bootlick, I look forward to you reporting all swearing you repulsive little creep.

Is that ok? No swearing.

In reply to PopShot:


Must be all that marijuana you keep injecting, it's addling your brain. Bloody communist.

In reply to TryfAndy:
>

Hahaha! Very good! You obviously know my views on Communism/Socialism and Drugs.

In reply to paul mitchell:


Come back and tell us when you've signed up to;
twitter@righttobehave

In reply to stroppygob:
>

Is that a pro-Police group? If so I'm going to sign up to it

In reply to PopShot: Bump. Wanna know about the Twitter group.

In reply to paul mitchell:

Nobody will come close to eradicating improper conduct in a police force unless there is an independent prosecution authority with balls.

I am not sure that we have that anywhere in the UK at the moment. The CPS certainly does not seem to fulfill that role in E & W. The COPFS should be able to fulfill that role in Scotland but unfortunately they've gone off the rails in recent times. First, the need to lick the FBI 4r5es at Camp Zeist, and more recently the dumbing down that has taken place in the name of standards and ECHR compliance, have taken the Crown Office in some strange directions.

In reply to Jim Fraser:


You can't "eradicate" improper conduct unless you can change human nature. The police will always reflect society. Hopefully we can minimise it though.
It's always going to be a struggle, largely because each bad example is taken to be reflective of a greater malaise and also due to the "great" press that is guaranteed from spinning a story into an allegation of police corruption.

I'm not sure that the CPS can be blamed for failing to achieve guilty verdicts - when the "facts" as reported get exposed to the scrutiny of a courtroom, the story is often not quite as straightforward as a tabloid cliche would like us to believe.

As for the "dumbing down" in aid of the EHCR - that's what happens when you sign up to a defined set of human rights. The loss of the ability to detain and interview without a lawyer is a sad blow though...

In reply to off-duty:
>
>



Indeed. I imagine these scrotes have their social worker in on it too. IMO the police don't have nearly enough powers.