Skip to main content

Pay restraint

I've just come across this story about plans to cut police pay.

It seems to me that the Government needs to think about what is important to the people and therefore what is important to it.

If I am in dire fiscal straits then I must consider whether I pay off my bills in any particular order.  I could pay all my credit cards and over draft off first while ignoring my mortgage.  The end result might be that I end up with no debt quickly because my personal debts are covered and the bank takes my house away to pay off the mortgage I owe them.  But, the problem is that I am now homeless.  A better solution seems to be to decide what is important to me.  Maybe it is better that I pay my debts slowly but have somewhere to live at the end of it.

This is the same problem as the Government faces.  Does it slash all public spending to the bone, pay all the debts but risk leaving the country in an appalling state at the end of it?  Or does it have a realistic look at what is important to the country, ensure that those important services are looked after and then pay off the debts over a longer period of time?

If the Government wants to cut police pay (either in real terms or literally) then they may find it is harder to recruit.  London and BTP officers are quite well paid, but outside of London and the pay is pretty piss poor from what I am told.

For what it's worth, I happen to think that the police, like the fire brigade and some people in the NHS (sorry but I cannot accept that all the managers and non-medical staff are necessary) are important to this country and that the Government should not destroy those services now to save a few pennies.

This is what they call a penny wise, pound foolish.

Comments

  1. For what it is worth I agree. However this government is not that much different from the last and certainly no more competent so we are both probably asking for a miracle.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Defense Brief , yet again you show yourself to be something special in the volatile polarized world of blogging.

    I consider you ( legal aid folk) to be public servants too and i see your cuts to be equally as harmful as those made upon the police. I do remember the days of brief remaining at the police station for 8 hours which i'm glad to say are gone. But I'm SICK of under qualified legal reps giving poor advice such as blanket no comment for offences that are suitable for a caution ( with overwhelming evidence). The offender losses. The taxpayer looses but the legal rep is too stupid to get it.

    The truth is ALL police officers will be desperate for a defense brief when an allegation is made allegation them. And I will dig into the savings to ensure that I'm advised by a real solicitor rather than a legal rep. I think it's unfair that those without savings cannot access this.

    Keep calm and carry on. You have my support.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I may be wrong, and I'm sure I'll be told if I am, but isn't it their bonuses that are beng scrapped? Why are police paid a bonus for doing their job? There is a wailing and gnashing of teeth over the payment of bonuses to bankers, so why are public sector bonuses accepted so readily? Their bonus is my council tax bill. And I don't accept the myth of poor pay, I am a public sector worker.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Old Codger, I voted for the Liberal half of this lot and am now refusing to speak to my MP (Vince Cable) for fear I'll be arrested when I smack him in the chops for. Have now decided not to bother voting next time around.

    LondonPC, strange as it may sound things have moved on a little with qualifications. When I started out you didn't have to have any qualifications whatsoever and once in custody PACE said you had to be treated as if you were a solicitor!! At least now you have to pass an exam in law and giving advice (even if they are basic levels). You'll be glad to hear that if you ever are arrested your Fed Rep will usually insist that a solicitor rather than a rep attends.

    Anon, I think the plan is to freeze wages causing a reduction in pay in real terms as inflation continues to rise. The bonuses are paid to senior officers for meeting various targets as I understand it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I voted for the real conservatives. Dave's election as leader worried me. I did hope they might do as he said and I certainly believed they could not be worse than the last lot. I wouldn't take bets on that now.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Defence Brief, I think you'll find the rank and file got between £3000 and £5000 per year purely for turning up for work. It was a bonus introduced by NuLabour to try and cut down on sickies.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ched Evans

Before I begin, I will say that at around 4,500 words this is probably the longest blog I’ve ever posted but I think it’s all necessary to set the scene for this case and explain the background that has been largely ignored or airbrushed in the press. Despite its length, I have not attempted to include every little detail of either fact or law but have done my best to provide a balanced picture of the Ched Evans case, what happened and why the courts reached the decisions they did. There has been so much written about the Ched Evans case over the past weekend, much of it based on a very shaky grasp of the facts and law, that I decided I would read up about the case and weigh in (hopefully on a slightly firmer footing than most of the articles I’ve read so far).

Broadly speaking there seem to be three groups who have opinions on the case:
1.Sexual violence groups (including people describing themselves as “radical feminists”) who appear to take the view that the case is awful, the Court o…

How do the police decide whether to charge a suspect?

A question I’m often asked by clients (and in a roundabout way by people arriving at this blog using searches that ask the question in a variety of ways), is “how do the police decide whether to charge or take no further action (NFA)?”
What are the options?
Let’s have a quick think about what options are available to the police at the end of an investigation.
First, they can charge or report you for summons to attend court.  Charging means that you are given police bail and are required to attend court in person.  A summons is an order from the court for you to attend or for you to send a solicitor on your behalf.  In many cases where a person is summonsed, the court will allow you the option of entering a plea by post.
Second, you may be given a caution.  These can be a simple caution, which on the face of it is a warning not to be naughty in future, or it can be a conditional caution.  Conditions could include a requirement to pay for the cost of damage or compensation, etc.  Either…

Bid to prevent defendants knowing who accuses them of a crime

When I read The Trial by Kafka and Nineteen Eighty-Four by Orwell, I took them as warnings of how a bad justice system wrecks lives of those caught up in it. Sadly, some Members of Parliament and the House of Lords seem to view the books more as a guide to how they would like our Criminal Justice System to run. Today, I read of plans to hide the names of accusers and witnesses from defendants in a large number of cases. Victims of sexual offences, such as rape, have had the right to lifelong anonymity for many years now. This means that it is a criminal offence to publish information that will lead to a complainant being identified. A Bill currently being considered by Parliament would extend that anonymity to bar defendants and their lawyers knowing the name of the person accusing them. This would apply not only in sexual offences, as has been reported in the press, but also in violent offences.
The anonymity currently offered to victims of sexual offences is not total, the complainant…