All police to have degrees!

Andy90 said:
I joined the Police in 1987. I had 9 O levels, and 3 A Levels (the grades on these weren't particularly good!). I was 19 and hadn't gone to University.

My parents lived in a Terraced house, still do in fact and I was one of three Brothers, the eldest.

Whilst my parents weren't poor, the weren't awash with money, what you would call honest working class people.

I passed the fitness tests, the written tests, which were basic Mathematics, English comprehension and a few logic tests and then did a 2 day sort of outward bound course. Few more interviews with Special Branch, a Home visit and I got in.

14 Weeks of basic training, 10 weeks in company with a Tutor Constable and then 2 years probation (they can get rid of you at any time very easily) and then I was confirmed in post.

29 years later, I'm coming to the end of my Policing Career and despite not having a Degree, I've not really had any problems comprehending what legislation I need to use or how to apply it.

A Degree cannot teach you common sense, it cannot teach you manners, it cannot teach you how to be respectful or compassionate when required, it cannot give you inner strength to pull through dangerous or awful circumstances.

If this comes to pass the Police will be drawn increasingly from a small proportion of society, barring certain groups who cannot afford to get the degree.

Policing is by consent and Officers should reflect the population they serve.

I'm already seeing the effects of this policy and I can tell you it isn't good.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I've only ever had one friend who was a police officer. He was a good person. I'm no longer in touch with him and I met him through an assault case (I wasn't the victim) and he put a lot of effort into trying to help though ultimately it was without success. I do worry that his idealism wont have survived to the current day.

Everything I've written here has been reasoned surmise, so it's good to get the take of an actual police officer here.
 
Roar87 said:
I don't know why people bother responding to asim, he'll argue 2+2=5 on here, I'm convinced he's an elaborate troll
Click to expand...

Bit hypocritical no? Aren't you the one literally trolling with a post like that?

2+2 is absolute. There's no argument if someone says 2+2=5 then something has already been confirmed, your assumption that absolute mathematical problems are worth arguing about is false. The things I argue for/against are not absolute, that's why I discuss them.
 
Last edited:
Burnsy2023 said:
Just out of curiosity, would you mind going through all the roles you've had and how long you've done each for? No problem if you don't feel comfortable, but I'd be interested in seeing that.
Click to expand...

No problem at all Burnsey,

I started on Foot Patrol, then progressed to response work in cars, then I became a Tutor constable myself with 4 years service! Tutored about 8 Officers, back to response work. In 1998 I did Control Room for five years and then back to response work. in 2003.

In effect I've never wanted to specialise, done shifts for all those years and apart from the spell in the Control Room have been front line uniform all that time.

Any regrets? none whatsoever. Someone needs to have the experience on the ground floor to lead and develop the young in service Officers and we all cannot be Chiefs.

The work I've done has put five or six people inside for life or indeterminate sentences and I have locked up everyone from Drunk and Disorderly to a Murderer at the scene. Not many people, even on CID can claim that one :)

I'll hang my hat up next June happy that I've done my bit for society.
 
Last edited:
Andy90 said:
No problem at all Burnsey,

I started on Foot Patrol, then progressed to response work in cars, then I became a Tutor constable myself with 4 years service! Tutored about 8 Officers, back to response work. In 1998 I did Control Room for five years and then back to response work. in 2003.

In effect I've never wanted to specialise, done shifts for all those years and apart from the spell in the Control Room have been front line uniform all that time.

Any regrets, none whatsoever. Someone needs to have the experience on the ground floor to lead and develop the young in service Officers and we all cannot be Chiefs.
Click to expand...

Thanks. So one of the other things that the CoP have suggested is paying extra for officers with expensive specialist skills such as cyber investigators and armed officers. If that was the case say, 15 years ago, do you think that would have enticed you to specialise, perhaps in an investigative role or something like RPU/ARV?

At the end of the day, we'll always need response officers and experienced ones to tutor others, I don't think that'll ever change. In my view, it's a shame that for many officers, promotion is the only way you can progress in the pay scale, which is silly. Pay should be based on skills and competence like pretty much any other sector - with the caveat, that response policing shouldn't be seen as less valuable or necessarily less skilled.
 
Last edited:
Andy90 said:
No problem at all Burnsey,

I started on Foot Patrol, then progressed to response work in cars, then I became a Tutor constable myself with 4 years service! Tutored about 8 Officers, back to response work. In 1998 I did Control Room for five years and then back to response work. in 2003.

In effect I've never wanted to specialise, done shifts for all those years and apart from the spell in the Control Room have been front line uniform all that time.

Any regrets? none whatsoever. Someone needs to have the experience on the ground floor to lead and develop the young in service Officers and we all cannot be Chiefs.

The work I've done has put five or six people inside for life or indeterminate sentences and I have locked up everyone from Drunk and Disorderly to a Murderer at the scene. Not many people, even on CID can claim that one :)

I'll hang my hat up next June happy that I've done my bit for society.
Click to expand...

Can I ask you what your view is on Community Support Officers? It has always struck me as the government trying to cheap out and (a) save money on having to train and pay for actual police, and (b) a way of compensating for the fact that police, I hear, spend half of their time tied up with paper work these days. But that's always just been my guess. I'd love to know what the general police view on the ever-rising number of people out there with police written on their backs who aren't police. Are they viewed as a blessed help or government doing an end-run around paying money?
 
Although not qualified to have a opinion worth anything on community support officers, think they alleviate the need for as much police to cover an area. Just a hi-viz presence from them seems to keep some people acting stupid in places where there is little threat but has a high population or footfall, like near popular shopping centres or parks where kids tend to just mope about not doing anything illegal but just being rowdy and inconsiderate or littering a little.
 
Paying Officers according to skill sets is and always will be divisive.

Do we want People in the Police who are driven by monetary reward?

Do we reward a Firearms Officer who might attend to 40 incidents a year, with a group of five or six similarly armed Officers more money, than the single crewed response Officer who might attend 40 incidents a week, with no backup?

The problem with Police pay isn't that we have pay bands based on years of service/rank, it is that we pay those incompetent Officers the same amount as those competent ones. We need effective ways to remove Officers of ALL ranks who are just not up to the job.

You asked if I would have been enticed by more pay to move into another role?

Personally no. If was going to move it would be for job satisfaction rather than pay. We're not badly paid at all - even the starting wage is over the National average.
 
h4rm0ny said:
Can I ask you what your view is on Community Support Officers? It has always struck me as the government trying to cheap out and (a) save money on having to train and pay for actual police, and (b) a way of compensating for the fact that police, I hear, spend half of their time tied up with paper work these days. But that's always just been my guess. I'd love to know what the general police view on the ever-rising number of people out there with police written on their backs who aren't police. Are they viewed as a blessed help or government doing an end-run around paying money?
Click to expand...

This is my own view and only based on my experience of my own Force.

PCSO's haven't replaced Officers. They're in addition. Some are funded directly by Parish Councils.

They're actively embedded in the neighbourhood teams. They're used for a myriad of things that really doesn't require a Warranted Police Officer to do.

Collecting CCTV for lower level volume crime, such as Shoplifting
Collecting Found Property
Speed Awareness Campaigns
Smart Water Role Out
Contacting local Community Groups
Panna Football events (we have our own Kit in my Division which we bought for the Local Kids)
Reassurance to victims of low level crimes (PCSO's will be tasked to revisit them rather than a Police Officer)
ASB Hotspot Patrols
Public Events

They do an awful lot. I know it probably differs from area to area and like Police Officers there are good and bad, but I've not met a poor one that I work with.

They're a good source of information too. They know the local kids and youths, they can identify Offenders from CCTV, they get told things by the Community that wouldn't be told to a Police Officer and guess what? They then tell us :)

It allows me on the front line to concentrate on what I should be doing, not collecting things etc.

You are right about Police being tied up in paperwork - every so often the Government announce a crackdown on admin, but then it gradually creeps back. That said Paperwork is important. If you want a good successful conviction you want the admin side of things to be watertight. In a lot of cases acquittals aren't due to a lack of evidence, its down to Solicitors and Barristers exposing shoddy paperwork, cutting corners, not adhering to policies and destroying the credibility of Officers in front of the Court and Jury.
 
Last edited:
asim18 said:
I still remember when I explained drug laws to a police officer once, he was almost in tears when I helped him understand what the law was really for, and how it was simply impossible for it to work. Most officers even today are heavily doctored. They get fed a lot of BS which they're not allowed to question.
Click to expand...

In tears!!! Hahahahaha.
 
My wife has just become a PCSO and they are nothing like cut price PC's. They do a different job mostly, only sometimes they assist PC's for things like scene guarding,events or some operations etc.

Her tutor and the teachers on her course both are normal PCs and they say PCSOs are invaluable to them because of info they can get etc.
 
Drizmod said:
Why would you get a degree and then do a job for 20 odd K a year?
Click to expand...

The starting salary is on par with a lot of graduate entry positions these days, gone are the days of a degree meaning you walk straight into a decent pay packet because every Tom, Dick and Sally has one.
 
I agree, Police should be across from the entire society, I would sooner see Police recruited from rough arse council estates than the middle class fluffy suburbia where this policy is going.

Bring back 1970s policing where you got a minor kick in. Especially if you was a 18yr old upstart.
 
tom_e said:
Do you feel personally victimised by the rules being brought in around female ejactualtion?
Click to expand...
Nice one ;) No, I'm not into squirting videos.

I just like bringing it up again and again because of how much of an absolute joke it is, and people don't seem to be voicing how much of a joke it is PURELY for the reason that they will be thought of as someone who is into such stuff. So well done, well done. :(

People like you are an accessory to such stupid laws. I already explained in the relevant thread how people who question this stupid law will be labelled as supporters. And how this makes the law 100% likely to go through simply because people won't say NO purely for risking being associated with female ejaculation.

So well done, people like you are the reason this country is going to ****. Keep up nonsense like this and at this rate in 100 years if not sooner, everybody will be obliged to wear the burka because showing cleavage will be an unconventional sex act. :(
 
Last edited:
asim18 said:
Nice one ;) No, I'm not into squirting videos.

I just like bringing it up again and again because of how much of an absolute joke it is, and people don't seem to be voicing how much of a joke it is PURELY for the reason that they will be thought of as someone who is into such stuff. So well done, well done. :(

People like you are an accessory to such stupid laws. I already explained in the relevant thread how people who question this stupid law will be labelled as supporters. And how this makes the law 100% likely to go through simply because people won't say NO purely for risking being associated with female ejaculation.

So well done, people like you are the reason this country is going to ****.
Click to expand...

sorry but what has a stupid censorship law thought up by Mrs May got to do with police education requirements.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom