Why Bother?


Why bother?

I have lost track of the amount of times I have heard this said lately. I go into one of my customary rants regarding the way the government are treating the Police and people’s eyes glaze over. “why bother?” they ask. “the government aren’t going to back down.” they say. There are so many people acting like we are wasting our time even bothering. Perhaps the most infuriating thing is the fact that so many of them are those who are young in service. The very people who should still be up for the fight. The people who stand to lose the most if the government force through the proposed changes to our terms and conditions.

A common question is “what are the fed doing about it?” well, as many know, I don’t make excuses for the Fed, or defend them where it’s not warranted, but the thing is they are doing plenty. They arranged the very successful march in London. 35’000 people marched. The transport and expenses of a large number of these was paid for by the Fed. They have made representations to government. They have sent out program letters to send to MP’s. They have sent open letters and held press conferences and they showed their disapproval at conference.

Our problem is not the Fed. It’s apathy. 35’000 people turned up for the march. Such a huge number. Certainly the majority of off duty officers in the country. As well as many non Police supporters. Families, friends, support staff and just people who dislike the changes being forced through with no mandate by this government. Yet, despite this huge number of people, at the time of writing this, only 18’000 people have signed the Epetition to reject Winsor 2.

18’000 out of an organisation with 135’000 members. This government must be absolutely over the moon. We are proving them right. They can almost legitimately say that there are135’000 of us yet only 18’000 reject the report! It’s embarrassing. I have yet to speak to a Police officer who approves of the Winsor report. Yet only 13% of our number can be bothered to give up 2 minutes of their time to sign an epetition!

Some federations have circulated the Epetition. But, amazingly, some federations have not even emailed their members asking them to sign. It has not been officially circulated. We are talking about a ballot on the right to strike yet we haven’t even been able to sign an Epetition.

Now I know it is not the best written Epetition. I realise that there are some who may feel that it would be better if there was a better worded version. But the fact is that the website does not allow more than one Epetition supporting the same proposal. Like it or not this is the Epetition that got started. It has 18’000 signatures already attached. It is the closest thing we have. I don’t think for a second that this government will see that we have 100’000 signatures and just decide to scrap the whole thing. That will not happen.

But, when we get the 100’000 signatures, it will be debated in the commons. This is a weak coalition. We have raised some excellent arguments. If it is debated and just a few people dissent the government will be on the Back foot. At the very least it will get publicity. It will show the strength of feeling. It will keep the momentum. We will be able to say to the public when we ballot to strike that we tried everything. That the ballot was a last resort.

I think it has got to the point where trusting people to motivate themselves to sign the Epetition has not worked. We all work in stations with strong characters. We all have shift leaders. People who can get things done. We need to be raising this amongst ourselves. Asking our colleagues if they’ve signed. If not we need to be asking them why they are letting their colleagues down. If they disagree and they think Winsor is great then fine. I’d be surprised but everybody is entitled to their opinion. But we need to shake up the apathetic. Furthermore we need to be asking friends, neighbours, family to sign. If they don’t have a computer let them use your smartphone. Have a word with your Fed rep. If your Fed aren’t officially circulating it then ask them why not.

We are fighting to save the job. The rank of constable and the future of Policing in this country. Please stop waiting for somebody to take the lead. Be that person. Have a word. Ask colleagues. Give them a push. Be as annoying as me. Let’s get it signed.





Enough is Enough ! – Police march in London – the video

Video footage and audio clips are a mixture of mine, other marchers, TV news pieces and PolFed commissioned film. Let us know what you think.

Like the music ? then buy it Smile

Enjoy ! – Constable Chaos

Bravo Bravo Mr Paul McKeever


At conference today it was like an Amir Khan boxing match. Suspense and action from round 1. Mr Paul McKeever today single handedly destroyed Theresa Mays police reform agenda with a no notes no nonsense speech that shook the Home Secretary’s bones to her foundations.

No other police officer has ever managed to upset a govt. train in this way. Speaking from the heart as he so often does Mr McKeever engaged his colleagues; but his biggest win is that he has now got the media channels on side. And this means only one thing; the public will finally begin to hear and read more and more about how police cuts of 20% will affect crime patterns and police service.

Whilst this was Mr Mckeevers finest 40 minutes the Home Secretary suffered a very damaging career blow. She was visibly shaking through her whole address and her mispronunciation of some of the names of officers who had fallen was just one sign of her unease. Her NVC’s disturbingly obvious. Her voice shaky throughout her speech.

And though she glared at those that dare challenge her during her speaking her script writer will soon realise that one cannot continue to fool the public. Hers was an incompetent “off the mark” speech. Mrs May then dodged questions left right and centre about the equality impact assessment of Winsor, about pensions and young officers, about communities suffering and the creation of a police force for the rich under Winsor. She was ducking and diving by now.

But even whilst sitting down Mr McKeever was able to get one over on the Home Secretary as he asked all the attendees at the conference to raise their hand if they felt Winsor’s work was independent. No one raised their hand. Neither did Mrs May and when Mr McKeever dare quip about this he was soon told off.This was the upper cut we all wanted to see. Oh what a disastrous PR incident for Mrs May. And so came the knock down. Enough was enough as one Rep told The Minister that the police simply no longer trusted her. If looks could kill.  By now her NVC’s leaked contempt.

Mrs May then allegedly left conference at the conclusion of her slot without saying any further words to Mr McKeever; but as she left she left under calls to “resign” from the floor. No other Home Secretary has suffered calls of this nature from honest police officers, not in my lifetime anyway. And I have never seen a person with so much presence “scuttle” away in this manner.

So what we witnessed today was spectacular, justified and required for we all know too well; she says she’s listening, but what she’s really doing is ignoring what we are saying. Bravo. Bravo Mr Paul McKeever and the Police Federation.

Please sign the below link to reject Winsor 2 completely:



Where were the Police when……?

Where were the Police when……..?

As Police officers know, perhaps better than most groups in society, there are a lot of aggrieved people out there. There a lots of groups who want to protest, demonstrate, and cause a commotion to get their point across. There are even groups of people who are professional protesters. They simply drift from one protest camp to another. They flip their beliefs to support any cause that allows them a good old protest. We know because we see it. We Police the protests and, lately at least, we are amongst them in protest.

A lot of these protesters choose not to support us by quoting actions that we have taken in protests they have been involved in. It’s not uncommon, when I’m in the pub, or the gym, talking about recent issues with somebody, for a member of the public to say “now you know how the miners felt” or “where were you when Nurses were protesting” etc. they believe that because we are the people who police these incidents that we were against them. That somehow if they help the government to defeat us by not joining in and supporting us that their lives will be easier.

I have a message for these people. You really need to maintain the independence of the rank of Constable. I will try to explain why. A Constable is a public officer. He or she cannot be made redundant. He or she makes independent decisions based upon the law of the land. They have the right to make decisions based upon the facts and their own judgement. I have been in vans at protests with colleagues who were former Miners. Former union officials. Current and former students. We have some humdinger arguments about the rights and wrongs of the situation. But we still have to do a job. The thing is we have a choice.

The office of Constable gives us the power to challenge orders. To refuse to carry out unlawful orders. The power to use our judgement. We can do so without fear of being sacked or made redundant as long as we use the law correctly. Im not saying we always get it right. There are individual mistakes at times. There are also organisational mistakes at times. I would say that the main thing we get wrong is to not explain why we do things. Most of the time people would support our actions more if they just knew why we were taking them. But the bottom line is no Politician, council officer, or civil servant can ‘make’ a Constable do something unlawful.

Now imagine a privatised force with no Constables. Where a security worker with powers granted is told to baton charge. Somebody who knows they could be made redundant if they don’t follow orders. Imagine if that same person is ‘told’ not to record a crime because his Political paymasters want to record a drop. Imagine if that person is told to arrest somebody because they’re troublesome. Told to target them unnecessarily. They may not want to but they are worried not to as they can’t afford the paycut. Or maybe they are worried that they won’t have their tenure renewed. Would that be better? Would freedom of speech or expression become easier then? Would our country be a better place to live.

This is what the politicians seek to do. This is the Policing model they are trying to create. A model where the Police do their bidding and are powerless to stop them. Ask yourself which Police service you want? Support the independence of the office of Constable before its gone forever. This really will be a case of you don’t know what you have got until its gone.

Play your part. Reject Winsor 2. Sign the Epetition:




Press Appeal – London Riots


I am writing on behalf of our colleagues at the BBC who require our assistance following the #AntiWinsorNetwork Radio 4 interview recently.

Their Current Affairs Team are making two one hour long TV programs into the riots from the Police’s point of view, and this program is to mark one year since the riots.

They will be speaking with rioters about their involvement and would like to have actors talk about the police aspect from the point of view of officers who policed it. As with the Radio 4 program officers will not be identified.

The BBC say “We feel the story of last summer’s riots has never been told from the point of view of the officers who took the brunt of it with such bravery and commitment. We would like to interview police officers of all ranks about their personal experience on the ground, their feelings when faced with the biggest policing challenge of their generation, and their views about how future disturbances might be prevented”.

The programmes are scheduled for transmission in July and they need to begin interviewing people this month to meet this tight deadline.

So I have been tasked with finding some volunteers who would like to be considered to have their story told by actors without risk of being identified.

If you would like to be considered for this TV program send me an email with a summary of your story and why you feel you should be selected. My email address is thedcigenehunt@hotmail.co.uk

I will forward interested peoples stories to our contact and they can decide who they wish to speak to.

Any questions give either @constablechaos (my Proctor) or I a shout, but dont shout too loud or I may throttle you.

Now Carry On!

The Guv

Judges to sue government over pensions


Judges Threaten to sue government!

Taken from :- The London Criminal Courts Solicitors’ Association
Some 400 judges have taken an unprecedented first step towards suing the Government over changes to their pensions that effectively amounts to a pay cut.They have sent a letter to the Lord Chancellor, Kenneth Clarke, warning that if he proceeds with the controversial plans, they will challenge him in the courts.The action by the judges, who have instructed the international law firm Clifford Chance to send the “letter before action”, gives ministers 14 days to respond before legal proceedings are launched.It comes despite efforts by senior judges to negotiate behind the scenes to prevent the dispute escalating into what would be a ground-breaking legal action, pitching the judiciary against ministers.A judge would have to be found who was regarded by all sides as as sufficiently impartial and robust to hear a case brought by his judicial colleagues.This week the Ministry of Justice went ahead with laying regulations that will see judges make a contribution to their own pensions for the first time from April.From April, judges who have not accrued full pensions benefits will pay 1.28% of their salary to fund their pension pot, a sum of around £137 a month for circuit judges in crown courts. The sum will rise in 2012 and 2014.The Ministry of Justice said that the move will reap £7 million of savings to the taxpayer. For a crown court judge on a salary of £128,296 the contributions would amount to £1,642 a year.But judges, who include district judges, High Court costs judges, tribunal and employment judges, are furious that the contracts on which they took up their posts are being changed.They say that the changes are unlawful, unconstitutional — encroaching on judicial independence — and a breach of contract.They say that taken over time, the cut to pay and pension combined could amount to £200,000.Kenneth Clarke said in a written statement to Parliament that the rises in judicial contributions are in line with those for other public service pension schemes, aimed at saving £2.8 billion a year by 2014/15.A Ministry of Justice spokesman added: “These changes will see judges contribute towards their own pension for the first time, creating up to £7 million in savings for taxpayers.“Lord Hutton’s Independent Public Service Pensions Commission has concluded there is a clear rationale for public servants to contribute more towards their pension costs so they remain fair to taxpayers and employees, and affordable for the country — this includes judicial pension schemes.”


Enough said



Who do you think you’re kidding Mr Winsor?

Who do you think you’re kidding Mr Winsor?
So we’ve done the strongly worded letters. We’ve tried to speak to our MP’s. Some with limited success but many have just received draft replies or been ignored. We’ve started & signed petitions. We’ve Emailed,tweeted and posted messages on Facebook. Many things done have received limited attention but the government seem determined to continue with their policy of silencing us, smearing our reputation and pretending it’s not happening. Why?
Well it’s the commonly held opinion of many people affected that the driver for these changes is the PM Mr Cameron. His history and involvement with Sheehy being partial motivation but I suppose there must be more to it than that. I wont speculate. The 2006 speech he made, which has been well circulated, shows that he had an agenda of changing the Police service many years before being elected. 
This is part of the problem that the government face. The, so called, consultation carried out by Mr Winsor does not stand up to independent scrutiny. There is so much evidence that it was not independent. That it was a smokescreen. Political window dressing. 
To demonstrate. Begin with the above mentioned speech made by Cameron in 2006. http://http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2006/jan/16/conservatives.ukcrime The content of this speech was Winsor. Almost in its entirety. It’s been said before but it is worth repeating. Winsor had his conclusion handed to him and had to invent the evidence in support of it. Winsor was put in place by Cameron to give the ‘appearance’ of fairness. To give him deniability. The emergence of this speech undermined that facade. 
Regarding this process of fabricating his evidence. Or, as Winsor calls it, his ‘consultation’. Whilst interviewing Winsor for the House of Commons select committee Keith Vaz described Winsor as a reluctant witness. Winsor admitted that he had been made aware that Officers he had quoted in his consultation were on leave when he claims to have spoken to them. Others did not exist and some categorically denied having made the comments he  attributed to them.  He replied by saying he must have made ‘honest mistakes’ but ‘had not kept minutes’. He ‘had not kept minutes’! Why on earth would somebody conducting such serious research with the resources he had not keep minutes? Oh yes. He didn’t want his deceit to be discovered. For the record he also admitted that he used recording equipment that wasn’t actually very good at picking up what was said! 
It is also worth commenting that the Police Arbitration Tribunal (PAT) described the quality of the data in the Winsor 1 report as “pretty variable”. They actually went as far as to say that in the areas they failed to arrive at conclusions it was because of the poor quality of the data supplied by Winsor. Would you change the Policing system of the country on the basis of a report With variable and flawed data which also had many “honest mistakes” in it? Not if you were independent. But we know of course that Cameron is not.So, let’s dig deeper. In reaching his conclusions in part 1 Winsor consulted with the huge number of 176 officers. 176. There ‘were then’ 140’000 officers and he consulted with just over 0.1%. Pretty comprehensive! It should be pointed out that the176 included the above mentioned officers who denied speaking to him or claimed they were misquoted. So, he hardly spoke to any of us and when he did he changed what we said or made people up. 
Then we have the so called Blobby Bobbies episode. Winsor stated that 75% of officers surveyed were overweight. Then it was disclosed that his sample group were part of a self help group for overweight officers and staff. Why on earth would you choose this as your sample group? Unless of course you were on a deliberate search for evidence to support a pre-held conclusion. There was never likely to be any other result from a sample group like this. Utterly disgusting. I would suggest that to present data from a source like this and misrepresent it as he did is barely, if at all, short of outright lying. 
Now I realise that many of you already know all of this. But what would be the reaction if the average person on the street realised that the whole of their Police service was being remodelled on the say so of a man who made errors, based his report on poor data and manipulated his statistics careful pre-selection of sample groups. I don’t imagine they would be happy.
We need to let them know. Pass it on. Stick it on Facebook. Tell people when you speak to them in the street tell your MP. Tell journalists. When people ask why it took you two hours to get to the job they reported tell them about how resources are falling and how we are being torn apart on the say so of Mr Cameron in the name of his personal agenda.
If we get the public on board and spread the word it can make a difference.

Please sign the Epetition to reject Winsor 2 completely. play your part: