A recent set of College of Policing Board minutes makes the bold claim that the Police Service will be recruiting 53,000 new officers over a three year period.
This presumably includes Boris’ famous 20,000 officers.
My problem is this, since 2005 (at least) the Police Service has never recruited more than 10,000 new officers in a single year. After 10 years of #Cuts, where the hell are the facilties for training all these officers? How good will their training actually be? Can we actually attract 53,000 new recruits, especially given Graduate and Apprenticeship Entry looming?
Para 4.2 of the attached minutes makes this bold claim, but does anyone actually believe it?
Forces can work with different awarding bodies for you to gain this Level 4 qualification. The professional curriculum covered and the level of professional education and competence you will achieved is identical.
▪ an Ofqual-regulated Awarding Organisation (in which case the qualification is titled a Level 4 Diploma in Community Policing Practice)
▪ a Higher Education Provider (in which case the qualification is titled a Level 4 HE Certificate in Community Policing Practice)
Qualifications required and how do I apply?
Applications are submitted through your preferred force, and you should check eligibility and recruitment windows locally.
No, I don’t understand it, but one thing is for certain, the College are driving a Bulldozer through Sir Robert Peel’s famous qoute
The police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
If the College carry on with their unpopular PFEQ programme they will have successfully transformed a once world-respected Police Service into a sorry, upper class, shadow of its former self.
I have no idea how many of you knew about this plan for PCSOs but I certainly didn’t before today.
I have been called a dinosaur, resistant to change, in the past, and I don’t always object to that. Dinosaur? If that means Old School then Yes. Resistant to change? Resistant to change for change’s sake. Yes.
I do hope the PCSOs’ union takes this up with the College.Last Updated on
I find myself totally gobsmacked. I thought that Degreegate had become just about as ludicrous and pointles as it could get, but I should have known better.
As we know, progressively, there will soon be ONLY 3 routes into the Police Service;
Apprenticeship. Join as a constable, and follow an apprenticeship in professional policing practice – you earn while you learn. This route normally takes three years with both on and off-the-job learning. On successfully finishing the programme, you complete your probation and achieve a degree.
Degree-holder entry. If you have a degree in any subject, you can join and follow a work-based programme, supported by off-the-job learning. This route normally takes two years, and the learning you have undergone is recognised in a graduate diploma in professional policing practice when you complete your probation.
Pre-join degree. If you want to study first, you can do a three year degree in professional policing at your own expense, and then apply to a force and follow a shorter on-the-job training programme. Being a special constable can be included in this route.
By the end of 2019, 18 forces will be recruiting via the new entry routes and 32 will be by this time next year. A non-Home Office force has chosen to use the same routes. We are committed to supporting, monitoring and tweaking things as we go along. 13/
Routes 2 and 3 require applicants to already hold a Degree of some kind and the Apprenticeship route requires applicants to obtain a degree at the conclusion of their Probationary period.
My ancient O Level in English Language leads me to believe that ultimately, one way or the other a Degree will be mandatory to join any of the Police Forces that adopt the College’s Policy of Graduate Entry.
That’s what I think anyway.
Yesterday the College published a lengthy thread on the subject on Twatter.
I’m sorry, it is long, but somewhere towards the end of it is this pearl of wisdom
There are no proposals to make degrees a mandatory requirement for promotion up to chief officer level.
So, there are no proposals to make a Degree mandatory for promotion up to and including, Chief Officer rank. Well I’m sure that the Direct Entry Superintedents will be absolutely ecstatic with that news.
Firstly, how many Senior Officers above the rank of Inspector probably haven’t already got degree? Secondly, if it is becoming mandatory to either have or obtain a Degree at Constable level, over a period of time the Service will become 100% Graduate by default, natural wastage seeing thick old plebs gradually replaced by the College’s favourite Graduates. The General Public is not 100% Graduate why should the Police Service be? Why does it NEED to be? Oh yes, Winsor, that was it.
I am fully aware that this is just my ‘unique’ slant on it, but all I can say is that I’m glad I’m not still serving and don’t have to put up with this bollocks (apologies folks). If that make you happy College then I’m happy for you.
It cannot have escaped your attention that there has been a lot a discussion on Social Media about the forthcoming Graduate Entry Scheme into the Police Service.
I will no doubt be described as “Dinosaur”, “Hating the College” or “Resistant to Change” by some other Policing Commentators, but, like them, I am entitled to an opinion, and I am entitled to express it.
I don’t ‘hate’ the College, or anybody there, I just happen to hold a different opinion to theirs. I am resistant to “Change for Change’s Sake” but not to change for a positive purpose.
At least one officer was of the opinion that I didn’t know what I was talking about, and that there was a route into the Police Service that didn’t require a Degree, the Apprenticeship.
The three routes in will be:-
▪Apprenticeship. Join as a constable, and follow an apprenticeship in professional policing practice – you earn while you learn. This route normally takes three years with both on and off-the-job learning. On successfully finishing the programme, you complete your probation and achieve a degree.
▪Degree-holder entry. If you have a degree in any subject, you can join and follow a work-based programme, supported by off-the-job learning. This route normally takes two years, and the learning you have undergone is recognised in a graduate diploma in professional policing practice when you complete your probation.
▪Pre-join degree. If you want to study first, you can do a three year degree in professional policing at your own expense, and then apply to a force and follow a shorter on-the-job training programme. Being a special constable can be included in this route.
So, I did know what I was talking about, whichever route one chooses to follow to enter the Police Service, at some point, involves having or obtaining a Degree, thus making, in the fullness of time, the Police Service establishment 100% Graduate.
I have thought about this long and hard. Having completed 30 years service across a variety of roles including some specialist roles I do not feel that not having a Degree held me back in any way. However, I was the “Supervisors’ Nightmare”, a Career Constable by choice. I concede that there may be a case for officers to possess an appropriate and relevant Degree if they wish to progress beyond a certain rank, e.g. Inspector to Chief Inspector, but Street Duty, Front Line officers do not need to have a Degree to perform satisfactorily and make progress within the Service.
With this in mind I posted two very simple, and essentially similar, polls on Social Media. As I am sure you are aware on e the poll is unleashed onto SM it is entirely out of my control who answers the questions, what their occupation may be, or their views on Policing in general. In short, I don’t believe I can be accused of ‘fixing’ them.
The first poll was placed on Facebook and asked one simple question with a pre-defined choice of answers, Yes or No.
The College of Policing are making it a requirement of entry into the Police Service that all recruits either already have a Degree, or obtain one via an Apprenticehip. Is a Degree necessary?
No, don’t be daft, of course it isn’t
Yes, all modern day Police Officers need to have a Degree
Unfortunately not very many people voted in the Facebook poll but the results were clear:-
A grand total of 69 people voted, ALL of them voting NO.
The poll on Twitter was far more successful Again it was restricted to two questions, basically Yes or No.
3,756 votes were cast with only 4% voting in favour of 100% of the workforce possessing a degree
In tandem, and nothing to do with me, the Civil Nuclear Constabulary ran a very similar poll on Twitter. It has not yet closed but latest scores are
With nearly 3,000 votes cast their poll also shows that only 4% were in favour of Degrees for Police Officers
it is quite clear to me that there is no appetite amongst Police Officers or the Public to have mandatory degrees in the Police Service, at least not by the proposed methods. Three polls over the weekend have all shown a level of support of no higher than 4%. Perhaps now is a good time for the College of Policing to revisit this policy. Maybe they could engage the services of a reputable company and conduct their own National Poll and see if that produces a different result.
Whilst I was co-ordinating my two polls I became aware of a few issues that whilst relevant to Policing in general wheren’t totally specific to Degree Entry, although some most definitely were.
What happens to the (majority of?) officers currently serving who do not have a Degree? Will they be left isolated, passed over for promotion or Specialist Roles? For the next 35 years or so the Graduate Entry Scheme in ANY of its 3 guises will create a 2-Tier Police Service, the Haves and Have Nots. I can’t believe that that is desirable to anybody outside College of Policing or National Police Chiefs Council. Why would it be?
It has been mooted by many (including me) that the skills and knowledge that Police Officers accumulate is quite possibly already at the same level as a Bachelors Degree, it has just never been formalised. It was pointed out by one person that Level 6 NVQ is already equivalent to a Bachelors Degree, so why didn’t the Police Service take NVQs on board years ago? Because at that time it was in nobody’s interest to make Policing a ‘Skilled profession’. It is most certainly not an Academic Profession, not below the second floor anyway, but would lend itself perfectly to the NVQ route I would have thought. Those that want to give up Policing and go on to Senior Management or the College of Policing would still be able to follow the Degree route if they chose.
As Police Officers approaching retirement we were told on oh so may occasions “you might not have a piece of paper but you have many ‘Transferrrable Skills’ that are highy valued in the workplace”. Is/Was this true? If so why aren’t those ‘Transferrable Skills’ sufficient for the College of Policing? Why are they trying to fix something that might not be broken?
According to the Office of National Statistics only 42% of the adult population had a degree in September 2017. If the Police are the Public and the Public are the Police why do we demand that 100% of Recruits either possess or attain a Degree?
In the words of PCC Marc Jones
Put frankly these current proposals would push @lincspolice over the edge. The extra cost mean we could afford fewer Officers and the extractions would reduce it by 40-60 more. Simply unaffordable, undesirable and not thought through.
Finally, in relation to Policing in general, it has become apparent to me via many comments on Twitter responding to the poll, that there is a lot of anger in the community about the lack of Police resources and activity. Many people have completely the wrong impression about Police Officers ‘sitting in their comfy offices and not wanting to report crimes or help victims of crime’.
I find a lot of Police I deal with now, spend more time trying to justify why the suspected perpetrator carried out the offense, rather than attempting to prosecute them. The Victims are often made to feel guilty for reporting crime, and are encouraged not to press charges.
I want coppers to do coppering, you know keeping order stopping criminal behaviour stuff like that.
Trying to grasp argument here. Is the crux we have apparently more than enough police but just sitting around waiting for things to happen rather than a proactive police force
While a fraction of those recruited into the #Police may of once had honourable intent over the course of their career pier pressure, paycheque mind control & bullying they are whittled down to accepting their fate, sitting out careers for their pensions like a mute sitar player
Plus many, many more in similar vein, or just rubbishing Graduate Entry generally (they’re on my TL somewhere).
PLEASE College of Policing, stall the Graduate Entry Scheme, undertake your own poll, engage with both operation officers and PFEW in an attempt to modify this madness into something will ultimately benefit the Service.Last Updated on
It may be a surprise to some of you but I am not a huge fan of the Direct Entry Scheme for Inspectors and Superintendents into the Police Service. Sorry to shock you, but it’s true. I am, however, curious about it.
We hear quite a lot about it but I was never really sure what sort of numbers we were talking about. So I set about finding out.
A couple of Freedom of Information requests to the College of Policing should sort that out.
1. Nationally, how many Direct Entry Inspectors have been recruited
Answer:- 54 (since the programme started in 2016)
2. How many of these have subsequently resigned or been dismissed?
Answer:- Information is held but is considered to be exempt from disclosure by virtue of the exemption provided under section 40(2) of the FoIA. The figures recorded are low and disclosure combined with information available in the public domain, creates a risk of an individual being identified. For further information about the College’s application of section 40(2) please refer to Appendix A.
3. Nationally, how many Direct Entry Superintendents have been recruited?
Answer:- 32 (since the programme started in 2014
4. How many of these have subsequently resigned or been dismissed?
Answer:- Information is held but is considered to be exempt from disclosure by virtue of the exemption provided under section 40(2) of the FoIA for the reasons given above. For further information about the College’s application of section 40(2), please refer to Appendix A.
It seems that they’re quite keen to let me know how many have been recruited, but not so keen to let me know how many have dropped out or been ‘let go’. I find that quite startling really because the very next paragraph is:-
The College is committed to openness and transparency. To assist you in your enquiries and in the spirit of the FoIA, it may be helpful for you to know that the number of Direct Entry inspectors who have resigned or been dismissed is 10 or less.
The College is committed to openness and transparency. To assist you in your enquiries and in the spirit of the FoIA, it may be helpful for you to know that the number of Direct Entry superintendents who have resigned or been dismissed is 10 or less.
Personally I don’t find that terribly helpful or transparent, because it doesn’t really tell me anything concrete that I can work with. However, it does tell me:-
A) Up to 18.5% of Direct Entry Inspectors have fallen by the wayside one way or another since 2016.
B) Up to 31% of Direct Entry Superintendents have quit or been let go since 2014.
Is this just simply a ‘Healthy Churn’? Maybe it’s the College making good on their promise to help officers to leave and become Policing Ambassadors in the big, wide world.
Or maybe the Direct Entry Scheme simply doesn’t work for a large percentage of the people in it.
Just a thought. Without the College being so helpfully transparent it would have been almost impossible to assess how successful the scheme has been. I’m sure that the majority of serving Sergeants and Chief Inspectors awaiting promotion are suitably reassured.
Oh, and by the way, for the benefit of any #FOIA Geeks who want to know what Appendix A says about the College’s Refusal to comprehensively answer questions 2 and 4, enjoy:-
Section 40(2) FoIA – Personal Information (applied to items 4 and 5 of your request)
(2) Any information to which a request for information relates is also exempt information if- (a) it constitutes personal data which do not fall within subsection (1), and
(b) either the first or the second condition below is satisfied.
Under section 40(2) FoIA (by virtue of section 40(3A)), personal data of a third party can be withheld if it would breach any of the data protection principles to disclose it. Personal data is defined in section 3(2) of the DPA 2018 as:
‘any information relating to an identified or identifiable living individual’
Section 3(3) defines an identifiable living individual as ‘a living individual who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to –
(a) an identifier such as a name, an identification number, location data or an online identified, or (b) one or more factors specific to the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural or social identity of the individual’
The two main elements of personal data are that the information must ‘relate’ to a living person and that the person must be identifiable. Information will relate to a person if it is about them, linked to them, has some biographical significance for them, is used to inform decisions affecting them, and has them as its main focus or impacts on them in any way.
A figure representing the number of individuals whom have resigned or have been dismissed from the Direct Entry programme may not in itself constitute as personal data. However, the low numbers identified as a result of the searches conducted, if combined with information in the public domain or otherwise, creates a substantial risk of an individual being identified. As such, it is our view that the information in question is categorised as personal data.
The data protection principles are given under Article 5 of the GDPR. Article 5(1)(a) states that personal data shall be ‘processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner in relation to the data subject’. We consider that those attending the Direct Entry programme would have a reasonable expectation that certain information about them, held by the College, would not be disclosed further. The College has a duty of care towards those whose data we hold. It would not be fair and hence, a breach of Article 5, to put this information into the public domain without express consent having been given.
For your information, section 40(2) in these circumstances is an absolute exemption and there is no requirement for the public interest test to be considered.
Personally I can’t regard that as very ‘transparent’. I only know the identities of a handful of the recruits to this scheme, I’m certainly unaware of the identity of any who have dropped by the wayside. I only asked for a total number, how on earth I, or anyone else, could work out their identities from that is completely beyond me, but then I don’t have a degree, maybe that’s the reason.Last Updated on
Firstly, the much-revered College of Policing has proposed completely shaking up the entry route into the Police Service;
The three proposals are
Proposal 1. Establish a qualifications framework for policing so that individuals can gain recognition that has meaning and credibility
Proposal 2. Opportunities for existing officers and staff to gain accredited and publicly recognised qualifications for their existing skills, if they wish to do so
Proposal 3. Develop three entry routes for new constables
undergraduate degree in policing
graduate conversion programme
higher level apprenticeships
Hardly confusing at all, all about improving the professional image and status of Police Officers. No bad thing per se but it fails to recognise that Police Officers already have a good, professional status but it does need to be formalised and recognised.
Then we have the Gold Service from much-vaunted Police Now.
To get with the Police Now programme, In brief, you will need to:
be between the ages of 18-57 on application
have lived in the UK for the last three years
have indefinite leave to remain and work in the UK
be working towards or have achieved a 2:1 at undergraduate degree level or non-UK equivalent
have received a GCSE grade C or above in English language and be fluent in the written and spoken word.
So, sign up to the flagship Police Now programme to fast track to tomorrow’s leaders.
The Metropolitan Police contributes to my eternal confusion by offering Direct Entry to the CID for Specials, and this is where I need some help.
Will the successful applicants from the ranks of the Specials become part-time detectives, as and when their main job permits? Is this a back door into the Met and they will become warranted, Regular Tecs?
If they remain as Specials will they need to be graduates first? How do they fit in Detective Training School with their ‘proper’ jobs? If they don’t achieve some formal accreditation in Investigating Stuff their work will be torn up,for **** paper the first time they appear in Crown Court.
If this is actually back door DE entry as a Tec, this is surely demeaning the role of the traditional Constable. He/She needs a Degree or equivalent, a Tec needs to be a Special with who knows what academic qualifications.
I am not against Specials, I knew some very good ones and counted them amongst my friends, but this is really worrying and confusing and urgently needs clarification. The government has already tried bolstering the Armed Forces with Reservists and that did not go well. Policing is too important to risk getting it wrong.
Not for nothing are some Tecs in the Met labelled Cops In Disguise.
Sort yourselves out please, all of the above, work together, openly, and come up with a sensible solution that is acceptable to current and future officers alike.
I am indebted to at least one officer who has assured me that he/she was accepted into the Service with £20k Student Loans, but we all know that nothing is ever certain in life and one could be 100% confident that the debts are manageable and then a Tory government comes along and changes your financial security at the stroke of a pen. We have seen that already since 2010.
To quote from the Unmanageable Debt Process
Debt that becomes unmanageable can place police officers and members of police staff in a vulnerable position and more likely to become engaged in corrupt activities in order to try and improve their financial position.
So I still think that relying on ‘thorough vetting’ is very naive and at the very least recruits with substantial Student Loan debts should be Risk Assessed and subjecrt to ongoing reviews. I know that sounds intrusive and OTT and everything else but the Police Service has to do EVERYTHING possible to reduce or eliminate the potential for corrupt pracrtices or approaches, and recruits should be willing to submit to it.
Finally, more on the theme of yesterday’s post admittedly on a slightly different aspect of the discussion, a final comment on the need for degrees. The College posted this from their Chief, Alex Marshall
I fully accept that the College are exploring Apprenticeships as well, and maybe that’s a better way to go, but in his second paragraph Mr Marshall says
“Police are functioning at graduate level now and we are letting officers and staff down by not recognising their value in the wider world of work……”
Maybe the answer lies in that statement. Maybe we need to develop a Vocational Qualification that is Degree-Equivalent that one achieves when successfully passing the Probationary Period. Is that too simplistic a view?
And so #DegreeGate rumbles on and still nobody is much clearer, with many simply remaining to be convinced. Many, like me I suspect, are waiting to see the ‘evidence’ that this is a good idea.
Being a bit of a researcher and a fan of ‘the truth’ I went looking.
I found a video on YouTube put there by the College of Policing. It is called PEQF: What is the evidence base? and featuress the College’s Director of Knowledge, Research and Education, Rachel Tuffin. Rachel is clearly a well educated and well qualified woman and has the honour of having been awareded an OBE for services to policing, specifically championing evidence-based policing.
The title of the video implies that herein lies the answer, what is the ‘evidence base’?
Watch the video and see for yourselves
I have watched the video several times now, and I must be older than I thought, because I don’t see it. To be honest, all I saw was a young lady, waving her hands around a lot, saying that it was interesting, important and a challenge, and a good idea. I didn’t see or hear any ‘evidence’.
Undeterred I tweeted a short poll aimed at current and ex Police Officers
Current or ex Cops, do you think you could have done your job better if you had a degree in Policing etc? #PEQF
The results of that were 330 people voted of which 95% voted NO, they didn’t think they could have done their job any better with a degree.
This morning Peter Kirkham posted a similar poll on Twatter
Current/ex-cops: Is your training (to end of probation) equivalent to degree level & merits the award of a degree?
— Peter Kirkham (@Peter_Kirkham) February 4, 2016
So, I still remain to be convinced. I have known many fine (in my opinion) cops both with and without degrees, and my opinion is still that there may well be a place for a degree as part of the development/promotioon process but I do not see the need or benefit for one at the recruitment stage.
Looking at it brutally, it costs, say, £9k per annum in university fees to get a degree. Up to £27k if the course is 3 years. The College of Policing states that it costs £25k to train a Constable, even if I assume that means up to end of Probation, I don’t know why it costs that much, but I can see why they woant to shift the burden of cost onto the recruit. Unfortunately having spent your £27k, there’s still no promise of a job. If you join under the old rules and don’t make the grade it hasn’t cost you, or the organisation, anything like £25/£27k.
So, is there reaally a genuine need for a degree or are the College just using smoke and mirrors to deflect the costs of training? Have the hundreds of thousands of cops trained across the length and breadth of the UK previously been ubstandard in some way?
Speaking for myself, I don’t have a degree. Did I resent not having one? No,. it was my choice. Do I feel that I could have performed my duties better if I had one? Honestly? No, I don’t. I feel that my training provided by the Met kitted me out adequately for almost all eventualities, and I can think of numerous Front Line scenarios where a degree would not have benefitted me one little bit.
As laws and procedures changed, we were given extra training to bring us up to date. Some was better than others to be fair, but very little, if any, was computer-based, tick the box, cover your arse training. It was proper training with an ‘instructor’ wheer one could ask questions until one fully understood the issue of the day.
When it came to participation in meetings and briefings, to their credit, my bosses didn’t just send Tommy because he had a degreee, they sent Billy because he knew what he was talking about and was the best person for that particular subject, degree or no degree.
Finally, for now, the Home Secretary is absolutely furious that the Police Service is “too white”. I would be interested to hear what Impact Assessment the College of Policing has done to make sure that this proposal doesn’t make the Police Service “even whiter”.
Never mind he arguments for or against, the main issue that completely stunned me was the apparent disregard by the author of the effects on suitably qualified Police Officers awaiting potential promotion from within, in the traditional manner;
Another frequent question I am asked is ‘will the Direct Entry at inspectors and superintendents be taking promotion opportunities from serving officers?’
I come back to my earlier point that the police service needs to be the strongest it can be with the best person for each role being fairly and correctly selected.
The numbers of Direct Entry officers that are entering the service are extremely small compared with the numbers in the rank or aspiring to the rank.
We are well aware there are thousands of fully qualified and talented officers awaiting promotion and what we are doing is absolutely not designed to negatively affect their chances.
In other words, there are so few of them, relatively speaking, that they don’t matter.
MY big question would be “If these Direct Entry Insps & Supts possess such desirable qualities why cant we train our own?” An officer awaiting promotion to Inspector or Superintendent has built up a whole wealth of experience along the way. They will have acquired a significant amount of knowledge and assorted skills, yet not the right ones it seems. So why can’t these officers be simply taught these desired skills that they apparently lack?
Or is there a totally different agenda at work at the College?
Under the proposals, new police applicants would need to complete either a degree in practical policing or a conversion course after graduating in another subject.
Dr Sam Peach, who has put together the plan for the college, said: “The majority of other professions have graduate entry in the UK.
“There’s a lack of parity with other professions and because of that the police is not recognised as a legitimate profession.
“We are looking to have degree-level qualifications for constable and masters for superintendent.”
Why would 100% of recruits in the future require a degree? I fully accept that Policing has become complex over the years, but I never once felt that I was missing out, inadequate or incompetent in any way because Ai didn’t have one.
Let me say here and now that I have absolutely no problem with Cops With Degrees, my issue is entirely with the perceived need for 100% Graduate Cops, and not just any old degree either.
Would we be having this conversation if ACPO hadn’t ‘dumbed down’ recruitment over the years?
What effect will this policy have on the Home Secretary’s edict to increase Ethnic Minority Officers in the PolicecService. Surely recruitment of ALL Ethnic Origins will FALL?
Does anybody think that this policy will INCREASE the numbers of recruits of ANY. Race, Gender, Sexuality or Religion etc?
If establishment numbers mysteriously rise more than normal during the pilot study I will happily shut up and never mention it again, but I truly don’t see how it will.
I have also heard it mentioned that Police Officers without a degree, addressing an audience predominantly of graduates, may feel inadequate and awkward. In my experience if you know what you’re talking about and are comfortable with your subject this should not be an issue for the majority.
Can we cope with fewer, better educated officers? I doubt it, some scenarios just need numbers, pure and simple. If a PSU full of graduates turns up at a riot, wil the rioters pack up and go home in the face of that particular opposition? Maybe, time will tell.
What do the College intend to do with the tens of thousands of officers across the ranks that don’t have a degree? UPP abounds. The Federation will be busy, assuming that they have their degrees.
Existing officers will be encouraged – but not required – to improve their qualifications to degree level.
There is definitely a place in Policing for Officers with degrees, particularly on promotion. However, I seriously question the need for 100% Graduate Profession. I remain to be convinced, but for those of you who may think that I am ridiculing our current crop of Graduates in somecway, I most definitely am not, nor do I defend the alleged use of Bag Carrying comparisons. I didn’t see it, nor did I use it, but I do still have the right to hold and express an opinion, I do not have to fall in line and agree with Dr Peach and other proponents of the scheme.
Job for life? Vocation? The only job I’ll ever have/want? Or just a 5 year ‘tick box’ posting. Cut back on training costs, cut back even more on pensions. Oh Cruella WILL be pleased.Last Updated on
I thought I would quickly share my views on the proposal.
Is it too early to say “What a load of bollocks”?
Having a degree might well better prepare one for climbing the greasy pole but in my humble opinion it is not necessary in order to fight crime and disorder (and the multitude of other things) efficiently and effectively on a day to day basis.
Are the College saying or implying that Police Training Establishments are not up to the task of training recruits to the required level? The ones that haven’t been sold off that is. Maybe it’s necessary to extend the length of initial training, but surely we should be able to train our own recruits effectively, given the appropriate length of the course.
I’m sure we have all known Graduate Entrants who have been lovely people, quite capable of explaining Einstein’s Theory of Relativity to us, but collapse under the pressure of REAL Policing. The last one I met was reduced to a sobbing heap when posted as Custody a Officer, and don’t get me wrong, he was a lovely man, I liked him, but he was in the wrong job too soon. Ill prepared, and whose fault is that I ask?
Getting a degree these days normally involves a degree of Student Debt. Is it really a good idea to post a Probationer to the wicked streets of wherever with £20,000 ish of Student Loans. The prospect of Corruption immediately springs to mind.
Every recruit will have a degree. Does that mean that they will all now be eligible for the Accelerated Promotion Scheme, or will that now be scrapped?
I don’t think that the College has thought this through.