Compulsory Severance Rears Its Very Ugly Head
Last Updated on March 14, 2019 by RetiredAndAngry
This subject raised its head above the parapet a couple of weeks ago, but seems to have been largely missed, scraping under the radar, fortunately for some.
Our friendly Think Tank REFORM has published a report entitled “How To Run A Country, Crime and Policing”. Is it just me that thinks this is incredibly arrogant of them? One of the more controversial ideas from said Think Tank is to implement ‘Sir’ Winsor’s proposals and ‘get rid of officers’ when it would be of benefit to the Force.
HMIC records that forces have voiced concerns about the dangers of a “static and ageing workforce”, noting that constraints on recruitment mean they are not “able to become representative of the communities they serve or to keep pace with a changing society.”
i.e. We’ll flag this up but we’ll blame someone else for the original idea.
So REFORM have actually published this recommendation in their report
The Government should implement Sir Tom Winsor’s 2013 recommendation that compulsory severance be introduced for all police officers, giving chief constables the flexibility to create a modern workforce that best meets demand. In conjunction with the College of Policing, the Government should also consider how to increase the number of Direct Entry superintendents, to achieve the goal of diversifying the experience and talent base within the police service as quickly as possible. The College of Policing should work with the Metropolitan Police Service to evaluate Police Now and, if it proves successful, support its roll out nationally.
There are numerous other Recommendations, each one telling the College of Policing and NPCC what they should be doing, and then at the end of a mere 13 pages we get their conclusions;
The Coalition Government made considerable progress towards delivering a more transparent, accountable and efficient police service. The scope and need for further reform is, however, considerable. Police reform in this Parliament must focus on building a police service that is smaller, smarter and more flexible, and one that is part of an integrated public service response to communities at risk of high harm crime. This will require a much better understanding of police demand, both in terms of crime and non-crime incidences and the day to day allocation of police time. It will mean prioritising increases in productivity and capability as well as integration with other local services. This means shifting the debate from ‘how many forces should we have?’ to ‘how can we best meet changing demand?’ Delivering these reforms will lead to better outcomes for citizens