I don’t always agree with Inspector Gadget, but he seems to have got it pretty right hereLoading Likes...
The time has come, the walrus said, to speak of many things……
Well, this old walrus is only going to speak about one thing today, and it’s something that is bothering me, but fear not, the truth is out there somewhere. I may have missed this, you may all know about it. I didn’t know about it until one of our number sent me a document which enlightened me. This document (dated in May this year) is not yet in the public domain as far as I know. I have Googled it several ways but come up empty. What I have been able to do though is identify other information and anecdotal evidence which IS in the public domain that tends to confirm the information contained within this document. Needless to say I have already submitted a FOI request in an attempt to flush out this document or the information contained within it.
The facts of the matter are these:-
- In 2005 Cheshire Constabulary entered into a PFI agreement with a private consortium to supply Custody Services and certain Transport functions e.g. transporting prisoners to/from Custody.
- Said consortium built 3 Custody Centres at Chester, Middlewich and Runcorn
- This contract was to run for 25 or 30 years, dependent upon which document you read, but the difference is actually irrelevant
- In early 2006 the 3 Custody Centres opened for business and a number of Police Staff were TUPEd across to the new consortium.
- The private consortium not only built the Custody Centres but they supplied everything including, apparently, doctors and nurses.
- Written into the contract was a provision for reviewing the arrangements at 5 yearly intervals.
- In May 2009 the contract was terminated by mutual agreement.
- The system was generally thought to work quite well by those on the ground, and some elements of it seem to have been quite popular.
- The 3 Custody Centres were subsequently bought by Cheshire Police Authority and the 53 civilian Custody staff were TUPEd back and became Police Staff, although some were subsequently made redundant as a cost-cutting measure.
So far you are probably thinking “What’s he making a fuss about? Nothing wrong with trying something and then putting it back the way it was”
You may be right. This old walrus may well be over-reacting, but I’ll tell you what I don’t like about this experience and what has left me worried about similar privatisations in the future.
- The private consortium referred to above was GSL or Global Solutions Limited.
- Global Solutions Limited was part of Group 4
- Group 4 became G4S
- The reasons that the contract was terminated early included GSL’s inability to deliver all of the services that they were contracted to deliver and GSL were not making any/enough money out of the deal.
- Cheshire Police Federation knew of this situation
- Unison knew of this situation
- On 21st January 2008 Policy Exchange published a document entitled Footing The Bill:Reforming The Police Service.
- On page 36 of their report it says this “GSL has delivered custody services in Cheshire, replacing 11 outdated city centre stations with three new custody suites. GSL was required to reduce the length of time taken to arrest a suspect. Cheshire police authority also made getting more officers on the beat an explicit goal of using privately run custody centres. GSL was able to deliver on both counts: using specialised software to deploy police vans more efficiently it has saved time and human resources.”
- This report was authored at a time when it must have been clear to all that GSL were actually failing to deliver.
Those are the facts as best as I can establish them at the moment.
I have submitted a request to Cheshire Police under the #FOI asking these questions
In 2005 Cheshire Police took a decision to outsource their Custody functions to a private company. Subsequently, some or all of those functions were brought back in-house.
Could you please supply me with copies of all of the documents which show the reasons why those functions were originally outsourced, and exactly which services were outsourced?
Could you further supply me with copies of all of the documents which show the reasons why those functions were subsequently brought back in-house.
Finally could you please supply with the identities of all private companies that provided Custody services during that time that they were outsourced?
I doubt I’ll get an answer but there is sufficient information out there to confirm the experience.
The Policy Exchange report also contains the following recommendation which I can’t say I actually disagree with “To extract the full benefits from outsourcing and private partnerships, contracts need to be short term, flexible, accountable through key performance indicators and possibly multi-sourced. The NPIA should, through consultation with financial and consulting services experts, establish a training programme that would ensure police forces are prepared to get the best possible terms from private partnership contracts. Implementing successful outsourcing requires well trained procurement staff who can deliver top-quality performance. That means investment in procurement and contract management skills.” What is sad about this is that this advice seems to have gone unheeded. Lincolnshire Police are locked into a 10 year contract with G4S. 10 years seems like a long time to me, and no mention has been made that I have heard about Review periods for the contract.
All of this has left me with the following questions
- Why has Cheshire Police Federation not brought this to public attention in the light of current events?
- Why has Unison not brought this to public attention?
- G4S under the guise of GSL have previously dabbled a toe in privatisation on the small scale. They failed. Why now are they deemed to be an appropriate body to enter into privatisation of police functions on a much larger scale?
- Why did Policy Exchange endorse the scheme when it should have been obvious that it was failing?
Please feel free to enter into this debate by leaving your comments below. If there is a debate to be had let’s have it. If this retired and angry old walrus has over-reacted please let me know that too. One thing is for certain, experience has shown that privatisation of police functions CAN be reversed but I suspect that it is not easy, and probably not a cheap process in the short-term. We have always suspected that there was no profit to be made by a private company in privatising the police. GSL seems to have demonstrated that quite clearly, but G4S, once again, think they know better and will make it work. What do you think?Loading Likes...
With apologies to Jacques Tati
Well, I don’t know, I take a fortnight’s holiday and the whole world’s gone mad. First though you have to look at my holiday photos, well not really. Basically Mrs Angry and I set off on a roadtrip to visit old friends in the area of France where we used to live. We drove down to the Tarn taking a couple of days to get there, spent 4 lovely days with old friends and neighbours (French) and then had a couple of nights on the Med. Returning towards home we stopped off at the homes of various ex-pat friends, including a retired Met DI, eventually arriving home some 2,500 miles later. We tried to drink the wine lake and I did my best to consume every steak in the country but we failed. Tired but happy were we, and then I catch up on this lot:-
I joined the Met in 1972 on a 30 year contract, it was simple. Work for 30 years, pay 11% and get a 40/60ths pension at the end of it. It was an expensive pension, but everyone knew where they were and if one wanted to there was opportunity to start another job at the end of it. They even brought in the scheme whereby you could retire on Friday and start again on a new contract on Monday, although I never fully understood how that really benefitted anyone other than The Job cos I could get paid 40/60ths just for staying at home, but life was straightforward and everyone knew what their rewards would be and when they could get them. Indeed, it was entirely possible to retire at 50 years of age and immediately draw a full pension at 40/60ths. Over the years it got tinkered with, but I can’t recall any significant changes during my service, and those that were introduced were introduced for new entrants, existing members keeping their original entitlements, a system which I see as right and proper. In 2006 it was significantly (in my view) changed to include such perks as an accrual rate of 1/70ths, 35 years of service before you could draw your pension and then a full pension was equal to only half your final salary. Already I can see that HMG has been fully committed to protecting the value of your pensions. In 2010 the previous Government did us the honour of switching from RPI to CPI when it comes to inflation-proofing our pensions, a move that I believe, begins to erode their value. Then along comes Mrs May and her Minister for Policing, Nick Herbert, ably assisted by Tom Winsor, and an announcement that Police Pensions are going to be reformed, but don’t worry, I heard her say, we will negotiate with the Federation. On only 6th July 2012, Theresa May said this “In common with the reforms that are being developed across public service pension schemes, the Government is committed to ensuring that police pensions are affordable and sustainable for the future. Let me reinforce that police officers should, and will continue to, have access to pension arrangements that are among the very best available.” On 27th March 2012 Theresa May outlined the Governments proposals for Police Pension Reform
- An accrual rate of 1/57ths (apparently 5% better than most other public sector schemes)
- Officers contributions to increase to 13.7%
- Normal retirement age of 60
Then her and her staff negotiated the very best pension available with the Federation, or maybe she just told them what they were going to get, I’m not sure, but what we ended up with was
- A pension scheme based on Career Average Earnings and not Final Salary
- An accrual rate of 1/55.3ths
- Members contributions of 13.7%
- A Normal Retirement Age of 60, but the possibility of retiring at a minimum age of 55 with an actuarily reduced pension
So if I have got this correctly ( and I may not have, happy to accept that) you will now work longer i.e. anything up to 40 years, pay more (13.7% of your pay) and get less (pension based on career average not final salary. Best case scenario to me is work 40 years to get 40/55.3ths of your average salary. I can immediately see how this is one of the best pensions available, best for the Government, definitely not the member.
In a lot of ways the final Pension Scheme mirrors Lord Hutton’s recommendations, and some of you may think that that was the brief, to come up with a scheme that Lord Hutton had already thought of. However, there is one recommendation in Lord Hutton’s report that I have been unable to find so far in the new 2012 Police Pension Scheme – Honouring, in full, the pension promises that have been earned by scheme members (their “accrued rights”) and maintaining the final salary link for past service for current members; maybe it’s in there and I just haven’t seen it yet.
So, Nick Herbert has quit the Government. A sad loss I’m sure you’ll agree. I have read reports that he was unhappy at not being offered a new job in the Cabinet Reshuffle. Presumably he thought he was going to be the new Home Secretary and when Mrs May managed to hang on to that role could see no better prospects for his career. He is apparently now keen to “focus on new ideas & protecting countryside” outside of government. I wish him well, who knows maybe a return to the Policy Exchange might be on the cards as well.
Olympic Medal Ceremony
Apparently whilst I was away some government ministers were booed and heckled at the medal ceremonies of the Paralympics. Firstly I would say that the performances of all of the athletes competing at the Paralympics is immense and the winners fully deserved their moment on the rostrum, but if government ministers think that the great British public should not show their disapproval of the government’s performance then they need a reality check. The current Government is incredibly unpopular, second only (probably) the Maggie Thatcher and her government of the day. They need to recognise that fact and work out how they’re going to deal with it. So far, it looks like they’re going to ignore it. Do so at your peril, although akin with previous Tory regimes they will probably be only too happy to lose comfortably at the next General Election.
Judge Peter Bowers
Finally, I could not hang up my quill without commenting on M’Lud Peter Bowers. How on earth is burgling someone’s home ‘brave’? Crime and Disorder are big enough problems in society today without sending out messages such as “it’s very brave of you to burgle those houses, so in recognition of that fact I will not be sending to prison” even the misguided poor soul himself does not think he was being brave ‘I don’t think burglary is a courageous thing to do. I felt awful about it, to be honest, but I can barely remember even doing it. I was on 60 to 70 valium tablets a day at the time.’ 60-70 valium per day? Well, that’s alright then.
Bugger, that was the last straw and I’m now so angry that I have snapped my quill, so until I can afford to buy a new one I will bid you farewell. If I have made any errors in the Police Pensions paragraph please be gentle with me, I’m far from being an expert on pensions but Mrs Angry has taught me over the years, and on numerous shopping opportunities, how to recognise what is more expensive than the alternative, so blame her if I’ve got it wrong.Loading Likes...
Firstly the Warwickshire/G4S Poll results, as at 10:00 today they stood at this (just click on the image to enlarge it)
Secondly, the Queen’s Half Hour, a subject I know is close to all your hearts.
I have now had a reply of some kind or another from every Force in England and Wales with the notable exception of CUMBRIA. Let’s name and shame them. For their information I have now requested a review of their handling of my request because I feel that it has been disgraceful and contemptuous.
15 Forces refused to answer the request quoting cost as their reason for issuing the Refusal Notice.
6 Forces stated that the information was Unavailable for a variety of reasons.
The remaining 27 offered a complete or partial answer sufficient to make some reasonable estimates from.
Based solely on the 27 positive responses the number of (recorded) man-hours that went unpaid last year was nearly 315,000. Where no precise monetary value has been applied I have used a figure of £15 per hour, but this obviously does not take into account any enhancements that may have been payable. My best estimate for the monetary value of the unpaid overtime based on returns by just 27 Forces (slightly over half) was £5,094,089. A realistic estimate including Constables, Sergeants and enhancements is probably not far away from £10,000,000
So now we know the true value of the Queen’s Half Hour.
Finally, I am absolutely gobsmacked to see that The 4 Horsemen of The Apocalype has now been viewed (10:45 today) no fewer than 712 times in 15 different countries around the world. Let’s just hope that the message gets out that Blair Gibbs and his think tank, Policy Exchange are going to attract some flak if they continue to behave with such appalling arrogance and disregard.
I thank you all for taking the time to read my blogsLoading Likes...
I am grateful to @Shabster66 for bringing this Tweet to my attention:- @Blair_Gibbs: #FF for my talented team @RoryGeo @Edwardmjboyd @kmsosa – together aka ‘Four Horsemen of the #PoliceReform Apocalypse’
Those of you who have got to know me over the past few weeks and months can probably imagine the effect this Tweet had on me whenI saw it. Apoplectic if not Apocalyptic. If that isn’t designed to be confrontational and to wind up the Bobby on the Beat then I don’t know what is. As you may have guessed I Retweeted it with a certain amount of sarcasm and venom, so that you could all see it rather than because I agree with it. And the I got to thinking, this could be today’s blog.
So what do we know about the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse? How do they fit in with Police Reform?
Some folk would have it that the Four Horsemen are the most powerful entities in the entire universe, more powerful than any monster, Ghost, Demon or Pagan Deity and even more powerful than most Angels. Does that sound like Blair Gibbs and the Policy Exchange? Presumably Mr Gibbs thinks it does.
The 4 Horsemen, according to my good old friend Wikipedia, modernly represent Conquest, War, Famine and Death.
So let’s look at them one by one.
The 1st Horseman, Conquest. Presumably Blair Gibbs and his team already think that the battle is won and he has been victorious in his Conquest of the Old Guard, Police Reform is assured. The name could also be construed as “Victory,” as per the translation found in the Jerusalem Bible (the Greek words are derived from the verb νικάω, to conquer or vanquish). He carries a bow, and wears a victor’s crown.
The 2nd Horseman, is War, or mass slaughter. Well, there’s a wholesale slaughtering of the Police Service on the agenda, so I guess that fit’s in quite well with the Policy Exchange’s vision of the future shape of the Police and his Reform Agenda. The rider of this horse is dressed and red, carrying a large sword, suggesting that blood is about to be shed. Mind you, if Mr Gibbs thinks that the war has been won I think he has seriously underestimated public opinion. More and more people are slowly becoming aware of the potential (and real) consequences of this reform and are beginning to question it.
The 3rd Horseman is Famine. He rides a black horse and carries a set of scales, but I don’t think he’s meant to be a drug dealer. Well, Famine could be quite apt if the promised reforms go through with officers’ take home pay in danger of being cut. In my service there were Police Officers on Benefits and I don’t want to see that again. This Horseman is the only one that is heard to speak, and said “and see that thou hurt not the oil and the wine“, well you wouldn’t want to kill those two off, the government gets too much tax out of oil and wine to want to see it killed off.
And finally, the 4th Horseman is Death. Well we’re about to witness the death of the Police Service as we know it if the reformers and the Think Tanks get their way.. This Horseman is commonly depicted carrying a scythe like the Grim Reaper.
I have a sense of humour, not everyone appreciates it, but it’s there. I didn’t however see the funny side of Blair Gibbs’ Tweet. But now I can see that #PoliceReform will be Apocalyptic and that the 4 Horsemen are obviously gathering, ready to sweep it through, in the full belief, I assume, that they are the 4 most powerful people in the #PoliceReform process. I don’t know, it’s just my interpretation of a rather inflammatory Tweet. Feel free to contribute your own interpretations below.Loading Likes...
Please stop reading now if you’re offended by the occasional F Word. I promise not to over-do it, but it’s vital to the story. I do not wish to offend.
Well, to tell the truth I’ve met ‘The Commissioner’ 3 times now. The first occasion was on August Bank Holiday Monday 1976 during the Notting Hill Carnival riots. It was a gloriously hot sunny day and my serial had been on duty on ‘Aid’ to Notting Hill for the Carnival since about 8am. At some time in the afternoon we were dismissed, back to base and go home lads. Well, we probably got about 5 miles down the road before the radios started squawking and we sent back again. It seems the wheel was coming off. We were deployed to form a cordon somewhere in Ladbroke Grove to prevent the local youths, who were now throwing bricks and bottles, from progressing any further. As we de-bussed, our beloved Inspector received a bottle to the swede and went down, oh dear, we were leaderless. After fighting a series of running battles, I think it’s fair to say that we lost that year, we were sent to NSY for feeding, always a good sign, you’re not going home any time soon if they’re feeding you. So there were, what remained of 1,2 and 20 (not very many if I recall, most had been removed to hospital) stood on the ground floor of NSY waiting for the lift doors to open and take us up to the 4th floor for our meal. A more, rag-tag dishevelled bunch you could not imagine. Discarded on the floor were all the dustbin lids we had ‘borrowed’ from the residents of Notting Hill to protect ourselves as shields had not been issued in 1976. Eventually the lift doors opened and as we swept forward to get in out stepped Sir Robert Mark, looking pristine in his lovely posh Commish uniform. Someone was heard to say “and you can fuck off too mate” and we pushed past him to go for our meal. To his eternal credit, not only did not say a word, but he then went to pay a visit to The Front Line. I changed my opinion of him slightly that night. I think I finally got home about 5 in the morning. A long day.
The second occasion was on the awarding of my Long Service and Undetected Crime Medal. I should have been presented with this in 1994 after 22 years service, but for some reason which was never explained to us, my intake was given their medals in 1995, a whole year late. Sir Paul, now Lord Condon of G4S, was now the Commissioner and stood up on the stage reminding everyone gathered what had been happening in the world 22 years previously when we all joined the Job. I don’t know who wrote his speech for him, but they obviously didn’t twig that he was a whole year out. Quite pathetic really.
The final occasion was sometime about 1996/7 when we were told that the Commissioner was coming to pay a visit to our unit. We were given firm instructions that we should all enter and leave our office by the main (front) door and not under any circumstances use the back door. Stop laughing @Met2Moz, I can hear you!!. So I was sat at my desk writing up my most recent escapades (probably with my partner, I don’t remember exactly) when there was a knock at the back door. ‘Fuck Off’ said I, doing what I was told. A second, slightly louder knock at the door followed, “I’ve told you once, Fuck Off”. Well, this did no more than prompt a very loud and rather angry sounding knocking on the door. A tad pee’d off by the lack of understanding by the idiot on the other side of the door, I walked over to the door, opened it and said “If you’re not the Commissioner you’re not coming so Fuck Off” “Ah, good afternoon Sir, All Correct”. Yes you’ve guessed it, in front of me was stood an apoplectic Detective Chief Superintendent and a rather amused Commissioner. He had the grace to laugh, and that was ALMOST the last I heard of it. Somebody (and I know who you are) sent the details of this charade to Dogberry for publication in the Police magazine, so my embarrassment was complete. In my defence however, I maintain that as he WAS the Commsioner I didn’t tell him to Fuck Off. And I kept my job, so it wasn’t all bad.Loading Likes...
Or is it?
It cannot have escaped your notice that Warwickshire Constabulary are actively recruiting Civilian Investigators to investigate serious crimes.
Yesterday, Fraser Pithie, the Conservative candidate for Warwickshire, wrote an article on the subject amusingly called Fighting Crime Not Playing Politics. Well I think we all know that PCC candidates are all doing exactly that, playing politics. On his website he makes mention of the fact that he used to be a Special Constable and presumably feels that this qualifies him to not only to become the Warwickshire PCC (if elected) but endows him with great vision regarding the problems of Warwickshire and for that reason we should listen to him. Well pardon me if I’m wrong but I have known many Special Constables over the years, none of whom have I ever felt would have made a good Chairman of the Local Police Authority, which is basically what the PCCs will replace I believe. Not that I am saying that there is anything wrong with Special Constables, but if I can try and put it in perspective, I wouldn’t consider that I was a suitable PCC candidate because I lack certain experiences for that role, and on that basis I would extend it to Special Constables. However, I digress, Mr Pithie thinks that it’s a good idea for Warwickshire Police to recruit Civilian Investigators, and he makes the point that they do not need the powers of a warranted officer. As I understand it, and please correct me if I’ve got it wrong, these Civilian Investigators, if recruited, will be given the same, limited, powers as PCSOs. The Home Office last night issued a statement that they will definitely “not have any powers above the limited powers awarded by the previous government”
I have to say at this point that wording of the advert causes me considerable disquiet, but the paragraph that I like the least is this one
Provide professional specialist advice and knowledge to all colleagues within the organisation in relation to all aspects of crime investigation and case file management. Commensurate with the use of ‘designated powers’ (Police Reform Act 2002).
How can it be the place of a (temporary allegedly) civilian investigator to advise the warranted officers on the best way to do their job, or maybe we’re saving even more money by cancelling training courses and having on the job training supplied by these civilian investigators.
But to get back to the point, Mr Pithie suggests that having a number of Civilian Investigators on the Force will release other officers to “focus even more on those criminals who commit acquisitive crime, which includes house burglary, car crime and robbery.”
So, if I get back to my point, the Civilian Investigators will free up a certain number of warranted officers to get out there and proactively target the villains. It’s a pretty well established principle that the majority of crime is committed by the minority of offenders. Modern intelligence analysis enables us to identify the prolific, recidivist offenders and conduct proactive, intelligence-led operations against them. They may even be successful. So far, so good.
Where this all has the potential to go belly-up is two fold.
- When police conduct target operations to arrest offenders, or engage in crime reduction activities, it is not unknown to experience displacement. Simply put this means that it is highly likely that you will be successful in the area you are operating but you will merely drive the offenders to another area, or, heaven forbid, to another county. However, we can contend with this and I know at least one Chief Constable who would classify this as a ‘Result’.
- The other issue is more insidious. If you assume for one moment that we have been successful in our operations, we have arrested the offenders and locked them up (do they still do that?) and crime has been reduced and public tranquility restored, there is a huge temptation that Chief Constables, HMIC, Home Office, whoever will decide that your county no longer need s the number of Police Officers that it had before because the crime figures don’t justify it. So this could be a good way to reduce your establishment and keep Mrs May happy.
Or is it? Your PCC will be happy, Theresa May will certainly be happy because she has told you that your only target is to reduce crime and you’ve done it, well done lads and lasses, but we all know (except the politicians) that this happy state will not last. The criminals that you have locked up will come out again, the government may not like but ‘crime families’ certainly exist and another child/adult will step up to get involved in the nicking, or worse. The Chief Constable next door is pulling his wig off because his crime figures are suddenly going through the roof and he doesn’t know why because no-one has told him about your operations.
Whether or not we should employ these Civilian Investigators is a whole different issue, personally I’m opposed to it, but I don’t get a say.
Between 1st April 2011 and 31st March 2012 Warwickshire Constabulary said goodbye to 70 officers, predominantly Constables and Sergeants. This represents a wastage rate of 8.2% of their establishment already. But, worryingly, this set against them already having said goodbye to 51 officers (5.5%) in the previous year. According to the Home Office figures only 3 officers joined in the same two year period.
I am indebted to one of the other PCC candidates, James Plaskitt, for pointing out that while the National Average Detection Rate stands at 27% (HO Stats), the rate for Warwickshire is a meagre 18%, and total reported crime has increased by 3.15% 2011/2012. So, just maybe, Warwickshire has not actually got it right, and this latest, some may say, desperate, attempt to recruit Civilian Investigators via G4S is a cynical attempt to cover up the truth. Warwickshire has slashed it’s Police Officers, Crime has gone up, Detection has gone down. In who’s book is this a success story?
Maybe Warwickshire have done us all a favour. Maybe the PCC candidates, as they slug it out, can work on this, bring it to the forefront of public awareness, and put pressure on their ridiculaous idea of reducing police numbers. Warwickshire hasn’t yet achieved a 20% reduction and look at what has happened there. But don’t worry, they have increased the number of meetings they are having to combat the problem. According to the HMIC report Warwickshire is on target to achieve £25m of savings by 2015. This will include shedding 350 posts, 170 of which will be Police Officer posts. Well they’ve achieved approximately 2 thirds of that so far, and look at what has happened in Warwickshire.
Just maybe we should hold Warwickshire up as a model Constabulary, a shining beacon. Look public, this is what happens when you cut the establishment. But, hey, this is just my opinion, what do you think?Loading Likes...
and why we should all be happy that she will be at the helm next week while the rest of the government swan off on a well-deserved vacation.
Born in 1956, she is nearly as old as me. She is the daughter of a Church of England clergyman. She was educated at a variety of establishments which included St. Juliana’s Convent School for Girls, a Roman Catholic independent school in Begbroke, Oxfordshire, which closed in 1984. In 1977 she graduated from St Hugh’s College, Oxford with a BA (Hons) in Geography.
She then had a succession of jobs, from 1977 to 1983 at the Bank of England, and from 1985 to 1997 as a financial advisor and then as a financial consultant and senior advisor in International Affairs at the Association for Payment Clearing Services. All excellent foundations for someone about to run the country. A BA (Hons) in Geography, it just doesn’t get any better than that.
Between 1986 and 1994 she was a councillor in the London Borough of Merton, where, between 1988 and 1990, she became Chairman of Education, and Deputy Group Leader and Housing Spokesman (1992–94). In the General Election of 1992 Theresa May stood for election (and lost) in the safe Labour seat of North West Durham. By 1994 Mrs May had become the Conservative Candidate in the by-election at Barking, but, unfortunately she lost that one too, coming 3rd to Margaret Hodge with just under 2,000 votes.
Already we are beginning to see the signs of future greatness and readiness to lead our country, a degree in Geography, various roles in the financial sector and a councillor for Merton Council . A future Prime Minister in the making maybe. I am getting the message clearly, worry not, your Country will be in safe hands.
In the 1997 General Election she finally succeeded and became the Conservative MP for Maidenhead.
A ‘potted history’ of her time in Parliament is as follows;
June 1999 – September 2001 – Shadow Secretary of State for Education and Employment
September 2001 – July 2002 – Shadow Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions
July 2002 – November 2003 – Chairman of the Conservative Party
November 2003 – June 2004 – Shadow Secretary of State for Transport and the Environment
June 2004 – December 2005 – Shadow Secretary of State for the Family
May 2005 – December 2005 – Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport
December 2005 – January 2009 – Shadow Leader of the House of Commons
January 2009 – May 2010 – Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
May 2010 – current date – Minister for Women and Equalities
May 2010- current date – Home Secretary
She currently also holds the quite unofficial position of Government Minister most Telegraph readers would like to see sacked.
So you see, Mrs May has had a lot of Parliamentary experience, in a wide variety of roles, often multi-tasking with 2 or more jobs at the same time, for example she is currently Home Secretary AND Minister for Women and Equality so there is absolutely no way she will allow women to be disadvantaged under the Independent Review undertaken and published by Mr Tom Winsor. I am quite certain that this great country of ours will be absolutely safe in the hands of someone so versatile as Mrs May.
Thank you for bearing with me on this journey, it is now time to remove my tongue from my cheek and make room for some coffee.Loading Likes...
Good afternoon folks, or whatever time of day it is when you’ve got your feet up with a cup of tea reading this.
You may not want to know about the nitty gritty of HMIC, in which case I apologise for taking up your time. Some of you might believe that the devil is in the detail and want to know how HMIC works, and, possibly more importantly, how much it costs our country each year to staff this beast.
Anyway, I asked those awfully nice people at HMIC a couple of questions recently and I’ve finally been blessed with a response.
The first (cheeky I admit) question I asked them was this
a) What will be the benefits and entitlements of the new Chief Inspector HMIC’s pension scheme?
b) How much will his contributions to that scheme be as a percentage of his salary?
The reply I got was this
You may find the following link to the recent Home Affairs Committee report on the Appointment of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary useful. Page 18 sets out the pension arrangements applicable to the post: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/HASC – Appointment of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary. Very useful I’m sure, but I eventually found it here http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmhaff/183/18302.htm
I’ll try and save you a bit of time and give you the gist of it here;
Pension — The appointment will be pensionable from the outset.
- Serving police officers will be able to continue contributing to the Police Pension Scheme (PPS) for the duration of this appointment as the post falls within the scope of the scheme (Police Pensions Act 1976). This abates the pension of retiring/retired police officers.
- Those who are not serving police officers will be able to join the Civil Service pension scheme. This offers a choice of a career average or stakeholder pension, giving you the flexibility to choose the pension that suits you best. The alternatives are:
— Nuvos — A high quality, index—linked defined benefit pension scheme, payable at 65, that currently has a 3.5% member contribution rate. We also make contributions and meet the bulk cost of the scheme.
— Partnership Pension Account — This pension account provides a way of saving for retirement. The department will make contributions to a stakeholder pension, which is a form of personal pension. The departmental contribution will vary according to your age at the beginning of the tax year. You may decide how much you want to contribute, but you do not have to contribute anything. If you do contribute, the department will match your contributions up to a maximum of 3% of pensionable earnings.
I note that as a non-police officer his pension contributions will be considerably less than those of a serving officer. I don’t know if that is anything the Federation has considered and might be able to address.
My other question, for any other number-crunchers amongst us, was this;
Could you please tell me what the current staffing levels at HMIC indicating the Job Titles and total number of staff in each job e.g. Analysts, Finance Officers etc etc. This request is designed to include all ranks/grades from Chief Inspector down to Admin Assistant.
What is the total salary bill per annum?
Well those awfully nice people sent me handful of spreadsheets which I’ve been able to unravel and this is basically what I found;
There is the equivalent of 132.7 post-holders in the Junior Staff category. I won’t bore you with their breakdown but if you really want to know you only have to ask. I was provided with the payscale for each grade but not each post-holder’s actual salary. On the figures provided the annual salary bill for the junior staff (their description, not mine) is between £5,641,769 and £6,576,265 p.a.
The senior staff is a little more straightforward.
There are a totally of 17 senior posts although not all of them seem to be currently filled, or ‘culled’.
Again, individual salaries were not disclosed by post-holders are clearly identified together with their pay-bands.
The total salary for the 7 posts currently filled is between £1,125,000 and £1,159,993.
Having got my trusty abacus out, I make it that the total annual salary bill for HMIC is between £6,766,769 and £7,736,258
My regular readers will recall that this figure is more or less the annual equivalent of the Queen’s Half Hour. Is this fair? You decide.Loading Likes...