Sir, The problem with fulfilling a need for greater police specialisation (“Police and thieves”, leading article, Mar 9) is an inevitable, further downgrading of everyday preventive or proactive policing by uniform constables.
Community policing experiments during the 1970s and 1980s failed when responses to changes in rates, types, patterns and ecologies of crime led to an unwanted downgrading of proactive uniform policing. Police beats were denuded of resources, with a shift into new specialisations. Further specialisation may very well be needed, but with diminishing resources the question of resource-laden priorities has to be tackled, along with the effect of these on police organisational psychology.
Should the Peelite model of policing, with crime prevention being a greater priority than detection, be abandoned? If so, who will decide this? What if specialisation results in demarcation, with uniform constables taking the view that certain tasks are “not our job”? What if it also leads to the sort of tensions that sometimes lead to poor co-operation between law enforcement agencies in the US?
These are questions of national importance beyond the capacity of elected police commissioners to solve. They need a steer from a Royal Commission. Your leading article opens a real can of worms.
Keith E. Hunter
Commander, Metropolitan Police, 1981-87
Ilkley, W Yorks
Advertisement
Sir, Rather than tinkering at the edges with police pay, as advocated by Tom Winsor (report, Mar 9), the Government should take a much bolder line, and align the pay of all the emergency services to the system in use for Armed Forces pay.
This would mean that police, fire, ambulance and coastguards would all receive a daily rate of pay, payable according to their grade. A standard weekly number of hours to be worked would be agreed with staff associations. In exceptional circumstances chief officers would have the right to bring in staff for extra hours.
Extra hours worked would build up credits for additional days off to be taken during the year. Cash payments at the daily rate would only be made at the end of the financial year, if it were impossible to take the extra leave earned.
Lt-Col Ian Graham
Port Carlisle, Cumbria
Advertisement
Sir, Katy Mitchell’s letter (Mar 10) contains serious flaws around police pay and pensions. An officer retiring with 30 years service, under the 1987 pension scheme, can take a pension of two thirds of their final salary. However, most typically do take a lump sum and an annual pension of half final salary. Officers who joined in 2006 and beyond have a different scheme and serve for 35 years, while receiving reduced benefits over the 1987 scheme.
In the first case the officer would have paid 11 per cent in contributions from their gross pensionable pay throughout the 30 years, the later joiner paying 9.5 per cent over 35 years. I am not aware of a public service worker that pays higher personal contributions.
Undoubtedly pension reform is needed to protect all our futures. However, those who serve the public add no value to the emotional debate by presenting incorrect information or by devaluing other public sector workers that provide distinctly different services from their own role.
Derek Bonnard
Deputy Chief Constable
Cleveland Police