KeithR Posted January 8, 2008 Report Share Posted January 8, 2008 Kept the Tories out for 10 years All we need is a 3 day week and it will be just like the seventies under Ted Heath. [ 08.01.2008, 11:10: Message edited by: Keith R ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted January 8, 2008 Report Share Posted January 8, 2008 Keith.... I have to say that must be the daftest response since Captain Oates said he was just nipping outside when asked by Captain Scott where he was going..... If all that is good about Labour destroying the country is the fact that it has kept another party out of power for 10 years then I think you should be in a little room with soft cushions all round so you don't hurt yourself! It has taken 10 long long years and finally Gordon et al have finally managed to mess everything up completely. At least no one in the Police, Fire, Ambulance, health service, civil service and countless other targeted groups will vote for him. Time for a change sooner rather than later I think. A vote of no confidence would be a giood start! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted January 8, 2008 Report Share Posted January 8, 2008 Originally posted by BazJ: At least no one in the Police, Fire, Ambulance, health service, civil service and countless other targeted groups will vote for him. BazJ, The only people who will vote or not vote for Gordon Brown are those members of his constituency at the next General Election, and if you think that no one in the Police, Fire, Ambulance, health service, civil service and countless other targeted groups will vote for him. then it's you that needs to be locked up in a little room with cushions. Don't forget that those same people voted for Maggie at 3 elections. how bad does it have to get before people get some sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
little fella Posted January 9, 2008 Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 Another very good step would be to ban anyone not born and living in ENGLAND from standing for election in the English parliament. Independent with their own parliament? no problem. If the foreigners want a job in parliament they know where to apply for it. There are still a lot of sheep who will vote for labour even if all their money was taken, they were made destitute, sent to the workhouse. Their fathers have always voted Labour so they will , they are programmed to do the same and nothing will change the mindset. A lot of people have been affected by current events and are not sheep, I think that it is enough to force a change. Unfortunately and what is really sad about this country you change one numpty for another. [ 09.01.2008, 00:40: Message edited by: little fella ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted January 9, 2008 Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 The way things are going, the majority of MPs after the next election will be Polish :biggrinbounce: :biggrinbounce: :biggrinbounce: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted January 9, 2008 Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 Well even I can see that would be better than them being Scottish.... at least the Poles seem to like us!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted January 19, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 19, 2008 Not sure Asp: maybe the Poles arn't that greedy or dishonest?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
little fella Posted January 24, 2008 Report Share Posted January 24, 2008 A report on the london march, what could be more embarasing for the government is if the case is taken to Europe, as in europe they uphold the right of workers to withdraw their labour. So is British law wrong? and do the government want to force the issue? Certainly the mood at the moment is that at least 80% of officers would go on strike. Maybe that is why proposals that PCSO will be rushed through without training. Several other countries have had police strikes, they have not lasted long but they have always won because of the crime wave. With over 22,000 police officer taking to the streets of central London, no one could deny the effect the police day of action had on those that experienced it. Police Oracle joined the march as it followed its route through the heart of Westminster. Immediately apparent was the breadth of people taking part. Officers of almost every rank, sons and daughters of police officers who felt their livelihoods were being affected and members of the public who were there simply to support their police officers. Chatting over the issues as we wound our way toward Westminster, very few cited the pay settlement itself as reason for attending the march. The overwhelming sentiment was that there would have been no march at all had officers the length and breadth of the country not felt huge anger and betrayal at the way they had been treated by their ultimate boss, the Home Secretary. So it is not the money, it is the principle. But perhaps more than that. Many mentioned the long-term. What would happen in the upcoming years if some sort of statement wasn?t made at this stage to the Home Secretary, to MPs and to the general public whom we police? Next year and the year after, with what confidence could the Staff Side of the Police Negotiating Board sit around the table in an apparently binding arbitration process if history showed that the decision reached by the Tribunal was likely to be tossed aside by a Home Secretary perhaps bent on short-term fiscal gain or hamstrung by a Prime Minister paranoid at being seen as ?weak? on public sector pay. David Ruffley, Shadow Police Minister, joined Jan Berry and Co at the front of the march and reflected that the situation was ?absurd?. He said that the failure of the Home Secretary to honour the independent arbitration award was a ?colossal breach of trust and demoralising for the police?. He asserts that a Tory government would effectively vote away their Home Secretary?s power to unilaterally overturn such a tribunal?s decision, and that it would in ?exceptional circumstances? have to be referred to the House of Commons to ratify any divergence from such an agreement. He said that such a safeguard would have effectively prevented Jacqui Smith from behaving in what he describes as ?a frankly dishonourable way?. In his words, in an attempt to re-build trust between herself and the police, ?She should, in words of one syllable say, ?I am very sorry, I screwed up??. Passing bus stops along the route, members of the public stood and clapped as the march passed by. Why? Not, as we discovered, because they necessarily thought the police were poorly paid, or indeed had any deep-felt sympathy for their pay claim, but very specifically because they saw the demonstrating officers as having been wronged by an elected government who they saw as having ?done the dirty? on them. Nothing sophisticated, just a heart-felt feeling of what was right. Officers themselves were also keen to stress that the demonstration was about how they had been treated, not the specific amount of money on the table. As one senior officer put it, ?The question is, ?Can an officer of the Crown trust Her Majesty?s Home Secretary?? We are not sure that we can.? Ernie Hanrahan, Deputy General Secretary of the Police Federation, felt the turnout for the march had been ?magnificent?. He said, ?Considering that about one sixth of the membership have taken their own time to come out and show their anger and disgust at Jacqui Smith and Gordon Brown? is absolutely superb?. He added a note of caution for the government, ?I think the government might be thinking, after today?s march, ?We got away with that one, didn?t we?? They might think that that is it ? well I?ve got news for them ? I?m sorry, but it is not. Saying anything else at this stage would be giving the game away?. He went on to talk about those officers ?longer in the tooth? remembering the troubles in the ?70s which led to the environment which necessitated the Edmund Davis agreement - officers leaving ?in their droves? and a serious recruitment problem. Ernie succinctly says that those in the Federation with the experience behind them are simply trying to say to the government, ?We have been here before. Please listen because we know where it ends up. But at the moment the government is simply sitting back and saying ?We know best?. Well I?m sorry ? they don?t.? Jan Berry, Chairman of the Police Federation of England & Wales added that the Federation has tried to offer the government an olive branch, but they just don?t want to know. ?They just want to impose their will. I have told them, if you continue to do this, do not underestimate what will happen. But I don?t think the government will budge, and I think that is a very sad day for democracy ? when a police service can?t trust its government. We can trust each other, we can trust MPs, we can trust the media ? the people we appear not to be able to trust are the Home Secretary, the Chancellor and the Prime Minister? The fact that Jan has written to the Prime Minister and he hasn?t written back perhaps speaks volumes about the uphill struggle the police service may have in getting the respect it deserves, not from the hoodies and larger louts the government constantly blames for crime figures, but from the government itself. So stand by for a ballot. Stand by for a judicial review. Stand by for more manoeuvrings. But if the impeccable behaviour of today?s 22,000 officers, the positive media coverage and the reception they received by those they police is anything to go by, standing shoulder to shoulder on this one might be a very good investment for the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted January 24, 2008 Report Share Posted January 24, 2008 Thank you for that Peter. Agreements should NOT be broken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted January 25, 2008 Report Share Posted January 25, 2008 Did you see that the guy who came up with all these ideas to save money in the Police force and whose idea it was to not back date the pay award thus making the 2.5% into 1.9% has just recieved a ?10,000.00 bonus for making so many savings!! New Labour New Sleaze and it only gets worse!! A tenner says Brown won't be in office this time next year!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted January 25, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 25, 2008 Well the Cabinet are fast becoming a load of Balls now! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
little fella Posted January 25, 2008 Report Share Posted January 25, 2008 What happened about the MP pay debate? It went quiet...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted January 26, 2008 Report Share Posted January 26, 2008 I think a figure of 1.9% was agreed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted January 26, 2008 Report Share Posted January 26, 2008 Originally posted by little fella: So it is not the money, it is the principle Tripe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted January 26, 2008 Report Share Posted January 26, 2008 Given the state of the economy, I'm not sure there should be any pay rises for anybody. I think a bit of serious belt tightening is called for. But just to show I'm all heart, I happen to think the tax free allowance should be substantially increased so that more of our people on modest incomes are taken out of the tax system all together. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted January 26, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 26, 2008 errrm YES Wolfie, they would - on the basis that this was an "independent" arbitrator that was recomending the award. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trojan Posted January 26, 2008 Report Share Posted January 26, 2008 Originally posted by wolfie: Originally posted by little fella: So it is not the money, it is the principle Tripe Correct Wolfie The fact that the tribunal recommendations were not met certainly supports the Police case, but make no mistake the action is all about more money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted January 26, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 26, 2008 Grow up - ?250?! yer joking - that's pin money. You may not be able to comprehend such things as issues of principle; but this is one of them - the Government has simply reneged on a long standing agreement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trojan Posted January 26, 2008 Report Share Posted January 26, 2008 Nothing to do with ?250, Any shortfall on the annual rate of pay affects overtime payments, bonuses, pensions and obviously the amount that they recieve in next years pay packet. It's not rocket science Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted January 26, 2008 Report Share Posted January 26, 2008 Are you saying that agreements don't matter? :confused: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted January 26, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 26, 2008 Think they're challenged by old fashioned concepts like "agreements", "principle" and "honour". And clearly have little knowledge of the history behind the Police Pay Agreement - as posted by LF (seems they can't even read the posts properly or maybe they're just being partisan?!). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavyG Posted January 26, 2008 Report Share Posted January 26, 2008 The agreement was for a 2.5% pay rise which has been implemented. The fact that it has not been backdated means that the Police will be short in their pay packets for this year. Seems fairly clear the dispute is about money in the form of loss of earnings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted January 26, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 26, 2008 Nope; the agreement was FROM the "back dated" date; thus they're being short changed by a gang of corrupt politicians - the principle being - don't do as we do, do as we say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted January 27, 2008 Report Share Posted January 27, 2008 Looking at other recent pay agreements, it seems that they have been backdated. So fairs fair. Ultimately pay rises are, by definition, about money. Though, as I said before, given the state of our economy, I'm not sure we can afford any pay rises at all at the moment. A bit of belt tightening all round might not go amiss in order that the situation is manageable in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted January 27, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 27, 2008 Belt tightening????! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.