Biden's net zero policies are dividing America. Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP/Getty Images
For more than a decade, Vladimir Putin has sought to sow division and undermine American democracy. Now that heâs distracted by the conflict unfolding in Ukraine, his successor has stepped into the spotlight: Americaâs political class.
Once wars united people, but not in modern America. Here, the vast majority of citizens share remarkably similar opinions about Russiaâs invasion of Ukraine: that it should be condemned outright. Our politicians, however, seem blissfully unaware of this.
In Congress last week, despite strong pro-Kyiv sentiment among the vast majority of Republicans, pro-Trump acolytes constituted the largest faction of those who voted against supplying aid to Ukraine. Yet on this issue, there is little to distinguish them from the Democratic Socialists of America, who have called for Americaâs exit from the âimperialistâ Nato. There are even some on the far-Left who believe the Westâs sympathy for Ukrainians reflects our unredeemable racism.
And yet the past fortnight has revealed something more optimistic than the intellectual adolescence of Americaâs politicians. The key to repelling Putinâs campaign of division in the West has also become apparent: unifying around basic economic interests.
Much attention has been paid in recent years to Russian online interference in our elections. But it is tangible realities â such as oil, food, and the ability to build things â that will determine our ability to resist external autocratic forces. And it is here that energy policy becomes crucial.
Before Biden became President, America was well on its way to energy independence, and emerged as the worldâs leading gas exporter. Far more than words or military threats, the US energy revival was a blow to Russia, Iran and Saudi Arabia. American production was a critical factor in weakening the price of the one commodity that keeps their economies alive.
Yet this weapon is being systematically dismantled. Since taking the White House, Biden has turned the Federal Reserve and other executive departments into enforcers of ânet zeroâ policies. From the very beginning, Biden and his green allies have busily cancelled gas pipelines, ended new leases for offshore oil, and introduced new regulations that make it harder to build new fossil fuel plants. All of this was manna for Moscow.
Bidenâs energy policies, so poorly timed amid the prospect of a looming Russian invasion, has also widened a deeper, more long-lasting schism that will reverberate for years to come. Perhaps more than anything else, it seems certain to expand both class and geographic divisions.
The decision by his administration to double down on green policies, while blaming Putin for their hefty cost, has exacerbated the already-wide divide between the coast-hugging financial and tech oligarchs and the oil drillers, truck drivers, factory workers and farmers labouring outside the big cities, particularly in the countryâs vast heartland. Americaâs coastal elites may express moral outrage about the Kremlinâs behaviour, but for those living and working in energy-producing states such as Texas â whose energy boom represents a far greater threat to Putin than elaborate virtue-signalling â this is not a matter of morals, but of livelihoods.
Oddly, American progressives even seem to lack the sense of realism that their German counterparts, once models for the Left, have adopted. Despite all evidence to the contrary, our greens cling to their fantasy that renewables can magically recast the laws of physics, the length of a day or the oscillations in the wind. Meanwhile, Germanyâs greens now realise that such a boneheaded energy strategy essentially turned their country into a satrap of Sino-Russian neo-Eurasianism and helped embolden Putinâs aggression.
So far, no sense of this reality informs the Left-wing Congressional squad, whose pronouncements now constitute the leading edge of Democratic thinking. They generally oppose military aid to Ukraine, and their response to the energy shortage is to propose shutting down our entire fossil fuel production. When the mid-terms come around in November, this will likely help the Republicans in the leading gas and oil producing states. Almost all are in the heartlands, Alaska or the Intermountain West; California, the last blue energy giant, has committed itself to wiping out its large local energy industry while importing oil from Saudi Arabia and, at least until recently, Russia.
But itâs not just the government seeking to wipe out the energy sector. Big Business, through its cherished ESG investment standards, is making it increasingly difficult to start or expand energy production. Following Leninâs supposed dictum about capitalists providing the rope with which they can be hanged, our corporate elite, perhaps unwittingly, also supports China, whose economy is fuelled increasingly by Russian oil and gas, a tie that has recently been consolidated by a plan to build a new gas pipeline between the countries.
But while such divides threaten the ability of America to lead in the current crisis, the news is not all inevitably bad. Americans can be deluded and stupid but are also capable of change. For generations, many in the West have celebrated the notion of inevitable American decline, particularly in Europe. Yet the country has a history of responding to challenges, albeit sometimes taking longer to respond than ideal.
One has to remember that during the run-up to the Second World War, America was distinctly divided â but by the time it came to mobilise, even fascist sympathisers such as Henry Ford pitched in massively. Likewise, today, there is growing concern among Democrats that the partyâs energy positions are untenable for the working and middle class. Itâs not inconceivable that the Democrats, and the coastal enclaves, are forced into action by the reality of soaring food, car and energy prices.
When this happens, the partyâs priorities must lie both in pumping more oil and gas, as well as learning how to manufacture goods outside China. Some Democrats, rather than tightening the relentless squeeze on the working and middle classes, might even consider introducing a modest carbon tax, expanding remote work, and restoring our nuclear power industry, as even some greens now support.
This is also good politics. Some 80% of voters, and an equal percentage of Democrats, favour the use of both fossil fuels and renewables, while support for the net zero Green New Deal hovers around 20%. âClimate catastrophismâ, notes the liberal strategist Ruy Teixiera, is a political âloserâ, particularly among working-class voters of all races.
For the Republicans, meanwhile, the war in Ukraine also poses a challenge due to the still considerable influence of Donald Trump, who views Putin as âa geniusâ. Although Trumpâs views are out of step even with the bulk of his own supporters, Democrats see an opportunity to link the Republicans with Putinism, and make Biden the staunch defender of democracy.
Of course, moving America in one direction is a fraught enterprise in these times of extreme polarisation. But preventing a deepening civil war here is critical if the world is to stop the likes of Putin from returning us to the Middle Ages. Foreigners may find our political divides diverting, but only the US, if it can get its act somewhat together, has the resources, the human assets and military power to fend off the unrelenting assault of the autocratic powers.
Joel Kotkin is a Presidential Fellow in Urban Futures at Chapman University and a Senior Research Fellow at the Civitas Institute, the University of Texas at Austin.
joelkotkin 
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
Subscribeâsenior officers should have been more determined to root out a misogynist like Carrick.â
The quote above illustrates one of the problems that bedevils addressing the failure to root out criminal police officers. The problem with Carrick and numerous other officers against whom allegations of criminal conduct are made are not that they are âmisogynistâ â in the sense of guilty of telling inappropriate jokes â but that they are criminals and their criminality is not properly investigated. This, of course, is a major problem in general that far too many crimes are not properly investigated and this applies particularly to fraud.
The force has become a bureaucratic and politically correct âserviceâ that is much more eager to spend time monitoring what is said rather than cracking down on criminality. The police need to return to the hard task of thoroughly investigating real crime and ensuring the evidence is made available to secure convictions. The failure to investigate and act upon previous allegations of criminal conduct against Carrick is part and parcel of the failure of the police force to do its job in rooting out criminals both within and without the force â major failure to prioritise what is important and to disregard the trivial and easy.
Of course getting solid evidence to secure a conviction of rape may be difficult where the offence is evidenced simply by allegations â but repeated allegations of a similar type ought to involve a serious investigation and evidence that falls short of that needed for a conviction should, if the investigators are convinced the offences probably took place, result in the conclusion that the officer involved should not continue on the force given the confidence that should repose in police officers.
I was struck by the reference to officers with âcriminal records of a history of allegationsâ. The whole problem is that they didnât have criminal records, which require convictions, which in turn require serious investigations.
Well put. It also strikes me that a huge part of this story is missing. Yes he was clearly able to get away with appalling behaviour for far too long. BUT on the other hand heâs pled guilty to almost 50 counts of rape, all of which (unless he underwent a fairly Damascene conversion and confessed to them unprompted) must have been investigated and substantiated to the point where they could be proven beyond reasonable doubt. So how did that happen? Something has (belatedly) gone right here, in a big way. But we donât hear what it was because the articleâs thrust is âno woman should ever trust the police because some of them are absolute monsters, and whatâs more an average of 1.25 complaints have been made against slightly over 2% of them.â
Itâs the sort of thing Iâd expect from the i. Unherdâs usually a lot better than this but I worry itâs losing its edge.
âRecords of a history of allegations of criminal behavior â is more accurate.
However we have already gone too far down the line of accepting allegations as convictions. The âsomething must be doneâ response to Soham.
Your phrasing is indeed more accurate. At the same time, I donât think the issue here is whether senior management in the police should accept allegations of criminal behaviour as if they were convictions or proof of guilt. That would go against the basic principles of justice that our society at least <i>claims</i> still to believe in. Rather, itâs whether membership of the police should require a person to behave to a higher standard than simply not having an actual criminal record. Unfounded and malicious allegations against members of the police would not be surprising in themselves; people could have many reasons for wanting to discredit a police officer, particularly if that officer is paying unwanted attention to their activities. But a <i>pattern</i> of allegations, from different complainants, seems to me to be incompatible with a job upholding the law.
Your phrasing is indeed more accurate. At the same time, I donât think the issue here is whether senior management in the police should accept allegations of criminal behaviour as if they were convictions or proof of guilt. That would go against the basic principles of justice that our society at least <i>claims</i> still to believe in. Rather, itâs whether membership of the police should require a person to behave to a higher standard than simply not having an actual criminal record. Unfounded and malicious allegations against members of the police would not be surprising in themselves; people could have many reasons for wanting to discredit a police officer, particularly if that officer is paying unwanted attention to their activities. But a <i>pattern</i> of allegations, from different complainants, seems to me to be incompatible with a job upholding the law.
âRecords of a history of allegations of criminal behavior â is more accurate.
However we have already gone too far down the line of accepting allegations as convictions. The âsomething must be doneâ response to Soham.
I was wondering about that phrase, which doesnât quite make sense. Was it meant to be âcriminal records OR a history of allegationsâ perhaps?
Your âquiteâ is generous; it doesnât make sense at all. I hadnât considered the possibility of a misprint, which would at least render the phrase coherent, but would also mean that some officers with actual criminal records were not dealt with, which doesnât seem to be the case.
Your âquiteâ is generous; it doesnât make sense at all. I hadnât considered the possibility of a misprint, which would at least render the phrase coherent, but would also mean that some officers with actual criminal records were not dealt with, which doesnât seem to be the case.
Well put. It also strikes me that a huge part of this story is missing. Yes he was clearly able to get away with appalling behaviour for far too long. BUT on the other hand heâs pled guilty to almost 50 counts of rape, all of which (unless he underwent a fairly Damascene conversion and confessed to them unprompted) must have been investigated and substantiated to the point where they could be proven beyond reasonable doubt. So how did that happen? Something has (belatedly) gone right here, in a big way. But we donât hear what it was because the articleâs thrust is âno woman should ever trust the police because some of them are absolute monsters, and whatâs more an average of 1.25 complaints have been made against slightly over 2% of them.â
Itâs the sort of thing Iâd expect from the i. Unherdâs usually a lot better than this but I worry itâs losing its edge.
I was wondering about that phrase, which doesnât quite make sense. Was it meant to be âcriminal records OR a history of allegationsâ perhaps?
Precisely.
What I suspect will happen is the fuzz will be sent on training courses berating them for their misogyny. Of course, while many men will make jocular and perhaps inappropriate comments about women most men treat women with courtesy and care. Few have hatred of women.
The police and many other institutions should stop these stupid courses and do their best to find the dangerous men. Itâs tough. Theyâll keep missing them but what struck me is that serious complaints about Cartill were not investigated. Shocking.
I share your fear that more money will be pumped into useless anti-misogyny training courses and investigating hurtful âmisogynisticâ comments rather than into the hard task of investigating serious allegations of criminality. One of the problems is the fact that getting rid of unsatisfactory employees has become a legal minefield where the HR department is more concerned to avoid an expensive lawsuit so problem employees are often retained.
Wouldnât it be great if HR departments went back to managing the payroll spreadsheet and kept their noses out of management?
And return to being called the Personnel Department.
And return to being called the Personnel Department.
Wouldnât it be great if HR departments went back to managing the payroll spreadsheet and kept their noses out of management?
I share your fear that more money will be pumped into useless anti-misogyny training courses and investigating hurtful âmisogynisticâ comments rather than into the hard task of investigating serious allegations of criminality. One of the problems is the fact that getting rid of unsatisfactory employees has become a legal minefield where the HR department is more concerned to avoid an expensive lawsuit so problem employees are often retained.
When working overseas compnies often had a clause or two along the lines of
â Employees will comply with the customs, traditions and etiquette of the zone of operations and make strenuous efforts not to cause offence. Also it used to be required to learn the languages â. Secretaries in employed by Shell Sharja in the 1940s had to learn Arabic.
This meant that if the employee offended local people with regard to religion and customs, they could be sent home. It could be as simple as in Muslim countries as eating with oneâs left hand at formal meal. This meant not only did each person have to behave but those with them as well. In addition, if the wife caused offence, both were sent home. Formal interviews used to be undertaken of husband and wife and they were briefed as to the conduct required which included children, especially after the age of puberty. If one did not accept the conditioons, one was not employed.
The simple phrase of â Conduct unbecoming of an officer and gentleman or lady â is all that is needed.
This is absolutely hilarious!!!
Because the British spent so much time and effort complying with local customs and traditions when abroad?!?! Utterly comical!!
My contract had these terms. A bank used to interview prospective wives to assess whether they could cope with the rigours of living in say Riyadh in the 1950s.
Countries such as Kuwait developed rapidly by the late 1960s. In the early 1970s, in some parts of the Middle East male employees were warnd to not allow their wives and daughters to to the edge of the desert in cased they were kidnapped. In the 1970s, slavery was still legal in Mauritania.
Peter OâToole met beduin who had ridden with Lawrence during filming of Lawrence of Arabia.
If you want some understanding of Arabian Peninsula in 1946/47, read Thesigerâs â Arabian Sands â
Yes, they did. Residents and Collectors of the East India Company did so with much enthusiasm, adopting local dress, culinary habits (they introduced âcurryâ to England), the language, and women.
Evidently your historical appreciation of the history of trade is sadly lacking.
My contract had these terms. A bank used to interview prospective wives to assess whether they could cope with the rigours of living in say Riyadh in the 1950s.
Countries such as Kuwait developed rapidly by the late 1960s. In the early 1970s, in some parts of the Middle East male employees were warnd to not allow their wives and daughters to to the edge of the desert in cased they were kidnapped. In the 1970s, slavery was still legal in Mauritania.
Peter OâToole met beduin who had ridden with Lawrence during filming of Lawrence of Arabia.
If you want some understanding of Arabian Peninsula in 1946/47, read Thesigerâs â Arabian Sands â
Yes, they did. Residents and Collectors of the East India Company did so with much enthusiasm, adopting local dress, culinary habits (they introduced âcurryâ to England), the language, and women.
Evidently your historical appreciation of the history of trade is sadly lacking.
This is absolutely hilarious!!!
Because the British spent so much time and effort complying with local customs and traditions when abroad?!?! Utterly comical!!
Rape culture
he was called b*****d dave, well diane abbots called angry black woman and , police use to like to have nasty nicknames the b*****d squad or the pigs in a self mocking way
Allegations mean nothing as for couzens the allegation of flashing couldnât be linked to him, when he lived in kent and was part of the nuclear royal navy constabulary hardly a proper police force
The fortune this federation spend isnât that for officer pay? As for they defend criminal cops isnât that like saying the national union of miners spent a fortune on lawyers to defend their members when accused of wrong doing or criminality of which many were found guilty
I was struck by the reference to officers with âcriminal records of a history of allegationsâ. The whole problem is that they didnât have criminal records, which require convictions, which in turn require serious investigations.
Precisely.
What I suspect will happen is the fuzz will be sent on training courses berating them for their misogyny. Of course, while many men will make jocular and perhaps inappropriate comments about women most men treat women with courtesy and care. Few have hatred of women.
The police and many other institutions should stop these stupid courses and do their best to find the dangerous men. Itâs tough. Theyâll keep missing them but what struck me is that serious complaints about Cartill were not investigated. Shocking.
When working overseas compnies often had a clause or two along the lines of
â Employees will comply with the customs, traditions and etiquette of the zone of operations and make strenuous efforts not to cause offence. Also it used to be required to learn the languages â. Secretaries in employed by Shell Sharja in the 1940s had to learn Arabic.
This meant that if the employee offended local people with regard to religion and customs, they could be sent home. It could be as simple as in Muslim countries as eating with oneâs left hand at formal meal. This meant not only did each person have to behave but those with them as well. In addition, if the wife caused offence, both were sent home. Formal interviews used to be undertaken of husband and wife and they were briefed as to the conduct required which included children, especially after the age of puberty. If one did not accept the conditioons, one was not employed.
The simple phrase of â Conduct unbecoming of an officer and gentleman or lady â is all that is needed.
Rape culture
he was called b*****d dave, well diane abbots called angry black woman and , police use to like to have nasty nicknames the b*****d squad or the pigs in a self mocking way
Allegations mean nothing as for couzens the allegation of flashing couldnât be linked to him, when he lived in kent and was part of the nuclear royal navy constabulary hardly a proper police force
The fortune this federation spend isnât that for officer pay? As for they defend criminal cops isnât that like saying the national union of miners spent a fortune on lawyers to defend their members when accused of wrong doing or criminality of which many were found guilty
âsenior officers should have been more determined to root out a misogynist like Carrick.â
The quote above illustrates one of the problems that bedevils addressing the failure to root out criminal police officers. The problem with Carrick and numerous other officers against whom allegations of criminal conduct are made are not that they are âmisogynistâ â in the sense of guilty of telling inappropriate jokes â but that they are criminals and their criminality is not properly investigated. This, of course, is a major problem in general that far too many crimes are not properly investigated and this applies particularly to fraud.
The force has become a bureaucratic and politically correct âserviceâ that is much more eager to spend time monitoring what is said rather than cracking down on criminality. The police need to return to the hard task of thoroughly investigating real crime and ensuring the evidence is made available to secure convictions. The failure to investigate and act upon previous allegations of criminal conduct against Carrick is part and parcel of the failure of the police force to do its job in rooting out criminals both within and without the force â major failure to prioritise what is important and to disregard the trivial and easy.
Of course getting solid evidence to secure a conviction of rape may be difficult where the offence is evidenced simply by allegations â but repeated allegations of a similar type ought to involve a serious investigation and evidence that falls short of that needed for a conviction should, if the investigators are convinced the offences probably took place, result in the conclusion that the officer involved should not continue on the force given the confidence that should repose in police officers.
More rules and procedures wonât solve this appalling problem. What is needed is courageous leadership at the middle levels, so officers are prepared to back their judgement and take action, knowing they will be supported by the senior ranks. If I was in charge of a police station where one of my men was called the Rapist, and the other b*****d Dave, I would want to know why.
More rules and procedures wonât solve this appalling problem. What is needed is courageous leadership at the middle levels, so officers are prepared to back their judgement and take action, knowing they will be supported by the senior ranks. If I was in charge of a police station where one of my men was called the Rapist, and the other b*****d Dave, I would want to know why.
How much do the police spend on their HR and governance where they are committed to every progressive idea of tolerance, equality and inclusivity? Isnât this the case with our hollowed out institutions that talk the talk but are really self-serving job creation schemes? And the last thing we need is another inquiry â there are systems there for rooting out bad apples and those who allow them to remain in place.
How much do the police spend on their HR and governance where they are committed to every progressive idea of tolerance, equality and inclusivity? Isnât this the case with our hollowed out institutions that talk the talk but are really self-serving job creation schemes? And the last thing we need is another inquiry â there are systems there for rooting out bad apples and those who allow them to remain in place.
This criminality in the police and the culture of ignoring it has been around a long time. One of the issues is that officers being investigated just resign and claim their pension. As they have left the police have no sanctions other than prosecution and rarely see the need to make such a âfussâ over an ex officer. Result they are completely unpunished and sometimes even join another force.
Internal investigations must not be dropped but continued until someone has to sign off the officer as innocent or not.
There must also be prosecution of all failures of professional standards so they cannot just resign to avoid punishment.
This criminality in the police and the culture of ignoring it has been around a long time. One of the issues is that officers being investigated just resign and claim their pension. As they have left the police have no sanctions other than prosecution and rarely see the need to make such a âfussâ over an ex officer. Result they are completely unpunished and sometimes even join another force.
Internal investigations must not be dropped but continued until someone has to sign off the officer as innocent or not.
There must also be prosecution of all failures of professional standards so they cannot just resign to avoid punishment.
The problems with these issues go back 20 yrs or more. Back in the late 90s there was a government push to bring civilians into police forces to âfree up bobbies to do real police workâ A nice idea on paper. In practice it meant that lots of areas were selected for civilianisation. Recruitment was one of them. Civil servants have mazing abilities to build little empires & police commanders enabled this. If you look at the senior officers in your average police force now theyâll have civilian equivalents with titles to match the senior officers & inevitably one will be in charge of the HR monolith.
Prior to this, first line recruitment was often carried out by experienced sergeants. What they had in abundance was a copperâs instinct. Iâm 22 yrs away from policing now, but I well recall attending a briefing on what were described as âthe problem childrenâ (these werenât criminal officers, just ones with a poor sickness record & were usually described as not being much use when they were at work either). Virtually all of their immediate colleagues wanted rid of these âpassengersâ.
There was a very interesting finding in the study around that briefing in 1999. In every case, the recruiting sergeant has made a negative comment or expressed doubts about the candidate & was over-ruled by someone senior in the recruitment process. In other words, they ignored the two most basic things that make a good police officer. Experience on the streets & the resulting instinct that comes with that experience.
Of course nowadays the idea of a sergeant visiting the family home of an applicant & chatting to the parents & siblings & âgetting a feelâ for the candidate are all seen as outdated. Now thereâll be focus groups & action centred workshops to identify initiative & leadership. Some of this is even contracted out. No one will have actually have got a real sense for the person, in the way that a seasoned recruiting sergeant would have. Whatâs more that sergeant wouldnât be listened to, (even if they voiced concerns), lest the organisation be accused of discriminating against anyone.
The other big failing in modern policing is the proper use of the probationary period. Under police regulations there is the ability to sack an officer without recourse during probation if they are deemed not to make the standard for a good officer.
I can recall having a probationer once, who was just not cut out for the job. His time keeping was poor, his sickness record (especially for a probationer) was nothing special & when at work I described him as âwork shyâ. So in his appraisal I recommended that he shouldnât be confirmed as a constable at the end of his probation. Truth be told I had a fight on my hands. But for a supportive Superintendent heâd probably have been nodded through. We got him removed & then the inevitable letter arrived from a solicitor. The Superintendent replied & suggested the solicitor acquaint himself with police regulations. We never heard from him again.
When I applied (but didnât eventually carry through*) for the City Police it was all done by current officers. It was clear that several unsuitable people were in our tranche of applicants, and these recruiting officers spotted and removed them rapidly.
*I chose to take a University place instead.
When I applied (but didnât eventually carry through*) for the City Police it was all done by current officers. It was clear that several unsuitable people were in our tranche of applicants, and these recruiting officers spotted and removed them rapidly.
*I chose to take a University place instead.
The problems with these issues go back 20 yrs or more. Back in the late 90s there was a government push to bring civilians into police forces to âfree up bobbies to do real police workâ A nice idea on paper. In practice it meant that lots of areas were selected for civilianisation. Recruitment was one of them. Civil servants have mazing abilities to build little empires & police commanders enabled this. If you look at the senior officers in your average police force now theyâll have civilian equivalents with titles to match the senior officers & inevitably one will be in charge of the HR monolith.
Prior to this, first line recruitment was often carried out by experienced sergeants. What they had in abundance was a copperâs instinct. Iâm 22 yrs away from policing now, but I well recall attending a briefing on what were described as âthe problem childrenâ (these werenât criminal officers, just ones with a poor sickness record & were usually described as not being much use when they were at work either). Virtually all of their immediate colleagues wanted rid of these âpassengersâ.
There was a very interesting finding in the study around that briefing in 1999. In every case, the recruiting sergeant has made a negative comment or expressed doubts about the candidate & was over-ruled by someone senior in the recruitment process. In other words, they ignored the two most basic things that make a good police officer. Experience on the streets & the resulting instinct that comes with that experience.
Of course nowadays the idea of a sergeant visiting the family home of an applicant & chatting to the parents & siblings & âgetting a feelâ for the candidate are all seen as outdated. Now thereâll be focus groups & action centred workshops to identify initiative & leadership. Some of this is even contracted out. No one will have actually have got a real sense for the person, in the way that a seasoned recruiting sergeant would have. Whatâs more that sergeant wouldnât be listened to, (even if they voiced concerns), lest the organisation be accused of discriminating against anyone.
The other big failing in modern policing is the proper use of the probationary period. Under police regulations there is the ability to sack an officer without recourse during probation if they are deemed not to make the standard for a good officer.
I can recall having a probationer once, who was just not cut out for the job. His time keeping was poor, his sickness record (especially for a probationer) was nothing special & when at work I described him as âwork shyâ. So in his appraisal I recommended that he shouldnât be confirmed as a constable at the end of his probation. Truth be told I had a fight on my hands. But for a supportive Superintendent heâd probably have been nodded through. We got him removed & then the inevitable letter arrived from a solicitor. The Superintendent replied & suggested the solicitor acquaint himself with police regulations. We never heard from him again.
In this Metro-tier analysis, Joan Smith highlights how Labour will introduce a vetting system.
The party that canât define a woman will be able to vet and identify misogynists applying to be police officersâŠ..
Have I just ruled myself out of a copper job for disagreeing with a woman?
Maybe this would have been solved sooner if the police werenât so busy arresting Christians for silently praying near abortion clinics, questioning people over tweets and assisting eco protests
In this Metro-tier analysis, Joan Smith highlights how Labour will introduce a vetting system.
The party that canât define a woman will be able to vet and identify misogynists applying to be police officersâŠ..
Have I just ruled myself out of a copper job for disagreeing with a woman?
Maybe this would have been solved sooner if the police werenât so busy arresting Christians for silently praying near abortion clinics, questioning people over tweets and assisting eco protests
The problem when the Police was formed it was decided there would no officer class and all would be promoted from the rank of constable. What do we want of a police man or woman. Are they an Officer of the Law and expected to behave as officer of the Armed Forces or are they a private in blue.
Up to the mid 1960s part of this problem was circumvented by many Chief Constable being ex Military officers. Trenchard who was Commissioner of the Met in the 1920s was a Former Air Chief Marshall. Many Chief Constable were colonels or above. I think at stage one could moved from the Armed Forces to the Police. A captain became a Chief Inspector. Also, certainly the City of London recruited many formers sergeants from the Guards Petty Officers from the Royal Navy.
Over Carrickâs career there has been a complete failure by senior officers to o judge that his behaviour was worthy of sacking. This comes down to massive failure judgement. Once one is in position of leadership, a personâs worth is basically the quality of their judgment. In the Armed Forces there is a charge of conduct unbecoming of an officer. If senior officers cannot detect that Carrick was a criminal, how good are they of detecting criminals outside of the Police for which they are employed?. Another explanation was that Couzens and Carrick held onto their positions because they are able to blackmail senior officers?
What is to be done? I suggest the following
1. Senior Military officers of Lt Colonel or higher are appointed as Chief Constable. Deputy CC would be the career police officer.- return to pre 1950s situation.
2. Entry standards to be raised to RN Accelerated Apprenticeship and copy the selection procedures. A Levels to be restricted to classical and Modern Languages, History, English, Maths and Sciences. Many arts degrees are worthless, A Levels in Maths, Physics and Chemistry are not.
3. Entry from Armed Forces at Sergeant and Officer Level to be encouraged. I suggest returning to pre 1950s/WW2 where rank was kept, Sergeants became Sergeants, Lts were appointed as Inspector, Captain Chief Inspector and Major Superintendent.
4. Introduce the sackable offence of â Conduct unbecoming of an officer â.
5. Annual fitness tests up to the age of 40 years. The standard required would be RN or Technical Corps of The Army.
6. All police to maintain the same conduct expected of the officers of the Armed Forces.
7. Should all Police be sent to the officer training establishments and be taught the duties, responsibilities and conduct required of an officer? This appears to be lacking from present day Police training.
8. Unless Police behave as Officers and Gentlemen /Ladies they will have a graduate only recruitment policy and probably an officer class imposed upon them.
Superb analysis, âthis should be known as âThe Hedges Reportâ!
Thank you. Having worked in good, average and bad organisations; played a variety of sports, had friends in a variety of military organisations, lived in rough violent parts of cities and studied history, I have become interested in what works and why decline sets in.
If one takes three organisations; Shell, TheAll Blacks and Royal Marine Commandos they set the standards which others follow and have done so for over a hundred years. Why? They have a clear understanding of the challenges and obstacles they face and have a selection procedure which recruits people with potential. All training does is cut and polish the stone: one cannot make a silk purse out of a sowâs ear. Training cuts and polishes the stone. In all organisations selection and training has varied as challenges and obstacles have varied.
The Police are recruited from the People. Britain by the 1870s, apart from a few rough areas, such as the docks, Britain had very low rates of killings and robbery: honesty, chivalry and gallantry were respected virtues by all classes. Since the 1960s a combination of ill manners, ill- discipline, coarseness, crudeness, crass materialism evolved in America and migrated to Britain and combined with white British Middle class Trotskyism which ridiculed and undermined politeness, good manners, and honesty has coarsened and reduced the honesty of vast numbers of British people. Many West Indian and West African parents were horrified of theses attitudes in London comprehensives and sent their children back home to be educated.The Police who recruit from the British people reflect the change.
In the 1960s, Jack Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Dr Martin Luther King, Motown and the entertainment industry maintained a degree of decency which rapidly declined post early 1970s. Those who grew up in the horrors of the Depression, suffered poverty, the hunger and the squalid living conditions, then endured combat, know how thin is the veneer of civilisation and how self-control and self- discipline is needed to prevent killing. Men queuing for a days work to earn money to feed their family will soon resort to violence and only decency and self control will prevent it. Both the killings and woundings by gang members and actions by Carrick and Couzens are result of the under mining of the Judaeo Christian morality which underpins chivalry and gallantry. There will be no doubt those who mock me but I would ask them â How would you cope in a fight when out numbered and being attacked by people with knives or broken bottles?â. If you would not cope, then I suggest a return to the British concepts of chivalry and gallantry could save you from being killed, raped, crippled or scarred for life.
Your two comments are hopefully a parody because they are almost beyond mockery.
I have worked with Irish foremen and they did not allow swearing in front of ladies let alone conversation with sexual innuendo. Swearing was not allowed in front the ladies who worked in construction site canteens. I have spoken to ladies who said they preferred working in construction companies and even on site because they were treated with respect.
During the height of football hooliganism men in the crowds at rugby league matches did not not allow foul language or bad behavior in front of ladies. The men who play rugby league are far larger, stronger and tougher than footballers, often come from the,same disadvantage backgrounds as footballers, so why was there next to no violence and foul behavior? When there was pitch invasion at Hull RLFC, the Chairman threaetned to close the club if it happened again.
Historically many women have worked in pubs in rough areas and even owned them but they were unmolested even while there were fights between men.
Rose tinted view of the past I think CH. Look up what Robert Marks had to do when appointed in 70s to Head of the Met. Huge corruption problem he had to take on.
As we all appreciate many Officers are fantastic public servants, and must be furious with the few that damage the trust in which they are placed.
As regards the military â my time in the military introduced me to racism, sexism, anti-semitism and anti-catholicism way beyond anything I had experienced in my prior 18yrs. Elements were utterly dreadful. It of course though also embedded some tremendous lifelong values too for which I remain v grateful, but the dichotomy remained. Fortunately I know from my Son and Daughter, both whoâve served, things are much improved.
Do not deny corruption of 1970.
You mention the Army,The City of London Police recruited ex- sergeants from the Guards and Royal Navy, how did they behave? Those failed to enter the City of London often went into the Metâ.
Your comments about the Army: did those who worked alongside other races in WW2 and Colonial Conflicts, say Palestine, Malaya, Borneo, Oman, etc and had to learn local languages behave in a racist manner ? What about Roman Catholic officers?
How much was due to poor pay by 1970? How much of pay of police officers had been boosted by Army Pensions and as numbers declined, corruption increased?
How did our Police compare to any other country, say France or Italy or New York in 1970? How did our murder rate compare with other countries ?
Please compare violence from Rugby League with Football supporters ? Cannot remember much violence from Rugby League supporters.
Drunk in enough rough pubs, female bar staff were safe.
Do not deny corruption of 1970.
You mention the Army,The City of London Police recruited ex- sergeants from the Guards and Royal Navy, how did they behave? Those failed to enter the City of London often went into the Metâ.
Your comments about the Army: did those who worked alongside other races in WW2 and Colonial Conflicts, say Palestine, Malaya, Borneo, Oman, etc and had to learn local languages behave in a racist manner ? What about Roman Catholic officers?
How much was due to poor pay by 1970? How much of pay of police officers had been boosted by Army Pensions and as numbers declined, corruption increased?
How did our Police compare to any other country, say France or Italy or New York in 1970? How did our murder rate compare with other countries ?
Please compare violence from Rugby League with Football supporters ? Cannot remember much violence from Rugby League supporters.
Drunk in enough rough pubs, female bar staff were safe.
Rose tinted view of the past I think CH. Look up what Robert Marks had to do when appointed in 70s to Head of the Met. Huge corruption problem he had to take on.
As we all appreciate many Officers are fantastic public servants, and must be furious with the few that damage the trust in which they are placed.
As regards the military â my time in the military introduced me to racism, sexism, anti-semitism and anti-catholicism way beyond anything I had experienced in my prior 18yrs. Elements were utterly dreadful. It of course though also embedded some tremendous lifelong values too for which I remain v grateful, but the dichotomy remained. Fortunately I know from my Son and Daughter, both whoâve served, things are much improved.
I have worked with Irish foremen and they did not allow swearing in front of ladies let alone conversation with sexual innuendo. Swearing was not allowed in front the ladies who worked in construction site canteens. I have spoken to ladies who said they preferred working in construction companies and even on site because they were treated with respect.
During the height of football hooliganism men in the crowds at rugby league matches did not not allow foul language or bad behavior in front of ladies. The men who play rugby league are far larger, stronger and tougher than footballers, often come from the,same disadvantage backgrounds as footballers, so why was there next to no violence and foul behavior? When there was pitch invasion at Hull RLFC, the Chairman threaetned to close the club if it happened again.
Historically many women have worked in pubs in rough areas and even owned them but they were unmolested even while there were fights between men.
Your two comments are hopefully a parody because they are almost beyond mockery.
Thank you. Having worked in good, average and bad organisations; played a variety of sports, had friends in a variety of military organisations, lived in rough violent parts of cities and studied history, I have become interested in what works and why decline sets in.
If one takes three organisations; Shell, TheAll Blacks and Royal Marine Commandos they set the standards which others follow and have done so for over a hundred years. Why? They have a clear understanding of the challenges and obstacles they face and have a selection procedure which recruits people with potential. All training does is cut and polish the stone: one cannot make a silk purse out of a sowâs ear. Training cuts and polishes the stone. In all organisations selection and training has varied as challenges and obstacles have varied.
The Police are recruited from the People. Britain by the 1870s, apart from a few rough areas, such as the docks, Britain had very low rates of killings and robbery: honesty, chivalry and gallantry were respected virtues by all classes. Since the 1960s a combination of ill manners, ill- discipline, coarseness, crudeness, crass materialism evolved in America and migrated to Britain and combined with white British Middle class Trotskyism which ridiculed and undermined politeness, good manners, and honesty has coarsened and reduced the honesty of vast numbers of British people. Many West Indian and West African parents were horrified of theses attitudes in London comprehensives and sent their children back home to be educated.The Police who recruit from the British people reflect the change.
In the 1960s, Jack Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Dr Martin Luther King, Motown and the entertainment industry maintained a degree of decency which rapidly declined post early 1970s. Those who grew up in the horrors of the Depression, suffered poverty, the hunger and the squalid living conditions, then endured combat, know how thin is the veneer of civilisation and how self-control and self- discipline is needed to prevent killing. Men queuing for a days work to earn money to feed their family will soon resort to violence and only decency and self control will prevent it. Both the killings and woundings by gang members and actions by Carrick and Couzens are result of the under mining of the Judaeo Christian morality which underpins chivalry and gallantry. There will be no doubt those who mock me but I would ask them â How would you cope in a fight when out numbered and being attacked by people with knives or broken bottles?â. If you would not cope, then I suggest a return to the British concepts of chivalry and gallantry could save you from being killed, raped, crippled or scarred for life.
Superb analysis, âthis should be known as âThe Hedges Reportâ!
The problem when the Police was formed it was decided there would no officer class and all would be promoted from the rank of constable. What do we want of a police man or woman. Are they an Officer of the Law and expected to behave as officer of the Armed Forces or are they a private in blue.
Up to the mid 1960s part of this problem was circumvented by many Chief Constable being ex Military officers. Trenchard who was Commissioner of the Met in the 1920s was a Former Air Chief Marshall. Many Chief Constable were colonels or above. I think at stage one could moved from the Armed Forces to the Police. A captain became a Chief Inspector. Also, certainly the City of London recruited many formers sergeants from the Guards Petty Officers from the Royal Navy.
Over Carrickâs career there has been a complete failure by senior officers to o judge that his behaviour was worthy of sacking. This comes down to massive failure judgement. Once one is in position of leadership, a personâs worth is basically the quality of their judgment. In the Armed Forces there is a charge of conduct unbecoming of an officer. If senior officers cannot detect that Carrick was a criminal, how good are they of detecting criminals outside of the Police for which they are employed?. Another explanation was that Couzens and Carrick held onto their positions because they are able to blackmail senior officers?
What is to be done? I suggest the following
1. Senior Military officers of Lt Colonel or higher are appointed as Chief Constable. Deputy CC would be the career police officer.- return to pre 1950s situation.
2. Entry standards to be raised to RN Accelerated Apprenticeship and copy the selection procedures. A Levels to be restricted to classical and Modern Languages, History, English, Maths and Sciences. Many arts degrees are worthless, A Levels in Maths, Physics and Chemistry are not.
3. Entry from Armed Forces at Sergeant and Officer Level to be encouraged. I suggest returning to pre 1950s/WW2 where rank was kept, Sergeants became Sergeants, Lts were appointed as Inspector, Captain Chief Inspector and Major Superintendent.
4. Introduce the sackable offence of â Conduct unbecoming of an officer â.
5. Annual fitness tests up to the age of 40 years. The standard required would be RN or Technical Corps of The Army.
6. All police to maintain the same conduct expected of the officers of the Armed Forces.
7. Should all Police be sent to the officer training establishments and be taught the duties, responsibilities and conduct required of an officer? This appears to be lacking from present day Police training.
8. Unless Police behave as Officers and Gentlemen /Ladies they will have a graduate only recruitment policy and probably an officer class imposed upon them.
The real problem, which the dreaded Home Office studiously fails to address, is that the Police lack a proper âOfficer Corpsâ, and have done so since at least the late 1950âs.
Itâs all very well âpromoting from the ranksâ but inevitably the âCanteen Cultureâ follows, with frankly appalling results. This may at first glance appear snobbish, but it works very well for the Army, and has done so for centuries.
Of course, the army has no problems whatsoever with sexual assault or young women committing suicide during training. The hoary old âthey need an officer classâ argument is bunk. The police isnât an army, nor would we want it to be. And Iâve served in both.
Do you have a better solution?
Actually I do, but I doubt anyone would listen as Iâm not âofficer classâ.
That sounds a bit âchippyâ and also rather anachronistic if I may say so.
However we live in a egalitarian age a thousands who are not âOfficer classâ have performed outstandingly well, so why NOT in the Police?
Perhaps it has something to do with that inherent feeling of inferiority or âchippinesâ that you speak of?
Donât let that stop you. If the âsubaltensâ donât speak out how will anything change?
That sounds a bit âchippyâ and also rather anachronistic if I may say so.
However we live in a egalitarian age a thousands who are not âOfficer classâ have performed outstandingly well, so why NOT in the Police?
Perhaps it has something to do with that inherent feeling of inferiority or âchippinesâ that you speak of?
Donât let that stop you. If the âsubaltensâ donât speak out how will anything change?
Actually I do, but I doubt anyone would listen as Iâm not âofficer classâ.
As a former member of the officer class, I have to agree with Charles. Itâs nothing to do with social class, itâs to do with having leaders who have been recruited specifically as future leaders and exhaustively trained to lead. That doesnât preclude promotion from the ranks, quite the reverse, but it sets the standard for leadership that such candidates for promotion know they must aspire to.
The Army does have a problem with the treatment of women, especially trainees, but then trainees have always been vulnerable to bullying by NCOs. The greatly increased numbers of women joining the armed forces over the past three decades has simply enabled sexual assault to be added to the list of abuses visited upon trainees. The officer class knows this is completely unacceptable, even if they havenât managed completely to prevent it, whereas the NCO class (analogous to almost the entire police force) has a proportion of members who donât seem to know this at all.
Interestingly, almost all police forces now point blank refuse to recruit ex-service personnel even though most people would consider them ideal candidates. Police forces claim itâs because they are not graduates but I suspect the reason is a fear of having their lax standards of both work and personal conduct exposed.
Excellent, your last two sentences neatly encapsulate what has gone wrong.
Frankly I find it simply incredible that we could have reached such a nadir.
Excellent, your last two sentences neatly encapsulate what has gone wrong.
Frankly I find it simply incredible that we could have reached such a nadir.
Do you have a better solution?
As a former member of the officer class, I have to agree with Charles. Itâs nothing to do with social class, itâs to do with having leaders who have been recruited specifically as future leaders and exhaustively trained to lead. That doesnât preclude promotion from the ranks, quite the reverse, but it sets the standard for leadership that such candidates for promotion know they must aspire to.
The Army does have a problem with the treatment of women, especially trainees, but then trainees have always been vulnerable to bullying by NCOs. The greatly increased numbers of women joining the armed forces over the past three decades has simply enabled sexual assault to be added to the list of abuses visited upon trainees. The officer class knows this is completely unacceptable, even if they havenât managed completely to prevent it, whereas the NCO class (analogous to almost the entire police force) has a proportion of members who donât seem to know this at all.
Interestingly, almost all police forces now point blank refuse to recruit ex-service personnel even though most people would consider them ideal candidates. Police forces claim itâs because they are not graduates but I suspect the reason is a fear of having their lax standards of both work and personal conduct exposed.
I stand to be corrected, but isnât part of the problem that the police does have an officer corps recruited direct from university and fast tracked to senior positions with limited experience of life at the sharp end of policing and even less experience of rank and file colleagues?
I was under the impression that that policy had been abandoned, after that Pannick chap.
You may be right. Unfortunately the earlier recruits have risen to the top with predictable results.
You may be right. Unfortunately the earlier recruits have risen to the top with predictable results.
The police certainly had a fast-track for graduates, before the bizarre decision that all police now have to be graduates. The problem was that the fast-track was simply that, a means of filling more senior ranks with people who, as you say, did not have the experience for nor understanding of the role.
The police seemed to think that this was equivalent to acquiring an officer class but of course wasnât. They got the same recruit training as everyone else, not a training designed to produce future leaders.
I was under the impression that that policy had been abandoned, after that Pannick chap.
The police certainly had a fast-track for graduates, before the bizarre decision that all police now have to be graduates. The problem was that the fast-track was simply that, a means of filling more senior ranks with people who, as you say, did not have the experience for nor understanding of the role.
The police seemed to think that this was equivalent to acquiring an officer class but of course wasnât. They got the same recruit training as everyone else, not a training designed to produce future leaders.
You seem unaware of whatâs being going on at Sandhurst then.
Completely!
Please tell me more!
Completely!
Please tell me more!
The âofficer classâ or âRupertsâ as they are often called by the âranksâ were a mixed bag. Some were good, many were average and many more were hopeless. The Sergeants have tended to run the army and again they can be a mixed bag. I prefer a meritocracy where those with talent can flourish. The armed forces have benefitted enormously with the number of NCOs taking commissions over the last 50 years. At the same time many of the âofficer classâ elected to not join the armed forces and instead used their family and school contacts to build mediocre, over-paid careers in the City.
Youâre confusing officer class with social class. Yes, there were, still are I suspect, certain prestigious regiments where Ruperts congregated. You wouldnât find many in, say, the REME, though. In the RN they were rare and in the RAF virtually unknown.
Officer recruitment is very meritocratic and has been for decades. Yes, recruitment from the ranks is a great strength of the British forces but the point is that such candidates are selected on their demonstrable potential to perform as a member of the OC. As the police donât have an OC they cannot promote on that basis.
Well the Brigade of Guards, now (sadly) the Household Division used to operate on a system of simply superb Non Commissioned Officers, and a cocktail of some absolutely useless Commissioned Officers, combined with a number of simply outstanding ones.
The Sergeant Mess, twice the size of those in other âLine Regimentsâ was the real âfurnaceâ of this creativity, but sadly is now under threat.
One interesting feature of this system was the nightly attendance of a normally very young Piquet Officer (Duty Officer) at about 2200hrs. This was an opportunity for the âSergeant Messâ to tell the young miscreant how exactly the Battalion was to be run! I gather it worked rather well.
Youâre confusing officer class with social class. Yes, there were, still are I suspect, certain prestigious regiments where Ruperts congregated. You wouldnât find many in, say, the REME, though. In the RN they were rare and in the RAF virtually unknown.
Officer recruitment is very meritocratic and has been for decades. Yes, recruitment from the ranks is a great strength of the British forces but the point is that such candidates are selected on their demonstrable potential to perform as a member of the OC. As the police donât have an OC they cannot promote on that basis.
Well the Brigade of Guards, now (sadly) the Household Division used to operate on a system of simply superb Non Commissioned Officers, and a cocktail of some absolutely useless Commissioned Officers, combined with a number of simply outstanding ones.
The Sergeant Mess, twice the size of those in other âLine Regimentsâ was the real âfurnaceâ of this creativity, but sadly is now under threat.
One interesting feature of this system was the nightly attendance of a normally very young Piquet Officer (Duty Officer) at about 2200hrs. This was an opportunity for the âSergeant Messâ to tell the young miscreant how exactly the Battalion was to be run! I gather it worked rather well.
The Royal Marines are very good at training those from the ranks to become officers and many have done so. . perhaps the Police could adopt the RMs method?
The basic difference between the Sergeant and Platoon Officer is responsibility.The officer is responsible for effectiveness of the troop and is advised by the Sergeant and NCOs.
Many of the best officers in the Armed forces have been promoted from the ranks, Field Mrashal Bramhall, General Sir Peter de la Billiere after they have undergone officer training.
Perhaps promotion to Inspector and above should require passing an officer course ?
Precisely, with something like the RCB and Lympstone to follow perhaps.
Precisely, with something like the RCB and Lympstone to follow perhaps.
Of course, the army has no problems whatsoever with sexual assault or young women committing suicide during training. The hoary old âthey need an officer classâ argument is bunk. The police isnât an army, nor would we want it to be. And Iâve served in both.
I stand to be corrected, but isnât part of the problem that the police does have an officer corps recruited direct from university and fast tracked to senior positions with limited experience of life at the sharp end of policing and even less experience of rank and file colleagues?
You seem unaware of whatâs being going on at Sandhurst then.
The âofficer classâ or âRupertsâ as they are often called by the âranksâ were a mixed bag. Some were good, many were average and many more were hopeless. The Sergeants have tended to run the army and again they can be a mixed bag. I prefer a meritocracy where those with talent can flourish. The armed forces have benefitted enormously with the number of NCOs taking commissions over the last 50 years. At the same time many of the âofficer classâ elected to not join the armed forces and instead used their family and school contacts to build mediocre, over-paid careers in the City.
The Royal Marines are very good at training those from the ranks to become officers and many have done so. . perhaps the Police could adopt the RMs method?
The basic difference between the Sergeant and Platoon Officer is responsibility.The officer is responsible for effectiveness of the troop and is advised by the Sergeant and NCOs.
Many of the best officers in the Armed forces have been promoted from the ranks, Field Mrashal Bramhall, General Sir Peter de la Billiere after they have undergone officer training.
Perhaps promotion to Inspector and above should require passing an officer course ?
The real problem, which the dreaded Home Office studiously fails to address, is that the Police lack a proper âOfficer Corpsâ, and have done so since at least the late 1950âs.
Itâs all very well âpromoting from the ranksâ but inevitably the âCanteen Cultureâ follows, with frankly appalling results. This may at first glance appear snobbish, but it works very well for the Army, and has done so for centuries.
It is now very hard to sack people in this country.
âHowâs that Employment Rights thing workinâ out for ya?â
It is now very hard to sack people in this country.
âHowâs that Employment Rights thing workinâ out for ya?â
Not to mention the corruption that must exist as a result of the massive illegal drugs industry.
Not to mention the corruption that must exist as a result of the massive illegal drugs industry.
The answer is the development of strong, principled and empowered leadership at all levels throughout the organisation. Empowered means, amongst other things, being able to overrule the HR Department if needs be, even if doing so might risk a claim for unfair or wrongful dismissal. Leadership must be accountable for its actions but matters of clear principle should always override bureaucratic process.
Better still, get rid of HR altogether. Useless people.
Better still, get rid of HR altogether. Useless people.
The answer is the development of strong, principled and empowered leadership at all levels throughout the organisation. Empowered means, amongst other things, being able to overrule the HR Department if needs be, even if doing so might risk a claim for unfair or wrongful dismissal. Leadership must be accountable for its actions but matters of clear principle should always override bureaucratic process.
âThe best Police money can buy â as âweâ to used to say.
My dad used to say the police were biggest gang in the country.
He wasnât far wrong, annoyingly!
An element of truth in all the old sayings
tbf they arenât too bad around here.
An element of truth in all the old sayings
tbf they arenât too bad around here.
He wasnât far wrong, annoyingly!
My dad used to say the police were biggest gang in the country.
âThe best Police money can buy â as âweâ to used to say.
Why is there never any mention of the Police Federation? Over the years they have spent a fortune on legal help for criminal policemen and are probably infiltrated by the very people the police need to get rid of.
He will be lucky to keep his job
He will be lucky to keep his job