Policing in the UK

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

It’s also the same CPS that’s locked up every rightfully convicted criminal since 1986.

Sounds very much an institution that has an accuracy record as good as Anthony Taylor. He gets some right!

 

[domalino]

Its because they have to act under the most intense pressure and make split second decisions in dynamic, ever evolving situations. There is no such thing as rules of engagement, except in Line Of Duty. They work under dynamically changing information and intelligence. The decisions they make are rightly accountable and nobody takes life or death decisions lightly, but they are made in an instant. Those decisions and actions are poured over and scrutinised after the event. But to fear being charged with murder goes way beyond the procedure of suspension while an independent review is undertaken. That concern will naturally affect the decisions made, and that makes it dangerous and unsafe. In other words actions are slowed, doubt creeps in, and dynamic events arent responded to properly.

I would have absolutely no problem with the firearms officers actually going on strike for better pay to reflect the increased danger and difficulty of their jobs - in fact I’d encourage it.

Clearly this is a job that is more stressful, more dangerous, requires further qualification and reflects a position of immense trust and seniority in the company. It deserves higher pay and other benefits.

But downing tools because one of your colleagues has been referred to the CPS by the IPCC following a review, and then the CPS decide to bring charges is a really bad look.

It brings to mind all the worst stories and incidents of police throwing their weight around, thinking they are above the laws they enforce on the public at a time when public trust in the police (especially the Met) is the lowest it’s been in decades and hot off the back of several very high profile cases like firearms officer David Carrick raping 24 women, Sarah Everard’s murder, paying out hundreds of thousands to the 2 women assaulted at the vigil, another Met officer charged with rape last month, 5 officers convicted for sending grossly racist messages to each other just the other week.

Even if you’re biased enough to think the CPS has launched a political witch huntX it’s very hard to believe that the IPCC is out to get these officers as well, and even if you do believe that, these are police officers…they are supposed to trust the justice system they are part of.


Also I don’t understand your argument of “ to fear being charged with murder goes way beyond the procedure of suspension while an independent review is undertaken”. It makes no sense, they must know that when they pick up a gun they are not given carte Blanche to do whatever they want and the worst that can happen is suspension during a review, regardless of what that review finds.

They know that if the independent review decides they murdered someone they don’t just walk away from that Scott free.

 

[Uncle Wally One Ball]

I would have absolutely no problem with the firearms officers actually going on strike for better pay to reflect the increased danger and difficulty of their jobs.

Clearly this is a job that is more stressful, more dangerous, requires further qualification and reflects a position of immense trust and seniority in the company. It deserves higher pay and other benefits.

But downing tools because one of your colleagues has been referred to the CPS by the IPCC following a review, and then the CPS decide to bring charges is a really bad look.

It brings to mind all the worst stories and incidents of police throwing their weight around, thinking they are above the laws they enforce on the public at a time when public trust in the police (especially the Met) is the lowest it’s been in decades and hot off the back of several very high profile cases like firearms officer David Carrick raping 24 women, Sarah Everard’s murder, paying out hundreds of thousands to the 2 women assaulted at the vigil, another Met officer charged with rape last month, 5 officers convicted for sending grossly racist messages to each other just the other week.

Normal service has been resumed now anyway, they have enough

 

[domalino]

Normal service has been resumed now anyway, they have enough

Yeah but the reputational damage is done.

Parts of the public (hopefully not that many) now think armed officers are a gang who tried to blackmail the country into abandoning an ongoing CPS case into one of their own and got their bluff called and came running back to the positions they are obviously desperate to have when the army immediately replaced them.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

Yeah but the reputational damage is done.

Parts of the public (hopefully not that many) now think armed officers are a gang who tried to blackmail the country into abandoning an ongoing CPS case into one of their own and got their bluff called and came running back to the positions they are obviously desperate to have when the army immediately replaced them.

The 'army' could not immediately replace police firearms teams to the same level of cover anyway, and I think the Police Service would be on shaky ground legally in trying to do so.

Whilst active military personnel (of all armed services) may be authorised to carry and use firearms in the line of duty on UK sovereign land, they are not specifically trained in conflict management or negotiation techniques, and cannot legally detain any member of the public, even on military land unless they believe a crime has been committed and they are exercising the powers of citizens arrest.

 

[bert38]

I would have absolutely no problem with the firearms officers actually going on strike for better pay to reflect the increased danger and difficulty of their jobs - in fact I’d encourage it.

Clearly this is a job that is more stressful, more dangerous, requires further qualification and reflects a position of immense trust and seniority in the company. It deserves higher pay and other benefits.

But downing tools because one of your colleagues has been referred to the CPS by the IPCC following a review, and then the CPS decide to bring charges is a really bad look.

It brings to mind all the worst stories and incidents of police throwing their weight around, thinking they are above the laws they enforce on the public at a time when public trust in the police (especially the Met) is the lowest it’s been in decades and hot off the back of several very high profile cases like firearms officer David Carrick raping 24 women, Sarah Everard’s murder, paying out hundreds of thousands to the 2 women assaulted at the vigil, another Met officer charged with rape last month, 5 officers convicted for sending grossly racist messages to each other just the other week.

Even if you’re biased enough to think the CPS has launched a political witch huntX it’s very hard to believe that the IPCC is out to get these officers as well, and even if you do believe that, these are police officers…they are supposed to trust the justice system they are part of.


Also I don’t understand your argument of “ to fear being charged with murder goes way beyond the procedure of suspension while an independent review is undertaken”. It makes no sense, they must know that when they pick up a gun they are not given carte Blanche to do whatever they want and the worst that can happen is suspension during a review, regardless of what that review finds.

They know that if the independent review decides they murdered someone they don’t just walk away from that Scott free.

Firstly the firearms officers haven’t gone on strike. Police cannot strike. They have simply withdrawn their willingness to continue to perform a duty which is voluntary.

Re the Sarah Everard vigil. The IOPC ruled that the officers behaviour was exemplary in very difficult circumstances and there was no wrong doing. The women were not assaulted. I’m not sure about you but if I was ‘assaulted’ I’d wouldn’t look that good in the photos. And those ACAB banners didn’t make themselves. There were a group of individuals who took over a vigil for Sarah. Opportunist loud mouths, nothing else. The police in attendance spent over an hour talking to them before they were arrested-gatherings were illegal at that time. The officers were placed in a very difficult situation-as the IOPC concluded. Police will almost always pay out to avoid a lengthy court case-i don’t agree with that because it carries an assumption of wrong doing but that’s how it is.

And police who carry firearms know full well they don’t have ‘carte Blanche’-tens of thousands of incidents where firearms are authorised, yet a handful of discharges. My force for instance has never even discharged a firearm. And it was the gun capital of England in the early 2000s.

Officers volunteer for this role-I’m not sure paying a bit more would motivate many to perform the role with the jeopardy it involves. It’s simply not worth it.

Makes me laugh when apparently the army are going to help out-how exactly? Sandbags?

Of course police should be held to high standards but I’d hazard a guess that the average office worker has as bad or worse crap on their WhatsApp messages-police that take part in that are rightly sacked but to imagine they are some racist outlier is highly unlikely.

Mark Rowley has stated officers are leaving quicker than they are being recruited. I said it earlier, policing has reached a tipping point in this country. Slagged off on a daily basis by the press and politicians. The tories have wrecked the service-and yet it’s the officers themselves that continue to get the blame for all that is wrong.

 

[BobKowalski]

Firstly the firearms officers haven’t gone on strike. Police cannot strike. They have simply withdrawn their willingness to continue to perform a duty which is voluntary.

Re the Sarah Everard vigil. The IOPC ruled that the officers behaviour was exemplary in very difficult circumstances and there was no wrong doing. The women were not assaulted. I’m not sure about you but if I was ‘assaulted’ I’d wouldn’t look that good in the photos. And those ACAB banners didn’t make themselves. There were a group of individuals who took over a vigil for Sarah. Opportunist loud mouths, nothing else. The police in attendance spent over an hour talking to them before they were arrested-gatherings were illegal at that time. The officers were placed in a very difficult situation-as the IOPC concluded. Police will almost always pay out to avoid a lengthy court case-i don’t agree with that because it carries an assumption of wrong doing but that’s how it is.

And police who carry firearms know full well they don’t have ‘carte Blanche’-tens of thousands of incidents where firearms are authorised, yet a handful of discharges. My force for instance has never even discharged a firearm. And it was the gun capital of England in the early 2000s.

Officers volunteer for this role-I’m not sure paying a bit more would motivate many to perform the role with the jeopardy it involves. It’s simply not worth it.

Makes me laugh when apparently the army are going to help out-how exactly? Sandbags?

Of course police should be held to high standards but I’d hazard a guess that the average office worker has as bad or worse crap on their WhatsApp messages-police that take part in that are rightly sacked but to imagine they are some racist outlier is highly unlikely.

Mark Rowley has stated officers are leaving quicker than they are being recruited. I said it earlier, policing has reached a tipping point in this country. Slagged off on a daily basis by the press and politicians. The tories have wrecked the service-and yet it’s the officers themselves that continue to get the blame for all that is wrong.

I would take issue on the vigil for Sarah incudent. The best decision would have been to let it be. Arresting women over a case involving the murder of a woman by a serving officer was monumentally dumb. This is especially true if the police thought the vigil holders were being opportunist. If the police genuinely thought this, then in what universe did giving the women what they wanted make sense? The way that was handled did not help the police or the perception of the police one iota.

On the wider issue, the police are subject to the law and yes, they are held to a higher standard than the general public because they have authority over the general public and in some cases the power of life and death.

That said, I do have sympathy for the individual men and women in the force. It should not just be the individual with the firearm who finds themselves in the dock, but the vetting system, the training and those in charge. Is the vetting system adequate? Does it require more resources? Should it be left to those volunteering? What is the internal culture of those who volunteer? Do they need more or better or different training? Again, is the resource there? Then you have the impact on morale if individuals feel they are left to carry the can - will that impact decision making going forward? A reluctance to carry out a duty for fear of a backlash with no support from superiors.

If the police are to be held to a higher standard and rightly subject to the law, the least they can expect in return is to be fully supported with regard to training, resources, staffing levels etc. It has to work both ways otherwise the relationship between police and the policed will break down.

 

[The blue phantom]

Let's hope his fellow armed officers aren't a bunch of lying cunts like the ones who were involved in the Murder of Jean Charles de Menezes.

 

[bert38]

I would take issue on the vigil for Sarah incudent. The best decision would have been to let it be. Arresting women over a case involving the murder of a woman by a serving officer was monumentally dumb. This is especially true if the police thought the vigil holders were being opportunist. If the police genuinely thought this, then in what universe did giving the women what they wanted make sense? The way that was handled did not help the police or the perception of the police one iota.

On the wider issue, the police are subject to the law and yes, they are held to a higher standard than the general public because they have authority over the general public and in some cases the power of life and death.

That said, I do have sympathy for the individual men and women in the force. It should not just be the individual with the firearm who finds themselves in the dock, but the vetting system, the training and those in charge. Is the vetting system adequate? Does it require more resources? Should it be left to those volunteering? What is the internal culture of those who volunteer? Do they need more or better or different training? Again, is the resource there? Then you have the impact on morale if individuals feel they are left to carry the can - will that impact decision making going forward? A reluctance to carry out a duty for fear of a backlash with no support from superiors.

If the police are to be held to a higher standard and rightly subject to the law, the least they can expect in return is to be fully supported with regard to training, resources, staffing levels etc. It has to work both ways otherwise the relationship between police and the policed will break down.

I did not say the vigil holders were opportunist. I said those that took over the vigil were opportunist loud mouths. It’s very easy to look at something with perfect clarity and pass judgement but again the IOPC concluded the officers behaviour was exemplary in very difficult circumstances and there was no wrong doing on their part. And perception is affected as I stated by the daily abuse and criticism from the media and politicians who would last 5 minutes in the job.

Firearms officers are incredibly well trained-the record of AFOs in this country speaks to this. But it is also a voluntary role. If in the incredibly rare occasion you fire your weapon you face years of scrutiny which whilst it can be justified is never worth it-and that’s what many of them will be thinking.

I’ve mentioned several times that savage cuts by this government have wrecked the service, vetting was one victim of that-those joining now are kids-how many older people with mortgages and families can afford to work for those wages? And those kids joining will be and are leaving as quickly as they join.

 

[PPT]

Firstly the firearms officers haven’t gone on strike. Police cannot strike. They have simply withdrawn their willingness to continue to perform a duty which is voluntary.

Re the Sarah Everard vigil. The IOPC ruled that the officers behaviour was exemplary in very difficult circumstances and there was no wrong doing. The women were not assaulted. I’m not sure about you but if I was ‘assaulted’ I’d wouldn’t look that good in the photos. And those ACAB banners didn’t make themselves. There were a group of individuals who took over a vigil for Sarah. Opportunist loud mouths, nothing else. The police in attendance spent over an hour talking to them before they were arrested-gatherings were illegal at that time. The officers were placed in a very difficult situation-as the IOPC concluded. Police will almost always pay out to avoid a lengthy court case-i don’t agree with that because it carries an assumption of wrong doing but that’s how it is.

And police who carry firearms know full well they don’t have ‘carte Blanche’-tens of thousands of incidents where firearms are authorised, yet a handful of discharges. My force for instance has never even discharged a firearm. And it was the gun capital of England in the early 2000s.

Officers volunteer for this role-I’m not sure paying a bit more would motivate many to perform the role with the jeopardy it involves. It’s simply not worth it.

Makes me laugh when apparently the army are going to help out-how exactly? Sandbags?

Of course police should be held to high standards but I’d hazard a guess that the average office worker has as bad or worse crap on their WhatsApp messages-police that take part in that are rightly sacked but to imagine they are some racist outlier is highly unlikely.

Mark Rowley has stated officers are leaving quicker than they are being recruited. I said it earlier, policing has reached a tipping point in this country. Slagged off on a daily basis by the press and politicians. The tories have wrecked the service-and yet it’s the officers themselves that continue to get the blame for all that is wrong.

Top post.

 

[The blue phantom]

I did not say the vigil holders were opportunist. I said those that took over the vigil were opportunist loud mouths. It’s very easy to look at something with perfect clarity and pass judgement but again the IOPC concluded the officers behaviour was exemplary in very difficult circumstances and there was no wrong doing on their part. And perception is affected as I stated by the daily abuse and criticism from the media and politicians who would last 5 minutes in the job.

How many on the IOPC investigating staff are past coppers?

 

[domalino]

I did not say the vigil holders were opportunist. I said those that took over the vigil were opportunist loud mouths. It’s very easy to look at something with perfect clarity and pass judgement but again the IOPC concluded the officers behaviour was exemplary in very difficult circumstances and there was no wrong doing on their part. And perception is affected as I stated by the daily abuse and criticism from the media and politicians who would last 5 minutes in the job.

Firearms officers are incredibly well trained-the record of AFOs in this country speaks to this. But it is also a voluntary role. If in the incredibly rare occasion you fire your weapon you face years of scrutiny which whilst it can be justified is never worth it-and that’s what many of them will be thinking.

I’ve mentioned several times that savage cuts by this government have wrecked the service, vetting was one victim of that-those joining now are kids-how many older people with mortgages and families can afford to work for those wages? And those kids joining will be and are leaving as quickly as they join.

You did conveniently forget to mention 2 high court judges ruled the policng around the vigil was illegal, but I guess that just escaped you...

 

[BobKowalski]

I did not say the vigil holders were opportunist. I said those that took over the vigil were opportunist loud mouths. It’s very easy to look at something with perfect clarity and pass judgement but again the IOPC concluded the officers behaviour was exemplary in very difficult circumstances and there was no wrong doing on their part. And perception is affected as I stated by the daily abuse and criticism from the media and politicians who would last 5 minutes in the job.

Firearms officers are incredibly well trained-the record of AFOs in this country speaks to this. But it is also a voluntary role. If in the incredibly rare occasion you fire your weapon you face years of scrutiny which whilst it can be justified is never worth it-and that’s what many of them will be thinking.

I’ve mentioned several times that savage cuts by this government have wrecked the service, vetting was one victim of that-those joining now are kids-how many older people with mortgages and families can afford to work for those wages? And those kids joining will be and are leaving as quickly as they join.

Hindsight is perfect. But no one needed hindsight to spot that arresting women attending a vigil for a woman murdered by a serving officer was dumb. The optics were astonishingly bad irrespective of how ‘exemplary‘ the manner of the arrests.

But the focus on the serving officers on the ground misses the point. It didn't matter how the arrests were done, but who decided it would be a good idea? Which senior officer made the decision? It is the decision I would criticise more, not just officers carrying out the decision.

My bugbear is not the ‘poor bloody infantry’ but the people running the show, be it senior police, politicians or whoever. No service can operate properly without adequate resources and competent leadership and the police service like many other services lacks both - and by leadership I largely mean politicians. Right now we have a Home Secretary publicly signalling support for the firearms officer who was charged. What does that say to the people and bodies charged with reviewing and deciding these matters? Don’t bother in future? What does it say to the firearms officers having to make a decision? Does it make them more likely to shoot?

The UK has a leadership problem and it isn’t just people struggling to do the right thing and making mistakes. It is venal people that we elected who don’t give a shit.

 

[domalino]

Firstly the firearms officers haven’t gone on strike. Police cannot strike. They have simply withdrawn their willingness to continue to perform a duty which is voluntary.

Organising to withdraw your labour is the literal dictionary definition of a strike.

Re the Sarah Everard vigil. The IOPC ruled that the officers behaviour was exemplary in very difficult circumstances and there was no wrong doing. The women were not assaulted. I’m not sure about you but if I was ‘assaulted’ I’d wouldn’t look that good in the photos. And those ACAB banners didn’t make themselves. There were a group of individuals who took over a vigil for Sarah. Opportunist loud mouths, nothing else. The police in attendance spent over an hour talking to them before they were arrested-gatherings were illegal at that time. The officers were placed in a very difficult situation-as the IOPC concluded. Police will almost always pay out to avoid a lengthy court case-i don’t agree with that because it carries an assumption of wrong doing but that’s how it is.

2 High Court juges ruled the policing around the vigil was illegal (in 6 different ways!), out of touch and heavy handed.

Police acted unlawfully over Everard vigil, court rules

Met showed 'continued misunderstanding of the law' on protests in lockdown - High Court.

www.lawgazette.co.uk

And police who carry firearms know full well they don’t have ‘carte Blanche’-tens of thousands of incidents where firearms are authorised, yet a handful of discharges. My force for instance has never even discharged a firearm. And it was the gun capital of England in the early 2000s.

So then why are they protesting against oversight?

Officers volunteer for this role-I’m not sure paying a bit more would motivate many to perform the role with the jeopardy it involves. It’s simply not worth it.

This is something we've seen a few pro-police people claim, but that's not acutally true is it?

The Casey report really clearly laid out how SO19 officers were allowed to game the overtime system to reap massive financial rewards from their positions, as well as claim ludicrous expenses for things like ipads and non-police clothing. They were coached to claim expenses just below the threshold that required oversight and investigation.

Not to mention oredering expensive completely unnecessary equipment on the taxpayers expense like night vision goggles that don't work in floodlit city streets, camoflage wraps for their police vehicles or tomahawk axes - the same ones infamously used by the disgraced Seal Team 6 to murder Afghans.

Did you not know that? Or is it something else you just forgot to mention?

Colouring outside the lines’ in MO19 covers a catalogue of poor behaviours. Officersand staff told us that the Command does not make sensible or considered financialdecisions.

It allows officers to ‘game the system’ financially, with some earning up tosignificant amounts through overtime shifts. Officers are allowed to work theovertime system to top up their salaries, and financially rely on doing so.We were told of well-known overtime ‘rackets,’ such as shifts for major events like Notting Hill Carnival and New Year’s Eve being filled by officers on overtime, ratherthan being scheduled as part of regular shift patterns, even though the dates areknown well in advance.

We were told that senior leaders had endorsed this, or looked the other way, while amodel developed where officers could work overtime when it was convenient tothem, and refuse it when it was not.We were told that hotels, usually used to accommodate officers asked to work extrashifts with no time to travel home, are being used to reward officers for hard work.

Officers will also overspend on hotels, selecting more expensive options rather thanooking for value for money. They will make themselves available for certain shifts sothat they have the use of a hotel room.We were also told that access to elite training courses and police resources wereeither signed off without proper scrutiny, or used as rewards.

We heard of excessive spending on unnecessary, high-end equipment and kit, suchas tomahawk axes and unusable night vision goggles which turned out to be uselessin London’s street-lit environment.We were told that specialist vehicle camouflage wraps, ineffective on the streets of London, were purchased, and that a senior officer had to step in to block their use.We were told of officers being allowed to make multiple, frequent expense claimsjust below the limit that would require formal sign off, travelling overseas for trainingcourses, and ordering iPads and personalised jackets on expenses.

It's no surprise that a police officer thinks there's nothing wrong with the Met. It's exactly why we've had 2 massive investigations and reports into the police in the last few years that concluded the organsiation has a culture of defensiveness, denial and refusing to accept it's own flaws.

 

[bluethrunthru]

And so the penny will drop with Officers that taking action brings results - completely changes the relationship between Govt and the Police at a stroke

Armed police could 'possibly' be paid more to reflect the risks they face, policing minister tells LBC

The policing minister has said armed officers could possibly be in line for a pay rise to reflect the increased risks they face.

www.lbc.co.uk

 

[bert38]

Hindsight is perfect. But no one needed hindsight to spot that arresting women attending a vigil for a woman murdered by a serving officer was dumb. The optics were astonishingly bad irrespective of how ‘exemplary‘ the manner of the arrests.

But the focus on the serving officers on the ground misses the point. It didn't matter how the arrests were done, but who decided it would be a good idea? Which senior officer made the decision? It is the decision I would criticise more, not just officers carrying out the decision.

My bugbear is not the ‘poor bloody infantry’ but the people running the show, be it senior police, politicians or whoever. No service can operate properly without adequate resources and competent leadership and the police service like many other services lacks both - and by leadership I largely mean politicians. Right now we have a Home Secretary publicly signalling support for the firearms officer who was charged. What does that say to the people and bodies charged with reviewing and deciding these matters? Don’t bother in future? What does it say to the firearms officers having to make a decision? Does it make them more likely to shoot?

The UK has a leadership problem and it isn’t just people struggling to do the right thing and making mistakes. It is venal people that we elected who don’t give a shit.

I think we can both agree that Braverman is a ****. Secondly she should keep her gob shut when commenting on a live investigation. Thirdly I could write a book on the poor standards of leadership among ACPO ranks from just my own experience.

 

[bert38]

Organising to withdraw your labour is the literal dictionary definition of a strike.




2 High Court juges ruled the policing around the vigil was illegal (in 6 different ways!), out of touch and heavy handed.

Police acted unlawfully over Everard vigil, court rules

Met showed 'continued misunderstanding of the law' on protests in lockdown - High Court.

www.lawgazette.co.uk

So then why are they protesting against oversight?



This is something we've seen a few pro-police people claim, but that's not acutally true is it?

The Casey report really clearly laid out how SO19 officers were allowed to game the overtime system to reap massive financial rewards from their positions, as well as claim ludicrous expenses for things like ipads and non-police clothing. They were coached to claim expenses just below the threshold that required oversight and investigation.

Not to mention oredering expensive completely unnecessary equipment on the taxpayers expense like night vision goggles that don't work in floodlit city streets, camoflage wraps for their police vehicles or tomahawk axes - the same ones infamously used by the disgraced Seal Team 6 to murder Afghans.

Did you not know that? Or is it something else you just forgot to mention?





It's no surprise that a police officer thinks there's nothing wrong with the Met. It's exactly why we've had 2 massive investigations and reports into the police in the last few years that concluded the organsiation has a culture of defensiveness, denial and refusing to accept it's own flaws.

Do you think the officers get to take that equipment home? Otherwise how are they benefiting?!

Of course certain departments have historically played the Overtime game-CID in particular. But for 17 years out of my 25 years service I didn’t even qualify for overtime, so I can’t really comment from knowledge.

Police cannot legally strike. They can withdraw from a voluntary duty-that is completely different.

When have I said there’s nothing wrong with the police? Read my posts on the subject and you’ll see I am balanced and reasonable in my points which are based on experience. But I will always argue that there’s way more good than bad.

Sarah’s vigil was taken over by opportunist loud mouths looking to cause trouble and pursue their anti-police agenda. It was clearly a very difficult situation; the law at that time was changing constantly due to covid.

 

[bert38]

How many on the IOPC investigating staff are past coppers?

Something tells me you’re not a fan are you?

 

[The blue phantom]

Something tells me you’re not a fan are you?

I think if they are investigating their own they won't be impartial.

 

[Scaley]

Do you think the officers get to take that equipment home? Otherwise how are they benefiting?!

Of course certain departments have historically played the Overtime game-CID in particular. But for 17 years out of my 25 years service I didn’t even qualify for overtime, so I can’t really comment from knowledge.

Police cannot legally strike. They can withdraw from a voluntary duty-that is completely different.

When have I said there’s nothing wrong with the police? Read my posts on the subject and you’ll see I am balanced and reasonable in my points which are based on experience. But I will always argue that there’s way more good than bad.

Sarah’s vigil was taken over by opportunist loud mouths looking to cause trouble and pursue their anti-police agenda. It was clearly a very difficult situation; the law at that time was changing constantly due to covid.

Totally agree, withdrawing from a voluntary role and redeploying to other duties is totally different from striking, can’t see how this is so hard to understand. They’ve withdrawn from a role not a job it’s as simple as that.