Pink Fire Pointer 2012

How to Be Unlikeable

           You may think it's strange to create an article with the headline, "How to Be Unlikeable"".

After all, most of us want to learn how to become more likeable. We can't imagine that any person would actually want to be unlikeable on purpose. The truth is that there are some people who really are unlikeable. You have probably met a few people who are unlikeable. Maybe you worry that you are unlikeable yourself. Maybe you worry that other people don't like you.

There are many ways in which people can be unlikeable. Sometimes the reason that people are unlikeable is because they are doing something wrong in the way they interact with others. These people may be too self centered to realize what they are doing wrong. They don't realize that they have some unlikeable behaviors, so they keep on being unpleasant to others.

Chances are that if these people realized they have some unlikeable behaviors, they might change. After all, by changing some unpleasant behaviors to pleasant ones, these people would become more likeable. Once they became more likeable, they would probably end up having a lot more friends. Most of us want to have more friends. We especially want to have people in our lives who care about us, and who value our friendship in return. When people have unlikeable behaviors, they end up having very few friends. They end up being lonely.

What are some of these unlikeable behaviors that some people have? Here are just a few behaviors that can make a person unlikeable:

o Being gossipy

o Being conceited

o Being self centered

o Never showing interest in other people

o Always complaining

o Being very negative

o Being unreliable

o Being filled with hate towards others

o Being very resentful

o Never talking to other people

Are you guilty of any of these unlikeable behaviors? All of us are probably guilty of some of these bad behaviors once in a while, because let's face it, none of us is perfect. Still, as long as your negative behavior makes up only a small part of your personality, you may have enough good qualities to overcome it. Your good qualities will help to make you likeable to those you meet.

Over the years, I have come across a few people who actually took pride in the fact that nobody liked them. For some reason, the fact that nobody liked them made these people feel "special". These people actually seemed to believe that the reason nobody liked them was because they were superior. They had talked themselves into believing that they were alone and disliked because they were better than anybody else. Sadly, the more these people thought they were superior to everyone else, the more they were disliked by everyone who met them.

Is your personal goal to be unlikeable and have no friends? Or would you prefer to be a likeable person and have a lot of friends?

Whatever your goal is, you will find enough information in this article to show you how to achieve your goals. If you want to be unlikeable, just start to adopt some of those bad habits of being self centered that I have listed above. In no time, you will find that people will start to avoid you. If you want to be more likeable, then simply start to do the opposite. Start being pleasant and friendly, and reach out to others. Soon you will develop a reputation as a likeable person.


3 Unlikely Winning Numbers

                           People of all backgrounds from time to time want to make a little money and win the lottery. Every single day, many people across the nation go to their local retailer and purchase tickets and fill out their winning numbers and hope things are good. However, when the luck of the draw doesn't seem to be in the favor of those that lose, there are some numerological questions that should be asked. Is there a strategy? Can someone hack the numbers? What can one do to get more money in this game? The answers are not easy to come by, but there are some unlikely numbers NOT to pick and they are as follows.

777 - Yes, lucky number 7 is a great thing to talk about, until you have in unison, one after another. If you're looking for repetitive 7 numbers, you're going to be sorely mistaken with the outcome. You won't win, and the odds are incredibly tough. Even just two 7's will not give you much of a chance. While some number studies have shown that the numbers 2 and 7 appear in the winning numbers most often, it's not necessarily going to be worthwhile for anyone to play years on end with this number. It's very unlikely, beyond just playing.

666 - Satanists and horror movie fans are not going to be winning the lottery in droves. There aren't a lot of numbers that come up consecutively, let alone the eerie numbers of all sorts of occult ritual. If you're crossing your fingers and you're hoping for this to come to fruition, you'll be waiting a very long time. You could end up waiting for the numbers to line up, and hope for a jackpot, but the likelihood of three sixes is just terrible.

123 - Another one of the most unlikely of outcomes is the succession of the initial digits of the numerological alphabet. If you think that throwing away your chances by throwing down a 1-2-3 for the pick 3 lotteries, you're going to be once again disappointed. There's very little chances that will ever allow you to win based on this option.

No one is quite good at picking the winners every time. However, people do in fact still play the same unlikely winning numbers each and every time only to throw their money away. If you are one of those people hanging onto the above numbers, start afresh, you won't win.


More on Our Failing Justice System

I have been banging on for some time now about our completely ineffective justice system; how sentencing policy fails to deter prolific offenders; how sentencing and rehabilitation fails completely to protect the public, who are now routinely told to protect themselves in the guise of crime prevention advice.

The riots throughout the country last August highlighted the disgraceful state of affairs, which has allowed prolific offenders to continue on their offending sprees with impunity. More than three quarters of those sentenced in relation to the riots had previous convictions. Of those with convictions, the average number of convictions was 15 offences. Only one third of those offenders, with an average 15 convictions, had ever been to prison.

New figures have been released showing that re-offending rates amongst prolific offenders are increasing rather than declining. Well I never! The average custodial sentence has increased by one month. I have been saying for some time that the complete ineffectiveness of sentencing and rehabilitation in this country means that more and more prolific offenders are walking in and out of our revolving door justice system treating the whole thing for what it is, a joke. They go on to commit more and more serious offences until they do something so serious they are being jailed for a significant time.

All this is too little too late. The average offender has seven court appearances before a custodial sentence is likely to be given. By this time they are so far down the road of criminality that the short sentence they receive is of no deterrence whatsoever and gives no time for any effective rehabilitation.

The police are the only part of the justice system which is of any effect. Falling morale and the dismantling of the police by Tom Winsor will result in a service as impotent as the rest of the justice system. Decent law abiding people should be very worried about this. The public should be harassing their MP's regarding this prospect. Criminals will be getting an almost free rein to carry on offending and victimising more and more innocent people.

Tom Winsor HMCIC?

There are unconfirmed reports that Tom Winsor has applied for the role of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary. When I read this I laughed out loud. I then realised that if this appointment comes about it will assist the Government implement the full disaster of Winsor 2 and the end of traditional policing in this country.

The public should be very concerned about Winsor. We know now that he invented information from officers in his report and some of the so called evidence is seriously flawed. Winsor has brushed this aside as irrelevant. We now know that Winsor is on the board of the law firm White and Case. This firm represented G4S in their negotiations with Lincolnshire Police who have privatised some of their services. The Home Secretary, Theresa May, has assured us that Tom Winsor's independent report into policing is nonetheless independent as he carried it out as an independent individual and not as a representative of White and Case. So, that's OK then.

Winsor isn't about pay and pensions. We know we are going to take a hit on our pay and pensions like the rest of the public sector. Winsor isn't about getting better quality recruits. He wants to reduce, substantially, the starting pay of recruits. That is not going to improve the quality. Winsor isn't about getting better quality managers into the police. Direct entry at inspector level and superintendent won't work. Winsor simply puts in place the building blocks to allow managers to be brought in to manage private security staff. Winsor is about the privatisation of the police service. Winsor means private security guards patrolling the streets of Britain instead of the police. Winsor means when you dial 999 G4S security will answer your call instead of the police. Winsor means when you report a crime it will be investigated by G4S or similar.

The Government will try and convince the public that this service will be as good, or better, than that currently being provided by the police. When you have private security guards on minimum wage and shareholders trying to extract as much profit out of the company as possible, it is obvious what service the public will receive.

Winsor applying for the role of HMCIC is worrying. Worrying, because he clearly hasn't a clue about policing. Worrying, because it seems unlikely he would apply for the role without some nod from those in power. Worrying, because his appointment will help the Government bring about the aims of his report and the end of policing in this country as we know it.

We're All In This Together........Not!

When I joined the police 8% of my salary was taken as a contribution towards my pension. That went up to 11% in 1987. Those contributions will now go up to 14.2%. Combined with a four year pay freeze, the standard of living of all officers is going to be significantly eroded. With the state of the economy we have pretty well resigned ourselves to this.

The police budget is being cut by 20% and in the short term that will mean significantly increased pressures and demands on officers. The level of service we provide is deteriorating. Mistakes will be made, some of which will have serious consequences for victims and officers. Morale is already falling and will go through the floor when the Winsor proposals take effect. When officers start being made redundant and G4S security guards take over patrolling the streets and investigating all crime, the police service we know, and which is admired all over the world, will be consigned to history.

As part of the review of public sector pensions, judges are now being required to make contributions towards their pensions for the first time. Up until now they have been non contributory. They are being asked to pay just 1.8% towards their pension and are not at all happy about it. Judges earn between £103K (District Judges) and £240K (Lord Chief Justice.) They earn a 50% pension after 20 years service. The average judges pension is £54K. In addition to this, the vast majority have already  built up a huge private pension pot from their time as barristers.

The judges have two arguments against paying pension contributions. Firstly, they maintain that barristers are earning more than judges and so there is no incentive to become a judge and there is a risk that we will not be able to recruit good quality judges.

Secondly, having to pay pension contributions is effectively a pay cut. Judges are a special case and there is a constitutional need to protect their independence from the Government and they should be protected from the Government being able to cut their pay.

The judges have set up a fighting fund and are considering taking their case to the courts. I hope they can afford a barrister! There is a threat of industrial action ahead. Apparently judges have that right, which is withheld from the police.

If barristers are earning more than judges it simply confirms to me that people are paying themselves disgusting amounts of money. And the worst fact is that some of these people think they are worth it. I support capitalism but it has gone seriously awry. When the average annual salary is £29K we should not be paying people hundreds of thousands of pounds or millions in the case of company executives. There used to be a company in America. The rules of the company stated that the Chief Executive could not earn more than 10 times that of the lowest paid worker. We need to get back to some reality such as this to rein in some of our overpaid brass.

Police March 10th May

32,000 police officers marched in London today. It is unlikely it will divert the Government from their policing agenda but it was a fantastic turnout and may cause some of those in power to stop and reflect, especially in the wake of the recent elections.

There were a few single cause fruitcakes out, which provided some light entertainment. Is that you Ciaran?

It is important that people understand what the march was about. There are three main issues and I will deal with them in ascending order of priority.

Firstly, the police are cross about their pay and pensions. We understand that there is a financial crisis in the country, caused largely by the last profligate Government implementing its liberal policies. The banking crisis simply added to the problem. Police pay has been frozen for four years. With inflation running at 4% this means salaries and living standards are being cut. Additional allowances paid to some front line officers have been abolished. To add to this, pensions are being attacked. Officers currently joining the police have to work 35 years to get a half salary pension. They pay almost 10% of their salary for this. Pension contributions will be rising to 13 or 14% and officers may have to work up to 42 years before they get their pension at age 60.

I don't expect much public sympathy regarding pay and pensions but you need to understand that very few officers will be able to collect a full pension. This is part of the real plan. Tom Winsor wants any officer who isn't fully operational sacked. How many 59 year olds will be running after offenders and rolling around on the floor with drunks?

The second issue is the cuts of 20% to the police budget. We understand that the country is almost bankrupt and savings have to be made. Cutting police officer numbers when unemployment is rising and crime is increasing is simply going to add to the problems of this country. Peoples quality of life is in decline because of the austerity measures being taken. Cutting police officer numbers and allowing crime to rise is nonsensical.

The third and most important reason is the recommendations in the Winsor report. These recommendations put in place all the ingredients required to largely privatise the police service. Winsor is recommending that police officers pay is reduced even further and that police can be made redundant. He also recommends that senior officers are appointed directly into their roles rather than coming through the ranks.

What this means is that in five or ten years time police officers patrolling our streets will disappear. Patrolling will be privatised and security guards will take over that role. Police officers investigating crime will also disappear. Some forces have already largely civilianised that role. Police officers will disappear completely and investigation will also be completely privatised.

There will be a national paramilitary police force who will deal with violence, demonstrations and riots etc. Most of these officers will be short term, possibly contract employees, who will never see a proper pension. Managers from outside organisations, with no experience of policing, will be employed directly into senior roles to replace those that will no longer be coming through the ranks.

The public need to think carefully about the service they will get from the private sector. When profit is the motive of the employer, how much will patrolling and investigating security guards be paid and what will be the quality of those employees? What accountability will they have? What will the relationship be between the small paramilitary police force and the public? Will the small number of police officers left be able to deal with situations such as the riots last August?

Just 24 Metropolitan Police were tasked to police the police demonstration today. The Pakistan leader was visiting London today. Over 100 police officers were tasked to keep the Pakistani leaders pro and anti factions apart.

Hear! Hear!

Racism or Political Correctness at it's Worst?

Kabeer Hassan, One of the Offenders

You may have read today that a gang of nine Asian males were found guilty of plying young vulnerable white girls with drink and drugs and passing them around for sex. Some of the victims were as young as 13.

At the time of the arrest the police declined to state the ethnicity of the gang involved, sparking a lot of speculation in the press. Today police spokespersons have repeatedly stated that these were NOT racially motivated crimes. Assistant Chief Constable Steve Heywood, of Greater Manchester Police said: "It is not a racial issue. This is about adults preying on vulnerable young children. It just happens that in this particular area and time the demographics were that these were Asian men." Mmm. If you do a bit of research you will find that 96% of offenders charged with these types of offences have been Asian. In particular, 83% are of Pakistani origin.

The Guardian is at pains to assure its readers that these are not racial crimes. They state. 'Despite the conviction of nine Asian men for child exploitation in Rochdale and worrying signs in the statistics, racial profiling won't help potential victims.' Seems to me that it might, unless they are suggesting racist police are targeting Asian offenders and ignoring black and white offenders.

Personally I don't care whether these crimes are labelled racist or not. The important issues are that we do more to safeguard victims, who invariably come from the ineffective liberal care system, and we do all we can to prosecute offenders, whatever their ethnicity.

I am concerned that in some cases the police seem almost too ready to make public assurances that offences are being treated as racist but, in other circumstances, are anxious to play down any possible racial aggravation.


The Home Secretary announced last year that the last policing targets were being scrapped and the sole objective of the police is to cut crime. She also stated that red tape was going to be cut to give the police more time to focus on that task.

My force and the Police Authority recently announced its policing targets for 2012/13. These include:
1. Confidence and Satisfaction
Ensuring 85% of the public have confidence in the police.
Ensuring 82% of victims of serious incidents are satisfied with the overall service they received.
Ensuring 76% of victims of anti social behaviour are satisfied with the overall service they received

2. Reducing crime
Reducing serious acquisitive crime by 3% compared to the previous year.
Detect 20.6% of serious acquisitive crime.
Dismantle or disrupt 16 organised crime groups
Arrest and charge/caution 500 offenders for supplying Class A and B drugs

3. Value for Money
Ensure that at least 90% of all officers and staff are available to deliver and support policing in the force.

Underneath all these targets are dozens of measures that have to be recorded and analysed to try and ensure we keep on track. This includes, for example, targets around attending incidents in good time. So the Home Secretary may have directed that we focus solely on reducing crime but police forces are still ignoring this and thousands of hours are being spent on collating statistics and measuring all sorts of others.

There are two main issues regarding this target setting. Firstly, many of the functions we carry out have no impact on the reduction of crime. If we are only measured on crime reduction then either those other functions should become the responsibility of other organisations or resources will be focused away from those other functions so they are not carried out properly. In the last week, half of my teams time has been taken up with incidents that have no impact on crime reduction. For example, we have dealt with a missing teenager who was felt to be at serious risk of self harming. That took six officers the entire shift, plus dogs and helicopter for about half the shift. Five officers took almost the entire shift dealing with a fatal traffic collision and there will be dozens of hours of follow up enquiries and possibly inquest and court. I have dealt with three complaints against police. Each one has been made so that it can be stated in mitigation. The complaints are frivolous and will be withdrawn after he court case. Add to this all the 'missing' people that walk out of hospitals and children's homes. Those responsible simply ring the police and thereby pass the buck. If anything happens to their charges it becomes our responsibility. I could go on.

The second issue I have is how can we be held to account for crime levels when we only play a small part in the justice system? We arrest and report offenders and put them before the court. The Youth Offending Team and Probation are almost totally ineffective rehabilitating offenders who continue to offend. The sentencing guidelines ensure that persistent offenders are never properly sentenced by the courts. The Courts simply provide a revolving door for persistent offenders to continue with their recidivist behaviour. Deterrent sentencing disappeared until the riots last summer, when there was a wake up call. Outside of those offenders, sentencing is ineffective business as usual. Eventually some of these persistent offenders commit an offence so serious that they are incarcerated for a long time. That is why the prisons are bursting at the seams. The police cannot be doing a bad job considering how useless the rest of the system is.

The worry is that police morale is falling and when the police start giving up there is nothing left in the justice system to protect the public.

Home Secretary Resigns 2

Qatada and his family have cost the British taxpayer an estimated £2.8m

Last November I wrote this when our illustrious Home Secretary, Theresa May, was under pressure to resign following a complete mess up within the Border Agency. She managed to survive that one. Whether or not she deserves to survive the Abu Qatada fiasco is another question.

Qatada is a Jordanian who came to the UK with his family is 1993 and was granted asylum in 1994. He was convicted, in his absence, in 1999 by Jordanian courts for terrorism offences and his extradition was requested. Since 2002 Qatada has been in and out of custody while British authorities have tried to secure his extradition to Jordan. Qatada has, unsurprisingly, fought this extradition tooth and nail. In February 2009 the Law Lords decided that he could be extradited to Jordan. Qatada's lawyers appealed this to the European Court of Human Rights.

On the 17th January 2012 the European Court decided that Qatada could not be extradited as it would breach his right to a fair trial. While the British Government sought assurances regarding this issue from Jordon, Qatada was released on bail. Having received these assurances, the Home Secretary decided to have Qatada arrested and deported on the Tuesday 17th April in the belief that this date was outside of the 3 month appeal limit on the European Courts decision.

There have been a number of cases from the European Court that have made it clear that the appeal period starts on the day after the decision of the Court. It has come to light that a number of legal experts contacted the Home Office to ensure they were aware that the appeal period ended on the 18th April. Somehow this information was overlooked and the arrest went ahead followed immediately by the inevitable appeal. This now means that, once again, Qatada cannot be deported and another lengthy and expensive appeals process will now commence.

It has been estimated that Qatada and his family have cost the British taxpayer £2.8 million, to date, in benefits and legal fees.

Theresa May has clearly been badly advised in this matter but she is the decision maker and ultimately responsible. There are always calls for incompetent public sector managers to be sacked. I think it is time Mrs May stepped up to the mark and threw herself on her sword.

Can You Hear Them Wailing?

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that five suspected terrorists, Babar Ahmad, Abu Hamza, Seyla Talha Ahsan, Adel Abdul Bary and Khaled Al Fawarz can be extradited from Britain to America. The decision on a sixth, Haroon Rashid Aswatt has been adjourned to a later date.

The Court found that there were no grounds to believe the suspects would be ill treated in America and dismissed their appeals.

The liberal lefties are howling from their rafters. When you get down to it though, the only thing they seem to be wailing about is that in America, if these suspects are convicted, they might actually face some consequences for their alleged behaviour.

I am still wailing about the fact many of these suspects have spent years in British prisons awaiting extradition. They have fought the extraditions tooth and nail while blood sucking lawyers have bled millions from the Legal Aid system and the taxpayer trying to keep them here.

Free Babar Ahmad! You Must be Joking!

I have previously written about Babar Ahmad and his lies being exposed. Ahmad has been in prison for seven years awaiting extradition to the United States on terrorism charges. Today he has been interviewed and has pleaded to be tried in this country rather than the USA.

He claims that he has seen no evidence against him but it is quite clear that he is very well aware of the case against him and he chooses words carefully to try and gain support. Ahmad is a graduate and the son of middle class Pakistani immigrants. He admits that during the Bosnia/Serbian conflict he joined a Bosnian unit fighting against the Serbians. He is not an armchair commentator.

It is alleged, and he did not deny in interview, that he ran a website called which supported Jihad and Chechen and Taliban fighters, although he claims he does not support terrorism. It is alleged that he had possession of a computer disc containing information regarding movements of the US 5th Fleet and the fact that the fleet was vulnerable to attack in the Straights of Hormuz. An American sailor has been convicted of selling this information to Babar and another.

Ahmad states in interview that if he was tried and had been convicted in this country he would be free by now. How true. This is the real issue. The only reason Ahmad is still in detention here is that he has been fighting tooth and nail, at taxpayers expense, his extradition to the United States. Ahmad could have gone to the US in 2004 and faced trial there. He knows that the Americans don't mess about with terrorists and if he were convicted he faces the rest of his life in gaol. He desperately wants to be tried in Britain as he knows that should he be convicted his sentence will be little more than he has already served.

The European Court of Human Rights will announce their long awaited verdict on his extradition next week. Personally, I hope he is packed off to the US for trial as soon as possible.

Police Privatisation

We are all now aware that West Midlands Police and Surrey Police have issued an EU wide invitation to companies to tender for policing services. If you look at the tender it covers everything from :
  • Managing Performance
  • Bringing Offenders to Justice
  • Patrolling Neighbourhoods
  • Dealing with incidents, major and minor
  • Leading the Service
  • Managing Public Engagements 
  • Managing Resources
  • Protecting the Public
It is quite clear that almost all policing services are up for grabs by the private sector. We are being told that not all of these areas of policing will be included in any contracts. The broad range of services is being advertised for tender so the expense of tendering does not have to be repeated should the need arise. Oh really!

One example would be that private companies would supply investigators working under a detective to attend and investigate crime. Some forces already work this model except that the team under the detective are permanent and employed by the police. Surrey already do this and they have one of the worst crime detection rates in the country. I can see where this is going. A poor detective will have a huge crime workload and each day an agency will provide different staff to turn up and carry out enquiries. No continuity. Little idea of the strengths and weaknesses of the investigators. The public will get a very poor service with a reduced chance of their crime being detected.

Another example would be patrolling neighbourhoods. Security staff would take over from PCSO's and some neighbourhood officers. These would be on minimum wage with no pension costs to the police. What kind of service would the public get from these staff? Where does the accountability lay? What happens when it all goes wrong?

The two architects of this scheme are Chris Sims Chief Constable of West Midlands and Mark Rowley former Chief Constable of Surrey and now Met Assistant Commissioner. This has been over a year in the planning and now the new Chief Constable of Surrey, Lynne Owens, has been handed the baby on behalf of Surrey. Chris and Mark are the sort of leaders Tom Winsor thinks we are lacking in the police. Chris is an Oxford graduate and Mark Cambridge. They have both shot through the ranks spreading their wisdom and ideas, never hanging around long enough to be held to account for the chaos they have left behind. They obviously have the vision and leadership that the police service needs.

Mark Rowley

Lynne Owens is a far more practical and pragmatic beast. She has no intention of following the agenda she has been left by Mark Rowley and is backing away from the project as fast as she can without openly criticising her predecessor.

Chris Sims

Chris Sims must have realised by now that he is on his own with this project. Good luck to West Midlands Police! Privatisation could however provide all sorts of management and consultancy opportunities for retiring ACPO officers, but I am sure Mr Sims will not fall into the trap of champagne dinners, health spas and free lunches from former ACPO colleagues Lord Condon at G4S and Lord Blair at Blue Light Global Solutions.

For years we have been cutting the fat out of the police service. There is nothing left. There is a permanent smell of ammonia as the muscle of the organisation is now being broken down. There is an assumption that privatisation will bring about savings and efficiencies with it's more effective management. In my experience, when you bring 'civilianisation' or privatisation into the police, the roles become more inefficient. By the time the company has taken it's profit cut from the budget there will simply be less to spend on the service and the public will suffer with lower levels of service and standards with less accountability.

Winsor 2. Pure Buggeration!

Tom Winsor the rail regulator. He wants to do to the police what Beeching did to the railways

A year ago now I wrote an article entitled Police Shafted following the publication of the Winsor report, Part 1. That was quite simply an attack on the pay and conditions of police officers. The outcome of which will be that police officers, who are already demoralised by a totally ineffective justice system, will become further demoralised. Part 2 has now been published. This report recommends further reductions in pay and further attacks on conditions but is largely an attack on the office of constable and on the police service as we know it.

Let's start with fitness testing and get that red herring out of the way. For years now the Government has been softening up the public and media. They have been feeding lies to the press regarding  pay and conditions, such as police getting half a days pay for answering the phone at home. This nonsense was swallowed up by shallow journalists such as those at The Mail. All this was done to ensure there was no public support for the police when the Government wielded the axe to castrate the police. Winsor himself has focused on the fitness testing issue to try and suggest that his report contained nothing but quite reasonable recommendations. As long as there are safeguards for injured officers I don't have any problem with fitness testing. Scoring 5.4 on the shuttle run is so easily achievable only the most obese and disgracefully unfit officer could fail it.

In Winsor 2 it is the recommended changes in the makeup and management of the service that are the real issues, such as direct entry at senior management level, compulsory severance, new pay review body, lower pay scales for constables and locally negotiated pay.

Winsor says that the police are paid 15% more than other public sector workers. Really? I would love to see the comparisons. There are some public sector workers, such as nurses, working shifts and dealing with the muck of life. Nurses should be paid more. But most public sector workers are 9-5 Monday to Friday and the worst thing they risk is a paper cut. We deal with violent, disgusting, abusive people. We scrape bodies off the roads . We deal with victims of horrendous crimes. We get called to deal with the difficulties that other public services cannot. We work shifts. We can be required to work at any time. We work 24/7. If we get only 15% more than the average office worker then, quite frankly, it is not enough.

Winsor suggests that there is no shortage of police recruits and so the starting salary can be dropped £4000  to £19000 without affecting the quality of recruits. This is less than the salary of a Police Community Support Officer. I think this gives you a clue as to the standard of recruit he envisages. He is right, there is no shortage of potential recruits but the quality of the average wannabe cop is pretty poor. A starting pay drop will only ensure that  there is no other choice than these wannabe monkeys who will do the job for peanuts. God help the public they will be unleashed upon. I have mentioned before that there is no shortage of capable people wanting to become MP's. They earn a basic £66,000 a year plus huge expenses, of course. Over £200,000 expenses in the case of Eric Joyce MP, the drunken head butting yob. There are now more ministers than ever. 108 paid ministers earning between £82,000 and £142,000. After all, it is difficult to pay school fees on a basic MP's salary. The point is, I have never heard it suggested that MP's should take a pay cut as there are no shortage of capable recruits.

Winsor also suggests, to reduce training costs, constables should only be recruited from existing PCSO's, Specials or those who obtain the policing certificate. At a stroke this will ensure that diversity targets remain completely unattainable.

Winsor suggests that the pay scale for constables is reduced from 10 years to 6 before the maximum pay band can be reached. What he tries to hide though is that progression along the pay scales will depend on skill sets gained and in most cases will take much more than six years. Most constables will never reach the top pay scale as they will never acquire the skill sets  required to get there. No officer of any rank up to Chief Superintendent will reach the top pay scale unless they have 'critical skills and expertise.'

The most controversial recommendations in Winsor 2 concern direct access to the ranks of Inspector and Superintendent from outside the police service. Winsor foresees that the vast majority of Chief Officers will  come from the direct entry Inspector level, in the future. So what he means is that the vast majority of constables joining the police in the future will progress no further than sergeant and will be the low paid grunts on the street. A few ranker's will be allowed to apply to be inspectors but the vast majority will be graduates groomed for the officer classes.

We already have many graduates in the police. Around one in three have degrees and some of those are on the High Potential Development Scheme. They can progress to Inspector in 5 years. Most of them struggle to cope with the knowledge and demands of the role within that time. To do it within two years will simply be setting these young officers up to fail . Some catastrophic errors will occur on the way. We will end up with an officer class completely devoid of reality on the ground.

Inspectors within two years is alarming but of even more concern is the proposed direct entry to the rank of Superintendent. I don't think Winsor understands that a Superintendent is not just a manager. They don't just have to learn management and combat tactics, such as an army major. They are the senior operational commanders who have responsibilities in a vast array of areas of policing including firearms, hostage taking, serious crime etc. I personally do not believe that anyone can successfully enter the ranks at this level and be effective. Again the risks to the public are huge.

Winsor is also recommending that pay is locally negotiated. 'Why should an officer in Durham be paid the same as in London?' He asks. He wants a new 'independent' pay review body set up. Another quango that will impose pay deals on the police ensuring the lowest possible pay, lowest quality recruits and low morale. He wants officers who are not fit for full duties to be given low paid police staff jobs or sacked. He wants Chief Officers to be able to make police officers redundant.

What we are going to be left with is a police force full of demoralised, G4S style, underpaid security guards, led by incompetent public schoolboys and girls who will be the lackeys of their political masters (Police Commissioners.) The position of police officers as servants of the Crown will be gone and Chief Officers will be able to sack officers at will every time they mess up balancing the books. The role of police officer will be no different to any other occupation. If this is where the Government want to take us then we should have the same industrial rights as anyone else. Winsor 1 was a good shafting. Winsor 2 will mean the police service is completely buggered.

The Federation may produce a lot of hot air criticising the report but the reality is that they can achieve very little when we cannot take industrial action. I don't want to sit around and watch this Government completely ruin the police. The time has come for action to stop this nonsense. When the call comes for action officers need to take it. As a start, every officer should write to their MP. With extended families we potentially have more than 1 million votes. Time to use them. Reluctantly, I urge you all to sign the petition for the law to be changed so that police officers can take industrial action. Sign here.

Justice System Fails Again

MP Eric Joyce

There has been a lot said already regarding the behaviour and sentencing of Labour MP Eric Joyce. Mr Joyce went into the Strangers Bar in the House of Commons. He was drunk. He was abusive and then attacked a number of people in the bar, headbutting at least two of them. He caused injury to more than one of them. When the police attended he resisted arrest and had to be forcibly restrained. He was charged with four counts of common assault, the lowest charge that can be put with regard to a criminal assault.

As we know, Mr Joyce has been fined £3000. He has to pay compensation of £1400 to his victims. He has to complete 12 months community work. He has a weekend curfew and he is banned from licensed premises for three months. In the circumstances the judge did pretty much all they could taking account of the charges.

Mr Joyce has announced that he has no intention of standing down as an MP and will continue in that role until the next election. Quite rightly commentators have expressed their outrage that Mr Joyce has not gone to prison and that he will remain in his job as an MP. Imagine the furore if a police officer behaved in this way and was still allowed to keep their job. It appears that law makers are not required to have the same morals and ethics as law enforcers.  There is still one rule for those 'above stairs' and another for those 'below.'

The real issue regarding this case is that Mr Joyce was never going to prison once the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) had ensured, as usual, that the charges preferred were at the very bottom of the scale. They are an integral part of the justice system that tries to keep our prisons empty and ensure deterrence and consequences are obsolete.

Mr Joyce could and should have been charged with Affray. He could have been charged with Assault Causing Actual Bodily Harm, a more serious assault charge. He could and should have been charged with resisting arrest. Once the CPS had watered down the charges to four counts of common assault, Mr Joyce was never going to prison.

Failing Justice System, Failing Society

Over the last 50 years or so we have become victims of an experiment by liberal policy makers, exacerbated more lately by our attachment to Europe and the Human Rights Act. These naive policies, which have supposedly given individuals more freedoms, have in fact resulted in the majority having their freedoms eroded. In the case of crime, the decent law abiding majority are now fearful of leaving their homes and worried about becoming a victim every time they step out of their door.

Most sensible people understand the underlying issues we have in society but we seem to be completely impotent when it comes to addressing them. Until the 1960's behaviour in society was heavily influenced by peer pressure. It wasn't Utopia by any means, but somewhere the baby has got thrown out with the bathwater. The rights of the individual has now gone beyond all sensible boundaries and the impact on others is apparently of little consequence.

One factor affecting crime has been the breakdown of the family unit. Single parenthood and both working parents has meant less direction and control at home for young people. There are some very good single parents but we all know that many struggle to cope and their offspring are more likely to underachieve and fall into crime. We are not allowed to say this however. We have been brainwashed by the politically correct brigade that single parenthood is a personal choice and we should not criticise others choices no matter what it costs us.

All authority has been undermined by liberal policies. We are told how we should, or often shouldn't, discipline our children. Children need discipline and guidance but we have an ever growing number of feckless parents unwilling or incapable of bringing them up to behave decently. They breed away secure in the knowledge that the working taxpayer will pick up all the bills and society will be left to try and sort out the mess. Schools, children's homes, Youth Offending Team etc., have all been indoctrinated that children must be treated as adults. Treat them with respect and they will respect you. The reality of this has been that authorities are held in complete contempt by unruly and criminal young people. They behave as they like, safe in the knowledge that there will be no effective consequences for their behaviour.

This criminal justice system is now infested with these liberal policies. Successive Governments have allowed this to happen on the advice of civil servants and so called experts, academics with no real understanding of, or grass root experience of law and order. For decades now successive Governments have been easily persuaded to adopt these policies on the false premise that it costs less to do so. The policies have allowed an ever growing pool of persistent offenders to commit offences with impunity. Treating children as adults has just meant that many of them have never grown up and they become children in adults bodies with no idea of how to behave or of responsibility to society in general.

In 1986 the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) came into being. Until then, the police prosecuted for the Crown. The CPS was sold to the public on the basis that independence was needed in the process and a more professional service. The reality is that the CPS have targets to reduce the number of cases coming to Court. Cases are dropped or plea bargained to ensure that justice is is rarely done. Prosecutions are avoided wherever possible to save money, meaning even fewer offenders face any sort of justice.

You cannot become a Magistrate now unless you pass the liberal policy test that means victims are of no concern and your role in the criminal justice system is understanding the offender is the 'victim' and consequences and deterrent have no place when considering sentencing. Judges have likewise been brought under control by ensuring that only those who toe the line are appointed or progress. Both have their hands tied by the sentencing guidelines designed solely to save money by ensuring that no one goes to prison until they are so far down the road of criminality that there is no chance of reforming them anytime soon. When persistent offenders do get their first six week prison sentence it is of no effect whatsoever.

Unless it is a very serious offence, by which I mean murder, rape or manslaughter, young offenders will usually receive a reprimand  for a first offence and then a final warning for a second. On reaching adulthood they are eligible for a caution before finally being charged and put before a court. The average offender has six court appearances before they receive a custodial sentence. So the average offender is caught and processed by the police nine times before a custodial sentence is imposed. The police only detect around 6% of all crime (not recorded crime.) This means that the average offender will have committed up to 150 crimes before a custodial sentence is given. A first sentence will usually be just a few weeks. No time for any rehabilitation. Too little too late.

The public are frustrated by the ineffectiveness of the justice system in protecting them but don't focus their anger on Government, partly because they don't understand how appalling the justice system has become, but also because they have been brainwashed that prison doesn't work. They have been told that community penalties are more effective when clearly they are not. Re-offending rates for community penalties are higher than prison. Most importantly though, persistent offenders cannot commit crimes, and increase their tally of victims, when locked away . Taking account of the fact that only 6% of crime is detected the actual re offending rates for persistent offenders are almost 100% whether they are sentenced to prison or community penalty. Prison only fails if we don't lock people up soon enough or for long enough to protect the decent law abiding majority.

50 years ago crime levels were 10% of what they are now. It wasn't perfect but it was a far safer country than it is now. You could leave your house safe in the knowledge that when you returned to it there was little chance that it might have been burgled. That is now ten times times more likely. You could walk down the street knowing that the chance of being robbed was almost non existent. Now you are 20 times more likely to be a victim of a street robbery. We are one of the pariahs of Europe. Crime in the UK is double the European average. America and South Africa are portrayed in the press as violent countries. The reality is that you are far more likely to be a victim of violent crime here than in those countries.

Governments and the justice system have completely failed to protect the public from persistent offenders. By ensuring that these criminals almost never face any meaningful consequences it is actually rewarding their behaviour. Worse still, we have all been brainwashed that it is not the offenders fault. They are the victims of their upbringing and society in general. The message is that their offending is our fault and so the public should suffer the guilt and consequences of their behaviour. Offenders see that  crime does pay very well, so the number of offenders is increasing and the cost of tackling it is now prohibitive. We have been abandoned to the persistent offenders. Successive Governments have given up protecting us. We are told to protect ourselves. We should invest in alarm systems, better locks, CCTV. We shouldn't walk down dark streets at night or use our mobile phones in public. We should hide our valuables from sight. If we don't, then when we become a victim of crime it is our fault for being so stupid when we know persistent offenders are hovering like vultures waiting for their next prey. Taking these preventative measures simply ensures that someone else will become the next victim instead of you. Next time it might be you instead of someone else. We are also told that our fear of crime is imaginary, that crime is nowhere near as bad as we think. Government, Local Authorities and the police have invested enormous resources trying to convince us that our fear of what we see and feel every day is imaginary. This is inexcusable tosh.

In general, the police have kept plugging away, arresting offenders and doing all they can to get them into the system and hopefully, one day, some sort of effective penalty. There are signs now that police morale is failing as a result of the persistent failure of the rest of the justice system. This should be of major concern as the police are the only part of the system currently of any effect. They are the only reason our current prison capacity is full despite the best efforts of Government and every other part of the system to keep them empty.

Decent law abiding members of the public are rightly fed up with our justice system. They see motorists being given hefty fines and points on their licence which has significant consequences for them, while thieves, robbers and burglars walk away laughing with no consequences at all. Persistent offenders treat the police, like the rest of the justice system, with contempt. Decent members of the public are losing confidence in the police, as we are the public facing part of the failing system, whom they hold accountable. Some commentators suggest that more police officers are needed to tackle the current crime epidemic. I disagree. If the justice system properly incarcerated the persistent offenders that the police do catch and ensured there was some effective rehabilitation, crime could be cut by over 50%. This would then allow the police to focus on the remaining persistent offenders and allow the public to start enjoying a life without a genuine fear of crime.

We need to totally overhaul our justice system. For persistent offenders it is a laughing stock and rather than providing any consequence or deterrent it encourages them. Cautions, fines and community penalties have their place but once these have been tried and failed then persistent offenders need to be incarcerated to provide an effective punishment, rehabilitation and, most importantly, justice for victims and protection for the public at large. Persistent offenders need to understand that continuing to re offend will mean more of the same for a longer and longer period. CPS targets should focus on convicting the guilty. The sentencing guidelines and the liberal sentencing policies need consigning to the bin.

The riots last August were a wake up call. A warning of what is coming if we do not change the current failing system. The growing numbers of persistent offenders are becoming bolder in the current climate. Thankfully, the police have put a lot of resources into catching those responsible for the riots. For once, the Government, frightened by what they saw, demanded that the ludicrous sentencing guidelines be overridden. Many rioters have received their just desserts, to the consternation of the hand wringing liberals. This may give us some breathing space, but rioters aside, it is normal ineffective business in the justice system and so we can expect more serious disturbances on our streets.

We should use the recession as an opportunity to invest in prison building. Prisons should be reformed so that there are military style punishment elements moving on to education and learning prior to release. Sentences should be served fully and early release only considered for those that work hard, achieve and show genuine reform. All foreign criminals should serve a minimum punishment term and then be deported with no opportunity to return.

I understand that much of what I have said is heresy to some, including many brainwashed, ambitious, senior police officers. I honestly believe that unless we make changes our society will continue to decline on its present course. I for one am fed up with trying to defend the disgraceful justice system and conning the public that crime is lower than it really is.