No, not sacked! Older officers, diabetics etc. may still be able to carry out full duties, with proper adjustments. Officers pay into an expensive pension in case the worst happens. A staff role should be offered, to utilise their skills & continue a career. This frees up a police post. Sadly decisions about ill-health retirement and sick officers are being taken to distort targets gaining Brownie points for meeting retirement quotas. Public money is spent on barristers to fight their own staff.
The role of a police officer means that unless you are physically fit, it would be unsafe for you to do the job. in addittion the violent nature of the role has caused officers to become restricted by the fact that they have been assaulted. Do you sugest that if an officer is no longer capable of 'front line duties' that he/she should be sacked? That is discrimination of the highest order. Just think it would include, old perple, disabled, diabetics and the injured or sick (eg cancer)
"In 2007 some 8% of police officers were on some kind of restricted duty, meaning 600 officers could not be counted on in a mobilisation. A review started in 2006 & as a result of that review 6 or 7 officers have been retired."
Surely with a freeze on recruitment this means the situation has not improved. During a major incident in Birmingham
Williams says he could not deploy around 600 officers because they cannot carry out front line duties. ?
another high payed mr know it all BORIN!!!
bobba786 2 years ago
Mr Simms, will not be provinding response officers with Taser.
74nr 2 years ago
No, not sacked! Older officers, diabetics etc. may still be able to carry out full duties, with proper adjustments. Officers pay into an expensive pension in case the worst happens. A staff role should be offered, to utilise their skills & continue a career. This frees up a police post. Sadly decisions about ill-health retirement and sick officers are being taken to distort targets gaining Brownie points for meeting retirement quotas. Public money is spent on barristers to fight their own staff.
ConcernedPublic 2 years ago
The role of a police officer means that unless you are physically fit, it would be unsafe for you to do the job. in addittion the violent nature of the role has caused officers to become restricted by the fact that they have been assaulted. Do you sugest that if an officer is no longer capable of 'front line duties' that he/she should be sacked? That is discrimination of the highest order. Just think it would include, old perple, disabled, diabetics and the injured or sick (eg cancer)
billsan1 2 years ago
David Williams Head of HR WMP October 2008"
"In 2007 some 8% of police officers were on some kind of restricted duty, meaning 600 officers could not be counted on in a mobilisation. A review started in 2006 & as a result of that review 6 or 7 officers have been retired."
Surely with a freeze on recruitment this means the situation has not improved. During a major incident in Birmingham
Williams says he could not deploy around 600 officers because they cannot carry out front line duties. ?
ConcernedPublic 2 years ago