Teachers first – now the Police?
Watch a few minutes of Police Ten-7 and one is left with two, over-whelming, depressing conclusions;
- There are idiots in society whom evolution has over-looked when natural selection was dishing out brain power,
- Police are not paid enough to handle those idiots – many of whom are off their faces on cheap alcohol; drugs; alcohol and drugs; and youthful stupidity.
Policing is not a job many of us would willingly do. As one policeman’s wife recently wrote,
” Due to understaffing he is often on his own in dangerous siituations waiting for back up. I would like to see people who complain about the Police let their loved ones go and do the job. Let’s get some of the MP’s out plodding the beat dealing with gang fights, domestic abuse, child abuse and drunk, drugged and armed offenders be called names I can’t repeat all for the occassional thank you and low pay. ” - Source
Since 1890, 29 policemen have been killed in the line of duty.
Others, like Gisborne policeman Nigel Hendrikse, was viciously stabbed by a gangmember and forced to quit the policeforce because of his injuries.
Considering the daily stresses and violence faced by these gutsy men and women in our police force, it beggars belief that politicians came come up with this kind of… crap,
Our police… over-paid ?!?!
One can understand politicians being over-paid.
One can understand Hollywood actors and fashion models being over-paid.
But what bureacrat or politician could possibly suggest that police are over-paid?
Note the statement from Police hierarchy,
” This would generate significant savings for them from 2015 onwards with new constables employed on much lower remuneration, existing staff frozen on their 2015 remuneration until proposed new rates catch up with them, which could be for 10 years or more, and a number of existing allowances removed for new staff. “- Ibid
It appears that National has not learnt a single lesson from the recent classroom size/teacher reduction debacle and is now targetting expenditure within the police budget.
This blogger’s first reaction was one of incredulous dis-belief; that National could even consider the notion of cutting police salaries.
Right wing political parties are usually mindlessly gung-ho when it comes to resourcing police and imposing harsher penalties for law-breakers. Part of National’s election campaign last year was a predictable “tough on crime” theme,
How National can “stay strong on crime” when it plans to cut Police salaries defies understanding. Do the Nats expect crims to hand themselves in after phoning 0800-come-arrest-me ? (Considering how 0800 numbers seem to work miracles with Housing NZ.)
It is also difficult to understand the following,
- How did the Police hierarchy and the Minister of Police arrive at a figure of 20% “over payment” for police officers? (Please, please, please don’t say “Treasury told us”. Please.)
- What is “performance-based pay” and how will “performance” be measured?
- What will be the result of a policy of reducing salaries by 20%? How many police officers will end up moving to Australia?
- How does reducing police pay meet John Key’s pledges to raise wages in this country?
A further question; is what voters wanted when they voted for National last year? To reduce pay for police?
It is also outrageous that “sworn officers would also have to work five hours’ overtime instead of three before they got time off in lieu“. (Source)
Hell, why pay Police anything at all? They get a nice, blue, snappy-looking uniform and shiny ‘cuffs and tasers – they want money as well ?!
It appears that Police Minister, Anne Tolley, having noted Hekia Parata’s public humiliation over the class size backdown, is keeping her head down. She is refusing to comment, claiming that it is inappropriate for the minister to comment on wage negotiations.
National has opened a can of worms on this issue and appears to have learnt nothing from the late 1990s, when it went through a similar process,
Whilst National plans to cut back on police salaries, to pursue it’s agenda of a balancing the books by 2014-15, other areas of government spending do not seem to attract the same fiscal razor,
Contrasting National’s plans to cut police pay with above stories of scandalous waste of taxpayers’ money may elicit a mixture of head-shaking resignation, revulsion, and anger from the reader. Do not be alarmed: that is a normal response.
If you believe that Police are “over-paid” and that National is justified in cutting their salaries, you are most likely a committed National supporter and loyal follower of Dear Leader. In which case you are a part of the problem. (And if these cuts go ahead; and next time you are burgled you have to wait a week for a police response team to arrive on your doorstep; you deserve everything you get. You voted for this mess.)
National’s ‘cut & slash’ mentality was tried in the late 1990s. It failed then. It will fail again. This blogger can foresee the results, because New Zealander went through this over a decade ago.
The question is; will my fellow Kiwis who voted National last year ever learn a simple fact; voting for the Tories is an own-goal. Key and his cronies may offer us ‘lollies’ in the form of tax cuts – but concommitant with that is slashed social and other government services. Tax cuts = cut services.
It can’t be made plainer than that.
Any New Zealander who doesn’t get that should look at Greece. There is a lesson we should all take note of.
In the meantime, National’s policy of cutting salaries and services will result in some very unhappy policemen and women. This blogger hopes that the Minister, Anne Tolley (not noted for her political astuteness) will understand the sh*t-storm about to hit her portfolio and close it down quickly by abandoning any notion of cuts to the Police.
Hekia Parata should have a chat with her.
Subject: A blogger’s ‘take’ on threatened cuts to Police pay…Date: Saturday, 9 June, 2012 7:35 PMFrom: “Frank Macskasy” <email@example.com>To: “Anne Tolley” <firstname.lastname@example.org>Cc:”Chris Hipkins” <email@example.com>, “Chris Laidlaw RNZ” <firstname.lastname@example.org>, “Daily News” <email@example.com>, “Daily Post” <firstname.lastname@example.org>, “Dominion Post” <email@example.com>, “Hutt News” <firstname.lastname@example.org>, “Jim Mora” <email@example.com>, “John Key” <firstname.lastname@example.org>, “Kim Hill” <email@example.com>, “Listener” <firstname.lastname@example.org>, “Metiria Turei” <email@example.com>, “Morning Report” <firstname.lastname@example.org>, “Nine To Noon RNZ” <email@example.com>, “NZ Herald” <firstname.lastname@example.org>, “Otago Daily Times” <email@example.com>, “Q+A” <Q+A@tvnz.co.nz>, “Southland Times” <firstname.lastname@example.org>, “The Press” <email@example.com>, “The Wellingtonian” <firstname.lastname@example.org>, “TVNZ News” <email@example.com>, “Waikato Times” <firstname.lastname@example.org>, “Wairarapa Times-Age” <email@example.com>
Dear Ms Tolley,
For your perusal;
Teachers first – now the Police?
Subject: Thank you for your emailDate: Saturday, 9 June, 2012 7:35 PMFrom: “Hon. Anne Tolley (MIN)” <Anne.Tolley@parliament.govt.nz>To: “Frank Macskasy” <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On behalf of Hon Anne Tolley, thank you for your email which has been received by this office. Your correspondence has been noted and will be recorded.
Your email will be forwarded to the Minister for consideration, and a response will be sent as soon as possible. However, if your email is bringing some information to the attention of the Minister, please regard this as a final response to your email.
The Office of Hon Anne Tolley
= fs =