It is frustrating knowing these officers should have been aware of what the situation was before signing up and costing the PSNI money that it could be used to recruit more officers. But I suppose most thought they could handle the difficulties of being a PSNI officer and it just didn't work out.
I was about to go on a bit of a rant until I realised the total figure is from 2001, so I suppose the figures aren't too bad over a 10 year period. Though it's still an average of 6 or so a year leaving after less than a years service...6 incredibily hard sought after places
Sure there may be other reasons to leave other than the threat level, but this is why I think its ridiculous that there's no interview involved at any stage of recruitment. You can suss out alot from people in an interview that no role play ever will, an interview could determine if people really know what they're getting themselves in to, if they know what they job will entail, have they really thought about the reprocussions first, if they want to be a police officer for the right reasons... that's vital stuff in my opinion. Sure it would push the cost of recruitment up, but it would possibly stop some of the early leavers and non starters.
I wonder what the figures look like compared to other forces?
Funny that.I have just heard 10 mins ago of someone I know who quit after 3 years(not sure why yet).He had tried for 4 campaigns before succeeding on his fifth attempt.
Im sure there will be more people quitting due to the increased threat.Not everyone has the wit to research a career in the PSNI and all that it entails.Some will have seen it as just a job to apply for in the current climate.
Im sure we've had a gripe about this before but it cant hurt to have another moan.
I reckon the interview idea is a damn good one,as is the detailed information idea,given one to one about how a recruits life would change and affect those around them.
I think these were omitted for a reason,namely that anything which may deter(or hinder) potential RCs from joining up wouldnt be included in the application process.
Just my opinion,of course and not trying to cause trouble,but percentages had to be hit so the most efficient manner in which to hit said percentages had been found after a decade of recruitment.There have been quite a few tweaks to the whole process from the first campaign.Every tweak was done for a reason so that targets and percentages are achieved.
Oh, but Im sure some of them,like the IST rollovers,were done for financial reasons
Agree that an interview would surely weed out the imbeciles who quit after 1 day in Garnerville after discovering that they are required to wear a uniform , carry a firearm , etc.
I am fairly sure those figures do not include those who decline to take up the offer of a place in Garnerville - lest we forget no less than 4 boardies did not take up the offer of a place in the March intake ( the last one ).
If my memory serves me correctly it was down to issues of Personal Security.
Forgive my memory,but were those places reallocated to others or were they lost forever?
If others were found to fill the spots,great,but if they were lost its tough to take.If that were the case and the 4 potential new recruits were RC,would 4 non-Rcs have their offer rescinded to even up the numbers entering GV?
Can you imagine?
Dunno if the places were re-allocated.
No , they would not I believe rescind offers for the purposes of achieving a 50/50 balance but by the same token were the places to be re-allocated they may well have been targetted in a way that preserved 50/50.
Unfortunately those 4 places would not be back-filled if people fail to turn up on the day. The would have missed their Student Information Day a few weeks prior to their start date, and attendance at this is mandatory.
I was talking to a policeman who wants to quit after only 3 years. I asked why and he said there was too much politics in their jobs.
When he referred to '' politics '' was he talking about what we sometimes know as ' office politics ' or the other kind ?
Something along the lines of every move the PSNI makes has to have all political implications reviewed first before they can do their job.
I follow you alright , given that Policing has been such a contentious political issue pretty much since partition then I guess it ( regrettably ) follows that senior commanders have to keep one eye on how their actions are perceived , bound to be a source of frustration to Police Officers.
Its sad that. Im sure every police force has problems with politicians thinking they know how cops should do their job better than the cops do. I can only imagine how many times worse it is for NI cops.
I remember when Sir Hugh Orde was Chief Constable he said that no other Police Service was subject to the degree of oversight the PSNI was.
Between the Ombudsman , Policing Board , District Partnerships , etc , he made it clear that any further oversight could be counter-productive.
The people that are leaving after a year or less weren't cut out for the job, and the dissident threat that was always there, and was spelled out to them on Day 1, is just a convenient 'out'.
You have to know how to 'play the game' in this job. If you don't, you'll end up like Goonerdee's friend - disillusioned, lost in the politics, used and very much abused, and that only ends one way.
I think people watch too much Road Wars, get ideas about themselves so they join up - but then the job turns out to be very different to what they had imagined AND their role in the job turns out not to be the one they had envisaged when they watched too much TV.
This is why we badly need prospective Student Officers to be interviewed as opposed to doing a few psychometric tests. A good store manager could pass those tests but that doesn't mean they're going to be a good peeler. IMHO interviews are a must for this job.
I believe there was an interesting phone-in show on Radio Ulster today about PSNI recruitment process , numbers leaving , etc.
Did anyone catch it ?