August 2000 Volume 81 Number 8 "serving the protectors"

Representation

The largest single group in SAPOL are the uniformed, non-ranked (below sgt), operational police officers, many with fewer than 10 - 15 years’ experience. This group is going to grow quite significantly over the next few years as we feel the impact of the current recruitment drive.

This group is not adequately represented at the executive level, which currently and historically consists primarily of specialists and members of, or above the rank of sergeant.

So why wouldn’t they want to see a couple more sitting on the executive who earn less than 50K, don’t have the stripes and a current appreciation of attempting to be a modern, motivated, progressive professional at 4am on a cold winter morning for seven nights every five or six weeks (getting paid 15% for the privilege). A nice perspective to have when negotiating working conditions and pay rises in EB agreements some would say.

The policy-making “power” of our association rests with the conference delegates.

Our current branch structure practices and is fundamentally based on the concept of proportional representation. Each work area has roughly one conference delegate, or one vote for each 100 members. So why is proportional representation at the executive level such a dirty word, and what are we so afraid of by assisting our colleagues to this level using this very concept? Do we not trust them? Can we only trust those who made it there under their own steam? Are the views of an individual speaking for a collective majority worth any less than those who are elected as individuals?

Why wouldn’t the largest single group within the organization seek to maximize their potential of securing a position on the executive table using the very principal on which our current structure is based?

I suspect “grassroots” operational members have found it difficult to secure a position at the executive table because of their limited service, diversity, and lack of exposure within the organization. If the branch structure is a means of facilitating these members then I will support it. At the end of the day the members have a choice whether or not to support those candidates promoted by their branches.

I hear the talk in the locker and meal rooms of a suburban patrol base. I see a growing desire to have greater representation by these members and I am responding to this desire. Let’s not get paranoid about some political ideological theory, rather let’s trust in the commitment by those members elected by ourselves to work toward our common goal - that of making the life of a police officer a better one.

My aim is to best serve and represent the members who elected their delegates and in turn the delegates who supported my election to branch president. I do not seek to factionalize our organization, but to gain a “balance” of representation at the table that counts. Individuals are still free to campaign, as is the current practice.

If you believe there are sinister forces at work, or puppets being made then you better hide your money under the bed, because I’m sure you believe the reds are coming.

Kevin Lawton

• (see Straight To The Point, Police Journal, July 2000)

Not Trusted

The Editor

I would like to relate a recent experience as a warning to all patrol officers.

I am a uniform patrol officer and while on duty attended a priority “A” tasking in a marked police vehicle with lights and sirens activated.

I drove through a speed camera that was situated on a straight road with three lanes available for my direction of travel. There were no side streets entering the road. The weather conditions were fine and the road surface was good, dry bitumen. Traffic was light. I assessed the risks and conditions at the time and made a judgement accordingly.

Needless to say, I activated the camera. I received a TIN and submitted a PD4. My sergeant and LSA OC both supported the reason for urgent-duty driving, however, the file was rejected by IIB.

I received a letter stating that I risked facing a charge of speed dangerous and after submitting a more detailed report was given the options of paying a TIN or going to court.

The Police Association provided legal advice.

It seems that regardless of our training, the police department does not deem that we can be trusted to make decisions in relation to urgent-duty driving.

My warning to you all is that until specific departmental guidelines are in place or the legislation is made perfectly clear, don’t assume that rule 305 will cover you against prosecution, regardless of the nature of the job or the conditions at the time.

The public demands a responsive and dedicated police service, however, we don’t get paid enough to pay the TINs nor risk our driving licences.

R Virgo
Adelaide Patrols

• (see The Need For Speed, pg 18)

Bodyline Series

The Editor

The most infamous test of the Bodyline series began in Adelaide on Friday, January 13, 1933.

Near capacity crowds attended every day. In the packed outer, spectators - the men often dressed in suits - stood all day.

Shortly after lunch on Saturday, Larwood - on the last ball of his over - bowled a short-pitched ball to Australian captain and opener, Bill Woodfull. It struck Woodfull over his heart.

Play was delayed for several minutes. English captain, Douglas Jardine, not only showed no concern for Woodfull, but said to Larwood: “Well bowled, Harold.”

By the beginning of Larwood’s next over to him, Woodfull was obviously not fully recovered and in considerable pain. Nevertheless, Jardine signalled his fielders to take up their by now notorious bodyline positions - six men on the legside.

The following day, Australian tail-ender and wicket-keeper, Bert Oldfield, was hit in the head by a bouncer from Larwood. The blow fractured his skull, causing him to miss the rest of the series.

Despite the predictable tension of the match and the rage of the crowd at these provocative incidents, little seems to be known about the policing of the match. Anyone who may be able to provide information on this please contact Peter Adamson on 8344 3709, or write to him at 7 Horn Court, Walkerville, 5081.

All information will be passed on to sports historian and Adelaide Oval curator, Bernard Whimpress.

Peter Adamson

Impressive Facility

Dear Sir

I recently stayed at the Police Association townhouse overnight. I was very impressed with the facility and its cleanliness. We (association members) are very fortunate to have this made available for such a minimal cost. Thank you for all the work you do for our members and for the provision of a great, cheap place to stay, especially for country members.

Yours sincerely
Mariane Morgan
Ardrossan

PASAweb   Index & Search   Top of Page   Comments   Email to Editor

The Police Journal Online is an official publication of the Police Association of South Australia and is published monthly. Editors of kindred publications can seek permission from the Editor to re-publish any Police Journal Online article. Copyright 2000  The Police Association of South Australia sustance