100 new officers to be recruited at Cheshire Police - but numbers to drop overall

John Dwyer

John Dwyer

First published in News
Last updated

PLANS to recruit 100 new police officers have been announced today, Friday.

However, numbers at Cheshire Police are due to drop overall from 1,956, to 1,900, by March next year.

John Dwyer, Cheshire Police and Crime Commissioner for Cheshire, said 100 officers are being recruited to replace existing cops who are due to leave or retire - they are not additional roles.

Mr Dwyer said: "A recruitment campaign will be launched on May 12, and I want to raise the bar and recruit 100 new officers by the end of March next year, which is higher than I had originally planned.”

Anyone wishing to reply is required to have completed the certificate of knowledge in policing, or the foundation degree in policing, law and investigation.

Applications open on May 12. 

Comments (16)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:55pm Fri 2 May 14

widnesman says...

Correct my maths if I am wrong.
There are currently 1,956 officers to be increased to 2,056 by introducing 100 new inexperienced officers.
They are then going to finish 156 experienced officers.
We done Mr Dwyer.
And you`re leaving, when?!!
Correct my maths if I am wrong. There are currently 1,956 officers to be increased to 2,056 by introducing 100 new inexperienced officers. They are then going to finish 156 experienced officers. We done Mr Dwyer. And you`re leaving, when?!! widnesman
  • Score: 5

4:24pm Sat 3 May 14

PageA says...

widnesman wrote:
Correct my maths if I am wrong.
There are currently 1,956 officers to be increased to 2,056 by introducing 100 new inexperienced officers.
They are then going to finish 156 experienced officers.
We done Mr Dwyer.
And you`re leaving, when?!!
Are they 'finishing' 156 officers or are 156 officers leaving / retiring?
[quote][p][bold]widnesman[/bold] wrote: Correct my maths if I am wrong. There are currently 1,956 officers to be increased to 2,056 by introducing 100 new inexperienced officers. They are then going to finish 156 experienced officers. We done Mr Dwyer. And you`re leaving, when?!![/p][/quote]Are they 'finishing' 156 officers or are 156 officers leaving / retiring? PageA
  • Score: 0

8:31am Sun 4 May 14

grey_man says...

John Dwyer's position is a political sinecure. Everything he says and does needs to be viewed in that light. He is there to sell national Government policies at a local level. He has no stated objectives and no mandate from the electorate who understand exactly why he has his job.
John Dwyer's position is a political sinecure. Everything he says and does needs to be viewed in that light. He is there to sell national Government policies at a local level. He has no stated objectives and no mandate from the electorate who understand exactly why he has his job. grey_man
  • Score: 0

9:46am Sun 4 May 14

PageA says...

grey_man wrote:
John Dwyer's position is a political sinecure. Everything he says and does needs to be viewed in that light. He is there to sell national Government policies at a local level. He has no stated objectives and no mandate from the electorate who understand exactly why he has his job.
Really? How do they survive political scrutiny? Surely in this day and age somebody from an opposition party would highlight the situation if it as you describe?
[quote][p][bold]grey_man[/bold] wrote: John Dwyer's position is a political sinecure. Everything he says and does needs to be viewed in that light. He is there to sell national Government policies at a local level. He has no stated objectives and no mandate from the electorate who understand exactly why he has his job.[/p][/quote]Really? How do they survive political scrutiny? Surely in this day and age somebody from an opposition party would highlight the situation if it as you describe? PageA
  • Score: -3

4:11pm Sun 4 May 14

GRUMPY PARENT says...

"Anyone wishing to reply is required to have completed the certificate of knowledge in policing, or the foundation degree in policing, law and investigation".

Has he any of these?

And WG "reply" or apply?
"Anyone wishing to reply is required to have completed the certificate of knowledge in policing, or the foundation degree in policing, law and investigation". Has he any of these? And WG "reply" or apply? GRUMPY PARENT
  • Score: 1

7:11pm Sun 4 May 14

PageA says...

GRUMPY PARENT wrote:
"Anyone wishing to reply is required to have completed the certificate of knowledge in policing, or the foundation degree in policing, law and investigation".

Has he any of these?

And WG "reply" or apply?
Would it matter? He's not police, he's the police commissioner with powers to hold the chief constable and the police to account. He's supposed to represent the voice of the people most of whom are also not qualified police officers. I understand why some senior police officers might not like this new post and I think they have vocalised that repeatedly using their relationship with the warrington guardian...And as we all know, their opinion influences you greatly.
[quote][p][bold]GRUMPY PARENT[/bold] wrote: "Anyone wishing to reply is required to have completed the certificate of knowledge in policing, or the foundation degree in policing, law and investigation". Has he any of these? And WG "reply" or apply?[/p][/quote]Would it matter? He's not police, he's the police commissioner with powers to hold the chief constable and the police to account. He's supposed to represent the voice of the people most of whom are also not qualified police officers. I understand why some senior police officers might not like this new post and I think they have vocalised that repeatedly using their relationship with the warrington guardian...And as we all know, their opinion influences you greatly. PageA
  • Score: 1

8:13am Mon 5 May 14

grey_man says...

PageA wrote:
grey_man wrote:
John Dwyer's position is a political sinecure. Everything he says and does needs to be viewed in that light. He is there to sell national Government policies at a local level. He has no stated objectives and no mandate from the electorate who understand exactly why he has his job.
Really? How do they survive political scrutiny? Surely in this day and age somebody from an opposition party would highlight the situation if it as you describe?
What? 'Opposition' from a party that also likes its more unelectable members to take up lucrative posts in unnecessary and expensive bodies with no measurable objectives and no support either from the public or police? Don't assume I am being partisan here because while I'm aware that John Dwyer has achieved precisely nothing that wouldn't have happened anyway, at least he's not the (Tory) commissioner from Cumbria who spent public money on chauffeurs or the Independent Alan Hardwick who screwed things up in Lincolnshire within a year by suspending his chief constable without saying why or Alun Michael (lab) who was caught up in the expenses scandal while an MP but soon popped back up as a PCC.

As for John Dwyer, if he's so committed to 'holding the police to account', why didn't he do the right thing with David Whatton?
[quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grey_man[/bold] wrote: John Dwyer's position is a political sinecure. Everything he says and does needs to be viewed in that light. He is there to sell national Government policies at a local level. He has no stated objectives and no mandate from the electorate who understand exactly why he has his job.[/p][/quote]Really? How do they survive political scrutiny? Surely in this day and age somebody from an opposition party would highlight the situation if it as you describe?[/p][/quote]What? 'Opposition' from a party that also likes its more unelectable members to take up lucrative posts in unnecessary and expensive bodies with no measurable objectives and no support either from the public or police? Don't assume I am being partisan here because while I'm aware that John Dwyer has achieved precisely nothing that wouldn't have happened anyway, at least he's not the (Tory) commissioner from Cumbria who spent public money on chauffeurs or the Independent Alan Hardwick who screwed things up in Lincolnshire within a year by suspending his chief constable without saying why or Alun Michael (lab) who was caught up in the expenses scandal while an MP but soon popped back up as a PCC. As for John Dwyer, if he's so committed to 'holding the police to account', why didn't he do the right thing with David Whatton? grey_man
  • Score: 0

9:00am Mon 5 May 14

PageA says...

grey_man wrote:
PageA wrote:
grey_man wrote:
John Dwyer's position is a political sinecure. Everything he says and does needs to be viewed in that light. He is there to sell national Government policies at a local level. He has no stated objectives and no mandate from the electorate who understand exactly why he has his job.
Really? How do they survive political scrutiny? Surely in this day and age somebody from an opposition party would highlight the situation if it as you describe?
What? 'Opposition' from a party that also likes its more unelectable members to take up lucrative posts in unnecessary and expensive bodies with no measurable objectives and no support either from the public or police? Don't assume I am being partisan here because while I'm aware that John Dwyer has achieved precisely nothing that wouldn't have happened anyway, at least he's not the (Tory) commissioner from Cumbria who spent public money on chauffeurs or the Independent Alan Hardwick who screwed things up in Lincolnshire within a year by suspending his chief constable without saying why or Alun Michael (lab) who was caught up in the expenses scandal while an MP but soon popped back up as a PCC.

As for John Dwyer, if he's so committed to 'holding the police to account', why didn't he do the right thing with David Whatton?
Yes, very good. My argument was with your opinion that the role of commissioner is an irrelevance, only there to promote national policies. You yourself cite an example of where a commissioner took action against a chief constable so obviously the job does come with teeth. I have no idea about David Whatton but that is the type of story which will inform the public when it's time to vote again. Did you vote ? I didn't. Will do next time though
[quote][p][bold]grey_man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grey_man[/bold] wrote: John Dwyer's position is a political sinecure. Everything he says and does needs to be viewed in that light. He is there to sell national Government policies at a local level. He has no stated objectives and no mandate from the electorate who understand exactly why he has his job.[/p][/quote]Really? How do they survive political scrutiny? Surely in this day and age somebody from an opposition party would highlight the situation if it as you describe?[/p][/quote]What? 'Opposition' from a party that also likes its more unelectable members to take up lucrative posts in unnecessary and expensive bodies with no measurable objectives and no support either from the public or police? Don't assume I am being partisan here because while I'm aware that John Dwyer has achieved precisely nothing that wouldn't have happened anyway, at least he's not the (Tory) commissioner from Cumbria who spent public money on chauffeurs or the Independent Alan Hardwick who screwed things up in Lincolnshire within a year by suspending his chief constable without saying why or Alun Michael (lab) who was caught up in the expenses scandal while an MP but soon popped back up as a PCC. As for John Dwyer, if he's so committed to 'holding the police to account', why didn't he do the right thing with David Whatton?[/p][/quote]Yes, very good. My argument was with your opinion that the role of commissioner is an irrelevance, only there to promote national policies. You yourself cite an example of where a commissioner took action against a chief constable so obviously the job does come with teeth. I have no idea about David Whatton but that is the type of story which will inform the public when it's time to vote again. Did you vote ? I didn't. Will do next time though PageA
  • Score: 1

3:01pm Mon 5 May 14

grey_man says...

I won't vote because I disagree with the office.

It doesn't matter whether the job comes with teeth. I don't want the police force answering to politicians.
I won't vote because I disagree with the office. It doesn't matter whether the job comes with teeth. I don't want the police force answering to politicians. grey_man
  • Score: 0

3:19pm Mon 5 May 14

PageA says...

grey_man wrote:
I won't vote because I disagree with the office.

It doesn't matter whether the job comes with teeth. I don't want the police force answering to politicians.
The politicians are answerable to the people so I don't mind them showing an interest. Would you prefer that the police answered to no one?
[quote][p][bold]grey_man[/bold] wrote: I won't vote because I disagree with the office. It doesn't matter whether the job comes with teeth. I don't want the police force answering to politicians.[/p][/quote]The politicians are answerable to the people so I don't mind them showing an interest. Would you prefer that the police answered to no one? PageA
  • Score: 1

3:51pm Mon 5 May 14

grey_man says...

No. But I don't want them answering to political stooges either. They should be answerable to a open process.

I don't believe politicians are any longer answerable to the people either. Because at most elections we are now given a choice between a smack in the mouth or a kick in the balls. We could make politicians more answerable by adding 'none of the above' to ballot papers so it is possible for informed people to let them know they don't like any of the choices they offer.

Within my lifetime we have seen them gradually erode trust in the democratic process and they won't instil it with their infighting, their failure to look outside their own bubble and their focus on their own dogma and donors.
No. But I don't want them answering to political stooges either. They should be answerable to a open process. I don't believe politicians are any longer answerable to the people either. Because at most elections we are now given a choice between a smack in the mouth or a kick in the balls. We could make politicians more answerable by adding 'none of the above' to ballot papers so it is possible for informed people to let them know they don't like any of the choices they offer. Within my lifetime we have seen them gradually erode trust in the democratic process and they won't instil it with their infighting, their failure to look outside their own bubble and their focus on their own dogma and donors. grey_man
  • Score: 2

8:07pm Mon 5 May 14

PageA says...

grey_man wrote:
No. But I don't want them answering to political stooges either. They should be answerable to a open process.

I don't believe politicians are any longer answerable to the people either. Because at most elections we are now given a choice between a smack in the mouth or a kick in the balls. We could make politicians more answerable by adding 'none of the above' to ballot papers so it is possible for informed people to let them know they don't like any of the choices they offer.

Within my lifetime we have seen them gradually erode trust in the democratic process and they won't instil it with their infighting, their failure to look outside their own bubble and their focus on their own dogma and donors.
Good point, well made
[quote][p][bold]grey_man[/bold] wrote: No. But I don't want them answering to political stooges either. They should be answerable to a open process. I don't believe politicians are any longer answerable to the people either. Because at most elections we are now given a choice between a smack in the mouth or a kick in the balls. We could make politicians more answerable by adding 'none of the above' to ballot papers so it is possible for informed people to let them know they don't like any of the choices they offer. Within my lifetime we have seen them gradually erode trust in the democratic process and they won't instil it with their infighting, their failure to look outside their own bubble and their focus on their own dogma and donors.[/p][/quote]Good point, well made PageA
  • Score: 0

10:59pm Mon 5 May 14

Karlar says...

We shouldn't be misled by the Home Affairs Select Committee's recent apparent criticisms of PCCs either. They may say "the jury may still be out on PCCs..." and believe "some of them have fallen well short of public expectation.." but PCCs are still the political flavour of the month, despite the abysmal electoral turnout across the country when they were first foisted upon us. Politics has increasingly become the art of preventing people from taking part in affairs which properly concern them.
We shouldn't be misled by the Home Affairs Select Committee's recent apparent criticisms of PCCs either. They may say "the jury may still be out on PCCs..." and believe "some of them have fallen well short of public expectation.." but PCCs are still the political flavour of the month, despite the abysmal electoral turnout across the country when they were first foisted upon us. Politics has increasingly become the art of preventing people from taking part in affairs which properly concern them. Karlar
  • Score: 1

9:13am Tue 6 May 14

grey_man says...

I agree with that. Here are two examples. At a national level we have HS2 which does none of the things it aims to do but is going ahead because what is needed (easing capacity issues on commuter lines and shifting the economic balance away from London) are not solvable with the sort of big shiny project that politicians like. The people of Britain understand this but politicians and the rail lobby are hell bent on forcing this through so don't give a stuff about either what people want or what is really needed.

Locally we have the farce of the 20 mph schemes. The council's own pilot scheme told it that people travel close to an average of 20 mph on those roads anyway and the pilot only marginally reduced it (by about 1 mph), the police can't enforce the limits, the pilot showed precisely no overall reduction in the extremely low number of accidents on those roads. So they don't do anything as the council's own pilot showed. The pilot cost £119,000 and they're now spending hundreds of thousands on a scheme they proved themselves is pointless while bleating they have no money and removing essential services.

Politicians don't care what people think. Their minds are made up and the rest of us are just along for the ride and hoping they don't do too much harm to our lives.
I agree with that. Here are two examples. At a national level we have HS2 which does none of the things it aims to do but is going ahead because what is needed (easing capacity issues on commuter lines and shifting the economic balance away from London) are not solvable with the sort of big shiny project that politicians like. The people of Britain understand this but politicians and the rail lobby are hell bent on forcing this through so don't give a stuff about either what people want or what is really needed. Locally we have the farce of the 20 mph schemes. The council's own pilot scheme told it that people travel close to an average of 20 mph on those roads anyway and the pilot only marginally reduced it (by about 1 mph), the police can't enforce the limits, the pilot showed precisely no overall reduction in the extremely low number of accidents on those roads. So they don't do anything as the council's own pilot showed. The pilot cost £119,000 and they're now spending hundreds of thousands on a scheme they proved themselves is pointless while bleating they have no money and removing essential services. Politicians don't care what people think. Their minds are made up and the rest of us are just along for the ride and hoping they don't do too much harm to our lives. grey_man
  • Score: 2

9:39am Tue 6 May 14

grey_man says...

PS Ever notice how some news stories drop of the front page quicker than others? Paranoid? Moi?
PS Ever notice how some news stories drop of the front page quicker than others? Paranoid? Moi? grey_man
  • Score: 0

12:40pm Tue 6 May 14

Karlar says...

Not forgetting the increasing manipulation of public inquiries and the purported independence of quangos, both of which give our local and national politicians ready opportunities to avoid the consequences of the buck stops here scenario. The former (paraphrasing Wynne) are rare points of contact on issues between local people, national pressure groups, policy makers and (that newspeak nondescription) stakeholders. There is overwhelming unflattering of evidence demonstrating the inadequacies of public inquiries as conducted in UK with those in the USA. Think Matrix Churchill, Scott and Chilcot to name but a few.
Not forgetting the increasing manipulation of public inquiries and the purported independence of quangos, both of which give our local and national politicians ready opportunities to avoid the consequences of the buck stops here scenario. The former (paraphrasing Wynne) are rare points of contact on issues between local people, national pressure groups, policy makers and (that newspeak nondescription) stakeholders. There is overwhelming unflattering of evidence demonstrating the inadequacies of public inquiries as conducted in UK with those in the USA. Think Matrix Churchill, Scott and Chilcot to name but a few. Karlar
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree