Sir Mark Rowley has pointed to pay in the Met’s difficulty “to recruit, develop, motivate and retain the talent of tens of thousands of fantastic men and women who desperately want to rebuild the trust of Londoners”.
The number of Met officers currently stands at 34,340 – a record high. However, the force is set to fail to increase numbers to 36,500 by April as part of a national boost in policing.
The Met chief says pay needs to go up with inflation, due to what he described as a “17 per cent real-terms decrease in pay over the past 10 years for front-line officers”.
However, as The Standard View points out, there may be little public sympathy for the force in the current climate: “The Met, like hospitals and schools, needs to offer an attractive salary among other benefits to recruit and retain staff. And officers, like any workers, should be able to afford to live in the city in which they work. Of course, there are complicating factors at play. Barely a day goes by when Scotland Yard isn’t dragged into another controversy.”
But Sir Mark has stated the case for needing to offer greater remuneration to take the Met forward: “This is not about benevolence or sentimentality to my officers but simply about being calmly business-like about what it will take for me to deliver the quality of policing that Londoners deserve.”
The starting salary for a Pc is around £33,500.
Do you think Met Police officers should have a 10 per cent pay rise to encourage new recruits? Tell us what you think in the comments or on our Instagram for the chance to be featured on the Evening Standard website.
Yesterday we asked: Do you think that rewriting Roald Dahl’s books is censorship?
Yes, but for the love of god, don't pretend that it's a new thing.
— Bodily Head (@bodily_head) February 21, 2023
On Instagram, pamelamurraywriting commented: “As a writer I can say yes, it is censorship. Ask the intended audience if they are offended and they’ll more than likely say no. Children love this stuff, that’s why the books have sold so well over the years. They’re no longer Roald Dahl books if somebody else has rewritten them. If this keeps on then every writer has something to fear.”
Yes. I'd rather take them out of publication than change them. I read many books published in Victorian and Edwardian times when I was a child and they weren't brought up to date for me. Kids will have a rude awakening when they grow up and life is not as they expected.
— Margot (Maddie & Hamish, dogs, sadly 🌈) 🇬🇧 (@Hamishmczzz) February 20, 2023
The overwhelming majority of responses on our social-media platforms were against retrospectively editing the author’s works.
They were a success as written, why change them.
— Sheila Cotton (@SCBierton) February 20, 2023
miss_omnishambles said on Instagram: “I rarely agree with the Tories on anything, but I detest all this cultural rewriting of history. Keep the books as they are but offer context in the introductions and when teaching. Explain to young readers how language and values have evolved. Have the conversation and get people thinking and talking about these issues. Raise children who can analyse and think critically. We need to stop dumbing down and white-washing everything.”
Meanwhile, in comments on Facebook, Diana Kiernander said: “Yes! Every word he wrote felt perfect to him and he wouldn’t have left the line or the story alone until it was perfect to him!”
And Joanna Catherine Jackson-Hoare: “I don’t understand sanitising the past. Enjoy the books for the amazing stories they are, and then have the natural conversations that arise about what was acceptable then and now.”
