Prison officer fitness test requirements.

14
Posted 18th Feb
Hello friends, i am hoping for some advice here.
I took and passed the steps to become a prison officer at a private jail. Was told that my face to face were originally May but now some spaces have opened up in 2 weeks.
I've got a bit of studying to do but thats not the problem. It's the fitness tet that i've got to do. Running on the treadmill for 3m45s and reach level 7. What does that mean exactly (i know i should have asked but i thought it would be the beep test). I've never been a running fan, prefer cycling and also never been to a gym either.
Thanks
Community Updates
Ask

Groups

14 Comments
Idk but think it means you've got to run fast for 3min 45s not sure how fast and how hard but if you're cycling a lot than you should have decent stamina but idk
I would say go for a couple runs first, run outside you don't need a GYM just warm clothes and trainers hey it's pretty fun but I can't do it more than across the street and if I push myself end up draining myself, I should probably run but I'm scared people will think I'm running away from the police if I don't wear a stereotypical Runner/Jogger outfit
Edited by: "Norseg" 18th Feb
I’m not entirely sure what that means but it doesn’t sound too difficult.

Running at 8mph will complete a mile in 7.5 mins. So if the test is only half that time then it might just be half a mile. Plus they will have to build up to level 7 (not sure what speed that is) but maybe an increase in level every 30 seconds. Really should be fairly straight forward even for someone not into running. Maybe grab some trainers and go for a couple of half mile runs before hand so dust some cobwebs off.
They stopped doing the bleep test a while ago now, it’s basically just fast jogging for a few minutes now to make sure your fitness is good enough to respond to a general alarm
Do you mind if I ask where you have got the test? I've got mine in Buckinghamshire at the end of march and I'm worried about my fitness assessment aswell ( dodgy knees)
My annual fitness test is still the bleep test, never came across this treadmill test. I'm HMP rather than private though.
I think the test is for when a inmate's PlayStation breaks, you can sprint to the office to get a replacement before the inmate whines about it on Social Media (on the phone they're not suppose to have)
Derek_Fortescue_Shatwell18/02/2020 15:07

Comment deleted


i read a story once about someone who had been in prison for 5 years before they found out that he was actually innocent. they gave him compensation for wrongful imprisonment but cheekily they deducted the cost of prison accommodation on a daily rate from his compensation lump sum!
mutley118/02/2020 15:17

i read a story once about someone who had been in prison for 5 years …i read a story once about someone who had been in prison for 5 years before they found out that he was actually innocent. they gave him compensation for wrongful imprisonment but cheekily they deducted the cost of prison accommodation on a daily rate from his compensation lump sum!


yeah they do that to everyone. It's actually classed as 'saved living expenses' I think. The home secretary will argue that because you were in jail, you haven't had to pay for food, rent/mortgage etc and therefore your compensation should be reduced by taht amount
theguardian.com/uk/…ime


Three men who spent a total of 46 years in prison because of miscarriages of justice today lost their legal battle not to have to pay "living expenses" for the time they spent behind bars.Judges at the House of Lords decided by a four to one majority that those wrongfully jailed must pay back 25% of their compensation.

The case was brought by Michael Hickey and his cousin Vincent, who were wrongly convicted of the murder of Carl Bridgewater, a newspaper boy, in 1978, and Michael O'Brien, who was wrongly convicted of murdering a Cardiff newsagent in 1988.

Michael and Vincent Hickey's convictions were quashed by the court of appeal in 1997 after 18 years in prison and they were awarded £990,000 and £506,220 respectively - subject to 25% deductions for their saved "board and lodgings" expenses.

Mr O'Brien was awarded £670,000 compensation after spending 10 years in jail. His award was subject to the same deductions.

The three men appealed to the House of Lords against a court of appeal ruling that the independent assessor - who decides the level of compensation paid in miscarriages of justice cases - was entitled to make deductions for the living expenses they would have faced had they not been locked up.

The law lords also dismissed a second challenge, again by a majority of four to one, over deductions from compensation for past criminality.

Lord Brown said it was not hard to understand why the deduction for "saved living expenses" had aroused strong feelings among men "incarcerated in prison for many years for crimes they never committed".

But he said that to award them their loss of earnings without taking these expenses into account would be to over-compensate them.

Lord Bingham agreed, saying it was the assessor's task to work out the true figure for loss of earnings.

He said if the prisoners were awarded the full sum, "they would in reality be better off than if they had earned the money as free men, since as free men they would have had to spend the minimum necessary to keep themselves alive".

Only Lord Rodger did not agree with the deduction for living expenses. He said it was not hard to see why the men would feel that they were in effect paying for their keep during the long years when they were wrongly deprived of their liberty.

Andrew Neilson, a spokesman for the Howard League for Penal Reform, said the decision was "disappointing".

He said: "Deducting living expenses from the compensation awarded to victims of miscarriages of justice is unnecessarily vindictive and it's disappointing that the law lords have endorsed this policy.

"Ultimately these were innocent men deprived of their liberty for many years. In truth, there's no price that could be paid for those lost years in custody and to reduce what compensation they have received to pay for 'board and lodgings' is petty and mean."
julieallen18/02/2020 16:20

yeah they do that to everyone. It's actually classed as 'saved living …yeah they do that to everyone. It's actually classed as 'saved living expenses' I think. The home secretary will argue that because you were in jail, you haven't had to pay for food, rent/mortgage etc and therefore your compensation should be reduced by taht amount


What if they were still paying a mortgage? As far as I know they don't take your house as part of a sentence so it seems like a sweeping statement?
dcx_badass18/02/2020 16:40

What if they were still paying a mortgage? As far as I know they don't … What if they were still paying a mortgage? As far as I know they don't take your house as part of a sentence so it seems like a sweeping statement?


I know that if you get your rent payed for by benefits then they will only pay it for up to 6 months (remand only) and nothing if your convicted. After that if you can’t pay your rent yourself you will lose the property
dcx_badass18/02/2020 16:40

What if they were still paying a mortgage? As far as I know they don't …What if they were still paying a mortgage? As far as I know they don't take your house as part of a sentence so it seems like a sweeping statement?


i can only guess that the individual's circumstance would be taken into account in the deduction but it is pretty cheeky to deduct accommodation costs for falsely being imprisoned. it wasn't exactly their choice to stay there and enjoy the luxurious surroundings!
julieallen18/02/2020 16:20

yeah they do that to everyone. It's actually classed as 'saved living …yeah they do that to everyone. It's actually classed as 'saved living expenses' I think. The home secretary will argue that because you were in jail, you haven't had to pay for food, rent/mortgage etc and therefore your compensation should be reduced by taht amount


So they are locked in their 'hotel room' and forced to pay for the privilege. I would like to set the home secretary arrested and charged with kidnapping - Just to focus the minds of those lawyers who make a very good living out of this kind of situation.
These people's are tried by their peers... let their peers decide if or what deductions should be made.
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text

    Discussions

    Discussions

    Top Merchants