Sir Cliff Richard
Discussion
turbobloke said:
MarshPhantom said:
snuffy said:
He gets to retire at 52 (how many people can do that ?) and it seems to be justified because he's worked for 31 years. So he started work at 21 - like me. Ah, I know why, he works in the public sector.
My Missus is public sector, she ?on't be able to retire at 52.Or has it changed yet again?
MarshPhantom said:
turbobloke said:
MarshPhantom said:
snuffy said:
He gets to retire at 52 (how many people can do that ?) and it seems to be justified because he's worked for 31 years. So he started work at 21 - like me. Ah, I know why, he works in the public sector.
My Missus is public sector, she ?on't be able to retire at 52.Or has it changed yet again?
"Early retirement, known as Actuarially Adjusted Benefits (AAB) are benefits which you can take before Normal Pension Age (NPA) if you’re aged 55 or over."
If somebody is waiting for NPA it'll be at least 10 years later.
V8 Fettler said:
La Liga said:
The 30 year police pension changed just under a decade ago and has changed again since. Naturally, there are some people who the tapering etc doesn't apply to who still retire on the old pension.
It's not sustainable to have police officers retiring in their late 40s / early 50s with increasing life expectancy, but there other considerations and challenges in the future with the police. For example, most of you will have little issue in your 50s and 60s clicking spreadsheets and working 9-5 in a warm office, but I'm not sure how effective a good chunk of 60+ year old police officers working shifts doing front line police work will be for the public.
Are there no admin/support positions in the police then? Or is it all front line?It's not sustainable to have police officers retiring in their late 40s / early 50s with increasing life expectancy, but there other considerations and challenges in the future with the police. For example, most of you will have little issue in your 50s and 60s clicking spreadsheets and working 9-5 in a warm office, but I'm not sure how effective a good chunk of 60+ year old police officers working shifts doing front line police work will be for the public.
NinjaPower said:
And public sector workers wonder why the public don't give a toss when they are the target of massive cuts.
Except when they can't get access to the services they want. 'Workforce modernisation' has been on-going for many years, including pre-recession / cuts. This was fundamentally about removing police officers from roles which could be done by much cheaper support staff. This has further been explored during the cuts so there are very few non-front line roles for Constables.
You could say in the future place ageing officers in non-front line roles. The problem is the solution to saving money (later retirement) becomes to waste money.
During the cuts we've had the last remaining non-front line officers put back out. The oldest tend to be in their early 50s and they're all knackered and injured from near 30 years of police work and shifts. They aren't good value to the public vs police officers in their 30s.
What we may see is the Detective role being dominated by older officers as they'll work fewer shifts and have less confrontation. But even then there's the expectation with a lot of forces they'll be 'riot police' and therefore have to do the training and be deployed.
turbobloke said:
That, and the fact that 'access to services' depends also on police decision-making, no matter what the budget. If constable Thought Police is sent after people making lawful but non-pc comments on radio phone-in programmes then the aforementioned constable won't be available for the real work they were appointed to do.
The appeal to extremes fallacy does not an argument make. Core crime police work revolves around violence, drugs and acquisitive (see what offences people are in prison for). If you're interested in a relevant amount of policing time where they are gains to be made, then you'd be interested in all the non-crime work they do i.e. mental health, missing people etc, and where other agencies don't take care of their own remit.
It doesn't really have much to do with the point I made about have lots of 60 year old officers trying to catch criminals and the issues of an ageing workforce in an often confrontational and physical role.
snuffy said:
La Liga said:
Except when they can't get access to the services they want.
Except when they can't get access to the services they have paid for.La Liga said:
turbobloke said:
That, and the fact that 'access to services' depends also on police decision-making, no matter what the budget. If constable Thought Police is sent after people making lawful but non-pc comments on radio phone-in programmes then the aforementioned constable won't be available for the real work they were appointed to do.
The appeal to extremes fallacy does not an argument make. Core crime police work revolves around violence, drugs and acquisitive (see what offences people are in prison for). turbobloke said:
La Liga said:
turbobloke said:
That, and the fact that 'access to services' depends also on police decision-making, no matter what the budget. If constable Thought Police is sent after people making lawful but non-pc comments on radio phone-in programmes then the aforementioned constable won't be available for the real work they were appointed to do.
The appeal to extremes fallacy does not an argument make. Core crime police work revolves around violence, drugs and acquisitive (see what offences people are in prison for). La Liga said:
handful of examples (that you judge to be a waste of time) from 13 million incidents plus all the other millions of interactions doesn't mean a great deal. I don't a link between the ageing risk I've highlighted.
If one officer wasting his or her time on one day is OK then police budgets are treated with scant respect by senior officers. Quite a surprise to see you dismissing it in such a p-c manner. Promoted recently? If so congratulations.turbobloke said:
La Liga said:
handful of examples (that you judge to be a waste of time) from 13 million incidents plus all the other millions of interactions doesn't mean a great deal. I don't a link between the ageing risk I've highlighted.
If one officer wasting his or her time on one day is OK then police budgets are treated with scant respect by senior officers. Quite a surprise to see you dismissing it in such a p-c manner. Promoted recently? If so congratulations.2) It's about perspective (wood from the trees and all that). The handful of incidents you object to amount to a very, very small fraction of police time and are practically just noise in terms of overall time and availability. The police have a wide net, occasionally they'll catch a few tin cans along with the fish.
3) The police follow quite strict Home Office rules and regulations (that have the overall benefit of consistency) as to what needs to occur when something is reported, so sometimes it's out of their hands.
La Liga said:
Just because you define something as a waste of time doesn't mean it is.
And if somebody disagrees, that doesn't mean it isn't.In this case, it is
La Liga said:
2) It's about perspective (wood from the trees and all that). The handful of incidents you object to amount to a very, very small fraction of police time and are practically just noise in terms of overall time and availability. The police have a wide net, occasionally they'll catch a few tin cans along with the fish.
No organisation can be one hundred percent efficient, but not accepting less will help with improving the position.La Liga said:
3) The police follow quite strict Home Office rules and regulations (that have the overall benefit of consistency) as to what needs to occur when something is reported, so sometimes it's out of their hands.
Yes indeed, only following orders, that'll fix it - and it's such a goodie as excuses go.When the Home Office hands out cuts to police budgets is the reaction a no-comment compliance?
Acknowledging that phoning people who said something non-p-c and committed no crime is a waste of time would be welcome but fat chance! Wall of silence etc.
Edited by turbobloke on Friday 25th March 19:25
It's a bit away from Summer Holiday but when in the sixth-form my Head of Sixth was a reasonably well-known literary and scholastic figure who had been imprisoned and tortured by the South African police for saying something the equivalent of non p-c, not unlawful but not in keeping with police expectations. The same expectations as the State, by chance (or not). The idea that this country might have taken a step in that direction with the emergence of thought police is by no means tinfoil time, it's time for senior BiB to take a step back and have a think. If that means pushing back at Whitehall then they need to get pushing not acquiescing and 'only following orders' for the sake of their careers. Back to The Young Ones I guess.
It's quite easy to point the gun and ask another to pull the trigger. Telling the police officers' managers to push back against a Home Office full of timeservers and lackeys is the quickest way to commit career suicide. Where would you stand, at the front pushing, or behind a desk telling others?
It's all about the available resources and officers in their 30s versus officers in their 50s.
There was a lot of resource for several cars of officers to travel down to Berkshire and tip off the BBC about where to fly the helicopter so as to get the best footage of the police raid of his apartment.
You pay your money and takes your choice.
And of course that couldn't have been seen as a convenient taxpayer funded distraction from the wholesale failure in Rotherham. You know where the Council used public money to try to take out an injunction against The Times from reporting what was going on there?
There was a lot of resource for several cars of officers to travel down to Berkshire and tip off the BBC about where to fly the helicopter so as to get the best footage of the police raid of his apartment.
You pay your money and takes your choice.
And of course that couldn't have been seen as a convenient taxpayer funded distraction from the wholesale failure in Rotherham. You know where the Council used public money to try to take out an injunction against The Times from reporting what was going on there?
turbobloke said:
No organisation can be one hundred percent efficient, but not accepting less will help with improving the position.
I don't think organisations that have unrealistic expectations improve better than those that do. It's inevitable that some time will be wasted (depending on how that's defined). turbobloke said:
Yes indeed, only following orders, that'll fix it - and it's such a goodie as excuses go.
Alternatively it's a reality / explanation you don't like so you'll dismiss it as an 'excuse'. I'd consider the police attending one person sending nasty messages to another over Facebook a waste of time, but once an incident is created (even if it only vaguely reflects a crime), then the rules mean a minimum course of action is set in motion.
turbobloke said:
Acknowledging that phoning people who said something non-p-c and committed no crime is a waste of time would be welcome but fat chance! Wall of silence etc.
I am quite happy to accept that within 10s of millions of incidents and interactions some will be a waste of time. It's inevitable. Are you talking about the caller who made comments about Jews? If so, the HO (time to call it an 'excuse' once more) are rather clear on how the police record hate incidents - look it up if you want. Just because someone uses the word 'investigate', doesn't mean it needs be anything more than recording the matter as per the rules.
I still fail to see the link to me discussing the risks of an ageing police force.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff