Sir Cliff Richard
Discussion
La Liga said:
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.
Using my tax money to pay for someone to retire early is not efficient.
Expectations need to be managed.
Thorodin said:
It's quite easy to point the gun and ask another to pull the trigger.
Tell that to Whitehall, as apparently the 'need' for police to waste time contacting people who make non-p-c comments on phone-in progs (without breaking the law) emanates from there.Thorodin said:
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?
Obviously as long as a careerist or three keep climbing the greasy blue pole with pensions intact, priorities are in order and all is well.The chap who had first-hand experience of where tolerating the thought police can take a country had a very positive view of police generally, and would frequently suggest the police as a career choice. It's people like him that police need in their senior ranks, but the appearance is that they're rare and that as you suggest, the pension pot rules OK.
V8 Fettler said:
Why would the salary remain at £38k? New role, new salary level; as happens in the private sector.
Why would a police officer willingly remove themselves from the front line for a significant pay cut? You'll attract a really good work force; "Join the police and after you've done decades on the front line you'll be rewarded with a 50% pay cut" because of the physical toll the job has taken upon you.
V8 Fettler said:
Using my tax money to pay for someone to retire early is not efficient.
Nor is wasting it over-paying people. V8 Fettler said:
Expectations need to be managed.
Indeed, primarily the expectation you'll ever acquire a quality workforce where the reward for commitment, dedication, acquiring skills and experience results in a 50% pay cut. La Liga said:
V8 Fettler said:
Why would the salary remain at £38k? New role, new salary level; as happens in the private sector.
Why would a police officer willingly remove themselves from the front line for a significant pay cut? La Liga said:
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.
turbobloke said:
La Liga said:
V8 Fettler said:
Why would the salary remain at £38k? New role, new salary level; as happens in the private sector.
Why would a police officer willingly remove themselves from the front line for a significant pay cut? La Liga said:
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.
The message of 'join the police and when you've done lots of hard work be rewarded with a 50% pay cut' when it's taken it out of you is unlikely to acquire the best people.
La Liga said:
turbobloke said:
La Liga said:
V8 Fettler said:
Why would the salary remain at £38k? New role, new salary level; as happens in the private sector.
Why would a police officer willingly remove themselves from the front line for a significant pay cut? La Liga said:
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.
La Liga said:
The message of 'join the police and when you've done lots of hard work be rewarded with a 50% pay cut' when it's taken it out of you is unlikely to acquire the best people.
Hang on a mo, your shoulder dip and body swerve are very clear in the replay 
They can look forward to a platinum plated pension. And do, I've been told on this thread (not by you) that this will be sufficient for officers to appeal to the 'only following orders' excuse which we know has led to great things in the past.
How did you forget?!
turbobloke said:
So what happens to serving the public, efficient and effective use of public money, that sort of thing?
There are pros and cons to making officers work much longer. Pro, pensions cost less. Con, as a generalisation, a large chunk of police officers in their 50s and 60s aren't going to be as effective as those in their 20s, 30s and 40s. turbobloke said:
They can look forward to a platinum plated pension. And do, I've been told on this thread (not by you) that this will be sufficient for officers to appeal to the 'only following orders' excuse which we know has led to great things in the past.
I don't quite think those going in have such a platinum-plated one. The last remaining whom retire within the next few years do, but this isn't relevant to the longer-term issue I've raised. La Liga said:
I don't quite think those going in have such a platinum-plated one. The last remaining whom retire within the next few years do, but this isn't relevant to the longer-term issue I've raised.
The pension currently available is still platinum plated but some of the fairy dust may have been removed. It's still what recruits will expect ca 60 and they can still top it up as described if they wish.turbobloke said:
La Liga said:
I don't quite think those going in have such a platinum-plated one. The last remaining whom retire within the next few years do, but this isn't relevant to the longer-term issue I've raised.
The pension currently available is still platinum plated but some of the fairy dust may have been removed. It's still what recruits will expect ca 60 and they can still top it up as described if they wish.How, or more importantly, why on earth do you want to turn every thread into a dogmatic rant against the public sector and people's pensions?
Before you start on me, I'm nothing to do with the public sector.
el stovey said:
turbobloke said:
La Liga said:
I don't quite think those going in have such a platinum-plated one. The last remaining whom retire within the next few years do, but this isn't relevant to the longer-term issue I've raised.
The pension currently available is still platinum plated but some of the fairy dust may have been removed. It's still what recruits will expect ca 60 and they can still top it up as described if they wish.By the same token and replying in kind, why do you go for the vacuous personal angle rather than add to the debate, Cliff or not?
turbobloke said:
La Liga said:
I don't quite think those going in have such a platinum-plated one. The last remaining whom retire within the next few years do, but this isn't relevant to the longer-term issue I've raised.
The pension currently available is still platinum plated but some of the fairy dust may have been removed. It's still what recruits will expect ca 60 and they can still top it up as described if they wish.If you want to reduce the pensions further then reduce the restrictions.
el stovey said:
How, or more importantly, why on earth do you want to turn every thread into a dogmatic rant against the public sector and people's pensions?
Before you start on me, I'm nothing to do with the public sector.
It's amazing that despite and endless supply of private sector geniuses on here with all the solutions, none of them make it into the public sector. You'd have thought at least one would have become an NHS manager, or something, and fixed everything. Before you start on me, I'm nothing to do with the public sector.
turbobloke said:
el stovey said:
turbobloke said:
La Liga said:
I don't quite think those going in have such a platinum-plated one. The last remaining whom retire within the next few years do, but this isn't relevant to the longer-term issue I've raised.
The pension currently available is still platinum plated but some of the fairy dust may have been removed. It's still what recruits will expect ca 60 and they can still top it up as described if they wish.By the same token and replying in kind, why do you go for the vacuous personal angle rather than add to the debate, Cliff or not?
Its just that in most NPandE threads I open, seem to have you mindlessly spouting out Conservative party dogma. Then when anyone points out, your robotic anti public sector, pro conservative stance, your torybot algorithm responds by accusing them of personal attacks or some other nonsense.
I say this as a conservative voter. Presumably you work for the Conservative party in some way and are actually paid to do this?
If others are pointing out the same thing then rather than being the victim of attacks, it might actually be true?
el stovey said:
turbobloke said:
el stovey said:
turbobloke said:
La Liga said:
I don't quite think those going in have such a platinum-plated one. The last remaining whom retire within the next few years do, but this isn't relevant to the longer-term issue I've raised.
The pension currently available is still platinum plated but some of the fairy dust may have been removed. It's still what recruits will expect ca 60 and they can still top it up as described if they wish.By the same token and replying in kind, why do you go for the vacuous personal angle rather than add to the debate, Cliff or not?
Its just that in most NPandE threads I open, seem to have you mindlessly spouting out Conservative party dogma.
Only in the last day or so I've made it clear that I disagreed with the (tory) PIP change in Osborne's budget and the proposed (tory) changes to animal welfare regulation, assuming the latter turn out as reported. See? You're wrong, which you must be used to by now when going down the vacuous personal angle.
e stovey said:
Then when anyone points out..
Not anyone. Usually somebody who doesn't agree with what I posted. So you mean, when somebody like you goes personal and gets it wrong, why do I correct them? Have a think and get back to me on that one. Better still try posting something relevant to the discussion. La Liga said:
V8 Fettler said:
Why would the salary remain at £38k? New role, new salary level; as happens in the private sector.
Why would a police officer willingly remove themselves from the front line for a significant pay cut? You'll attract a really good work force; "Join the police and after you've done decades on the front line you'll be rewarded with a 50% pay cut" because of the physical toll the job has taken upon you.
V8 Fettler said:
Using my tax money to pay for someone to retire early is not efficient.
Nor is wasting it over-paying people. V8 Fettler said:
Expectations need to be managed.
Indeed, primarily the expectation you'll ever acquire a quality workforce where the reward for commitment, dedication, acquiring skills and experience results in a 50% pay cut. Most potential recruits in the 20 - 30 age range will have little interest in pension arrangements.
If taxpayer's money is involved then it's more efficient to pay someone in their fifties to do something useful rather than retire at similar cost.
Other occupations are not immune to the risk of reduced income in the event of physical deterioration, why should the police be any different?
turbobloke said:
Thorodin said:
It's quite easy to point the gun and ask another to pull the trigger.
Tell that to Whitehall, as apparently the 'need' for police to waste time contacting people who make non-p-c comments on phone-in progs (without breaking the law) emanates from there.Thorodin said:
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?
Obviously as long as a careerist or three keep climbing the greasy blue pole with pensions intact, priorities are in order and all is well.The chap who had first-hand experience of where tolerating the thought police can take a country had a very positive view of police generally, and would frequently suggest the police as a career choice. It's people like him that police need in their senior ranks, but the appearance is that they're rare and that as you suggest, the pension pot rules OK.
Thorodin said:
turbobloke said:
Thorodin said:
It's quite easy to point the gun and ask another to pull the trigger.
Tell that to Whitehall, as apparently the 'need' for police to waste time contacting people who make non-p-c comments on phone-in progs (without breaking the law) emanates from there.Thorodin said:
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?
Obviously as long as a careerist or three keep climbing the greasy blue pole with pensions intact, priorities are in order and all is well.The chap who had first-hand experience of where tolerating the thought police can take a country had a very positive view of police generally, and would frequently suggest the police as a career choice. It's people like him that police need in their senior ranks, but the appearance is that they're rare and that as you suggest, the pension pot rules OK.
Happy Easter Eggs - and the thread can get back on topic, with luck.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff