Detective Constable jailed for PtCoJ over speeding ticket
Discussion
rewc said:
They even call it minor offending and it has all been trivialised.
In my view it is trivial, in just the same way as a parking ticket or a fine for a tail lamp out or miss spaced number plate is trivial....no harm caused, no loss suffered to anyone other than the transgressor..gruffalo said:
Should he really lose his pension rights?
If he does is his real sentence not much harsher and longer lasting than what the court handed down.
I must be going soft in my old age as I think that loss of employment and 3 months not dropping the soap should be the end of it and he and his dependants should not be punished into old age for this.
Just my opinion formed from what I have read here of course.
I agree. It seems to be part of the discourse these days that everytime someone in the public sector is sacked or found guilty of something there are calls to remove pension rights.If he does is his real sentence not much harsher and longer lasting than what the court handed down.
I must be going soft in my old age as I think that loss of employment and 3 months not dropping the soap should be the end of it and he and his dependants should not be punished into old age for this.
Just my opinion formed from what I have read here of course.
I'm not sure why this is the case. If I get sacked from my job my pension is unaffected other than it is closed to further contributions. I see no reason to call for police officers to have pensions rights taken away.
Devil2575 said:
gruffalo said:
Should he really lose his pension rights?
If he does is his real sentence not much harsher and longer lasting than what the court handed down.
I must be going soft in my old age as I think that loss of employment and 3 months not dropping the soap should be the end of it and he and his dependants should not be punished into old age for this.
Just my opinion formed from what I have read here of course.
I agree. It seems to be part of the discourse these days that everytime someone in the public sector is sacked or found guilty of something there are calls to remove pension rights.If he does is his real sentence not much harsher and longer lasting than what the court handed down.
I must be going soft in my old age as I think that loss of employment and 3 months not dropping the soap should be the end of it and he and his dependants should not be punished into old age for this.
Just my opinion formed from what I have read here of course.
I'm not sure why this is the case. If I get sacked from my job my pension is unaffected other than it is closed to further contributions. I see no reason to call for police officers to have pensions rights taken away.
Derek Smith said:
ED209 said:
He will keep is pension but will loose out massively because he will miss out on the most valuable few years of contributions, the final salary link to his pension will be lost and he will not be able to draw it until 60 years old (deferred pension) instead of the date he would have been eligible to retire. He will loose out on an absolute fortune.
What an idiot.
This is what normally happens.What an idiot.
The effect is that the pension, for someone with 11 years in, is worthless. He retains just his contributions, without any interest. Part of the function of the pension was to keep officers in post for the full 30 years. If they left before their final two years, much of the value would be lost.
11 years in so 11/60ths accrued pension rights, so top whack pc about 36k per annum? His pension will be about 6k per year but he won't be able to draw it until 60.
ED209 said:
Derek Smith said:
ED209 said:
He will keep is pension but will loose out massively because he will miss out on the most valuable few years of contributions, the final salary link to his pension will be lost and he will not be able to draw it until 60 years old (deferred pension) instead of the date he would have been eligible to retire. He will loose out on an absolute fortune.
What an idiot.
This is what normally happens.What an idiot.
The effect is that the pension, for someone with 11 years in, is worthless. He retains just his contributions, without any interest. Part of the function of the pension was to keep officers in post for the full 30 years. If they left before their final two years, much of the value would be lost.
11 years in so 11/60ths accrued pension rights, so top whack pc about 36k per annum? His pension will be about 6k per year but he won't be able to draw it until 60.
Edited by Bigends on Tuesday 16th December 18:21
gruffalo said:
Should he really lose his pension rights?
If he does is his real sentence not much harsher and longer lasting than what the court handed down.
I must be going soft in my old age as I think that loss of employment and 3 months not dropping the soap should be the end of it and he and his dependants should not be punished into old age for this.
Just my opinion formed from what I have read here of course.
He can lose his public sector pension rights but only in certain strictly defined circumstances (treason etc).If he does is his real sentence not much harsher and longer lasting than what the court handed down.
I must be going soft in my old age as I think that loss of employment and 3 months not dropping the soap should be the end of it and he and his dependants should not be punished into old age for this.
Just my opinion formed from what I have read here of course.
ED209 said:
He will keep is pension but will loose out massively because he will miss out on the most valuable few years of contributions, the final salary link to his pension will be lost and he will not be able to draw it until 60 years old (deferred pension) instead of the date he would have been eligible to retire. He will loose out on an absolute fortune.
What an idiot.
There is probably a better case for considering transferring out as opposed to not transferring out.What an idiot.
At least it was this year and not next. As a 31 (?) year old with deferred rights and no transitional protection for POPS15, the new fillet of pension contributions would have been revalued from his point of deferment and then taken in line with the Pension Increase Act.. so, for him, currently, 68.
Derek Smith said:
This is what normally happens.
The effect is that the pension, for someone with 11 years in, is worthless. He retains just his contributions, without any interest. Part of the function of the pension was to keep officers in post for the full 30 years. If they left before their final two years, much of the value would be lost.
A good chunk of lump sum would be lost.The effect is that the pension, for someone with 11 years in, is worthless. He retains just his contributions, without any interest. Part of the function of the pension was to keep officers in post for the full 30 years. If they left before their final two years, much of the value would be lost.
Commute a quarter of your pension and receive 2.25 X final salary as a lumper as opposed to commuting a quarter of your pension and using the commutation factors - a massive difference.
As it stands today a police pension can only be forefeited if an officer commits an offence which is deemed as seriously injurous to the police service - which has to be certified by the secretary of state - or an act of treason (or something like that).
HOWEVER - plans are afoot to change this. When an officer is dismissed (and this includes simply on a discipline without a criminal conviction) the case will be referred to the PCC and they will decide !!! Shocking really and just another kick in the plums for those still serving.
And MPs too?!
Michael Johnson's report today, re LGPS, might not have direct parallels to plodpen, but historically, CPS has traditionally predicated right of centre thinking.
Trustees, he claims, should be more independent and have more local authority over cost control. I worry that we will revert to a more puritanical time when a principle of cost control dictates that a relatively small amount of unelected individuals have the authority to determine that ever smaller indiscretions result in even unconnected parties such as families, are penalised.
If the benchmark is diluted, if more and more people are penalised with a more punitive forfeiture clause, then another current government wish to undermine the principle of the final salary pension will be achieved.
http://www.cps.org.uk/files/reports/original/14121...
Michael Johnson's report today, re LGPS, might not have direct parallels to plodpen, but historically, CPS has traditionally predicated right of centre thinking.
Trustees, he claims, should be more independent and have more local authority over cost control. I worry that we will revert to a more puritanical time when a principle of cost control dictates that a relatively small amount of unelected individuals have the authority to determine that ever smaller indiscretions result in even unconnected parties such as families, are penalised.
If the benchmark is diluted, if more and more people are penalised with a more punitive forfeiture clause, then another current government wish to undermine the principle of the final salary pension will be achieved.
http://www.cps.org.uk/files/reports/original/14121...
Red 4 said:
Shocking really and just another kick in the plums for those still serving.
I dont think it will be shocking or seem as a kick in the plums to the majority good officers still serving who have no plans to do something bad enough (gross misconduct) to warrant a dismissal.It may however be shocking to corrupt officers who do wrong or have the intention of doing wrong. Such a rule may even make such officers change their evil ways.
Eclassy said:
I dont think it will be shocking or seem as a kick in the plums to the majority good officers still serving who have no plans to do something bad enough (gross misconduct) to warrant a dismissal.
It may however be shocking to corrupt officers who do wrong or have the intention of doing wrong. Such a rule may even make such officers change their evil ways.
Your naivety is obvious.It may however be shocking to corrupt officers who do wrong or have the intention of doing wrong. Such a rule may even make such officers change their evil ways.
It will be used as a management tool (in completely inappropriate circumstances) to save money.
Try not to let your own agenda of criticising the police at every opportunity get in the way of your thinking.
Eclassy said:
Red 4 said:
Shocking really and just another kick in the plums for those still serving.
I dont think it will be shocking or seem as a kick in the plums to the majority good officers still serving who have no plans to do something bad enough (gross misconduct) to warrant a dismissal.It may however be shocking to corrupt officers who do wrong or have the intention of doing wrong. Such a rule may even make such officers change their evil ways.
If a police officer pays into his/her pension out of their own money then there is no logical justification for the removal of pension rights for an act which is punished in another form. It is a massive penalty, a double whammy. If the act merits a particular penalty then that is what should be awarded.
No officer, or ex officer, on here has tried to justify this officer's actions, nor tried to suggest that the penalty was too heavy. However, he's been hit in a number of ways: prison, lost of job, and massive hit in the pension. However, giving a government department power over such an amount of money is wrong.
Further, the penalty will increase with service, so if an officer with 25 years service has his/her pension taken then it would be a massive financial burden compared to this chap with just 11 years. On top of that, there might well be a wife/husband/partner who will also be penalised for something they had no part of.
The discipline regulations might well make the hard working officer, the one who gets stuck in, change his or her ways as frequent complaints are often the natural consequence of going after nasty people. After all, if you were balancing your future income with getting a decent conviction, then what would be your decision?
And don't suggest that senior officers will look after the hard working officers: hysterical laughter can be so embarrassing.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff