Question about police pensions

[FiF]

These handbags at twenty paces is getting ridiculous.

[sidicks]

FiF said:

These handbags at twenty paces is getting ridiculous.

Yes, you have to wonder why, a day later, Derek tried to start another personal argument, after what had previously been an interesting and cordial discussion.

Edited by sidicks on Monday 26th February 09:32

[Derek Smith]

Red 4 said:

I doubt it.

The situation for these guys is currently worse;

http://www.civilnuclearpolicefederation.org.uk/ind...

They are all AFOs and are required to carry weapons at all times.

Their retirement age is 67 !!

If they fail fitness (at AFO level) or firearms requals they get binned.

No ifs, no buts, no pension (it will be deferred).

Thanks for that. Had no idea.

I remember when the police got the option to have their own transferable pension. I went for financial advice, I didn't know enough about such things then, and the chap advised me not to go for it, following Fed advice but for slightly different reasons, but reckoned that it was the biggest mistake the government made. Some younger guys on shift went for it.

[crankedup]

Red 4 said:

crankedup said:

Red 4 said:

djc206 said:

Don’t firemen get more time off than police officers though? My fiancées ex was a fireman and he was a plasterer on the side. Or has that changed now as well?

I think some firemen will be getting lots and lots of time off.

The govt has introduced a fitness test for the Fire Service which,is very difficult to pass in your 50's.
The government's own research tells them this - but they don't appear to care/ they want it that way.

The result will be dismissal on capability grounds if fire officers fail the test.
Pension frozen and not payable until age 67/ 68.

The government will save a fortune.

The police fitness test is currently easy.
The question is will it remain that way ?

There is lots of money to be saved by binning officers early and deferring their pensions

I know little about this situation but it comes across as fundamentally unreasonable and unfair to those affected. For those people will backroom jobs be offered?

I doubt it.

The situation for these guys is currently worse;

http://www.civilnuclearpolicefederation.org.uk/ind...

They are all AFOs and are required to carry weapons at all times.

Their retirement age is 67 !!

If they fail fitness (at AFO level) or firearms requals they get binned.

No ifs, no buts, no pension (it will be deferred).

Truely outrageous that is allowed to happen, although I expect the Unions will have been fighting(to little effect). Oh well as long as the Foriegn Aid is continued to be paid

[pavarotti1980]

sidicks said:

How many more times? We are now talking about an entirely different issue (and have been for some time) than the OP raised and which was answered on page 1, to which you (and I) were originally referring to. An issue that I do have some knowledge about. Unlike you it would appear.

Now please stop trolling and failing to score points, making yourself look more and more pathetic each time.

Edited by sidicks on Sunday 25th February 21:21

It was police pensions and still is police pensions (of which you said you know nothing about).

No points scoring Kenny

[sidicks]

pavarotti1980 said:

It was police pensions and still is police pensions (of which you said you know nothing about).

No, I really did not say that. Please go away.

pavarotti1980 said:

No points scoring Kenny

And another fail. What a loser you are!

[pavarotti1980]

sidicks said:

No, I really did not say that. Please go away.

sidicks said:

I've no idea about the question the OP raised, so won't be commenting on that. I will be commenting if certain other people which to state blatant lies or if there are other misunderstandings about pensions.

[sidicks]

pavarotti1980 said:

Nothing ignorant at all. You post these things then become a pedant when pulled up.
Why the anger?

Nothing to be “pulled up” on - you obviously don’t understand the difference between the legal issues regarding entitlement to a pension after having been sacked and the technical issues regarding scheme rules, costs and funding etc.
Never mind.

[pavarotti1980]

sidicks said:

Nothing to be “pulled up” on - you obviously don’t understand the difference between the legal issues regarding entitlement to a pension after having been sacked and the technical issues regarding scheme rules, costs and funding etc.
Never mind.

Yeah neither of which you know anything of apparently. The legal issues here and DB pensions as mentioned in previous threads. You should remember what you post (oh sorry i forgot you will say you have expertise but dont advise on this eh Side Dicks etc etc)

Edited by pavarotti1980 on Monday 26th February 11:05

[sidicks]

pavarotti1980 said:

Yeah neither of which you know anything of apparently.

Still wrong.

pavarotti1980 said:

The legal issues here and DB pensions as mentioned in previous threads. You should remember what you post (oh sorry i forgot you will say you have expertise but dont advise on this eh Side Dicks etc etc)

You’re still struggling with pensions experts that don’t advise individual members?

Fair enough, you seem to struggle with most things.

[pavarotti1980]

sidicks said:

You’re still struggling with pensions experts that don’t advise individual members?

Fair enough, you seem to struggle with most things.

Know a lot about me do you?

[Greendubber]

sidicks said:

Derek Smith said:

For anyone else suffering under the cloud of the England defeat Saturday, here's a laugh to brighten your day. In one way, like the match, it is tragic, but in another way it is hilarious.

sidicks said:

Red 4 said:

Not really.

You expect 60 year olds to be rolling 'round on the floor with pissed/ coked up 18 year old scaffolders (for example) ?

No, but presumably as officers become more experienced, the nature of their role changes?

So the nature of the job doesn’t change for most police officers?

Are you going to lie about the cost of police pensions again Derek?

No, not these days it doesn't.

Front line police officers are no longer hidden away doing 'office roles' for the last few years. They're out there doing to job, most retiree's I know have all ended on a response shift working a 24/7 shift pattern. They're the ones going to pub fights, violent domestics and chasing shoplifters.

[sidicks]

Greendubber said:

No, not these days it doesn't.

Front line police officers are no longer hidden away doing 'office roles' for the last few years. They're out there doing to job, most retiree's I know have all ended on a response shift working a 24/7 shift pattern. They're the ones going to pub fights, violent domestics and chasing shoplifters.

Thanks, but it used to be the case?

[Greendubber]

sidicks said:

Greendubber said:

No, not these days it doesn't.

Front line police officers are no longer hidden away doing 'office roles' for the last few years. They're out there doing to job, most retiree's I know have all ended on a response shift working a 24/7 shift pattern. They're the ones going to pub fights, violent domestics and chasing shoplifters.

Thanks, but it used to be the case?

Many years ago.

All of those roles (admin type stuff) are now centralised and done by either third party companies or admin staff (temps)

Makes sense rather than paying someone nearly 40k a year to do the job of an admin temp on half of that.

[sidicks]

Greendubber said:

Many years ago.

All of those roles (admin type stuff) are now centralised and done by either third party companies or admin staff (temps)

Makes sense rather than paying someone nearly 40k a year to do the job of an admin temp on half of that.

Agreed, thanks.

[Red 4]

Derek Smith said:

Thanks for that. Had no idea.

The Civil Nuclear Constabulary pension age issue is because they were not included as special cases in The Public Service Pension Reforms - retirement ages of 60 only apply to "Territorial Police Forces" (and the Fire Service, etc).

Their pension age has been aligned to all the other civil servants - so that will be 67/ 68.

CNC Fed have already taken the issue to court. And lost.

It would be easy for the government to solve the problem but they don't appear to be interested - hence the (failed) court case.

Even if (big IF) their pension age is reduced to 60, I think lots of CNC officers will struggle with the fitness (AFO level) and firearms standards as they get older.

HMG will save money though. Nasty government indeed.




.

Edited by Red 4 on Monday 26th February 11:55

[anonymous-user]

Red 4 said:

La Liga said:

IIRC the last 3 years were relevant if you were given a temporary rank i.e. you did you last 3 years as a T/Supt you ended up with something close to a Super's pension rather than a Chief Inspector's, which wasn't really fair.

So what ?

Pay is different to accrual.

I think (from memory) the 87 pension is based on the best of your last 2 (possibly 3) years pensionable pay. I'd have to double check that.

So what?

It meant you'd receive a much bigger pension for 1 year at a higher rank. It also delays progression for people who genuinely wanted to be substantive at those ranks.

That's not fair and small wonder that got reformed.

[ED209]

wiliferus said:

ED209 said:

Those who will end up working to 60 will be in the 2006/2015 schemes and the golden handcuff element doesn't exist in those schemes.

Not strictly true. As the 1987 scheme still exists, but has been frozen. I have 17 years locked into that scheme which is still final salary linked.
But the time I retire after 40 years service I’ll have 17 years of the ‘87 scheme and 23 on the 2015 scheme.
I currently have 20 years in and as each year passes I feel more compelled to stay.

Almost exactly my situation with 18 on 1987 and 22 on the 2015 scheme if I stay until 60. This won't be happening though. I can see me going at 50, taking my 1987 bit and getting another less stressful job.

[Red 4]

ED209 said:

Almost exactly my situation with 18 on 1987 and 22 on the 2015 scheme if I stay until 60. This won't be happening though. I can see me going at 50, taking my 1987 bit and getting another less stressful job.

Have you worked out what the 1987 bit is worth ? It should be just under 1/3 of your pay (with no lump sum) and it's taxable.

What happens to the 2015 bit if you go at 50 ? i.e. what is it worth and when can you get it ?


.

[Red 4]

La Liga said:

o what?

It meant you'd receive a much bigger pension for 1 year at a higher rank. It also delays progression for people who genuinely wanted to be substantive at those ranks.

That's not fair and small wonder that got reformed.

I take your point but that could also have a flip-side.

What if an officer was subject to discipline and received a reduction in rank (that was possible before the Regs were changed in 2008).

I knew a DS who yo-yo'd between DC and DS (barking mad).

I believe it's still possible in Scotland.

Edited by Red 4 on Monday 26th February 13:38