drunk police driver no points

[ElectricPics]

carinaman said:

If you accrue pension while upholding the law and it's found that you've broken the law seriously enough why shouldn't it be lost?

A pension fund that he's made significant contributions to over 19 years. It's not free.

[hornmeister]

He's entitled to whatever pension he accrues up to the point he is fired. It should be frozen at that point. No point taking his pension away as it's taxpayers that will have to fund his retirement if it makes him potless anyway.

Going on sick may have been a method of getting salary or accruing more pension (or avoiding community service) instead of being suspended without pay until the decision to give him the boot or not is made. If he is not given the boot then I would be incredibly surprised. The issue is it might take months for that decision to be made. imho it's should be immediate. People with criminal convictions should be precluded from working in the law & legal sector. (if they are not already)

The police wanting to cover the story up is fair. One rotten egg spoils a lot of work the police do in trying to improve community relations and in all honest the chap is banned has most likely lost his job, is it now really in the public interest to name & shame?

Edited by hornmeister on Friday 20th July 14:29

[anonymous-user]

hornmeister said:

Going on sick may have been a method of getting salary or accruing more pension (or avoiding community service) instead of being suspended without pay until the decision to give him the boot or not is made. If he is not given the boot then I would be incredibly surprised. The issue is it might take months for that decision to be made. imho it's should be immediate. People with criminal convictions should be precluded from working in the law & legal sector. (if they are not already)

I don't think the police can be 'suspended without pay'. In fact, I think long-term sickness can be subject to pay reductions.

I assume, from what I've read, they're going to allow him to resign which makes it a quicker process.

hornmeister said:

The police wanting to cover the story up is fair.

I don't see any information they tried to do that. The dissappearing OP asserting it without supporting it.

[ElectricPics]

The same happened to a mate of mine after a similar number of years in the job. Pissed and completely out of character driving a CID car. Hit another car causing minor damage but his career was over at that point. Allowed to resign within days. Magistrate banned him for 12 months but didn't fine him, pointing out that he'd already lost a great deal of money from losing his job and a large chunk of pension entitlement.

[Shuvi McTupya]

hornmeister said:

No point taking his pension away as it's taxpayers that will have to fund his retirement if it makes him potless anyway.

Is that actually true? surely he will be entitled to a state pension on top of whatever private pension he has. If he were to lose his private pension , I don't imagine his state pension be increased to cover it.

[XCP]

Shuvi McTupya said:

Is that actually true? surely he will be entitled to a state pension on top of whatever private pension he has. If he were to lose his private pension , I don't imagine his state pension be increased to cover it.

There are various benefits that he will not be entitled to ( Job seekers etc) if he is in receipt of a police pension.

[Hogstar]

Doesn't seem very fair to me that he loses a pension that he will have paid a vast amount of money into, I'm all for police being hit alot harder than the average person as they should be held to a higher standard of behaviour but he's had a punishment handed down by a court to then add another type of "fine" (loss of pension) that potentially adds up to tens of thousands of pounds, in addition to the loss of his job (quite rightly too) seems massively unfair.

[Shuvi McTupya]

I don't think that it is likely to happen, and if it did happen I think they should do the sums and only deprive him of the contributions made by 'the taxpayer' so whatever he paid in, he still gets.

[anonymous-user]

It won't happen.

It doesn't fit the criteria. The law was linked on the last page.

[ElectricPics]

Shuvi McTupya said:

hornmeister said:

No point taking his pension away as it's taxpayers that will have to fund his retirement if it makes him potless anyway.

Is that actually true? surely he will be entitled to a state pension on top of whatever private pension he has. If he were to lose his private pension , I don't imagine his state pension be increased to cover it.

It's not a private pension but an index-linked state pension that no longer exists because the rules have changed. What happens is that the pension is frozen. When a police officer retires at the former 30 years service they get a lump sum and an annuity. That's regardless of their age and the lump sum and annuity and can be shifted around a bit. If they leave before the 30 years then whatever pension they've accrued and was frozen can be taken at retirement age.

Edited by ElectricPics on Friday 20th July 22:39

[wc98]

Hogstar said:

Doesn't seem very fair to me that he loses a pension that he will have paid a vast amount of money into, I'm all for police being hit alot harder than the average person as they should be held to a higher standard of behaviour but he's had a punishment handed down by a court to then add another type of "fine" (loss of pension) that potentially adds up to tens of thousands of pounds, in addition to the loss of his job (quite rightly too) seems massively unfair.

this^. given he got a 3 year ban i would say that is a fair bit more than a member of the public would get for a first offence.

[agtlaw]

wc98 said:

this^. given he got a 3 year ban i would say that is a fair bit more than a member of the public would get for a first offence.

Incorrect. It’s exactly what anyone should expect with a breath reading of 149 μg. Guideline ban is 29 - 36 months where breath reading is 120 - 150 μg and above.