Thwaites Brewery trashed by travellers

[Rovinghawk]

Red 4 said:

When wise man stops learning he will not be as wise as he thinks.

Knowing others is wisdom; knowing oneself is enlightenment, Grasshopper.

[gooner1]

Red 4 said:

Oh well, there's the answer then.

Stop offering/ paying police pensions and all will be well.

There'll be hoards of police everywhere.

Have you sent me a postcard yet ?

I've just sent one from Cromer.
Its arrival may coincide with the declaration of charges re the shameful incidents
that occured there.

[anonymous-user]

Greendubber said:

An example of the reasons there aren't enough police available, it's the force in question too...



6 X MH people to deal with, it'll be a pair on each so 12 bobbies that could be making a difference elsewhere but are too busy having to fill the gaps due to a lack of beds.

Standard MH demand bleeding into the police service day in, day out.

A good example of why the police can't amass teams to deal with incidents like Thwaites.

[wc98]

La Liga said:

tandard MH demand bleeding into the police service day in, day out.

A good example of why the police can't amass teams to deal with incidents like Thwaites.

who decided the police should pick up the ball dropped dropped by those running mental health services in the uk ? was it just something that began to happen and the police picked it up or did someone in authority make a conscious decision the police would do it ?

i kind of agree re public satisfaction with the police and what they do. i am sure if survey questions had a bit of thought put into them it would reveal a vast array of opinions, many derogatory, directed at those responsible for allocating funding to the police and the various directions the police are being pulled in relation to keeping the myriad of special interest groups happy these days, not individual officers.

[irocfan]

Red 4 said:

Oh well, there's the answer then.

Stop offering/ paying police pensions and all will be well.

There'll be hoards of police everywhere.

well maybe not allowing the buggers to retire at the age they do would help. Just think The younger coppers can still be outside doing the 'heavy lifting' the old farts can do the essential paperwork/desk-jockey jobs/be a 'brains' trust/etc and retire at the same age as the rest of us

[Digga]

Rovinghawk said:

Red 4 said:

But how does the Polfed objecting to pension changes affect police numbers ?

I don't need a history lesson. A simple explanation will do.

One pot of money. More for pensions= less for salaries.

^That. It's the most basic arithmetic.

[Greendubber]

irocfan said:

Red 4 said:

Oh well, there's the answer then.

Stop offering/ paying police pensions and all will be well.

There'll be hoards of police everywhere.

well maybe not allowing the buggers to retire at the age they do would help. Just think The younger coppers can still be outside doing the 'heavy lifting' the old farts can do the essential paperwork/desk-jockey jobs/be a 'brains' trust/etc and retire at the same age as the rest of us

It's not been like that for years. The 'new' pension schemes has been in since 2006 I think it was.

35 years service now, meaning I'll retire at 60 after paying nearly 14% in for 35 years.

Not like it used to be, it's also now career average which has put a stop to getting promoted with 2 years to go and coining in a much bigger pension.

My mates Mrs works in probation, she pays less in than us (7% IRC) yet gets more out. Now that's a gold plated pension.

[Red 4]

irocfan said:

well maybe not allowing the buggers to retire at the age they do would help. Just think The younger coppers can still be outside doing the 'heavy lifting' the old farts can do the essential paperwork/desk-jockey jobs/be a 'brains' trust/etc and retire at the same age as the rest of us

Wrong. Have a look at the pension reforms.

And wrong again. Have a look at the Winsor report.

[anonymous-user]

wc98 said:

La Liga said:

Standard MH demand bleeding into the police service day in, day out.

A good example of why the police can't amass teams to deal with incidents like Thwaites.

who decided the police should pick up the ball dropped dropped by those running mental health services in the uk ? was it just something that began to happen and the police picked it up or did someone in authority make a conscious decision the police would do it ?

i kind of agree re public satisfaction with the police and what they do. i am sure if survey questions had a bit of thought put into them it would reveal a vast array of opinions, many derogatory, directed at those responsible for allocating funding to the police and the various directions the police are being pulled in relation to keeping the myriad of special interest groups happy these days, not individual officers.

The police have always had MH responsibilities. The primary issue is increased demand on both the police and NHS. And when the NHS can't meet the demand it often falls to the police.

The NHS and police powers overlap. Higher MH demand and fewer MH resources means it falls to the police.

There's a knock-on effect for limited capacity, such as the 'beds' mentioned in the tweets. The police may section someone to be assessed, but if there is no one available to assess, then that creates delay. All the 'beds' being taken up at secure units means the police are the ones left managing the risk as the NHS have no alternative staff / locations to manage the risk.

Similar patterns within social services.

Digga said:

^That. It's the most basic arithmetic.

That's not the point you were making. You said the answer to why there are so few resources was because of pensions / and unions the fed resisting any changes. Don't change your angle because you've been asked to support your statement and you've been unable to.

Digga said:

Red 4 said:

Perhaps they should be asking why there are so few available police rather than criticising everything else.

I know the answer to that; because your mindless unions persisted in expecting gold-plated pensions, long after they could possibly be sustainably afforded.

[Red 4]

Greendubber said:

35 years service now, meaning I'll retire at 60 after paying nearly 14% in for 35 years.

.

You'll be in the 2015 scheme now, which is worse than the 2006 scheme.

Still, it could be worse.

If you were MOD plod or CNC you'd be working til you were 67.

Actually, that's not true - you'd be dismissed on capability grounds long before that.

If anyone thinks the new police pension scheme when combined with the Winsor stuff is a certainty or gold plated then they need to look again.

[Red 4]

Digga said:

Rovinghawk said:

Red 4 said:

But how does the Polfed objecting to pension changes affect police numbers ?

I don't need a history lesson. A simple explanation will do.

One pot of money. More for pensions= less for salaries.

^That. It's the most basic arithmetic.

... And not what you said at all (as LL has pointed out).

You said that the cuts in police numbers were all the police's (well, the Police Federation's) fault.

You are Pinocchio AICMFP.

[irocfan]

Red 4 said:

irocfan said:

well maybe not allowing the buggers to retire at the age they do would help. Just think The younger coppers can still be outside doing the 'heavy lifting' the old farts can do the essential paperwork/desk-jockey jobs/be a 'brains' trust/etc and retire at the same age as the rest of us

Wrong. Have a look at the pension reforms.

And wrong again. Have a look at the Winsor report.

so you're telling me that police retire and collect their pensions at the same age as the rest of the public?

[Greendubber]

irocfan said:

Red 4 said:

irocfan said:

well maybe not allowing the buggers to retire at the age they do would help. Just think The younger coppers can still be outside doing the 'heavy lifting' the old farts can do the essential paperwork/desk-jockey jobs/be a 'brains' trust/etc and retire at the same age as the rest of us

Wrong. Have a look at the pension reforms.

And wrong again. Have a look at the Winsor report.

so you're telling me that police retire and collect their pensions at the same age as the rest of the public?

Is it OK of I have mine at 60? I'd have been paying into it for 35 years.

[Digga]

La Liga said:

Digga said:

^That. It's the most basic arithmetic.

That's not the point you were making. You said the answer to why there are so few resources was because of pensions / and unions the fed resisting any changes. Don't change your angle because you've been asked to support your statement and you've been unable to.

Digga said:

Red 4 said:

Perhaps they should be asking why there are so few available police rather than criticising everything else.

I know the answer to that; because your mindless unions persisted in expecting gold-plated pensions, long after they could possibly be sustainably afforded.

The Home Office has a fixed budget. If it has to pay our more for pensions, then it cannot afford to pay out as much on salaries. I have not altered my argument; it is the same - chicken and egg - it's just that in your headlong rush to score points, you are not able to see it. I do not care what you think by the way, although you are entitled to your opinion nonetheless.

The whole pensions issue - the legacy of over-promises and flawed assumptions of fund performance etc. etc. - coupled with the demographic shift in the UK has severely impacted public services.

To my mind it's a joke that the Home Office budget (blue circle, centre, left) was, for many years, roughly the same as the teacher's pensions budget (pink circle, top left):

[Greendubber]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I know its not being paid for purely by me, my point was that people are moaning about the police pension when there are far more 'gold plated' public sector pensions out there, such as my mates Mrs who only pays 7%.

How much to MPs pay in?

Lets not forget that a decent pension is part of the package to get people to work in often unpleasant surroundings, at stupid times of day dealing with the st end of society for 35 years. It seems fair enough to me, much like the brigade or doctors and nurses etc.

[Digga]

Greendubber said:

I know its not being paid for purely by me, my point was that people are moaning about the police pension when there are far more 'gold plated' public sector pensions out there, such as my mates Mrs who only pays 7%.

How much to MPs pay in?

Lets not forget that a decent pension is part of the package to get people to work in often unpleasant surroundings, at stupid times of day dealing with the st end of society for 35 years. It seems fair enough to me, much like the brigade, or doctors and nurses etc.

The changes to pensions entitlements and accruals etc. was not popular with either the Federation (union ) and the police offers, and that is understandable.

That the police do a very difficult job - arguably much more difficult and dangerous now numbers are spread so thin - is, in my opinion, not up for debate but a fact. I would also agree with my mate's argument that the pension package was a significant part of the original remuneration package that many officers signed-up to.

The elephant in the room is a huge demographic shift. Many officers will now likely be retired for longer than they served and there are more of them at this point. That the changes made by Gordon Brown screwed up performance of many small bits of the fund that were invested (rather than simply paid from current account) only adds to the problem.

My personal preference would be to increase the Home Office budget to enable the employment of more officers, but the relations between government and police have not been conducive to this end.

[anonymous-user]

Digga said:

The Home Office has a fixed budget. If it has to pay our more for pensions, then it cannot afford to pay out as much on salaries. I have not altered my argument; it is the same - chicken and egg - it's just that in your headlong rush to score points, you are not able to see it. I do not care what you think by the way, although you are entitled to your opinion nonetheless.

You have altered your argument. You weren't making general points about pension liabilities vs salaries, you said it was the answer as to why the police have so few resources. Not 'an' answer, or something that may contribute. The answer.

It's nothing to do with 'points scoring', it's highlighting you trying to worm your way out of what you said when asked to support it. .

If you can't support / justify a statement when asked, then just say so. Don't try and dance around it and pretend your argument means something else and do things like link irrelevant pictures as a distraction.

Digga said:

Red 4 said:

Perhaps they should be asking why there are so few available police rather than criticising everything else.

I know the answer to that; because your mindless unions persisted in expecting gold-plated pensions, long after they could possibly be sustainably afforded.

[Digga]

There's none so blind as those who cannot see.

I am not in the least bit sure how posting a picture of government spending and specifically discussing Home Office spending is irrelevant in this argument, but either way, I'm not going to engage in it any longer.

[anonymous-user]

It's irrelevant to supporting to what you said was 'the answer', and whom caused it. Read you own words again. They're hardly ambiguous.

If you didn't mean what you said, or cannot support what you said when asked, then just say so.

It's much easier than trying to dance around it and dig a big hole.

[Digga]

I mean exactly what I said, not amount of cross-examination from you will alter that officer.: D

That there was a reluctance to change the status quo was - as I already mentioned - entirely understandable. However, the pace at which change was accepted and, therefore, acted on by government was too slow to avoid a budgetary crunch.

It was a short-sighted approach on both sides.

Do you want to ask me again?