Thwaites Brewery trashed by travellers
Discussion
Digga said:
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 s
t 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 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 s
t end of society for 35 years. It seems fair enough to me, much like the brigade, or doctors and nurses etc. 
) 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.
My dad retired in 2001, he's 72 now and still going strong. It's a different ball game entirely now. He's got a great pension, mine will be nowhere near it, it's still decent enough but not the gold plated money-fest people want you to think it is.
Greendubber said:
I doubt I'll make it to 95 years old. You're a bit out of date with how things are since the reform.
My dad retired in 2001, he's 72 now and still going strong. It's a different ball game entirely now. He's got a great pension, mine will be nowhere near it, it's still decent enough but not the gold plated money-fest people want you to think it is.
I'm not arguing post reform, was rather discussing the inevitable need for change. The issues began to come to the fore in the 90s but changes took a very long time. As you say, the present position is very much different.My dad retired in 2001, he's 72 now and still going strong. It's a different ball game entirely now. He's got a great pension, mine will be nowhere near it, it's still decent enough but not the gold plated money-fest people want you to think it is.
Digga said:
I mean exactly what I said, not amount of cross-examination from you will alter that officer.: D
You may well do, but that is separate from being able to support and justify what you say. Similar to your speculation about PCSOs, for example. Just saying things doesn't make them true.
My brief chit about PCSO's.
My mother lived in an inner city area, a lot of petty crime. Nothing major. A new PCSO came in, did a hell of a lot, really impacted the area, was snapped up by Plod obviously.
New one came in, ex RAF, couldn't be arsed, all the issues came back. It is about the person, not the role.
My mother lived in an inner city area, a lot of petty crime. Nothing major. A new PCSO came in, did a hell of a lot, really impacted the area, was snapped up by Plod obviously.
New one came in, ex RAF, couldn't be arsed, all the issues came back. It is about the person, not the role.
chunder27 said:
It is about the person, not the role.
Ever the same, but if there were sufficient numbers of police officers, there would be no role for them really. the population has grown, the demographic has altered - the change in the prison population reflects some of the side effects of this growth - but the Home Office budget, like much of the rest of our infrastructure, has not kept pace.irocfan said:
so you're telling me that police retire and collect their pensions at the same age as the rest of the public?
Police (like the Fire Service and the Armed Forces) are regarded as a "Special Case" as far as normal retirement age is concerned.Having said that, as others have said, normal retirement age is now 60.
I know, the audacity. Perhaps you would like to see 65 year old cops trying to restrain violent, drunken 18 year olds - or stand in line at a riot.
As time goes by you'll probably see cops retiring before they are 60 (because they won't be capable of doing the job anymore) - and, if they're lucky, they'll leave with a much reduced pension.
The fire service changes were much the same but the philosophy there has been to introduce an annual fitness test that will be nigh on impossible to pass in your 50's and be shown the door with your pension deferred until you are 67.
I expect similar things to happen in the police.
Oh, and just to add another example - Civil Nuclear Constabulary and MOD Police retirement age is 67.
CNC officers need to pass an annual AFO standard fitness test and be proficient in firearms until they are 67 (because they are all armed).
That's never going to happen for the vast majority of them and it will be bye bye.
Edited by Red 4 on Wednesday 20th June 11:57
It's a difficult call. On the one hand, as people are living longer and generally healthier lives, there's an argument for later retirement. I think with police work - and obviously that covers a broad spectrum - there are various issues. Mental health is as much an issue as physical capability.
A lad I know has just retired and is not even 50. He must have joined straight from school - would this be 16 or 17 back then? At any rate, in his later years of service, he was a firearms officer and, IMHO, in that line of work, I can understand how the psychological and metal rigors are as much a limiting factor as the physical fitness.
A lad I know has just retired and is not even 50. He must have joined straight from school - would this be 16 or 17 back then? At any rate, in his later years of service, he was a firearms officer and, IMHO, in that line of work, I can understand how the psychological and metal rigors are as much a limiting factor as the physical fitness.
Digga said:
It's a difficult call. On the one hand, as people are living longer and generally healthier lives, there's an argument for later retirement. I think with police work - and obviously that covers a broad spectrum - there are various issues. Mental health is as much an issue as physical capability.
A lad I know has just retired and is not even 50. He must have joined straight from school - would this be 16 or 17 back then? At any rate, in his later years of service, he was a firearms officer and, IMHO, in that line of work, I can understand how the psychological and metal rigors are as much a limiting factor as the physical fitness.
I'm not sure what you mean by that.A lad I know has just retired and is not even 50. He must have joined straight from school - would this be 16 or 17 back then? At any rate, in his later years of service, he was a firearms officer and, IMHO, in that line of work, I can understand how the psychological and metal rigors are as much a limiting factor as the physical fitness.
Why do you think being an AFO would be more difficult psychologically than, say, Response, Traffic or anything else ?
Red 4 said:
Police (like the Fire Service and the Armed Forces) are regarded as a "Special Case" as far as normal retirement age is concerned.
Having said that, as others have said, normal retirement age is now 60.
I know, the audacity. Perhaps you would like to see 65 year old cops trying to restrain violent, drunken 18 year olds - or stand in line at a riot.
As time goes by you'll probably see cops retiring before they are 60 (because they won't be capable of doing the job anymore) - and, if they're lucky, they'll leave with a much reduced pension.
The fire service changes were much the same but the philosophy there has been to introduce an annual fitness test that will be nigh on impossible to pass in your 50's and be shown the door with your pension deferred until you are 67.
I expect similar things to happen in the police.
Oh, and just to add another example - Civil Nuclear Constabulary and MOD Police retirement age is 67.
CNC officers need to pass an annual AFO standard fitness test and be proficient in firearms until they are 67 (because they are all armed).
That's never going to happen for the vast majority of them and it will be bye bye.
i have a mate in the cnc. luckily enough for him his army pension will make things a bit easier when he has to retire. anyone that doesn't have something like that is going to have to rely on savings or get a job until the pension comes through.Having said that, as others have said, normal retirement age is now 60.
I know, the audacity. Perhaps you would like to see 65 year old cops trying to restrain violent, drunken 18 year olds - or stand in line at a riot.
As time goes by you'll probably see cops retiring before they are 60 (because they won't be capable of doing the job anymore) - and, if they're lucky, they'll leave with a much reduced pension.
The fire service changes were much the same but the philosophy there has been to introduce an annual fitness test that will be nigh on impossible to pass in your 50's and be shown the door with your pension deferred until you are 67.
I expect similar things to happen in the police.
Oh, and just to add another example - Civil Nuclear Constabulary and MOD Police retirement age is 67.
CNC officers need to pass an annual AFO standard fitness test and be proficient in firearms until they are 67 (because they are all armed).
That's never going to happen for the vast majority of them and it will be bye bye.
Edited by Red 4 on Wednesday 20th June 11:57
i wonder how many mp's would be happy having their terms and conditions altered in similar ways. pensions are a serious bug bear of mine, i know the reasons for the problems, but in some cases it just reeks of maladministration by those supposedly running them.
wc98 said:
i have a mate in the cnc. luckily enough for him his army pension will make things a bit easier when he has to retire. anyone that doesn't have something like that is going to have to rely on savings or get a job until the pension comes through.
i wonder how many mp's would be happy having their terms and conditions altered in similar ways. pensions are a serious bug bear of mine, i know the reasons for the problems, but in some cases it just reeks of maladministration by those supposedly running them.
I've got a mate in the CNC too, so your mate and my mate may know each other.i wonder how many mp's would be happy having their terms and conditions altered in similar ways. pensions are a serious bug bear of mine, i know the reasons for the problems, but in some cases it just reeks of maladministration by those supposedly running them.
As I understand it, the CNC are not regarded as a Territorial Police Force and were not included as a Special Case in The Public Services Pension Reform Act.
They're classed as Civil Servants, in effect.
It would be very easy for the government to resolve the issues but they are not willing to do so.
CNC also lost their case at court.
It's all about the money (and savings).
The government know exactly what they are doing and why.
Having said that, according to my mate, retention of officers is a serious problem and they are leaving in droves
Edited by Red 4 on Wednesday 20th June 12:56
Red 4 said:
irocfan said:
so you're telling me that police retire and collect their pensions at the same age as the rest of the public?
Police (like the Fire Service and the Armed Forces) are regarded as a "Special Case" as far as normal retirement age is concerned.Having said that, as others have said, normal retirement age is now 60.
I know, the audacity. Perhaps you would like to see 65 year old cops trying to restrain violent, drunken 18 year olds - or stand in line at a riot.
As time goes by you'll probably see cops retiring before they are 60 (because they won't be capable of doing the job anymore) - and, if they're lucky, they'll leave with a much reduced pension.
The fire service changes were much the same but the philosophy there has been to introduce an annual fitness test that will be nigh on impossible to pass in your 50's and be shown the door with your pension deferred until you are 67.
I expect similar things to happen in the police.
Oh, and just to add another example - Civil Nuclear Constabulary and MOD Police retirement age is 67.
CNC officers need to pass an annual AFO standard fitness test and be proficient in firearms until they are 67 (because they are all armed).
That's never going to happen for the vast majority of them and it will be bye bye.
Edited by Red 4 on Wednesday 20th June 11:57
t, we'd ALL like to retire after 35 years in a job!The fire service is I suspect a different kettle of fish
Jonesy23 said:
You'd almost think there was no desk/training/admin/whatever work needing doing for those incapable of front line duties.
There isn't. Training is provided by outside companies or it's done online (e-learning)
Why have a police officer in a desk job when you can have the same process carried out cheaper by a member of police staff?
Red 4 said:
Digga said:
It's a difficult call. On the one hand, as people are living longer and generally healthier lives, there's an argument for later retirement. I think with police work - and obviously that covers a broad spectrum - there are various issues. Mental health is as much an issue as physical capability.
A lad I know has just retired and is not even 50. He must have joined straight from school - would this be 16 or 17 back then? At any rate, in his later years of service, he was a firearms officer and, IMHO, in that line of work, I can understand how the psychological and metal rigors are as much a limiting factor as the physical fitness.
I'm not sure what you mean by that.A lad I know has just retired and is not even 50. He must have joined straight from school - would this be 16 or 17 back then? At any rate, in his later years of service, he was a firearms officer and, IMHO, in that line of work, I can understand how the psychological and metal rigors are as much a limiting factor as the physical fitness.
Why do you think being an AFO would be more difficult psychologically than, say, Response, Traffic or anything else ?
irocfan said:
Nice selective editing there. What I went on to say was surely officers no longer able to be front line/on the streets could take their years of experience and be a desk jockey thereby freeing up youngsters for the hard graft and keeping knowledge. st, we'd ALL like to retire after 35 years in a job!
The fire service is I suspect a different kettle of fish
Wrong.t, we'd ALL like to retire after 35 years in a job!The fire service is I suspect a different kettle of fish
Have a look at The Winsor Report.
Educate yourself.
wc98 said:
i have a mate in the cnc. luckily enough for him his army pension will make things a bit easier when he has to retire. anyone that doesn't have something like that is going to have to rely on savings or get a job until the pension comes through.
Like the rest of the population?Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff