Are the Police a Special Case?
17 May 2012, 04:12 PM
#61
Scooby Regular
Go away Lewis you are a pain in the proverbial a**e!!!
17 May 2012, 04:14 PM
#62
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Weston Super Mare, Somerset.
Posts: 14,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For Felix
Now this didn't come from me but I heard a whisper that there is car parked on the road outside ........ Reg LEW I S with no tax or MOT. If you were so minded you might just find some interesting items in the glove box.
Anon
Now this didn't come from me but I heard a whisper that there is car parked on the road outside ........ Reg LEW I S with no tax or MOT. If you were so minded you might just find some interesting items in the glove box.
Anon
17 May 2012, 05:24 PM
#63
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
The Police are funded 100% from Taxpayers.
£1 in every £7 of Police expenditure (on behalf of the Taxpayer) goes on Police Pensions.
So, you and I pay £7 to the Police - £1 of which is diverted to pay for the Pensions of Police who retired at 50.
It's straightforward isn't it?
No twist, no spin, no halve truths ...... just as plain as the nose on your face.
17 May 2012, 05:28 PM
#64
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
When you run the numberplate through the ANPR System please send me the owners details ...... I have a proposal for him/her!!
Cheers
17 May 2012, 05:39 PM
#65
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
17 May 2012, 06:56 PM
#67
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
They propose that they be removed from any pain, be allowed to continue swallowing taxpayers money, be left alone to a very comfortable Pension at 50 years old.
It's a reasonable aspiration - but dellusional in reality.
It's a reasonable aspiration - but dellusional in reality.
17 May 2012, 07:30 PM
#68
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dislike the police more than most but they are hardly overpaid for what they do and I would not in a million years do a uniformed coppers job for their crappy wages. I can at least understand why they are often such arseholes when they deal with the scum of society on a daily basis.
17 May 2012, 09:00 PM
#69
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (13)
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: here, there, everywhere
Posts: 3,111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
its a **** of a job for the regular copper
wouldnt do it, even for double normal wages of 50k a year tbh.
shifts are horrendous!!
im no police fan either tbh - but still i know it is not a great number imo.
wouldnt do it, even for double normal wages of 50k a year tbh.
shifts are horrendous!!
im no police fan either tbh - but still i know it is not a great number imo.
17 May 2012, 09:11 PM
#70
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
100 applicants for every post tells its own story ............ you could halve the pay and still recruit what you wanted - I mean, let's be real, they're not clever are they? 
17 May 2012, 09:15 PM
#71
Scooby Regular
I dislike the retrospective principle, the deal for the police (teacher fireman etc) should be honoured, by all means change the game now for new starters but you can't change the rules mid game.
17 May 2012, 09:35 PM
#73
You have lost me completely ....
The Police are funded 100% from Taxpayers.
£1 in every £7 of Police expenditure (on behalf of the Taxpayer) goes on Police Pensions.
So, you and I pay £7 to the Police - £1 of which is diverted to pay for the Pensions of Police who retired at 50.
It's straightforward isn't it?
No twist, no spin, no halve truths ...... just as plain as the nose on your face.
The Police are funded 100% from Taxpayers.
£1 in every £7 of Police expenditure (on behalf of the Taxpayer) goes on Police Pensions.
So, you and I pay £7 to the Police - £1 of which is diverted to pay for the Pensions of Police who retired at 50.
It's straightforward isn't it?
No twist, no spin, no halve truths ...... just as plain as the nose on your face.
17 May 2012, 09:38 PM
#75
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
jonc - You're bonkers ....
You bestow upon me an ability to spin that I do not posses ....
Let me try to make it really simple for you - WE pay TAXES - for every £7 of TAXES which go into the Police, £1 is used on PENSIONS .........
I'm struggling if you still don't understand me .....
You bestow upon me an ability to spin that I do not posses ....
Let me try to make it really simple for you - WE pay TAXES - for every £7 of TAXES which go into the Police, £1 is used on PENSIONS .........
I'm struggling if you still don't understand me .....
17 May 2012, 09:45 PM
#76
This thread is in drastic need of some mythbusting. Lets get some hard FACTS down, rather than the hatemongering that's going on:
Pensions. This seems to be the Biggy.
Police Pensions used to be in line with Civil Service Pensions: 30 Years service, 1/60th accrual rate for the first 20 years and then a double accrual rate for the last 10 years building up to the 2/3rds final salary pension scheme. It also pays a lump sum on retirement.T his was not unique to the Police: Civil Servants, University Lecturers, MP's (of course) and various other jobs also got this pension package. Clearly, it was outmoded and unsustainable despite it requiring 11% contributions.
It also had various clauses which were no longer fit for purpose: Death in service payments could only be paid to wives, not civil partners. It was non transferable and because of the accrual ramping it's a poor deal for people who stop short of 20 years service.
So, in 2005 the Police actually got ahead of the game and introduced the "New Police Pension Scheme". This is a far less generous package, designed to be sustainable in the long term. It accrues at a linear rate, building to a maximum of 1/2 career average after 35 years service and the contributions are higher (15%). It pays out smaller amounts in terms of death in service and you get a commutation on retirement (with an associated reduction of monthly pension) but no lump sum. It recognises civil partners and children born out of wedlock, and it is still by any standards a generous pension. It was designed, in 2005, to be a pension package that would be sustainable well into the future, and projections show that this is the case. The Police Service HAS ALREADY changed to reflect the unsustainable costs of it's pensions, quicker than Doctors and MP's I might add.
so:
Retiring at 50 is incredibly rare. And even if you do, the pension cannot pay out before the age of 60.
You have to work 30 years service in the old pension scheme, and 35 in the new scheme, to retire with full benefits.
The Final salary is calculated deviod of all weightings, additional payments, or overtime. A Copper with 30 years of service will retire on less than £20k a year. Generous, liveable, but no kings ransom.
However, what has happend in the last term is that they have back tracked on the deal and made (amongst others) the follwoing changes:
Contributions to increase by more than 3% (from 11% to 15%)
The pension will not pay out until the age of 65 (leaving many officers with a 10 year gap to finance between retirement and their pension kicking in)
The index linking will be abolished at a time when inflation is running at 5%, devaluing the pension over time. It also won't apply in the "gap" period, devaluing the pension hugely before it is ever collected.
The pensions will pay a career average rather than final salary - including the old police pension scheme.
The point of this is that these are retrospective changes. They affect pensions on which decision making was based a decade or more ago. When you make an agreement, any agreement, you have an expectation that the terms of it won't be changed after the fact. If you agree to buy a cheap car at £2,000, and then a year later the seller comes back to you and says "Sorry, that car should have been £3,000" do you pay them the extra £1,000 or do you say "Err, no, we agreed that price and that's the price paid, do one"?
Now, onto the wider picture:
Are the police a special case? No.
We have already cut our budgets by 20%. We have already layed off swathes of civilian staff. We have already changed our pension structures. We are alreay 10,000 officers down on our numbers 5 years ago. Personally, I feel that police pay was fair up until a couple of years ago. I was earning enough to support my family, to live in a decent house close enoguh to where I work. Overtime was paid at a rate (time and a third) that was fair compensation for the inconvenience it caused. Incidentally, I never choose to do overtime, but "have" to work it when required, with no notice, to get a job done. My salary at 33 with 10 years experience was around £37k a year all in which I felt offered value for money to the taxpayer for the work I did, and I felt was fair pay for me. I have a degree, I do have a choice to work elsewhere, but my pay combined with my pension package was I felt a decent wage to do an importat job that I loved doing. Most of my peers from Uni were out earning me by a small amount in jobs like accounting, Oil industry (which I am trained to work in) and other private and public sector jobs but the Pension makes up for the slight shortfall in the long run.
And what have they done?
Ignored our pay negotiating board: We were promised a 2.5% pay rise each year for 3 years, and the government simply didn't pay it (this was at a time when nurses got a 3% payrise with threats of strikes).
We haven't had a pay rise in 3 years, and they have now frozen our pay and stopped any officer increasing in yearly increments for 3 years too. So that will be 5 years at times of high inflation with no pay rise.
Then they abolished the negotiating board and replaced it with a political quango who will decide police remuneration without consultation with the Polcie Federation.
They comissioned the windsor review, and then unilaterally imposed many of it's recommendations without consultation or warning: gone are overtime payments for cancelled rest days, gone are priority payments for officers working in less pleasant areas or jobs.
What do they want to do, amongst other things?
Allow entry to the police at Supervisory ranks with no previous policing experience.
Get rid of career breaks (when an officer is permitted to take leave of their job and come back to it, to prevent losing experienced officers)
Allow elected Police Chiefs - but not elected by the public but by a political board. It is evident they want political control of the police service.
Introduce Fitness tests: A good idea IMO, and one that I am more than happy to accept.
The case for the Police being "A Special Case"
The police are not employees. We have no contract and no "rights" as emplyees with regards to working hours, rest days or time off.
We can be ordered into work and disciplined if we fail to obey that order.
We can be ordered not to leave work and disciplined if we fail to obey that order.
We cannot travel to certain countries and have to have plans to travel vetted prior to travel.
Our homes have to be vetted and if you are told you cannot buy or rent a certain house, then you can't.
You're not permitted to have certain business interests - so no fireman style "jobs on the side"
Any intellectual property you create - an invention, a book, is property of the Force for which you work, NOT your own. They will claim the royalties, not you.
We cannot strike (and now they're ignoring the police Federaiton, we in effect have no voice other than our vote. It's in fact a criminal offence to incite or suggest that a copper strike).
We face violent, abusive and dangerous people, day in day out and are expected to deal with them professionally and properly.
If we fail to do that, we are more open than most to prosecution and dismissal for perceived wrongdoing. A convicted copper rarely escapes a jail sentence no matter how minor the crime.
We are expected to be able to drive, chase, fight, arrest, and then interview, complete detailed reports and paperwork, see a case through court to secure convictions. It's an incredibly varied and demanding role.
If a suspect is in custody, legislation dictates that we MUST remain and deal with them. With budget cuts and fewer officers, this invariably means that the dealing officer continues to deal until the investigation is complete. This can mean 20 hour shifts, and in my current role frequently does. No warning, go into work at 8am as normal, don't finish work until 4am the next day or beyond, and then have to report for duty the following day as normal.
What the current coalition government is doing is nothing short of a full frontal attack on Police and Policing. As a citizen, perhaps instead of gloating that the Police are getting their cumuppance, perhaps you should be considering what the nation will lock like once it's Police Service, once the envy of the world and the model for most of the police forces everywhere, is decimated. You may think the police are pretty shoddy now, in some areas I'll accept that they are, but I'd suggest you have a short memory if you think the polcie have been earning too much for "decades".
Have a look back into the history of 70's and 80's police to find out how bad things can get. Underpaid police become open to corruption and malpractice. The talent will leave to better paid jobs leaving the incompetent and the corrupt behind. And with Politicians evidently wanting control, it will be a simple matter of "Pay to get your rivals investigated, Pay again to clean your own sheet".
This nation will get the Police service it deserves, and the Police Service it is prepared to pay for. We have taken deep funding cuts, we have accepted poorer conditions, and we have aleardy addressed the pension issues. The Politicians seem to want blood from a stone now.
Pensions. This seems to be the Biggy.
Police Pensions used to be in line with Civil Service Pensions: 30 Years service, 1/60th accrual rate for the first 20 years and then a double accrual rate for the last 10 years building up to the 2/3rds final salary pension scheme. It also pays a lump sum on retirement.T his was not unique to the Police: Civil Servants, University Lecturers, MP's (of course) and various other jobs also got this pension package. Clearly, it was outmoded and unsustainable despite it requiring 11% contributions.
It also had various clauses which were no longer fit for purpose: Death in service payments could only be paid to wives, not civil partners. It was non transferable and because of the accrual ramping it's a poor deal for people who stop short of 20 years service.
So, in 2005 the Police actually got ahead of the game and introduced the "New Police Pension Scheme". This is a far less generous package, designed to be sustainable in the long term. It accrues at a linear rate, building to a maximum of 1/2 career average after 35 years service and the contributions are higher (15%). It pays out smaller amounts in terms of death in service and you get a commutation on retirement (with an associated reduction of monthly pension) but no lump sum. It recognises civil partners and children born out of wedlock, and it is still by any standards a generous pension. It was designed, in 2005, to be a pension package that would be sustainable well into the future, and projections show that this is the case. The Police Service HAS ALREADY changed to reflect the unsustainable costs of it's pensions, quicker than Doctors and MP's I might add.
so:
Retiring at 50 is incredibly rare. And even if you do, the pension cannot pay out before the age of 60.
You have to work 30 years service in the old pension scheme, and 35 in the new scheme, to retire with full benefits.
The Final salary is calculated deviod of all weightings, additional payments, or overtime. A Copper with 30 years of service will retire on less than £20k a year. Generous, liveable, but no kings ransom.
However, what has happend in the last term is that they have back tracked on the deal and made (amongst others) the follwoing changes:
Contributions to increase by more than 3% (from 11% to 15%)
The pension will not pay out until the age of 65 (leaving many officers with a 10 year gap to finance between retirement and their pension kicking in)
The index linking will be abolished at a time when inflation is running at 5%, devaluing the pension over time. It also won't apply in the "gap" period, devaluing the pension hugely before it is ever collected.
The pensions will pay a career average rather than final salary - including the old police pension scheme.
The point of this is that these are retrospective changes. They affect pensions on which decision making was based a decade or more ago. When you make an agreement, any agreement, you have an expectation that the terms of it won't be changed after the fact. If you agree to buy a cheap car at £2,000, and then a year later the seller comes back to you and says "Sorry, that car should have been £3,000" do you pay them the extra £1,000 or do you say "Err, no, we agreed that price and that's the price paid, do one"?
Now, onto the wider picture:
Are the police a special case? No.
We have already cut our budgets by 20%. We have already layed off swathes of civilian staff. We have already changed our pension structures. We are alreay 10,000 officers down on our numbers 5 years ago. Personally, I feel that police pay was fair up until a couple of years ago. I was earning enough to support my family, to live in a decent house close enoguh to where I work. Overtime was paid at a rate (time and a third) that was fair compensation for the inconvenience it caused. Incidentally, I never choose to do overtime, but "have" to work it when required, with no notice, to get a job done. My salary at 33 with 10 years experience was around £37k a year all in which I felt offered value for money to the taxpayer for the work I did, and I felt was fair pay for me. I have a degree, I do have a choice to work elsewhere, but my pay combined with my pension package was I felt a decent wage to do an importat job that I loved doing. Most of my peers from Uni were out earning me by a small amount in jobs like accounting, Oil industry (which I am trained to work in) and other private and public sector jobs but the Pension makes up for the slight shortfall in the long run.
And what have they done?
Ignored our pay negotiating board: We were promised a 2.5% pay rise each year for 3 years, and the government simply didn't pay it (this was at a time when nurses got a 3% payrise with threats of strikes).
We haven't had a pay rise in 3 years, and they have now frozen our pay and stopped any officer increasing in yearly increments for 3 years too. So that will be 5 years at times of high inflation with no pay rise.
Then they abolished the negotiating board and replaced it with a political quango who will decide police remuneration without consultation with the Polcie Federation.
They comissioned the windsor review, and then unilaterally imposed many of it's recommendations without consultation or warning: gone are overtime payments for cancelled rest days, gone are priority payments for officers working in less pleasant areas or jobs.
What do they want to do, amongst other things?
Allow entry to the police at Supervisory ranks with no previous policing experience.
Get rid of career breaks (when an officer is permitted to take leave of their job and come back to it, to prevent losing experienced officers)
Allow elected Police Chiefs - but not elected by the public but by a political board. It is evident they want political control of the police service.
Introduce Fitness tests: A good idea IMO, and one that I am more than happy to accept.
The case for the Police being "A Special Case"
The police are not employees. We have no contract and no "rights" as emplyees with regards to working hours, rest days or time off.
We can be ordered into work and disciplined if we fail to obey that order.
We can be ordered not to leave work and disciplined if we fail to obey that order.
We cannot travel to certain countries and have to have plans to travel vetted prior to travel.
Our homes have to be vetted and if you are told you cannot buy or rent a certain house, then you can't.
You're not permitted to have certain business interests - so no fireman style "jobs on the side"
Any intellectual property you create - an invention, a book, is property of the Force for which you work, NOT your own. They will claim the royalties, not you.
We cannot strike (and now they're ignoring the police Federaiton, we in effect have no voice other than our vote. It's in fact a criminal offence to incite or suggest that a copper strike).
We face violent, abusive and dangerous people, day in day out and are expected to deal with them professionally and properly.
If we fail to do that, we are more open than most to prosecution and dismissal for perceived wrongdoing. A convicted copper rarely escapes a jail sentence no matter how minor the crime.
We are expected to be able to drive, chase, fight, arrest, and then interview, complete detailed reports and paperwork, see a case through court to secure convictions. It's an incredibly varied and demanding role.
If a suspect is in custody, legislation dictates that we MUST remain and deal with them. With budget cuts and fewer officers, this invariably means that the dealing officer continues to deal until the investigation is complete. This can mean 20 hour shifts, and in my current role frequently does. No warning, go into work at 8am as normal, don't finish work until 4am the next day or beyond, and then have to report for duty the following day as normal.
What the current coalition government is doing is nothing short of a full frontal attack on Police and Policing. As a citizen, perhaps instead of gloating that the Police are getting their cumuppance, perhaps you should be considering what the nation will lock like once it's Police Service, once the envy of the world and the model for most of the police forces everywhere, is decimated. You may think the police are pretty shoddy now, in some areas I'll accept that they are, but I'd suggest you have a short memory if you think the polcie have been earning too much for "decades".
Have a look back into the history of 70's and 80's police to find out how bad things can get. Underpaid police become open to corruption and malpractice. The talent will leave to better paid jobs leaving the incompetent and the corrupt behind. And with Politicians evidently wanting control, it will be a simple matter of "Pay to get your rivals investigated, Pay again to clean your own sheet".
This nation will get the Police service it deserves, and the Police Service it is prepared to pay for. We have taken deep funding cuts, we have accepted poorer conditions, and we have aleardy addressed the pension issues. The Politicians seem to want blood from a stone now.
17 May 2012, 09:54 PM
#77
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Pot Belly HQ
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Hedgehog, I don't envy you doing the job. I'm glad I'm out. You've posted a lot of good points, but you'll never convince most of this lot.
Just ignore PSL, he starts this thread every six months. It's always the same.
Just ignore PSL, he starts this thread every six months. It's always the same.
17 May 2012, 10:03 PM
#78
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
This thread is in drastic need of some mythbusting. Lets get some hard FACTS down, rather than the hatemongering that's going on:
Pensions. This seems to be the Biggy.
Police Pensions used to be in line with Civil Service Pensions: 30 Years service, 1/60th accrual rate for the first 20 years and then a double accrual rate for the last 10 years building up to the 2/3rds final salary pension scheme. It also pays a lump sum on retirement.
Pensions. This seems to be the Biggy.
Police Pensions used to be in line with Civil Service Pensions: 30 Years service, 1/60th accrual rate for the first 20 years and then a double accrual rate for the last 10 years building up to the 2/3rds final salary pension scheme. It also pays a lump sum on retirement.
There was never any doubling of the accural rate in the the final 10 years of the Civil Service Pension Scheme.
So, under the Civil Service Pension Scheme, after 40 years you get 1/2 Final Salary.
Now, the Police only had to work 30 years for 2/3rds Salary + a Lump Sum.
That was your first statement - which was wrong - god knows how many more 'FACTS' you have got completely **** about face.
You need to do far better than that to beat someone who knows everything about everything - ME!
Last edited by pslewis; 17 May 2012 at 10:05 PM.
17 May 2012, 10:09 PM
#79
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a Taxpayer and voter I don't think the Police are a special case.
I don't have an agenda against them but we need to save money or we go bankrupt.
I want to see my tax-money go further.
Is that too much to ask?
I don't have an agenda against them but we need to save money or we go bankrupt.
I want to see my tax-money go further.
Is that too much to ask?
17 May 2012, 10:14 PM
#80
The problem with the police is that we're not like the NHS. We don't need big expensive machines, we own most of our own buildings, and the most expensive thing we need to get the job done is cars, really. If you cut money from the Police, you cut the number of officers and the number of hours that they spend on the streets. That's it. If you cut the budget, you cut the service.
I work on a PC which is 8 years old and will not be replaced for 2 years at least. We have a single fax which is vital for our work which dates from 1990, shared between about 100 officers. We are not a frivilous organisation - I've never seen a subaru pursuit car, only 1.7 diesel astras.
17 May 2012, 10:17 PM
#81
I got to this first error and stopped ....... for your information, the Civil Service Pension was 1/80th per year of Service (not 1/60th as you have stated).
There was never any doubling of the accural rate in the the final 10 years of the Civil Service Pension Scheme.
So, under the Civil Service Pension Scheme, after 40 years you get 1/2 Final Salary.
Now, the Police only had to work 30 years for 2/3rds Salary + a Lump Sum.
That was your first statement - which was wrong - god knows how many more 'FACTS' you have got completely **** about face.
You need to do far better than that to beat someone who knows everything about everything - ME!
There was never any doubling of the accural rate in the the final 10 years of the Civil Service Pension Scheme.
So, under the Civil Service Pension Scheme, after 40 years you get 1/2 Final Salary.
Now, the Police only had to work 30 years for 2/3rds Salary + a Lump Sum.
That was your first statement - which was wrong - god knows how many more 'FACTS' you have got completely **** about face.
You need to do far better than that to beat someone who knows everything about everything - ME!
And I stopped paying you attention when it became clear you were prepared to mis-state your case to score cheap points.
As I said, I'm all up for an intelligent discussion about the issue, it affects the Nation not just Police Officers, but it's clear that we're not going to be allowed the discusison with you around.
30,000 posts in 12 years on here? says it all really. You've evidently got more time and words to waste than me.
17 May 2012, 10:19 PM
#82
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Sorry - I have a Civil Service Pension I KNOW that you have got it wrong ..... I'm assuming you are not lieing through your teeth, but have made a genuine error - but you are so wrong it's not true!!
Which Department did your father work in?
Which Department did your father work in?
Last edited by pslewis; 17 May 2012 at 10:21 PM.
17 May 2012, 10:33 PM
#83
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And can you see that we have made cuts, and continue to make cuts? 20% off our budgets in a single hit.
The problem with the police is that we're not like the NHS. We don't need big expensive machines, we own most of our own buildings, and the most expensive thing we need to get the job done is cars, really. If you cut money from the Police, you cut the number of officers and the number of hours that they spend on the streets. That's it. If you cut the budget, you cut the service.
I work on a PC which is 8 years old and will not be replaced for 2 years at least. We have a single fax which is vital for our work which dates from 1990, shared between about 100 officers. We are not a frivilous organisation - I've never seen a subaru pursuit car, only 1.7 diesel astras.
The problem with the police is that we're not like the NHS. We don't need big expensive machines, we own most of our own buildings, and the most expensive thing we need to get the job done is cars, really. If you cut money from the Police, you cut the number of officers and the number of hours that they spend on the streets. That's it. If you cut the budget, you cut the service.
I work on a PC which is 8 years old and will not be replaced for 2 years at least. We have a single fax which is vital for our work which dates from 1990, shared between about 100 officers. We are not a frivilous organisation - I've never seen a subaru pursuit car, only 1.7 diesel astras.
In a very tabloidy way we could say those two Officers sat in an BMW waiting for an unsuspecting motorist, could be doing something useful such as investigating assault or burglary cases.
17 May 2012, 10:37 PM
#85
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Police Pension Questions and Answers here:-
http://www.metibb.co.uk/pps%20faqs.pdf
Simple to see the 1/60th Accuarl rate and the doubling thereof for the 10 years.
Civil Service Pension here:-
http://resources.civilservice.gov.uk...PBE-1_AMM2.pdf
See page 12 on the Civil Service Pensions to see the 1/80 accural rate.
This is why the Police Pension MUST change and why every taxpayer is calling for an end to this abuse of taxpayers money!!
So Dave Hedgehog - any comment on being proved as a liar?
http://www.metibb.co.uk/pps%20faqs.pdf
Simple to see the 1/60th Accuarl rate and the doubling thereof for the 10 years.
Civil Service Pension here:-
http://resources.civilservice.gov.uk...PBE-1_AMM2.pdf
See page 12 on the Civil Service Pensions to see the 1/80 accural rate.
This is why the Police Pension MUST change and why every taxpayer is calling for an end to this abuse of taxpayers money!!
So Dave Hedgehog - any comment on being proved as a liar?
17 May 2012, 10:43 PM
#86
I've one question and that is why are so many police resources devoted to seemingly doing nothing more than giving motorists speeding fines?
In a very tabloidy way we could say those two Officers sat in an BMW waiting for an unsuspecting motorist, could be doing something useful such as investigating assault or burglary cases.
In a very tabloidy way we could say those two Officers sat in an BMW waiting for an unsuspecting motorist, could be doing something useful such as investigating assault or burglary cases.
With regards to your last point, to be fair, you wouldn't ask an ambulance driver waiting for a callout to help nurses look after patients, administer drugs, bathe patients, etc. I'm all for getting value, but there is a limit.
17 May 2012, 10:44 PM
#87
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Pot Belly HQ
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How to improve policing
Originally Posted by Cynical Bobby
So apparently the changes to policing by the government are about improving the way we do things. They are about making us perform better. Or so we’re told. So let’s look at the police service as a business. Would you improve your business in the way the government have approached the ‘improvement’ of the Police service? They started by a prolonged and cynical media campaign which focused upon criticising the way the Police behaved in certain high profile events.
Now i’m no business expert but according to most business experts this is not a good idea. Apparently a positive public relations campaign is better for you business. They then initiated a three pronged attack upon the pay and conditions of the employees of the service. Neyroud, Hutton and Winsor. All three launched at once. All three effectively causing cuts to the income and terms of staff crushing morale.
They of course went through a facade of independent consultation. That has now been completely undermined. Most notably Winsor has been shown to have false and misleading information in his supposed consultation. In fact Winsors paymaster made a speech in 2006 http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...atives.ukcrime miraculously Winsors “independent consultation” arrived at the very same conclusions as his paymaster.
Now, once again, I’m no expert but I thought the point of consultation was to consult! Surely there is no point in going through a consultation process if you intend to introduce your own ideas all along. Was this “consultation” a good use of public funds?So, we’ve done the media destruction and undermined morale. What next? Let’s cut numbers.
Officers and staff are already working at their limits. Let’s get rid of 16’000 police officers and staff. Let’s make them so over stretched that they can’t meet public demand. Affect their safety. Furthermore if they cant respond to jobs as they would like to, because of lack of numbers, then the public will have little support for them. This will help in the media campaign against them.
That’s three steps done. PR, morale and cuts. What else can they do you may ask. Well they can ensure that our investigative priorities are controlled to suit their agenda. Last year politicians showed their true colours. The excellent investigative work of the Telegraph showed them for what they are. Sitting in judgement over others whilst all along stealing money from the system. Dozens caught out. Some imprisoned. Others sacked or resigned. Amazingly many were just asked to pay the money back. Unbelievable. Can you imagine that being done if a police officer got caught fiddling expenses? You’d be in prison before your feet touched the ground. Investigated by police. Caught.
Publicly shamed and some imprisoned. They made the right noises. They ‘sounded’ apologetic. Yet a year later they refuse to reveal information about their expenses. They vote themselves a rise in their generous pensions. Whilst, at the same time attacking the terms of other public sector workers. Teachers, nurses, firefighters etc. They criticise that we pay 11% for only 30 years. They ‘can’ pay up to 11% but they can also pay as little as 5% for ‘two terms’ 8 years. In 2010 Cameron promised that MP’s would face the same pension price rises as thepublics http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13962454 in 2012 they awarded themselves an improved pension! Do we need any more evidence of their hypocrisy?
So what do the government do about this type of scandal? Do they clean themselves up? Do they clean up their own house? No. They place the police under political control to make it less likely that they will be caught ‘again’. After all if you don’t find fraud. If nobody knows about it. It isn’ a problem right? What they do is they give you PCC’s. Now some of them I’m sure will have good intention and want the role for good reasons. But let’s delve below the surface. The PCC will be the titular figure. They will notionally be in control. However they will sit at the head of a panel. A panel which will be made up according to the political balance in the authority are they represent. As such the majority of the panel in a strong conservative area will be conservative loyalists. This panel can veto budget proposals and the choice of chief constable!
Effectively the government of the day will have political control over the majority of police forces! They can influence policing priorities. Can this be right? Is that what the public want?Surely the public want the police to be guided by public concerns and actual crime trends. Not by the governments political agenda. We all know how they will mess with statistics to suit an agenda near to elections. This cannot be allowed to happen.
So let’s recap. We’ve had a negative PR campaign, ruined morale, cut pay, cut numbers and put politicians, who know little about crime, in charge of key decisions. Would you follow this model to ‘improve’ your business? No you would not. So why? Why have they done this? Why in a time when the government have so much to do would they make the effort to do this? When there is such poverty, recession, hardship. This is not saving money. The PFEW made counter proposals to the PNB which saved as much. I would suggest it is to allow them to control the Police and thereby the public for their continued mismanagement of our country.
Furthermore, as shown in his 2006 speech against police the PM has had a personal issue with the police for a long time. Could he still have a grievance over his defeat in Sheehy? Many believe so. It’s curious that all of these cuts seem to be driven by his own personal agenda and not by the policing minister! We need to stand up against these changes. Not only for ourselves but for the public good. The popularity of this government is poor. They are fighting on many fronts. They are weak. Some Tory MPs are speaking out. The tide is turning.Now is the time to join the fight. We can win this. We can stop the changes IF WE WORK TOGETHER We ‘all’ need to make ourselves heard.
Now i’m no business expert but according to most business experts this is not a good idea. Apparently a positive public relations campaign is better for you business. They then initiated a three pronged attack upon the pay and conditions of the employees of the service. Neyroud, Hutton and Winsor. All three launched at once. All three effectively causing cuts to the income and terms of staff crushing morale.
They of course went through a facade of independent consultation. That has now been completely undermined. Most notably Winsor has been shown to have false and misleading information in his supposed consultation. In fact Winsors paymaster made a speech in 2006 http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...atives.ukcrime miraculously Winsors “independent consultation” arrived at the very same conclusions as his paymaster.
Now, once again, I’m no expert but I thought the point of consultation was to consult! Surely there is no point in going through a consultation process if you intend to introduce your own ideas all along. Was this “consultation” a good use of public funds?So, we’ve done the media destruction and undermined morale. What next? Let’s cut numbers.
Officers and staff are already working at their limits. Let’s get rid of 16’000 police officers and staff. Let’s make them so over stretched that they can’t meet public demand. Affect their safety. Furthermore if they cant respond to jobs as they would like to, because of lack of numbers, then the public will have little support for them. This will help in the media campaign against them.
That’s three steps done. PR, morale and cuts. What else can they do you may ask. Well they can ensure that our investigative priorities are controlled to suit their agenda. Last year politicians showed their true colours. The excellent investigative work of the Telegraph showed them for what they are. Sitting in judgement over others whilst all along stealing money from the system. Dozens caught out. Some imprisoned. Others sacked or resigned. Amazingly many were just asked to pay the money back. Unbelievable. Can you imagine that being done if a police officer got caught fiddling expenses? You’d be in prison before your feet touched the ground. Investigated by police. Caught.
Publicly shamed and some imprisoned. They made the right noises. They ‘sounded’ apologetic. Yet a year later they refuse to reveal information about their expenses. They vote themselves a rise in their generous pensions. Whilst, at the same time attacking the terms of other public sector workers. Teachers, nurses, firefighters etc. They criticise that we pay 11% for only 30 years. They ‘can’ pay up to 11% but they can also pay as little as 5% for ‘two terms’ 8 years. In 2010 Cameron promised that MP’s would face the same pension price rises as thepublics http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13962454 in 2012 they awarded themselves an improved pension! Do we need any more evidence of their hypocrisy?
So what do the government do about this type of scandal? Do they clean themselves up? Do they clean up their own house? No. They place the police under political control to make it less likely that they will be caught ‘again’. After all if you don’t find fraud. If nobody knows about it. It isn’ a problem right? What they do is they give you PCC’s. Now some of them I’m sure will have good intention and want the role for good reasons. But let’s delve below the surface. The PCC will be the titular figure. They will notionally be in control. However they will sit at the head of a panel. A panel which will be made up according to the political balance in the authority are they represent. As such the majority of the panel in a strong conservative area will be conservative loyalists. This panel can veto budget proposals and the choice of chief constable!
Effectively the government of the day will have political control over the majority of police forces! They can influence policing priorities. Can this be right? Is that what the public want?Surely the public want the police to be guided by public concerns and actual crime trends. Not by the governments political agenda. We all know how they will mess with statistics to suit an agenda near to elections. This cannot be allowed to happen.
So let’s recap. We’ve had a negative PR campaign, ruined morale, cut pay, cut numbers and put politicians, who know little about crime, in charge of key decisions. Would you follow this model to ‘improve’ your business? No you would not. So why? Why have they done this? Why in a time when the government have so much to do would they make the effort to do this? When there is such poverty, recession, hardship. This is not saving money. The PFEW made counter proposals to the PNB which saved as much. I would suggest it is to allow them to control the Police and thereby the public for their continued mismanagement of our country.
Furthermore, as shown in his 2006 speech against police the PM has had a personal issue with the police for a long time. Could he still have a grievance over his defeat in Sheehy? Many believe so. It’s curious that all of these cuts seem to be driven by his own personal agenda and not by the policing minister! We need to stand up against these changes. Not only for ourselves but for the public good. The popularity of this government is poor. They are fighting on many fronts. They are weak. Some Tory MPs are speaking out. The tide is turning.Now is the time to join the fight. We can win this. We can stop the changes IF WE WORK TOGETHER We ‘all’ need to make ourselves heard.
17 May 2012, 10:46 PM
#88
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Anyone can hide in a Conifer Bush pointing a speed gun down the road, then jump out to prosecute a mother driving her child to school at 33MPH ............ let's privatise the speed gun collection team (I will do it for a coppas wage and pension!!! Hell, I'll do it for HALF!!).
17 May 2012, 10:51 PM
#89
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (13)
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: here, there, everywhere
Posts: 3,111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone can hide in a Conifer Bush pointing a speed gun down the road, then jump out to prosecute a mother driving her child to school at 33MPH ............ let's privatise the speed gun collection team (I will do it for a coppas wage and pension!!! Hell, I'll do it for HALF!!).
do you not see the potential inherent problem with that?
17 May 2012, 10:54 PM
#90
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
NO!
By retired people of good order .... they can Police the streets of their own town with regards speeding, car tax evasion, drunk drivers, etc.
No profit involved at all - just a community spirit!!
By retired people of good order .... they can Police the streets of their own town with regards speeding, car tax evasion, drunk drivers, etc.
No profit involved at all - just a community spirit!!