Lewes Forum thread

Go on, tell 'em what you think


Lewes Forum New message

Should police retire when due to?

 
 
On 27 May 2011 at 1:50pm Andaxi wrote:
I heard on the news that police officers could be forced to retire when they have completed their pensionable service.
I feel that despite the loss of experience this will enable younger recruits to be trained and with youth and determination this could be a progressive step in the force.
As we grow older we tend to slow down and operate in a more easy going style so it could be beneficial to the service.
Many Police officers are ex- service and are in receipt of a service pension in addition to a Police pension. They are not strapped for cash to the extent that they need to prevent youngsters from working and could use their experience and skills in the private sector if they so wished.
A good opportunity, I would suggest, to create work rather than take work away from others.
 
 
On 27 May 2011 at 2:14pm Deelite wrote:
I'm all in favour of easygoing police officers myself. I think the retirement age for the force ought to be increased to 70. It's always been ludicrous that many officers seem able to retire at 50 on a fat pension (and then take on another job too)!
 
 
On 27 May 2011 at 3:03pm Grunge wrote:
Webbo, once again something has chewed up my post.
 
1
On 27 May 2011 at 4:04pm bastian wrote:
grunge you arn't the only one
 
 
On 27 May 2011 at 4:28pm 'ere be monsters wrote:
It's the same as all public sector pensions based on final salary. We can't afford to keep paying them out.
 
 
On 27 May 2011 at 4:47pm jrsussex wrote:
I believe they should be made to retire on completion of their pensionable service, like most public employees in the emergency services they do have the benefit of a good pension. It would benefit the employment market, Sussex police for example have stopped all recruiting (according to a statement on TV a couple of nights ago) so it would get that on the move again. Non- recruitment now could indicate a poor quality service in the future.
 
 
On 27 May 2011 at 5:21pm Clifford wrote:
The truth is monsters 'we' aren't going to keep paying them out. But it is strange that one of the world's richest economies can't provide a decent pension for all retired workers, private sector and public. I wonder if its got anything to do with the share of wealth going to the rich rising over the past 30 years and the share going to workers declining?
1
1
On 27 May 2011 at 5:27pm Extra wrote:
When all the war baby boomers left the police service at the same time it
caused a huge problem with the immediate loss of experience and expertise nationwide. I joined at eighteen and a half and paid eleven and a half per cent of my wage into the pension fund until retiring at fifty two. The police service do not invest the contributions. My net pension is now about £1200 per month. Please be aware of the police pension regulations before making
statements. I believe the contributions are now nine and a half per cent and
Officers have to work an additional five years (so thirty five years) to receive their full pension. It can be a most rewarding vocation, but when it is bad it
is absolutely awful. One of my first jobs was collecting the body parts of a child that had been hit by a train - you got the message......
 
 
On 27 May 2011 at 8:05pm bastian wrote:
are the tories monatering my posts..I don't seem to be able to post my usual relevent comments
 
 
On 27 May 2011 at 8:08pm bastian wrote:
That's better,Extra is right and being involved they know what they are talking about,like most public sector workers who put up with physical and verbal abuse from the public they serve, they are fed up with being knocked because the last few governments have made you,the public think differently about us,the people who look after you when you need us,
Clifford,as usual, well said.
 
 
On 27 May 2011 at 8:34pm jrsussex wrote:
Extra - Your comment on the body parts of children, no-one would think that anything other than an awful task, but you appear to forget something, you were trained to deal with that and far worse situations. Let me give you two examples that offended me personally, the two workers who stood by and watched a young boy drown under the guise that they didn't think it safe to try and help save his life. The Kings Cross emergency workers that wouldn't go down until it was declared safe to so, whilst several civilains and London Transport staff were down there assisting the victims.
As with service personnel and hospital staff many thousands of pounds are spent in training emergency service personnel to deal with those specific incidents. I admire tremendously those that enter those services, it is not something I think I could do, but don't use incidents, in the way you have, to gain the sympathy vote. I assume nobody held a gun to your head when you signed up, if you couldn't handle that side of the job. which is a known part of it, then you should have resigned.
1
 
On 27 May 2011 at 9:01pm MC wrote:
I'm willing to be proved wrong, but my guess is you are judging the whole of the police force by only two incidents that were publicised widely by tabloid newspapers. I think that there are few people who have the mettle to be police officers, just as there are very few able to garner the respect that teachers need to do their job well.

Neither is a job that the majority are well equipped to do.
 
 
On 27 May 2011 at 9:54pm Vesbod wrote:
Any person can do ANY job, given the appropriate training and determination. Good luck to those who have had the get and go to achieve a good career and pension.
My only worry is - are we giving everyone an equal opportunity ?
 
1
On 27 May 2011 at 10:22pm jrsussex wrote:
The incidents I mention are not just two incidents there are repeated examples throughout the years. By referring to the tabloids you imply that the comments are false which they are not. Just for the record the drowning of the young boy incident did not involve police officers.
In general I support the police force, we would certainly live in a terrible world without them, ruled by the most ruthless members of society. But do not fall into the trap of believing all are squeaky claan. If you want examples of police officers failing to carry out their duties properly there are many, start with Operation Countryman.
 
 
On 27 May 2011 at 10:41pm Hells Belle wrote:
Jrsussex I am sure that nobody was trying to gain a 'sympathy vote' just to merely point out that despite training there is nothing that could ever prepare anyone to completely deal with traumatic incidents. If you have never experienced such incidents (and yes I have in my job role) please do not belittle those who do and then have to cope with the aftermath in a professional way. We are all, after all human beings.
 
 
On 27 May 2011 at 11:20pm MC wrote:
Vesbod. I'm afraid that training cannot convert a pigs ear into a silk purse in the same way that you will not be able to grow wheat on tarmac, however much you water it.

By stating that anyone can teach given training you demean those that enter the teaching profession, especially those that teach secondary. This profession requires a strength of character that it's just not possible to aquire through training.
 
1
On 27 May 2011 at 11:27pm jrsussex wrote:
I have said nothing that belittles anybody, I am simply pointing out that if you enter certain professions and are trained to deal with catastrophic incidents but find they have a detrimental effect on both you and your life then it is time to leave that profession.
Yes I have witnessed such incidents when I was an international truck driver, including a car accident in Paris where the drivers wife was beheaded, those who can remember the tragic accident at junction 13 of the M1 some years ago, which involved a number of deaths by fire, I was involved in that, and many a number of fatal accidents both in the UK and abroad. Which is why I clearly stated that working in the emergency services is something I could never do.
1
 
On 28 May 2011 at 7:31am Plod wrote:
I really enjoy this forum and the healthy debate that goes on even though most of the time I do no contribute. I trained for six months to be a police officer and my input on death / dealing with fatalities was an hour long and went through 'the necessary forms to fill out' when reporting a death to the coroner. I think the training was 'you might see some horrible stuff' but u will deal with it when it comes around. To suggest you can 'train' someone to pick up body parts or deal with as I have watching a small child die whilst trapped in a crashed car is outrageous. Yes with the correct training most People could deal with a nice clean natural death of a well aged human but some things are a heavy burden for any man. Yes it is my choice to do these things and I do them in the hope that someone somewhere may get some comfort knowing that o had been there and done all I can.
 
1
On 28 May 2011 at 7:54am jrsussex wrote:
Do not want to unnecessarily carry on this thread but I have to say that my brother in law, a police sgt, tells me that he, during training, had to attend an autopsy as part of the that training. I have also spoken with an Insp who confirms that. That is not really the point I make, it is that some of us can perform in that type of a job whilst others cannot, if you are in the category that cannot then don't enter the profession, there is no shame in that. In an accident I once helped a driver who had been driving along with his arm resting on the door,open window. when a lorry struck him and his complete arm was torn off. I helped, with another to get him to the side of the road and did what I could for him until the arrival of the emergency services. So in an emergency most of us would deal with situations but couldn't do it as a full time job.
Plod - I find it difficult to accept that you truly believe it "outrageous" to suggest people can be trained to work under pressure in such situations as death and serious injury. How do ambulance and hospital staff cope if, as you appear to belive, they receive no prior training in that area of their work. What of the police officer that has to inform families of the death/serious injury of a loved one, I do not accept that duty is carried out without previous training.
 
 
On 28 May 2011 at 12:23pm 'ere be monsters wrote:
Extra, to receive a net pension of £1200 a month your "pension pot" would have to be about £300k, that's after your 20% tax free lump sum. Over your 30 years service (which I applaud) you would have to have paid in an average of £10k per annum into your fund. If you did, and that was 11.5% of your wages then you must be have averaged about £120k a year. I know you didn't. So where does the money come from? It would be interesting to know how much you did pay in towards your pension.
 
 
On 28 May 2011 at 2:38pm Andaxi wrote:
I started the thread as 'should police retire when due to?' It has now developed into a whipping post which is what I never intended it to.
Can we perhaps get back to being constructive which we may all find useful?
The main observation I made was that to implement retirement at the end of pensionable service, would in turn free up employment opportunities for others; whilst not making retiring officers struggle to live on what are seen as reasonable pensions.
 
 
On 28 May 2011 at 2:53pm 'ere be monsters wrote:
The reason they have to retire after 30 years is that they are not deemed fit enough for front line duties. Why can't they do desk jobs at the desk job rate and work to 65 like the rest of us?
 
 
On 28 May 2011 at 3:39pm bastian wrote:
ebm,it works like this..and for nurses to,coppers pay their 11% and the ones at the recruiting end of the force are paying their11% which bank rolls the older coppers on retirement ,then the new coppers contribute their 11% and so on,the only problem is,is that successive governments keep cutting back on coppers(full ones) and nurses and that is why the system is failing,every time there is one less nurse/copper at the bottom ,the pension pot drains instead of filling.
andaxi,sadly these forums are always corrupted by pension bashers,especially tory boy .
 
 
On 28 May 2011 at 4:05pm 'ere be monsters wrote:
Bastian, no it doesn't work.
11% of the pay at the recruitment end does not cover the retirement end. 11% can never cover the sort of pensions paid out. Fairly simple maths.
 
 
On 28 May 2011 at 5:30pm Extra wrote:
This is my last comment. Firstly apologies. I contributed 11% not 11.5% in pension contributions. The Police Pension is unique to the Police service, and the legislation at the time was the Police Pension Regulations 1987 an
awesome document summarised by Sussex Police Authority in a forty three page booklet, which is why I can't fully explain it here, but, for those interested there is sufficient information for you to research. Police Officers do not have join the scheme and many are opting out because they do not wish to commit to the length of service required. Now having bored for Britain, have a great weekend.
 
 
On 30 May 2011 at 12:46am Pensioner wrote:
It's not just the employee's contribution that counts towards a pension. The employer contributes too (quite right). And the pension pot is invested, to attract additional income.
1
 
On 30 May 2011 at 8:46am 'ere be monsters wrote:
That is simply not the case with most employers in the private sector. As extra stated, there is no pension fund increasing in size with investment. In the public sector we all pick up the bill and pay through our council tax. The pensions paid out in the public sector are far too generous and cannot be sustained.
 
 
On 30 May 2011 at 4:39pm bastian wrote:
you still haven't answered the point EBM,should a copper work til 65/68?.Could he/she still run after a robber at that age?that was the original question and let's leave pensions out of this this time.If a copper retires early they often go on to work for someone else anyway,thus contributing to your state pension with their taxes,do you want them to do that? or can we not afford your pension either?
 
 
On 30 May 2011 at 6:32pm 'ere be monsters wrote:
Read my earlier post and you'll see I did. If they carry on working then why do they need to retire? Policework is not all about running after robbers, when was the last time you heard about a copper chasing after someone anyway.They pay tax on their pension and they pay council tax. That's nothing to do with it. Why should they retire so early on a pension they haven't contributed enough to. The pension bit was in the original post so a valid part of the thread.
 
 
On 31 May 2011 at 1:24pm Slasher wrote:
Its part and parcel of being a police man EBM. The remuneration package includes a decent pension. Simple as that. If I contributed as much as police men do on top of my employers contribution, then I would retire on a decent pension too, but they have to contribute 5 times more that I choose to. You could have joined the police force and retired on a nice pension yourself, but instead you chose to do something else. Its a bit like asking why you shouldn't earn as much as a footballer. If you had been a footballer then you could have.
 
 
On 31 May 2011 at 2:29pm 'ere be monsters wrote:
That was true when a police officer was as badly paid as a nurse. Police pay and conditions have improved immensely over the last 30 years. A police officer starts on £23,259 after his training should they rise through the ranks and retire on an inspectors top salary of £50,751 they will have earned on average £37,000. 11% pa for 30 years totals £122k total in their pension pot. Retire with a 20% tax free lump leaves £98k. 75% of final salary £38k a year. Pot gone in less than 3 years. Don't begrudge anyone that pension, only trouble is we can't afford to keep paying out at those levels. You would not receive such a generous pension even if you paid 11% into your pension.
 
 
On 31 May 2011 at 2:43pm 'ere be monsters wrote:
Sorry 40/60ths of salary. £33000 pa so it would last 3 years (depending on the index linked rises pa)
 
 
On 31 May 2011 at 5:11pm Slasher wrote:
The one thing that you are forgetting EBM, is that the contributions are invested during the course of the policemans life, the same as anyone elses, so they are (or should be) worth considerably more than the total contributed by the time that individual retires. So, 11% of £23,259 invested now is going to worth a lot more than £2558 in 30 years time.
 
 
On 1 Jun 2011 at 10:29am 'ere be monsters wrote:
If you read the previous posts you will see that the contributions go to paying current pensions, there is no investment. Even if there were it would not reach the required levels to pay the pensions given. Index linked with family benefits require a huge pot to pay out even a small pension.
 
 
On 1 Jun 2011 at 7:07pm bastian wrote:
just out of interest EBM,were you this angry 30 years ago or is it a recent,post thatcher thing...it's just that all of a sudden everyone is having a go at anyone who has a public sector pension.30 years ago there were more police paid at the full rate (no specials on lower rates) and yet I don't remember anyone complaining because people had respect for those doing such vital jobs,this goes for teachers,dustmen,nurses...the only difference is,is that so much has been outsourced(dustmen included) that we have a right to have a go at the few public sector workers who are left.It's like shooting fish in a barrel.
 
 
On 1 Jun 2011 at 10:24pm jrsussex wrote:
bastian - There are greater numbers of public sectors employees now than there has ever been, where do you get the "few public sector workers" from?
I do not have a go at them or their pensions as such, what upsets me is the protection they have. Many private sector workers have lost much of their pensions in recent years but in the main public sector pensions are inflation proof, which cannot be right. Moreover that we now know the days of them earning less than the private sector are gone, their average salary/wage is greater.
 
 
On 2 Jun 2011 at 9:35am 'ere be monsters wrote:
Where do you get the idea that I'm angry Bastian. I've said I don't begrudge them their pensions that they signed up for and were promised. What I have said, quite calmly, is that we cannot sustain paying ludicrously high pensions to officers retiring so early in life. That was the origin of this thread.
 
 
On 2 Jun 2011 at 10:42am bastian wrote:
seriously j
there aren't more public employees, because many have been outsourced to private companies.Private companies don't offer the same pensions because they have to pay share holders.
 
 
On 2 Jun 2011 at 11:13am 'ere be monsters wrote:
They don't offer the same pensions because they would have to have the money in a pension pot to pay them. This cannot be achieved especially when you are talking about pensions that are index linked and continue to pay a spouse after the death of the pension holder.
 
 
On 2 Jun 2011 at 11:13am 'ere be monsters wrote:
They don't offer the same pensions because they would have to have the money in a pension pot to pay them. This cannot be achieved especially when you are talking about pensions that are index linked and continue to pay a spouse after the death of the pension holder.
 
 
On 3 Jun 2011 at 1:59pm bastian wrote:
they don't have a pension pot because that would take away money from share holders and that is more imprtant than the people who work for them or their secure future.This is what it's really about,security.If private pensions were secure more people would opt to take them up, but they aren't,we've all seen ordinary people lose their pensions when a company hits the wall.Capitalism is all about one company driving the other out through the cut and thrust of stockmarkets,hedgefunding and competition,it's waht the government want for our hosptals,schools etc,only it will in reality leave us,the little people with no security in our lives...the only people who have secuirty are the rich..most of us will not be rich because capitalism needs to keep a distance between rich consumers and the factory workers pay in order to make a profit..there is no room for human needs,there is no room for individuals future needs,it's a now thing.No one who wants to make a profit ever gave a damn about their workers future.The state is the last strong hold and instead of everyone asking why they can't have a secure top up pension of their own,they tear at the heels of anyone in the state sector that still has one.
 
 
On 3 Jun 2011 at 3:56pm 'ere be monsters wrote:
Wind your neck in Bastian, you thought I was getting angry. We're talking about whether police officers should work to proper retirement age. We're not discussing the horrid ravages of capitalism. Shame on anyone who should want to work hard, invest, take risks to earn a good living, building a pension pot and hopefully be able to live off it when they want to retire. Why can't we all pay 11% of our wages into a pension that would give us a huge lump sum and index linked pension that could be enjoyed after our death by the surviving spouse? Why not we all work just as hard?
1
 
On 3 Jun 2011 at 4:33pm Clifford wrote:
It always amuses me when people say being wealthy has anything to do with working hard. As we all know, the people who work hardest are usually the poorest. And the wealthiest usually do not work at all.


This thread has reached its limit now
Why not start another one


 

Cliffe Tableau Sepp Blatter 26:132
Cliffe Tableau Sepp Blatter

Just noticed. TP started "Quote of the Moment", although it's hard to understand what it's for. more
QUOTE OF THE MOMENT
I like The Grange Gardens, and the way the teashop has the most odd mixture of china from the charity shops
Jojo