Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: STEMO on 17 November 2020, 12:37:38
-
Some of the poor fellas have to actually get off their arse to go out and buy them ;D
Krispy Kreme price swap PC faces misconduct hearing https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-54971734
-
£9.95 for donuts ! I'd have wanted them cheaper as well 😂😂😂
-
Should be straight out on his arse for that :-X
-
Yes, he has got to go! :( :(
What a stupid thing to do ::) ::) ::) ::)
-
Although minor/silly, it raises inevitable concerns about his workplace. The same would apply to a lawyer, accountant... MP
-
It would have almost been better if he 'forgot' to pay...
But should be unemployed by Friday.
-
Plenty of serving police with far worse criminal records.
-
Plenty of serving police with far worse criminal records.
Would you care to expand?
-
Plenty of serving police with far worse criminal records.
Doing worse and formally getting caught are very different things.
On the face of it, police officers are NOT above the law. Which is how it should be. The supermarket in question would be well within their rights to prosecute.
-
Seems ridiculous to risk a decent job & a superb pension for the sake of £9.43 but he won't be the last, same daft things happen in the Prison Service we had a fairly new Officer who went on the lash & on the taxi ride home robbed & assaulted the taxi driver.
Don't understand what goes on in peoples heads sometimes.
-
Plenty of serving police with far worse criminal records.
Would you care to expand?
Google is your friend. Sky News covered it back in the summer.
-
Seems ridiculous to risk a decent job & a superb pension for the sake of £9.43 but he won't be the last, same daft things happen in the Prison Service we had a fairly new Officer who went on the lash & on the taxi ride home robbed & assaulted the taxi driver.
Don't understand what goes on in peoples heads sometimes.
There was a chap three months from retiring after 20 odd years who did summat daft, that he had previously been disciplined for... Cost him his job and his entire work pension and they kept back his unused holiday pay and final wages against the cost of undoing what he had done.
-
If its true... Total shit and a disgrace to the uniform. Not even thinking about the wider effect of his actions. Another thorn in the side of every decent copper who knows what it means to put the uniform on.
-
If its true... Total shit and a disgrace to the uniform. Not even thinking about the wider effect of his actions. Another thorn in the side of every decent copper who knows what it means to put the uniform on.
You're right 99% of coppers are hard working and honest. They do like a donut though ;D
-
Allegedly :D
-
If that sounds strong... Its only because any copper working the streets gets it that little bit harder because people like him do stupid, brainless, selfish things.
From that, every single, straight as a die, honest copper gets their work scrutinised yet further and the trust that should be placed in them, by the public, by the legal profession, and even by their own Senior Management Teams, gets slowly eroded.
In the grand scheme of things, £9.odd is very low value and neither here nor there. But its an extra brick in the wall. Anyone owning a small shop would want a police officer to take action if they saw someone stealing a tenners worth of stock. Its inconceivable that anyone would then think to attempt a similar value theft is acceptable.
-
It's beyond simple theft... It was a deliberate act of deception, which is arguably worse...
-
If its true... Total shit and a disgrace to the uniform. Not even thinking about the wider effect of his actions. Another thorn in the side of every decent copper who knows what it means to put the uniform on.
.
That's what really gets my goat, the uniform that you should be proud to wear that should set you apart from being a thief because that's what he is, in the Prison Service it always concerned decent staff if there was a "dodgy" one amongst us one who had been bought and would not cover your back if required, there is a line in uniformed services & once crossed they must be made to face the consequences.
-
It's beyond simple theft... It was a deliberate act of deception, which is arguably worse...
........and the apparent fact that he went from the cake area to the veg, then used the self service scales to weigh the carrot and print a 7p ticket, tells me this was so well considered in advance and practiced as though he had done such a thing before. >:(
In retail we often could identify thieves from their repeated action that got greedier over time and amounted to far more than £9! >:(
-
It's beyond simple theft... It was a deliberate act of deception, which is arguably worse...
........and the apparent fact that he went from the cake area to the veg, then used the self service scales to weigh the carrot and print a 7p ticket, tells me this was so well considered in advance and practiced as though he had done such a thing before. >:(
In retail we often could identify thieves from their repeated action that got greedier over time and amounted to far more than £9! >:(
.
These people cost honest folk a fortune, on our local TV station they were showing CCTV footage of a couple who were targeting restaurants & pubs ( when they were open) having a slap up meal & then when it came to pay their credit card was rejected, they made promises to return & pay but of course never did . It appears from the footage that the registration plate on their car may now be available so hopefully they will be caught.
-
It's probably the registration plate from someone else's car
I doubt such scum would bother to tax, insure and MOT a car , probably just a stolen ringer >:(
-
Some of the poor fellas have to actually get off their arse to go out and buy them ;D
Krispy Kreme price swap PC faces misconduct hearing https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-54971734
Absolutely appalling. The proper doughnuts in the bakery dept are much better.
-
Of course it could be a mental health issue. Anyone remember Isobel Barnett - whats my line?
-
Of course it could be a mental health issue. Anyone remember Isobel Barnett - whats my line?
That doesn't make it right.
-
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-55089146
Seems a pretty high price to pay for some doughnuts .....
He's been a copper since 2008 so not too much pension, which I'm guessing he loses .....
-
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-55089146
Seems a pretty high price to pay for some doughnuts .....
He's been a copper since 2008 so not too much pension, which I'm guessing he loses .....
.
12 years Pension would be worth a fair few quid they used to be able to retire on a full pension after 30 years service, don't think that has changed & yes I would imagine he'll lose the lot but serves him right.
-
Seems a fair price to me. Coppers who are stupid and dishonest enough to risk their career for a few doughnuts deserve to lose their career imo.
-
He says he made an honest mistake by scanning the same barcode twice. Yeah, right.. "Blimey, them donuts are cheap, only 14p for a carrot and a box of donuts". ;D
-
The shop would have been within their rights to prosecute him. Obviously would have been petty and not worth the cost given the scale of the theft.
He's lucky it was only gross misconduct and not a criminal record.
-
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-55089146
Seems a pretty high price to pay for some doughnuts .....
He's been a copper since 2008 so not too much pension, which I'm guessing he loses .....
.
12 years Pension would be worth a fair few quid they used to be able to retire on a full pension after 30 years service, don't think that has changed & yes I would imagine he'll lose the lot but serves him right.
I've always wondered about that. His pension payments would have been deducted from his salary and his employer would have contributed too. Surely they must return anything he's actually paid in, or they are punishing him retrospectively?
-
It would be in his contract... Work pensions are a benefit, not a right, and gross misconduct generally forfeits any benefits.
-
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-55089146
Seems a pretty high price to pay for some doughnuts .....
He's been a copper since 2008 so not too much pension, which I'm guessing he loses .....
.
12 years Pension would be worth a fair few quid they used to be able to retire on a full pension after 30 years service, don't think that has changed & yes I would imagine he'll lose the lot but serves him right.
I've always wondered about that. His pension payments would have been deducted from his salary and his employer would have contributed too. Surely they must return anything he's actually paid in, or they are punishing him retrospectively?
.
If it's the same as HMPS Steve he would receive nothing , known a few over the years who have been " walked to the gate" for being completely stupid.
-
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-55089146
Seems a pretty high price to pay for some doughnuts .....
He's been a copper since 2008 so not too much pension, which I'm guessing he loses .....
.
I've always wondered about that. His pension payments would have been deducted from his salary and his employer would have contributed too. Surely they must return anything he's actually paid in, or they are punishing him retrospectively?
I would have thought that his own personal contributions could be transferred to another pension, just as if he'd left the job of his own accord. The company contributions would stay in the pension scheme pot, so still a big loss. :-\ I thought this was the case for all but the serious crimes committed though, like stealing real doughnuts, instead of those horrible shiny things in a box. :-\
It won't keep me awake worrying about it though. ::)
-
Should be ok for a career in the private security trade. :)
-
Should be ok for a career in the private security trade. :)
But not store detective.
-
How about Greggs ?
-
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-55089146
Seems a pretty high price to pay for some doughnuts .....
He's been a copper since 2008 so not too much pension, which I'm guessing he loses .....
.
I've always wondered about that. His pension payments would have been deducted from his salary and his employer would have contributed too. Surely they must return anything he's actually paid in, or they are punishing him retrospectively?
I would have thought that his own personal contributions could be transferred to another pension, just as if he'd left the job of his own accord. The company contributions would stay in the pension scheme pot, so still a big loss. :-\ I thought this was the case for all but the serious crimes committed though, like stealing real doughnuts, instead of those horrible shiny things in a box. :-\
It won't keep me awake worrying about it though. ::)
There is no pot - no concept of personal or company contributions. It's effectively a government run Ponzi scheme. The Govt promise to pay the pension from future taxation. You qualify for the pension by paying your contributions. There is no link between what you pay in, and what you get back as a pension.
That said, it wouldn't surprise me to find that the govt have overlooked some aspects of pension law here. If the pension was non contributory than they may be ok revoking the pension rights. However, if he's been paying contributions to qualify for the scheme then as you say they are confiscating something he's paid for. There is also the issue of Police pension reform, which happened in 2012, where they close the old scheme and opened the new one.
I can see a clued up lawyer running rings round the govt here if the ex-officer decides to take things further.
-
clued up lawyers don't work for
peanuts donuts ;D
-
He could change the price sticker on some champagne?
-
At risk of repeating myself...
https://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/employment/312-employment-features/35240-employee-misconduct-and-lgps-pension-forfeiture
-
While it's possible DG, think his contributions will just be frozen
-
https://www.policeprofessional.com/news/forfeiture-of-police-pensions/
-
His pension will be forfeited.
-
His pension will be forfeited.
The man who knows, that's good enough for me.
-
Well, he 'saved' almost £10 to put into his new pension...
-
His pension will be forfeited.
The man who knows, that's good enough for me.
.
Said that all along.
-
On our regional news , brought disrepute to the service by stealing whilst in uniform , what a disgrace.
-
and another one about to lose job and pension it would appear ....
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cornwall-55107433
I always thought coppers were picked for having "common sense" .... seems I was wrong !
-
Had a few living near me a while ago. Some of the antics were a way of saying "i'm above the law". Was very embarrassing for the young coppers who had to tell them to quieten down the rowdy parties at 3 in the morning. ;D
-
and another one about to lose job and pension it would appear ....
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cornwall-55107433
I always thought coppers were picked for having "common sense" .... seems I was wrong !
.
And who said romance was dead 😂😂😂
-
There is no Police hedge fund or pension pot. The monies taken today from serving cops as pension contributions get paid out to current pensioners tomorrow.
There is not one brass razzoo paid by HMG into the system. It’s wholly self funded.
A number of factors, including the massive drop in serving cops, means it is not self sustaining and liable to bankrupt police authorities unless changed.
And so it was changed and ye olde 30 years service and retire was binned.
They now need to pay in a greater percentage for longer, to get less back!
.......which causes more to leave, changing it from a career to a phase of employed life, and, in my opinion, a lowering of standards and reality expectations from both cops and public.
-
There is no Police hedge fund or pension pot. The monies taken today from serving cops as pension contributions get paid out to current pensioners tomorrow.
There is not one brass razzoo paid by HMG into the system. It’s wholly self funded.
A number of factors, including the massive drop in serving cops, means it is not self sustaining and liable to bankrupt police authorities unless changed.
And so it was changed and ye olde 30 years service and retire was binned.
They now need to pay in a greater percentage for longer, to get less back!
.......which causes more to leave, changing it from a career to a phase of employed life, and, in my opinion, a lowering of standards and reality expectations from both cops and public.
Sorry, but that's complete rubbish. There is NO police pension fund. It is not self funded. It is paid for by tax payers. Same as Teachers, Civil servants, firemen, armed forces etc.
The money paid by serving coppers is (NOW) supposed to be representative of private pension schemes, but in the real world it is no-where near comparible. For a private pension to pay out anything similar to what a public sector pension pays you would have to pay at least double what is deducted from a police-mans salary. They are gold plated, not subject to investment performance, and very very low risk.
Yes there have been changes in the past 10 years or so which means the deductions from the police salaries are now more than they used to be, but these deductions don't come anywhere close to covering the full cost to the tax payer of the pension that will be paid out in future years. But the pension that is built up is still massively better than anything you can build in the private sector.
-
There is no Police hedge fund or pension pot. The monies taken today from serving cops as pension contributions get paid out to current pensioners tomorrow.
There is not one brass razzoo paid by HMG into the system. It’s wholly self funded.
A number of factors, including the massive drop in serving cops, means it is not self sustaining and liable to bankrupt police authorities unless changed.
And so it was changed and ye olde 30 years service and retire was binned.
They now need to pay in a greater percentage for longer, to get less back!
.......which causes more to leave, changing it from a career to a phase of employed life, and, in my opinion, a lowering of standards and reality expectations from both cops and public.
Sorry, but that's complete rubbish. There is NO police pension fund. It is not self funded. It is paid for by tax payers. Same as Teachers, Civil servants, firemen, armed forces etc.
The money paid by serving coppers is (NOW) supposed to be representative of private pension schemes, but in the real world it is no-where near comparible. For a private pension to pay out anything similar to what a public sector pension pays you would have to pay at least double what is deducted from a police-mans salary. They are gold plated, not subject to investment performance, and very very low risk.
Yes there have been changes in the past 10 years or so which means the deductions from the police salaries are now more than they used to be, but these deductions don't come anywhere close to covering the full cost to the tax payer of the pension that will be paid out in future years. But the pension that is built up is still massively better than anything you can build in the private sector.
Let’s agree to disagree.... :)
-
There is no Police hedge fund or pension pot. The monies taken today from serving cops as pension contributions get paid out to current pensioners tomorrow.
There is not one brass razzoo paid by HMG into the system. It’s wholly self funded.
A number of factors, including the massive drop in serving cops, means it is not self sustaining and liable to bankrupt police authorities unless changed.
And so it was changed and ye olde 30 years service and retire was binned.
They now need to pay in a greater percentage for longer, to get less back!
.......which causes more to leave, changing it from a career to a phase of employed life, and, in my opinion, a lowering of standards and reality expectations from both cops and public.
Sorry, but that's complete rubbish. There is NO police pension fund. It is not self funded. It is paid for by tax payers. Same as Teachers, Civil servants, firemen, armed forces etc.
The money paid by serving coppers is (NOW) supposed to be representative of private pension schemes, but in the real world it is no-where near comparible. For a private pension to pay out anything similar to what a public sector pension pays you would have to pay at least double what is deducted from a police-mans salary. They are gold plated, not subject to investment performance, and very very low risk.
Yes there have been changes in the past 10 years or so which means the deductions from the police salaries are now more than they used to be, but these deductions don't come anywhere close to covering the full cost to the tax payer of the pension that will be paid out in future years. But the pension that is built up is still massively better than anything you can build in the private sector.
Let’s agree to disagree.... :)
Ok, you go on living in your dream world. However, in the real world...
https://www.unbiased.co.uk/life/pensions-retirement/public-sector-pensions.
-
There are very few genuine careers left. Life is just a string of 'jobs'.
-
I think Broccie has a pretty good idea of how his pension works :-X
-
I think Broccie has a pretty good idea of how his pension works :-X
His pension will probably be pre 2016.. so a final salary scheme. Post 2016 it became a career average scheme. When wifey became a teacher in 1972, she was supposed to retire at 60, and her contribution was 6% of her salary. She now pays 11.7% of her salary and will get her full pension at 67. There are ways to retire earlier, but on a much reduced pension.
Malcolm is right about the way the scheme works for all public servants. No pot, just an IOU.
-
Why it is such a good pension, btw, is that while she contributes 11.7% of her salary, her employer contributes another ~13%, meaning there is a total of ~25% of her salary going into the scheme.
-
Bit I imagine a guaranteed amount on retirement, and not dependent on how the investment of contributions perform ?
-
Why it is such a good pension, btw, is that while she contributes 11.7% of her salary, her employer contributes another ~13%, meaning there is a total of ~25% of her salary going into the scheme.
I'm guessing that ~13% is coming directly from the taxpayers pocket?
-
Bit I imagine a guaranteed amount on retirement, and not dependent on how the investment of contributions perform ?
Yes, the money is not invested.
-
Why it is such a good pension, btw, is that while she contributes 11.7% of her salary, her employer contributes another ~13%, meaning there is a total of ~25% of her salary going into the scheme.
I'm guessing that ~13% is coming directly from the taxpayers pocket?
If you think about it, everything is coming from the tax payers pocket. That's the same for hospitals, prisons, HM forces, etc
-
Why it is such a good pension, btw, is that while she contributes 11.7% of her salary, her employer contributes another ~13%, meaning there is a total of ~25% of her salary going into the scheme.
I'm guessing that ~13% is coming directly from the taxpayers pocket?
If you think about it, everything is coming from the tax payers pocket. That's the same for hospitals, prisons, HM forces, etc
.
Having been fortunate to have served/worked in all 3 mentioned above I can assure you that a tax free lump sum is provided + an index linked pension unless of course you were unable to resist repricing doughnuts..😃
-
Why it is such a good pension, btw, is that while she contributes 11.7% of her salary, her employer contributes another ~13%, meaning there is a total of ~25% of her salary going into the scheme.
I'm guessing that ~13% is coming directly from the taxpayers pocket?
If you think about it, everything is coming from the tax payers pocket. That's the same for hospitals, prisons, HM forces, etc
.
Having been fortunate to have served/worked in all 3 mentioned above I can assure you that a tax free lump sum is provided + an index linked pension unless of course you were unable to resist repricing doughnuts..😃
Ssshhhhh Mick, people get very wound up about such things.... ::)
-
Why it is such a good pension, btw, is that while she contributes 11.7% of her salary, her employer contributes another ~13%, meaning there is a total of ~25% of her salary going into the scheme.
I'm guessing that ~13% is coming directly from the taxpayers pocket?
If you think about it, everything is coming from the tax payers pocket. That's the same for hospitals, prisons, HM forces, etc
.
Having been fortunate to have served/worked in all 3 mentioned above I can assure you that a tax free lump sum is provided + an index linked pension unless of course you were unable to resist repricing doughnuts..😃
Ssshhhhh Mick, people get very wound up about such things.... ::)
.
Don't worry I've got broad shoulders ! Forgot to mention our generous state pension as well Steve, downside is I still pay a lot of income tax ..😅😅😅
-
Why it is such a good pension, btw, is that while she contributes 11.7% of her salary, her employer contributes another ~13%, meaning there is a total of ~25% of her salary going into the scheme.
I'm guessing that ~13% is coming directly from the taxpayers pocket?
If you think about it, everything is coming from the tax payers pocket. That's the same for hospitals, prisons, HM forces, etc
.
Having been fortunate to have served/worked in all 3 mentioned above I can assure you that a tax free lump sum is provided + an index linked pension unless of course you were unable to resist repricing doughnuts..😃
Ssshhhhh Mick, people get very wound up about such things.... ::)
If that's referring to me, then I have no problem with public sector workers receiving the pension that they were promised at the point they were 'paying' for it. There are many coppers who were in the military earlier in their careers - and no doubt that applies to prison officers too. They have done the job they were paid to do and IMV are entitled to the benefits they were promised too.
Where there is a problem is the assumption that the conditions that apply when you join the public service should remain unaltered until you retire. The recent changes to public service pensions (roughly) doubled the contributions required from the member, and the accrual rates and ages at which you could draw them generally increased. This definatley made them less 'valuable', but they are still near-zero risk, not linked to investment returns, with a return roughly double what you can expect to receive in the private sector. So in simple terms yes they are half as valuable as they used to be, but still double what you'll get elsewhere. They're now 18ct Gold plated vs 24ct Gold plated.
There was a time where a Police officer earned one years pension for each year worked for the first 20 years, and then 2 years pension for each year worked for the next 10 years. The maximum accrual was 40 'years' pension, but an officer only needed to work 30 years to earn the full 40 years pension. So an officer joining at (say) 20 years old could retire at 50 on a full pension. The recent changes have stopped all that, and it's that change which many resent.
As for the employer contribution, that's basically just an accounting gimmick - one arm of the govt passing money to another arm of the govt. The only purpose appears to be that the Police authorities have to keep a cap on the number and pay of officers because they have to pay back some of the money they receive from HMG back to the treasury.
-
No, it wasn't referring to you in the slightest. Can't see why you'd think it would :-\
-
The retirement age of 67 is something of a misnomer too. Can anyone honestly see a copper, a nurse, a prison officer or a class teacher still doing the job at that age. Unless the police and NHS are different, I can only speak for education.
-
The retirement age of 67 is something of a misnomer too. Can anyone honestly see a copper, a nurse, a prison officer or a class teacher still doing the job at that age. Unless the police and NHS are different, I can only speak for education.
.
A fitness test was introduced for Prison Officers who joined after or around 2002 I believe, which they have to pass annually, a high percentage will not be able to pass this as there is no age concession so they will be natural wastage downgraded to OSG or found a position of civilian grade.
-
The retirement age of 67 is something of a misnomer too. Can anyone honestly see a copper, a nurse, a prison officer or a class teacher still doing the job at that age. Unless the police and NHS are different, I can only speak for education.
Point is, pensions were invented/intended to give you income when you are too old to work. No-one is saying that a fireman, police officer or soldier can continue in post until state pension age, but there are other jobs that these people can do once they are 50+. What could not continue was public service employees retiring on full pensions (typically 2/3rds of final salary) below age 60. It was costing the tax payer far too much what with current 65yo life expectancy being 85 for men and 87 for women.
Most public sector pensions can be taken at age 55 if you really want to. However, there are big reductions though - typically 5% per year under 67. So if you take the pension at age 55 then typically you'll lose 50% of it's value. If at all possible it's best to get to 65 (better still 67) before drawing it.
There are plenty of people with no pension provision other than the state pension, and they'll have to work till 67.
-
The retirement age of 67 is something of a misnomer too. Can anyone honestly see a copper, a nurse, a prison officer or a class teacher still doing the job at that age. Unless the police and NHS are different, I can only speak for education.
Point is, pensions were invented/intended to give you income when you are too old to work. No-one is saying that a fireman, police officer or soldier can continue in post until state pension age, but there are other jobs that these people can do once they are 50+. What could not continue was public service employees retiring on full pensions (typically 2/3rds of final salary) below age 60. It was costing the tax payer far too much what with current 65yo life expectancy being 85 for men and 87 for women.
Most public sector pensions can be taken at age 55 if you really want to. However, there are big reductions though - typically 5% per year under 67. So if you take the pension at age 55 then typically you'll lose 50% of it's value. If at all possible it's best to get to 65 (better still 67) before drawing it.
There are plenty of people with no pension provision other than the state pension, and they'll have to work till 67.
Like?
-
The retirement age of 67 is something of a misnomer too. Can anyone honestly see a copper, a nurse, a prison officer or a class teacher still doing the job at that age. Unless the police and NHS are different, I can only speak for education.
I missed firefighters off, sorry. Now that is a physical job.
I think something has got to be put in place before 2026 when the transition ends. People will become ineffective/dangerous in their jobs trying to hang on as long as possible for fear of losing a large part of their pension.
-
The retirement age of 67 is something of a misnomer too. Can anyone honestly see a copper, a nurse, a prison officer or a class teacher still doing the job at that age. Unless the police and NHS are different, I can only speak for education.
Point is, pensions were invented/intended to give you income when you are too old to work. No-one is saying that a fireman, police officer or soldier can continue in post until state pension age, but there are other jobs that these people can do once they are 50+. What could not continue was public service employees retiring on full pensions (typically 2/3rds of final salary) below age 60. It was costing the tax payer far too much what with current 65yo life expectancy being 85 for men and 87 for women.
Most public sector pensions can be taken at age 55 if you really want to. However, there are big reductions though - typically 5% per year under 67. So if you take the pension at age 55 then typically you'll lose 50% of it's value. If at all possible it's best to get to 65 (better still 67) before drawing it.
There are plenty of people with no pension provision other than the state pension, and they'll have to work till 67.
Indeed. One of my oldest friends I saw rise from being a PC on the beat to finally a Chief Superintendent of a Traffic Division when he decided to retire at 55. As he was always academically minded, specialising in IT, he then went on a teachers training course and into adult education, which he loves as his last employment before he retires to enjoy a very good pension indeed. 8) 8) :D :D ;)
-
The retirement age of 67 is something of a misnomer too. Can anyone honestly see a copper, a nurse, a prison officer or a class teacher still doing the job at that age. Unless the police and NHS are different, I can only speak for education.
Point is, pensions were invented/intended to give you income when you are too old to work. No-one is saying that a fireman, police officer or soldier can continue in post until state pension age, but there are other jobs that these people can do once they are 50+. What could not continue was public service employees retiring on full pensions (typically 2/3rds of final salary) below age 60. It was costing the tax payer far too much what with current 65yo life expectancy being 85 for men and 87 for women.
Most public sector pensions can be taken at age 55 if you really want to. However, there are big reductions though - typically 5% per year under 67. So if you take the pension at age 55 then typically you'll lose 50% of it's value. If at all possible it's best to get to 65 (better still 67) before drawing it.
There are plenty of people with no pension provision other than the state pension, and they'll have to work till 67.
Like?
Like any job that over 50's currently do.
-
The retirement age of 67 is something of a misnomer too. Can anyone honestly see a copper, a nurse, a prison officer or a class teacher still doing the job at that age. Unless the police and NHS are different, I can only speak for education.
I missed firefighters off, sorry. Now that is a physical job.
I think something has got to be put in place before 2026 when the transition ends. People will become ineffective/dangerous in their jobs trying to hang on as long as possible for fear of losing a large part of their pension.
It shouldn't be "a fear of losing a large part of their pension". It should be working out what you are going to do for the final 15 years of your working life before you retire rather than assuming wrongly that the tax payer is going to fund your retirement from 50.
If you want to retire at 50 then YOU need to make provisions to do that, you can't expect the tax payer to fund you.
-
The retirement age of 67 is something of a misnomer too. Can anyone honestly see a copper, a nurse, a prison officer or a class teacher still doing the job at that age. Unless the police and NHS are different, I can only speak for education.
I missed firefighters off, sorry. Now that is a physical job.
I think something has got to be put in place before 2026 when the transition ends. People will become ineffective/dangerous in their jobs trying to hang on as long as possible for fear of losing a large part of their pension.
It shouldn't be "a fear of losing a large part of their pension". It should be working out what you are going to do for the final 15 years of your working life before you retire rather than assuming wrongly that the tax payer is going to fund your retirement from 50.
If you want to retire at 50 then YOU need to make provisions to do that, you can't expect the tax payer to fund you.
No teacher is going to find any kind of comparable work at 55, so they will hang on for grim death to the job they know, whether they are competent or not. When a teacher gets a bit 'tired' and is challenged on their performance, it usually leads to resignation and retirement. This will not happen after 2026 when the last of the transition members have retired and, short of a mass sacking, the classrooms will have a significant amount of teachers who are not capable. Not good for education. Also not good for any other service.
And I don't see any mention of 50 in my post :-\
-
No teacher is going to find any kind of comparable work at 55, so they will hang on for grim death to the job they know, whether they are competent or not. When a teacher gets a bit 'tired' and is challenged on their performance, it usually leads to resignation and retirement. This will not happen after 2026 when the last of the transition members have retired and, short of a mass sacking, the classrooms will have a significant amount of teachers who are not capable. Not good for education. Also not good for any other service.
So because teachers don't want to do the work that is available to them, the tax payer should pay them their pensions 12 years early with no reductions?
I do agree that one of the effect will probably be that people try to hang on to their existing jobs well past their natural sell by dates. Ultimatley that's a job for management to sort out, and historically public sector management hasn't been as effective as private sector.
And I don't see any mention of 50 in my post :-\
Ok I'll rephrase. If you want to retire in your 50's then YOU need to make provisions to do that, you can't expect the tax payer to fund you
-
No teacher is going to find any kind of comparable work at 55, so they will hang on for grim death to the job they know, whether they are competent or not. When a teacher gets a bit 'tired' and is challenged on their performance, it usually leads to resignation and retirement. This will not happen after 2026 when the last of the transition members have retired and, short of a mass sacking, the classrooms will have a significant amount of teachers who are not capable. Not good for education. Also not good for any other service.
So because teachers don't want to do the work that is available to them, the tax payer should pay them their pensions 12 years early with no reductions?
I do agree that one of the effect will probably be that people try to hang on to their existing jobs well past their natural sell by dates. Ultimatley that's a job for management to sort out, and historically public sector management hasn't been as effective as private sector.
And I don't see any mention of 50 in my post :-\
Ok I'll rephrase. If you want to retire in your 50's then YOU need to make provisions to do that, you can't expect the tax payer to fund you
I didn't say they didn't want to work, you're twisting things. I said they wouldn't find any comparable work and, let's be honest, I doubt they'd find anything at all. The harsh reality attitude is fine, if that's the way you roll, but it smacks of vitriol.
-
No teacher is going to find any kind of comparable work at 55, so they will hang on for grim death to the job they know, whether they are competent or not. When a teacher gets a bit 'tired' and is challenged on their performance, it usually leads to resignation and retirement. This will not happen after 2026 when the last of the transition members have retired and, short of a mass sacking, the classrooms will have a significant amount of teachers who are not capable. Not good for education. Also not good for any other service.
So because teachers don't want to do the work that is available to them, the tax payer should pay them their pensions 12 years early with no reductions?
I do agree that one of the effect will probably be that people try to hang on to their existing jobs well past their natural sell by dates. Ultimatley that's a job for management to sort out, and historically public sector management hasn't been as effective as private sector.
And I don't see any mention of 50 in my post :-\
Ok I'll rephrase. If you want to retire in your 50's then YOU need to make provisions to do that, you can't expect the tax payer to fund you
I didn't say they didn't want to work, you're twisting things. I said they wouldn't find any comparable work and, let's be honest, I doubt they'd find anything at all. The harsh reality attitude is fine, if that's the way you roll, but it smacks of vitriol.
But what gives teachers/firemen/policemen etc a right to 'comparable' work once they are unable or unwilling to do their current job?
In the private sector you typically get 'let go' if/when you become unable to do the job. Or you resign if you become unwilling to do the job. Either way you then need to try and find another job, but it doesn't have to be 'comparable. Some people end up stacking the shelves in Asda, others may use their experience and training to find management jobs.
The problem is with the jobs for life mindset (mainly) in the public sector, and that once you can't/won't do the job any more they should pay you your pension instead. That model is unaffordable. You can call that vitriol if you like - I see it as reality.
-
Both my parents were teachers until they retired.
Mum got a couple of part time jobs to keep her busy for a couple more years.
My uncle, on the other hand, due to the 30 year service rule, had to retire at 45/6... having joined the Police as a cadet. He has just hit 70 and is still working part time.
-
The retirement age of 67 is something of a misnomer too. Can anyone honestly see a copper, a nurse, a prison officer or a class teacher still doing the job at that age. Unless the police and NHS are different, I can only speak for education.
Point is, pensions were invented/intended to give you income when you are too old to work. No-one is saying that a fireman, police officer or soldier can continue in post until state pension age, but there are other jobs that these people can do once they are 50+. What could not continue was public service employees retiring on full pensions (typically 2/3rds of final salary) below age 60. It was costing the tax payer far too much what with current 65yo life expectancy being 85 for men and 87 for women.
Most public sector pensions can be taken at age 55 if you really want to. However, there are big reductions though - typically 5% per year under 67. So if you take the pension at age 55 then typically you'll lose 50% of it's value. If at all possible it's best to get to 65 (better still 67) before drawing it.
There are plenty of people with no pension provision other than the state pension, and they'll have to work till 67.
Indeed. One of my oldest friends I saw rise from being a PC on the beat to finally a Chief Superintendent of a Traffic Division when he decided to retire at 55. As he was always academically minded, specialising in IT, he then went on a teachers training course and into adult education, which he loves as his last employment before he retires to enjoy a very good pension indeed. 8) 8) :D :D ;)
.
And good luck to him Lizzie he's earned it fair & square same as I have all this bleating about "unfairness" everyone has a choice and hopefully enough commonsense to look ahead financially.
No point in having plenty of leisure time & no cash it's that simple.
-
The retirement age of 67 is something of a misnomer too. Can anyone honestly see a copper, a nurse, a prison officer or a class teacher still doing the job at that age. Unless the police and NHS are different, I can only speak for education.
Point is, pensions were invented/intended to give you income when you are too old to work. No-one is saying that a fireman, police officer or soldier can continue in post until state pension age, but there are other jobs that these people can do once they are 50+. What could not continue was public service employees retiring on full pensions (typically 2/3rds of final salary) below age 60. It was costing the tax payer far too much what with current 65yo life expectancy being 85 for men and 87 for women.
Most public sector pensions can be taken at age 55 if you really want to. However, there are big reductions though - typically 5% per year under 67. So if you take the pension at age 55 then typically you'll lose 50% of it's value. If at all possible it's best to get to 65 (better still 67) before drawing it.
There are plenty of people with no pension provision other than the state pension, and they'll have to work till 67.
Indeed. One of my oldest friends I saw rise from being a PC on the beat to finally a Chief Superintendent of a Traffic Division when he decided to retire at 55. As he was always academically minded, specialising in IT, he then went on a teachers training course and into adult education, which he loves as his last employment before he retires to enjoy a very good pension indeed. 8) 8) :D :D ;)
.
And good luck to him Lizzie he's earned it fair & square same as I have all this bleating about "unfairness" everyone has a choice and hopefully enough commonsense to look ahead financially.
No point in having plenty of leisure time & no cash it's that simple.
The opposite also applies ... a shit load of pension when too ill/infirm to enjoy it is somewhat pointless.
Do your own number crunching and make your own decision..... I left the RAF with a decent eneough pension. but worked part time in the courts for a few years as a "top up" ... Mrs E worked part time in education but took early retirement the same month my state OAP started to be paid as that plus her (reduced for early) pension worked out about the same ... we "did the numbers" and made decisions that suited US .. no one else ... and no regrets here at all.
-
The retirement age of 67 is something of a misnomer too. Can anyone honestly see a copper, a nurse, a prison officer or a class teacher still doing the job at that age. Unless the police and NHS are different, I can only speak for education.
Point is, pensions were invented/intended to give you income when you are too old to work. No-one is saying that a fireman, police officer or soldier can continue in post until state pension age, but there are other jobs that these people can do once they are 50+. What could not continue was public service employees retiring on full pensions (typically 2/3rds of final salary) below age 60. It was costing the tax payer far too much what with current 65yo life expectancy being 85 for men and 87 for women.
Most public sector pensions can be taken at age 55 if you really want to. However, there are big reductions though - typically 5% per year under 67. So if you take the pension at age 55 then typically you'll lose 50% of it's value. If at all possible it's best to get to 65 (better still 67) before drawing it.
There are plenty of people with no pension provision other than the state pension, and they'll have to work till 67.
Indeed. One of my oldest friends I saw rise from being a PC on the beat to finally a Chief Superintendent of a Traffic Division when he decided to retire at 55. As he was always academically minded, specialising in IT, he then went on a teachers training course and into adult education, which he loves as his last employment before he retires to enjoy a very good pension indeed. 8) 8) :D :D ;)
.
And good luck to him Lizzie he's earned it fair & square same as I have all this bleating about "unfairness" everyone has a choice and hopefully enough commonsense to look ahead financially.
No point in having plenty of leisure time & no cash it's that simple.
The opposite also applies ... a shit load of pension when too ill/infirm to enjoy it is somewhat pointless.
Do your own number crunching and make your own decision..... I left the RAF with a decent eneough pension. but worked part time in the courts for a few years as a "top up" ... Mrs E worked part time in education but took early retirement the same month my state OAP started to be paid as that plus her (reduced for early) pension worked out about the same ... we "did the numbers" and made decisions that suited US .. no one else ... and no regrets here at all.
.
Virtually same scenario here although I vowed not to work again once retired, some folk are financially astute and some are not do your figures as you say .
-
The retirement age of 67 is something of a misnomer too. Can anyone honestly see a copper, a nurse, a prison officer or a class teacher still doing the job at that age. Unless the police and NHS are different, I can only speak for education.
Point is, pensions were invented/intended to give you income when you are too old to work. No-one is saying that a fireman, police officer or soldier can continue in post until state pension age, but there are other jobs that these people can do once they are 50+. What could not continue was public service employees retiring on full pensions (typically 2/3rds of final salary) below age 60. It was costing the tax payer far too much what with current 65yo life expectancy being 85 for men and 87 for women.
Most public sector pensions can be taken at age 55 if you really want to. However, there are big reductions though - typically 5% per year under 67. So if you take the pension at age 55 then typically you'll lose 50% of it's value. If at all possible it's best to get to 65 (better still 67) before drawing it.
There are plenty of people with no pension provision other than the state pension, and they'll have to work till 67.
Indeed. One of my oldest friends I saw rise from being a PC on the beat to finally a Chief Superintendent of a Traffic Division when he decided to retire at 55. As he was always academically minded, specialising in IT, he then went on a teachers training course and into adult education, which he loves as his last employment before he retires to enjoy a very good pension indeed. 8) 8) :D :D ;)
.
And good luck to him Lizzie he's earned it fair & square same as I have all this bleating about "unfairness" everyone has a choice and hopefully enough commonsense to look ahead financially.
No point in having plenty of leisure time & no cash it's that simple.
Oh yes indeed Rangie. He had a very active service and was very 'involved' as you would expect from some one who rose through the ranks as he did. Some of his work was harrowing, apart from the huge 'life or death' responsibility he took especially when he became involved in Gold Command decisions, let alone 'everyday' duties.
I would never deny such an individual their very well deserved retirement, no matter how much it "costs" us taxpayers. Knowing what I did with him and now with current high ranking and lesser police officers, with some of the crap they have to deal with, all I can do is praise their dedication, professionalism and pure grit no matter how long or short their service is. We rely on them everyday whilst they Protect and Serve us often against the odds.
If others cannot, and did not, plan for the future and ensure they had a sound pension in place that could support them beyond the State Pension then that is their problem. It is no good them moaning about others, Public Servants or those in the Commercial World, ending up with the pensions they envy. Those pensions were well earned, as I know mine was, with much hard long hours graft, tears, frustrations, and even danger involved at times (or everyday in the example of 999 workers and the armed services) doing our duty. ;)
-
Absolutely agree Lizzie, you have to be a certain type to have a successful career in any of the uniformed services & many would simply not hack it and choose easier jobs/careers, glad to say our son is in the Police and we are very proud of him.