Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing most liked content on 22/03/15 in all areas

  1. 3 points
    ...……. Staffs did not get legal advice, that is a copy from Fed in Region 2 who sourced their own independent advice. Mr Sturzaker, from Slater Gordon (Fed solicitor) worked with Mr Rennie on the proposed pension proposal & it was Mr Sturzaker who stated the above…………..so it was in his interest to say that protection could be removed from all protected officers, as it was he who was going round the country with Mr Rennie doing road shows and what better thing to say, to stop officers in their tracks, and deflect attention away from themselves. We now need Fed in Region 2 to take the finished 2015 pension scheme back to their Independent QC, nothing to do with National Fed, and get advice on how we move forward. If they agree to take a case to court and National Fed will not fund it then all Local Feds needs to divert their money to help Region 2 fight the cause with truly independent advice. Mr Sturzaker & his company cannot play any further part in this pension challenge as he proposed it in the first place…….....what is he going to do, challenge himself ………….and the funny thing is National Fed will only release any funding if, you guess it, Mr Sturzaker agrees to it as he is Feds advisor on 'cash for challenges'……...
  2. 2 points
    I have had a flyer posted through my letter box from the Conservative party today and sent the prospective candidate for North West Durham Charlotte Taylor an E mail in response. I asked :- What about Immigration. What about the EU referendum, we have been promised one before but it never materialised What about cutting Police Numbers far beyond what is acceptable. Whar about Police pensions - pay more for less over a longer time What about fiddling the crime stats it is their directive that causes them to be 'massaged'. What about cutting the number of the Armed forces, relying on the reserves isn't acceptable What about MP's fiddling expences, they are still at it and they get away with theft - no questions asked What about a bit of honesty and truthefulness because we, the public, are not stupid and we can tell when they are lying to us. I have also mentioned that the area where she wishes to represent is an old Coal Mining area, miners have very long memories and she hasn't a cat in hells chance of winning! I will await her response, if I ever get one that is.
  3. 2 points
    The SNP are hell bent on breaking up the United Kingdom, using every tactic and promise that they can. Apparently Nicola Sturgeon has had a life time hatred of the Tory's and Margaret Thatcher in particular and vilified the "right to buy scheme" of Council properties. Guess what, as a teenage girl her parents took advantage by buying their council house for £8,000 and it is now valued at over £170,000. That smacks of hypocrisy, like most of the SNP. I can understand OldCoppers dislike and mistrust of them. Alex Salmon went on a £500,000 juncket last year to the USA and came back with a promise that 5,000 jobs would be brought to Scotland by American firms. Best Hotels, 1st Class flights the lot. The total result so far is that one American Firm already in Scotland has cut 80 jobs. The other 5,000 jobs, pie in the sky promises. And people trust the SNP, bah humbug. If they support Labour in Parliament they want what, Yes another referendum. I say let them have a referendum but that everyone resident in Scotland, and also every Scots born person be allowed a vote.
  4. 2 points
    Pork and Recap999 - Of course there's 'hope of a challenge' - it just needs some impetus! Furthermore, as I have said many times, it can ONLY happen AFTER April 1st. It sounds like you are both part of those 'resigned' to the change?? DON'T join the flock!! Stay positive and ALWAYS tell others that the legal challenge to this travesty is only just getting underway! Nothing will be confirmed until the courts have had their say. Fight hard against the loss of £150k-£300k (depending no how you look at it) and never lose sight of your rights! Like the A19 scenario - a group of shafted people like you, disgruntled gun and shafted (for instance) can start to make representation to your pensions admin and the Fed - have to start with the Fed for them to confirm/deny if they will offer support. If not then a fund can be generated by shafted people to take a private challenge forward - like A19 - that discussion requires a separate post, but rest assured it can/will happen! But let's say £100 from each person who is potentially losing out on £150k (that should start a fighting fund!). Cheese - Section 2 is the MOST likely - it is the only protection that has been DIRECTLY disregarded or breached! ALL of the legal rubbish that has been quoted so far is conjecture and assumption. Fuelled, mainly by the Fed, who have issued numerous statements based on the same wishy washy conjecture! Words like 'a legal challenge would be foolish' (why!!???!!) are SO empty and unconvincing; when analysed, these sort of statements mean nothing in the context of lawful or not lawful? Of course forum members don't have a few spare million, but it won't cost 'millions! to challenge it - it will cost some effort, solidarity and (maybe) a £100 each. However, as well as a legal challenge to Section 2, the Feds conduct will be dissected in great detail about their (apparent) complicity in these proposals in the first place. Any impropriety and clear breach of members interests will throw up the issue of WHY a legal challenge is not going to be supported and funded - this will possibly give access to the millions that we know the Fed have in their coffers to represent officers in lawful challenge! It angers and infuriates me when I continue to read (posted by whoever!) these nebulous words of spin and hype, that are being regurgitated ad infinitum; words upon which a lot of people are rejecting any hope for the future and rolling over into a state of prostrate acceptance of the wrong that HMG are trying to impose on Police Officers. SECTION 2 cannot be challenged until it is breached - it is not going to be breached for another 10 days. Stay positive and prepare to be part of the revolution, there is a long way to go before we give up on £150-£300k!
  5. 1 point
    There is good news about this story with HMG pledging government money to maintain the chapel, the RAF museum at Hendon and the WW1 airfield at Stow Maries. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/11485980/Our-heroic-airmen-must-not-be-forgotten.html
  6. 1 point
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-32009961 I can't believe I am sympathising with Farage for once.
  7. 1 point
    Sort of. I'm unsure of the exact year and month but with tapering the scheme is still open for many years yet. My point is until it closes permanently then surely all those who were in it should be allowed to remain in it until it closes. You can't just arbitrarily decide to throw some people out and allow others to stay in based on set of discriminatory criteria and that's before you consider the section 2 legislation which is still valid because it has yet to be appealed. However regardless of that how can it be legal to do so and quite frankly that should be tested in court. Won't give everyone full protection but will give people more years in the scheme effectively.
  8. 1 point
    I honestly don't know what is worse. The illusion that someone is listening or the certain knowledge that no one is.
  9. 1 point
    Niccop. ...like yourself I refuse to believe the tripe that the Fed quote when you mention legal challenges, etc.... As a former rep myself I found myself banging my head against a brick wall when I came up against the JCC (decision makers). Too many don't want to rock the boat and have forgotten who they represent. My motion for an independent review was defeated at JCC. Apparently they don't feel the need for transparency.
  10. 1 point
    Public sector pensions are proving costly.. http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-3005730/Third-council-tax-spent-staff-pensions-warns-leading-council-finance-chief.html
  11. 1 point
    You know what? If Scotland, sorry Salmond, doesn't want Trident in Scotland, then I reckon 'England' should move it into England and give those jobs to English people.
  12. 1 point
    Got to agree with harrier74 there. I live in one of the Home Counties. There was a knock on the door on Friday morning. It was a PCSO. ( Not the most authoritative law enforcement figure I have seen - but he turned out to be a very nice young man.) He was investigating the theft from a motor car in the next street three days earlier and wondered if I had seen or heard anything. I didn't tell him I was ex job, but we got chatting about policing in the area. He told me that the 'rural area' safer neighbourhood team on which I live used to have 1 Sgt, 3 Pc's and 3 Pcso's to cover it, based in the small police station in the next village. When this was closed three years ago, our area had been amalgamated with the next rural area and they both were now covered by 1 Pc and 3 Pcso's., working form the nearest large town. He then told me that later this year, plans are afoot to amalgamate all six rural beat SNT's that surround my nearest town ( It's a city actually) and these would be covered by one supervising Sgt, 1Pc and 9 Pcso's. This was going to coincide with the closure of that citys police station ( "Don't worry, there will be a 9-5, Mon to Fri assistance desk in the local library manned by volunteers.) The police officers from my nearest town, together with those from another town, would then all work from a third police station in a third town, covering all three towns. I actually knew all this information to be true because my local crime commissioner keeps sending glossy magazines out to all and sundry saying how selling premises, recruiting more specials and cutting back on coverage is actually 'doing more with less' - now where have I heard that before.?
  13. 1 point
    Russel Crowe..... I prefer Hugh Jackman. Q
  14. 1 point
    I'm not sure I agree with this. At the end of the day, legal advice is just an opinion, it's the courts that decide. I seem to remember a few years back a group of army widows winning a landmark case under the ECHR against all expectations. Our whole system of law is about the way different courts interpret things. Different interpretations of law matter, otherwise we wouldn't have appeal courts and we'd always accept the first judgement. Parliament is sovereign and if they had repealed section 2, then there is not a thing anyone could have done (subject to any considerations under the ECHR - which Parliament has subordinated itself to). But personally, I believe that Parliament hasn't specifically repealed Section 2. The 'implied' repeal would carry more weight (in my mind) if the 1987 and 2006 pension wasn't being kept open for certain officers and forcibly closed for others. I'm not at all sure the Fed have considered this and that it should be tested in a court. If only the Fed had been a bit more open and transparent about what their legal advice actually was, then a lot of people probably wouldn't be talking about this issue now.
  15. 1 point
    About time this topic livened up a bit, now things are finally getting interesting. By the time April 2nd arrives and everyone pulls their heads out of the sand things should be about ready to implode. A lad at work told me today " see told you it would never happen " he reckons as he hasn`t heard anything on the news or any official letters it has all been kicked into the long grass. I burst out laughing and told him not to worry as he would be getting absolutely everything he deserved, he obviously did not hear the irony in my voice May as well stand outside HQ on your days off with a sandwich board reading "the end of the police is nigh"
  16. 1 point
    Feeling happy today, as have just put down a deposit on a new car. Had the Kia Venga for nearly three years, and felt like a change, so have gone for a Subaru XV (more than just a change, a total turnaround!). Having a few factory mods done, so will have to wait until mid May for delivery, but well pleased with the deal.
  17. 1 point
    ...... and I sit, waiting, waiting, as the foundations of society at first begin to creak, then crumble. Dust and then chunks of these foundations begin to fall around the ears of those that destroy them. Yet they still shout 'MORE WITH LESS, MORE WITH LESS' I have recently purchased a large dog, with big gnashers. I have reinforced my door and window locks. I place in view the dogs large water and food bowls and also display 'BEWARE OF THE DOG' signs. Why? Because despite their dedication, enthusiasm and professionalism, I have absolutely no confidence that the reduced local Police are able to protect my family or my property. My neighbours share my views. A cop is an endangered species in my area.
  18. 1 point
    He did a lot down under
  19. 1 point
    Anyone remember the exchange mechanism disaster of 1992 under a Tory Govt? Right in the middle of a recession too! Easy for people to slag Labour off and sing the Tories's praises whilst either sitting comfortably in their retirement or approaching it. Simple fact is that if the Tories get in again (highly likely)...lots of Officers are going to be made redundant in the next 5 years. We've seen the savings that have to be made and there's only one way they can do that. C.S. will be their absolute priority when they get back in. It's the last tool they need. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to take their head out of the sand. Some Officers' whole future depends on the outcome in May.
  20. 1 point
    G'day Thomskie. Q