cheese_puff

Resident Members
  • Content count

    3,330
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    63

Everything posted by cheese_puff

  1. 2015 CARE Pension & career breaks?

    Yes that's correct. The Career break does not count for the purposes of pensionable service. So if he took the career break then in five years time, he will have 20 years service and be 50 and thus unable to claim a pension of any sort. He will have to wait until he is 55 (or the age that achieves 25 years pensionable service in relation to the 87 scheme - which is in fact 55 in this case). The crux of the matter is that pensionable service, is service in any pension scheme, for the purpose of claiming a pension under the 87 rules.
  2. Paying into Police pension

    In in all honesty you can stop paying into both schemes as and when you like. I don’t quite see what you are getting at? What maximum benefit are they getting? If you carry on paying in the new scheme then you will always accrue more pension. In the old scheme you don’t, even though you are paying extra. Surely that’s unfair towards people in the older scheme? If all officers have to continue paying into it until retirement then they should accrue more pension. Fair?
  3. writer research

    Hi Most murders are put on Holmes, (I'm talking larger forces here) which dishes out the actions (enquiries) for the DCs to do. It's rare for DIs to go out and do the enquiries themselves - programmes like Morse and the Sweeney have a lot to answer for! in general the DSs run the jobs - on direction from above. The DIs tend to dictate the strategy. Obviously on a call out the DIs will be there, but thereafter it tends to be delegated more. Each force is different though. Some of the smaller forces do it differently, though investigating a dead sheep is perhaps less serious! 😉
  4. The general election (June 2017)

    Yep, no winners in this election. May has proved herself to be a very bad poker player and has needlessly thrown away a majority. She is very, very stupid. Labour isn't a lost cause - agreed and they have done ok in this election. But only just ok. When you take into account that since 2010, we've had seven years of austerity, apparently another £800 million added to the National Debt, Brexit, as well as the crappy Tory manifesto, Labour's bribe to students of writing off their student debt and loads of other things - Labour have only managed to increase their seat count by three since 2010. Not that impressive. However the Tories have done worse, no question.
  5. State Pension

    Well it’s mid April and most of us will (soon) have paid our first month's extra NI contributions. So I thought I’d take five minutes to explain the new State Pension, how it works, give some examples with varying degrees of service as to what we’ll get out of it, and whether it’s worth it. People where I work simply don’t understand it and just think they are paying £40 a month extra for nothing. The press don’t help as they don’t understand it either and keep putting out stories, hyperbole and myths which are just plain wrong, confusing and sometimes quite depressing. It’s quite a long post, my apologies for this but I wanted to explain it as simply as I could. Even so it’s a very complex scheme, so feel free to ask me anything, or better still go online and request a State pension forecast. You need your NI number, mobile phone and a passport. Some facts about the State Pension (skip this if you are ‘au fait’ with how it works): 1. Prior to April 2016, there were two types of State pension. The basic State pension and Additional State Pension (previously called SERPS or S2P). These were accrued by paying National Insurance contributions. Everyone, as long as they earned over a certain amount, accrued basic State Pension. 2. The system was designed such that those people, who didn’t have a company pension scheme, paid slightly higher NI contributions (they were known as ‘Contracted In’) and in return they accrued Additional State Pension (SERPS or S2P). 3. Those people in company pension schemes, such as the Police, didn’t need this extra pension so they didn’t accrue it, but they didn’t have to pay for it either and consequently paid less NI contributions. 1.4% less to be exact. They were known as ‘Contracted out’. This perfectly normal and they will have had no choice in the matter. 4. To achieve the maximum basic State Pension, one needed to accrue 30 years worth of NI contributions (it wasn’t always this, but this figure was the latest, prior to April 2016). The basic State Pension was, at last count, about £120 a week. However in an effort to simplify the State pension the Govt changed the rules and brought in a single new State pension to the value of £155 a week. Sadly it was badly marketed, as firstly, not everyone would get that and secondly some people worked out that they’d get less than what they might have got under the old system – this clearly wasn’t the case. The way it works is simple (in theory). Firstly, whatever you have accrued under the old system stays with you – you don’t lose it. This is called the ‘Starting Amount’. It’s worked out in one of two ways: 1. number of years NI Contribs/30 x £120 plus any additional pension (SERPS/S2P). 2. number of years NI Contribs/35 x £155 minus the Contracted out deduction. The higher of these two figures is taken for the starting amount. It sounds complicated but essentially, if you have been contracted out for any reasonable length of time, then 1. is usually the highest. Secondly, there is no more ‘Contracted Out’ or ‘Contracted In’. Everyone pays the same amount, so the first effect is that we pay 1.4% more NI contributions than we did. Thirdly, the basic premise behind the new system is that 35 years of NI contributions are needed to achieve maximum State Pension (£155 p/w). Therefore every year of NI contributions up to State Pension Age (SPA), from April 6th 2016, accrues 1/35 x £155 p/w - about £4-40 pension p/w. 1. So our first example is a new recruit, aged 23 say, and due to do 37 years service in the police (or any other employment that earns over the threshold for NI contributions). After 35 years NI Contribs he will have achieved the maximum £155 p/w. Any further NI contributions will not add to this, but he still has to carrying on paying so long as he is working, to pay for the NHS etc. That’s always been the case. So he will achieve the maximum at aged 58. If he worked prior to joining the Police then he will have a Starting Amount and so this age will be reduced and he will achieve the maximum quicker. 2. The second example is someone who is 33, say. He has 10 years service, all of which has been contracted out. He will thus have a Starting Amount of 10/30 x £120 p/w – so £40 p/w. He has £155 to achieve, minus £40 that he has already accrued = £115 to make up to the maximum. Every year onwards from April 2016 adds £4-40 p/w to the figure, so in 26 years he will have achieved the maximum £155 p/w; he will be 59. If he worked prior to the police then he will achieve £155 earlier as he’ll have a higher Starting Amount. 3. Third example, 43 years old, 20 years service, contracted out. Starting Amount 20/30 x £120 = £80 p/w. £155 - £80 = £75 to make up. Divided by £4-40 = 17 years, so he’ll be 60. Again if he worked prior to the police then he will achieve £155 earlier as he’ll have a higher Starting Amount. 4. Fourth example, 53 years old, 30 years service, contracted out. Starting Amount 30/30 x £120 = £120 p/w. £155 - £120 = £35 to make up. Divided by £4-40 = 8 years, so he’ll be 61. Again if he worked prior to the police then he will achieve £155 earlier as he’ll have a higher Starting Amount. Obviously someone with 30 years service now is likely to be retiring, so will either need to continue to work elsewhere, or else pay voluntary NI contribs for 8 years of about £733 per year. It's important to note that for every full year worked prior to the Police, he will have accrued 1/30 x £120 (£4 p/w) to add to the Starting Amount. So, the $64 million question - is it worth it? Well at £40 extra NI contribs a month (£480 per year), in example 2 (10 years service) he will pay that for 27 years. That equates to £13K. However for that extra payment he accrues an extra £35 p/w State Pension, which is £1820 a year. The average length that people claim a State pension for is 21 years so giving a total of £38K for a £13k outlay. In example 3 (20 years service) he will have paid the £480 per year for 17 years which is £8K. He still gets the same £35 p/w so the extra £38K in total but only for an £8K outlay. Example 4 the outlay is only £3.8K for £38K, the proviso being that he continues to work after leaving the police. The answer is quite simply, yes. The extra £40 NI we pay every month represents an extremely good deal, demonstrated above. It provides a real benefit and is not a ‘waste’ as some people at my work seem to suggest. Contrary to the new Police 2015 pension, we are paying extra but actually getting something out of it. Everyone will benefit. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to be able to work out that if you have been contracted out for a long period of time (and thus paid 1.4% less NI contribs), but still have enough time to achieve the maximum £155 amount, then you have done pretty well and are one of the winners under the new State Pension. However everyone should be able to achieve that maximum £155 as long as they have sufficient years left until SPA. Prior to the new system coming in, the maximum we could accrue was £120 p/w. Once again apologies for the essay; it’s a complex subject. I do urge people to go online and get a forecast, it’s pretty simple and gives you a guide, shows you your starting amount, number of years contributions, the maximum you can achieve etc. https://www.gov.uk/check-state-pension
  6. The general election (June 2017)

    One of the problems with manifestos and policies is that people only think very superficially and never think about the bigger picture. Whilst you might not have heating allowance, other policies that they intend to introduce may well have the effect of making you better off. It seems to be a common misconception with Police officers that the Tories hate the Police and as Labour have said they will recruit another 10,000 Police officers (at varying costs!!) so therefore we will be far better off under Labour. They conveniently seem to forget the fact that to pay for all these extra things Labour are promising, it's going to cost an astonishing extra £75 billion, which quite simply means far heavier taxation. As for what OC mentioned above, I thoroughly agree with. My father is extremely rich, however he gets winter fuel allowance. Why?
  7. Ill health retirement with depression

    Why are you surprised? People only have one shot on this planet. If you don't like something then why do it any more, why not do something else that you do like? I don't see the relevance of him being in a day job. He/she hasn't mentioned shift work, merely policy changing and resources. If it's causing him stress/illness then go sick if he doesn't feel that he can come into work. But ultimately the job isn't going to improve in that respect, hence why I mentioned getting another job. If he can't deal with then for the good of his health he is going to have to consider it.
  8. Ill health retirement with depression

    So if you dislike the job that much with the constant changes to policies, under resourcing etc, then why not leave and look for another job?
  9. Damage Caused By 'Big Red Key'

    Yes it is. It isn't confusing really. Police will not pay out if the warrant/power of entry was lawfully obtained and executed, irrespective of the outcome; i.e. whether anything was found, any offences committed or anyone arrested. However even in cases where the wrong door was broken down - No. 14 instead of No. 24, if the information was obtained in good faith then the Police will still not pay out. If the Police were found to be negligent, maybe the warrant said 14 but they broke down 24 because they misread the warrant, then the owner may have a case. The biggest problem in situations like this, are Police officers like Traffic Rat above (TR - not an attack, just using you as an example), in an attempt to placate the owner of the property, who say to them 'don't worry mate, just ring x, y or z, and the Police will sort your door out, we'll pay for it'. That's not the case and hasn't been for some years, but it still seems to have persisted amongst the ... ahem... 'older' members of the Police. The instructions are not to admit any liability whatsoever and to manage their expectations. Which means simply that if everything has been done properly then they have to pay for it themselves.
  10. Constant false allegations

    Zulu we are not giving legal advice, merely offering avenues for the OP to address the issues.
  11. Constant false allegations

    Why on earth would you advise someone to make a complaint against Police about problems they are experiencing with their partner? Quite apart from the fact that you have absolutely no idea whether it was unlawful arrest over malicious allegations or not, the problems exist between the two ex-partners, not with the Police who appear to be just being used to fight their battles. At the moment we have one party giving one side of a particular set of circumstances, however the other party could equally come up with a convincing set of circumstances. People get arrested in DV circumstances all the time and it is up to the officers to justify the arrest under the relevant legislation. I can't say whether they were justified or not justified because I wasn't there, consequently I can't say whether the OP was treated fairly or not. But to advise her that the way to sort out her problems is to make numerous complaints against the Police Officers concerned (without any knowledge of the circumstances) is absolutely shocking advice and not only is it unlikely to solve the problems, but it may actually make things worse. To the OP. It's fairly obvious that communication has broken down completely, therefore any conversations between you both are unlikely to achieve much, though that's the best way of resolving it. Failing that then you (and your parents) need to be completely detached from the situation and all communication needs to be done through a solicitor. Any contact should not be done directly but through a third party, which includes child contact. You won't prevent accusations, but you may well reduce them if you take away the opportunity for them to occur. I'm not trying to prevent you from making complaints - you are free to make as many as you want if you feel that the officer breached the misconduct regulations (and I note that you have already), however it's unlikely to resolve the situation and effectively you may well be causing the police to 'side' with the other party. I should also add that reading the above, you may think I'm doubting what you say. That's not the case, but I wasn't there so I don't believe you or disbelieve you.
  12. Cressida Dick to be new Met Commissioner

    How can officers in the Met get better leadership than they had (sic) in the future? However they do deserve better leadership, which is why Cressida Dick is a good choice.
  13. Cressida Dick to be new Met Commissioner

    To be fair I think it was two NARPO meetings.
  14. I wasn't aware that they were refusing to accept any criticism. But I would expect them to be able to say with absolute authority, whether they are being encouraged to 'cuff' crimes by supervisors since they are clearly the practitioners. Whereas I wouldn't expect people who have been retired for a number of years, to have any inkling whether that happens other than by hearsay. I'm not sure that NARPO is probably the most reliable source of existing force practices! Seeing a different picture from outside the box is one thing. Having first hand experience of a practice because you do it every day, is quite another. I don't know how long you served for, 20 or so perhaps, but you must have served for long enough to know that things in the Police change very quickly. And it may well be that they have changed to the extent that you are wrong in your assumptions.
  15. They probably aren't telling lies. An assumption by me, but I think you have been retired a while? You meet serving officers and the conversation tends to go along the lines of you saying 'is the job still doing a, b , or c', and either they just agree with you so as to let you think that it was better in your day, or they might counter it with 'no, things have tightened up a bit in that area' to which you read as being 'it still happens but not quite as much'. Its nothng unusual, it's how human behaviour works. Also, as RM says, things might be different in Scotland. In the force where I was, every call result was scrutinised to see I felt a crime should have been put on. Quite often we'd get a call/email or whatever, some days after to say that one should have gone on and so we had to do so. As a supervisor I never felt pressured to encourage 'cuffing' of crimes (weird expression) and in fact it was quite the opposite.
  16. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39278929 I see that the marine has had his conviction changed from murder to manslaughter, on appeal.
  17. I have done thank you and I thoroughly enjoyed it. However as I recall we dealt with most of our stuff and rarely handed anything over. Nowadays they don't keep anything except maybe drink drives (and often then get passed over on the basis that they are too drunk to be dealt with). No doubt in my mind which is is easier and which is harder. But only at the moment.
  18. I agree, however what they are going to do to solve it is anyone's guess. Ironically, part of the problem is that now response policing is no longer bottom of the heap and everything is handed over, people are thinking 'why should I put myself out when I can just stay on response for a (relatively) easy life'. A difficult nut to crack.
  19. It's interesting that people who have been retired for some time are all quite sure that it still goes on (hearsay) and yet the people who are serving and actually going to the calls and putting on the reports are all quite sure that it doesn't happen. I wonder who to believe??
  20. Resignation !!

  21. Resignation !!

    Hi Very straightforward. As it stands now with 23 years in the 87 scheme, if you left tomorrow then your pension would be deferred until 60. If you stayed on for two more years to get 25 years pensionable service then you can take it at 50. You are tapered until 2019 so neither option would involve the CARE 2015 scheme so you are solely in the 87 scheme. Far be it from me to give advice, but if you can stomach the job for two more years then that gives you 10 extra years pension, potentially at least an extra £190k. (10 years of a PC's 25 year pension is about £19k per year). So you would be throwing away £19k per year from the age of 50 if you left now.
  22. Police to magistrate.

    Yes there is, it's two years.
  23. Cressida Dick to be new Met Commissioner

    There were two male and two female candidates. I call that pretty much a 50/50 chance of a female getting the job.
  24. Cressida Dick to be new Met Commissioner

    She is definitely the preferred choice. Good at her job, good decision maker (yes she made an incorrect one - somehow I don't think she's the only person in the Police ever to do that) doesn't hate detectives like the last one, apparently a good people person and also was a well respected officer whilst in the lower ranks. Even though she was on the accelerated promotion scheme! For the first time since John Stevens, I think the right choice has been made.
  25. Going part time?

    The way the CARE sceme works, part time has no effect on length of service for the purposes of the Pension. Every year you build up an individual 'pot' (imaginary but it's easier to think of it that way) as a proportion of your earnings. So whatever you earn, your 'pot' is 1.8% of that, which then gets enhanced by CPI plus 1.25% every year. Same with next year's etc etc. So if you earn less (by virtue of being part time) then you just have a smaller 'pot'. Doesn't have any bearing on when you can leave, other than your own economic circumstances. And obviously the before or after 55 bit which you know about. The only time length of service comes into play is with the 87 pension as you have pointed out. You need 25 years which means you can take it at 50 and 17 years gives you 17/50ths etc etc. But you know all that.