Resident Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Sheds last won the day on October 4 2015

Sheds had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

28 Fair

About Sheds

  • Rank
    Forum Member

Recent Profile Visitors

180 profile views
  1. Dazzler, Cheese as ever is spot on. I would add also that things are changing so quickly that there is every chance you may be able to get a voluntary reducancy payment. As long as you're 18 months away from being 50 you will get 21 months pay - some tax likely to pay on it- and then you will get your 87 pension at 50. More reason to hold on for 2 years and/or go part time. South Yorks have just offered it and I think most forces will look at it at some stage.
  2. Have just read the judgement (sad I know) and I have real concerns about the possible outcome. If you read paragraph 120 it clearly states that one option was for ALL judges to be moved onto the new scheme on the 1st April 2015 - in that way there would be no age discrimination at all. That would mean NO protection for anybody, including those with less that 10 years until retirement (as they are included in the transitional arrangements) as well as those with tapered protection. I came on here expecting to lambast the Feds response but, having read the ruling, I actually share their concerns. This ruling may give the Govt the opportunity to in essence 'shaft' everybody. Those with no protection at all will have gained nothing (they will be in exactly the same position that they were before) while those with either full or tapered protection will lose that protection. The government save a shed load of cash and the law firms make a nice killing. Of course that is only one possible outcome but it does state that this was Hutton's original recommendation.
  3. We've had the same in our force - and incentives are being offered to potential transferees - I agree it is all a bit of a farce. However, I am told that some forces saw this coming and planned accordingly (maybe those who offered VS when it first came out??).
  4. VS and early retirement with no detriment (including commuting 25% of lump sum) would both save serious amounts of money - esp. in the medium term. They might have to find some money up front but would soon claw this back (and much more) as people would be giving up double increments/housing allowance (in some cases)/top of pay scale wages etc. etc. Any sensible Chief Constable would recognise the huge savings that could be made - the main problem I see is that they have not planned for this and I think so many people would go for it that they would not be able to back fill with decent new recruits due to the lack of planning. Interesting times though..................................amazing how quickly things can change.
  5. Cheese, You're correct, but it's not perfect (e.g. will not calculate commutations if not fully protected). It could be a lot better.
  6. The other main difference with our shceme (compared to the vast majority) is that we had thousands of 'pension ages' based on 30 or 35 years for a full pension. Other schemes had a defined pension age. That is why so many have been 'shafted' more than other schemes due to the fact that the rules have changed to a far greater degree (meaning working much longer for less) than other schemes. To change from length of service to a defined pension age at the stroke of a pen did not happen to the vast majority of public sector schemes.
  7. 1970, Yes, but they're not paid an Inpectors wage from the off. They only get paid at that wage when they get promoted to that rank. I think the reasoning (which I can understand, although I think it is flawed) is to attract high flyers from other careers who are already being paid a fair chuck - otherwise, why would they jump ship to start on a Contable's wage (with no increments). With the Inspecting ranks likely to be tagetted in most forces (again) to save money this means even less opportunity for career progression for those Sgts trained and qualified for the next rank.
  8. We had a cracking job brought into custody a while ago. A Polish bloke had quite badly assaulted his girlfriend - two officers turn up at the scene and he start shouting to his wife, in Polish. Turns out he was shouting to her not to press any charges and say it was an accident, otherwise he would kill her. Unfortuntely for him one of the officers was of Polish descent and understood every word that was said. When his solicitor turned up and this was disclosed his face was a picture! Needless to say a full confession followed.
  9. Chief, You are dead right - those who joined at a young age just before the new 2006 pension came in are easily the most affected. I really do feel for people by yourself. I have around 4 years tapered protection and was lucky that I joined at 25 years old so don't have to work any longer. Those with no protection at all are definitely worse off.
  10. A fair degree of protection but not the same - pregnancy is a category all of its own. If Picard was still posting he might know the ins and outs of injured/restricted officers (both as a result of incidents on or off duty) and all of the employment law around this, including those who are clssified as disabled. All in all, I think his position was that it is a minefield for the employer to have to wade through, so who knows what might happen?
  11. Pregnancy related illness also does not apply to any sickness policies that a force may have, There are all kinds of protection rightly afforded to prgnant employees and a lot of employment case law to back this up.
  12. Cheese, Thanks for that - I think the proposals will be the same as that for the Civil Service (as VR is based on theirs) and CS does exist for them - so we can have a pretty good idea of how it might work. Probably the easiest way is to try and find a Civil Servant who have been CS'ed and has purchased future contributions with their payment and/or their own money. I appreciate it looks expensive on the face of it, but probably less expensive for those on the new pension where the job contributes less. I suppose, if it does come in, it will all be a question of looking at the fine detail and doing the sums in each individual case. I agree that it's probably not worth thinking about until CS comes in for us (if ever).
  13. I've been going back over Picards original posting re this and it seems under CS proposals you may be able to purchase further pension contirbutions either with the CS payment or your own money - the justification being that you are being forced out against your will. This may, perversely, make CS a better option for some officers, depending how it would work in practice. Cheese - have you got any knowledge around this?
  14. ImaPleb, I've had a read through the link you posted - if this does come to pass then the only real change is 15 months pay instead of 21 months pay - saving the job a fair chunk for those with more than 15 years service who choose to take VS. However, it saves nothing for those with 15 years or less. I still think VS should have been offered by more forces earlier - had it been then forces would be saving money hand over fist as the years tick on. Does anyone know exacltly how it worked in Staffs and Durham where it was offered (e.g. was it offered to all and sundry/what payments were made etc?).
  15. I also think if we had more enlightened Chiefs they should have run a sensible form of VS as soon as they knew that cuts of the magnitude about to be unleashed were coming (I've heard rumours its likely to be a further 36%, which means we'll have 40% of the Govt grant we had in 2010 by 2020!!). Some on this forum say that VS is too expensive - I would say when you look at the figures then forces start gaining after 2 years and those gains massivley increase over the years via lower and/or later pension payments. Anyone taking VS will take a hit against their pension (unless, bizarrely, you are an Insp or above and over 55 when you can but out further contributions, but not many fit into both of those categories) - the 'hit' will be much bigger for some than others. I've always said that if you offer it to the 'shafted middle' whose pensions have been the most affected then many would take VS in the knowlegde thay would get however many years served under the 87 scheme divided by 45ths (so not even losing the double increment element) at aged 60. Not a bad little 'banker' if you really want out and you've still got time to forge another life/career. Under VS they would only get one months salary per year served (likely to be taxed at the top end) and then no pension payments until 60. How much would the job save in these circumstances if enough took it? Yet only a couple of forces have even offered VS - I can't undertsand why (uinless some were secretly waiting for cheaper CS to be brought in!?).