Grumpy2

Resident Members
  • Content count

    239
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

Grumpy2 last won the day on May 2 2016

Grumpy2 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

160 Good

About Grumpy2

  • Rank
    Forum Member
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

89 profile views
  1. I think it comes down to the matter of notice. If you are given less than 15 days notice that you are required to work on your rest day, then you are entitled to overtime for working and as such would be additionally entitled to travelling expenses for the full journey as it's an additional expense you would not otherwise have incurred. If however, you are given more than 15 days notice and you rest day is re-rostered, then there is no additional expense as you will have another day when you are not required to work thereby cancelling out the expense of travelling to work on the cancelled rest day. This is assuming you are travelling to your usual place of duty, if not and you have additional mileage on the cancelled rest day, you would still be entitled to travelling expenses over and above your normal daily commute.
  2. I really don't think it has been expressly repealed Cheese. It still exists as far as I can see: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1976/35/section/2/1991-06-04?timeline=true Yes, as the argument goes, s2 provided a non-worsening provision to regulations made under the PPA so what the Government done was introduced the new PSPA and created new regulations under that, which on the face of it appears to supercede the old PPA. But the very fact that we had s2 protection in the first place then gives rise to the Legitimate Expectation argument, which is defined as: "When an individual seeks judicial review on the ground of his legitimate expectation being defeated, Courts have to first determine whether there existed a legitimate expectation. A legitimate expectation is said to arise “as a result of a promise, representation, practice or policy made, adopted or announced by or on behalf of government or a public authority." [6] Therefore it extends to a benefit that an individual has received and can legitimately expect to continue or a benefit that he expects to receive. " I'm still waiting on someone explaining to me clearly why this legal argument would fail.
  3. Cheese, my understanding was that s2 was never actually repealed. I believe the Govt were relying on the premise of implied repeal as the new PSPA superceded the PPA. The PPA is still a valid piece of legislation. As this has never actually been challenged, we simply don't know whether a s2 argument would succeed.
  4. No, I don't expect they would. The difference would be that we would all be in it together then and perhaps there would be some unity and different avenues could be explored such as legitimate expectation and the linked s2 PPA rights. Yes, I know "legal opinion" was that we would not win on these grounds, but that same "legal opinion" also said the discrimination was lawful and it appears they were wrong on that front. The Government done a fantastic job dividing us all so that those in the National Fed, who are mostly in the protected bracket, would not challenge this. Well, if it's the case now that they're also going to be shafted then perhaps they'll have a change of direction. Whether that entails going down the "right to strike" route or some other legal avenue remains to be seen, but I doubt very much they will sit on their hands and accept the theft of our pensions when it also affects them. And bear in mind, if they went down the second avenue outlined by Cheese (which I don't think they could do using that date, as it would then apply retrospectively), they would also need to apply this to every other public sector worker including Civil Servants. Can you imagine the uproar if they done that? I would suggest what's likely to happen is they'll appeal it. At some point in the future if the ruling goes against them then they'll need to draft new proposals which would set a date when everyone goes onto the new scheme and until that date they will need to honour the old arrangements each affected person signed up to. As far as I believe, the ruling was based on the actual age protection as opposed to those within 10 years of retirement as applied to everyone else in the public sector, so potentially it is only applicable to the Judges, the Police and the Fire Service, not everyone else, thereby limiting the financial burden. Time will tell, but one thing is a certainty. The federation will have egg on their face when this is over.
  5. Yeah, and in her case she didn't try to cover them up! Granted we don't know all the facts of the case and what evidence they have that he tried to cover it up, given that he's adamant he didn't try to do so. Regardless of all that, her actions were wilful and she should have known better in her position. The other officer's actions were clearly a genuine mistake, once he'd put the wrong fuel in the damage was done, and IF he felt compelled to try and cover up the mistake, it says more about the regime he was working under than it does about him. The outcome I would suggest clearly proves that.
  6. Meanwhile: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/01/police-officer-put-wrong-fuel-force-vehicle-dismissed-claims/?WT.mc_id=tmg_share_tw Police officer who put wrong fuel in force vehicle dismissed after claims he tried to cover up the mistake So it's okay to act in an inappropriate manner and compare breasts in public, act in a manner that could constitute a breach of the peace, bully subordinates, but fill up a car with the wrong fuel and you're history!! I hope this guy appeals and takes them to the cleaners!
  7. Seriously? Come on ...... He said himself it was locker room talk. Whilst it may have been inappropriate, it was a conversation between two males in what they thought was a private setting. I've heard much worse from females at a hen party. If there's evidence that he has committed any crime in this respect then it hasn't yet resulted in any prosecution. It's also funny that a never before seen 10 year old audio tape suddenly appears in the last few weeks of a Presidential election. It couldn't possibly have been dredged up by the Clinton camp trying to muddy the waters to divert attention away from Hillary's problems, could it? I also stand to be corrected, but I don't remember hearing him saying anything racist during his campaign. If you have evidence of this, please post it. Simply saying that he will deport illegal aliens and foreign criminals is hardly racist? The Muslim ban I think was something that was badly expressed when he initially said it after another I.S.I.S inspired atrocity. He later clarified that this would apply to people from areas of the world where there were a high volume of radicalised Islamic Terrorists and that they would be extremely vetted before allowed access to the US. Of course, the press and the Clinton camp jumped on this and got a lot of mileage out of it. A complete ban on Muslims would be wrong and probably illegal, but extreme vetting in the circumstances he later mentioned is only sensible. Walling off Mexico is not racist either. Drugs and weapons smuggling and illegal immigration is going on at the border every day and it is the Governments duty to protect it's people from this. Time will tell whether the wall gets built and what impact it will have but I doubt Mr Trump will back down from that commitment.
  8. Where is your evidence that Trump is a "Racist, misogynistic sex predator bully"? It's very easy to throw allegations that you cannot prove. Throw enough muck and some will stick!
  9. The link doesn't seem to work. Search YouTube for "trey gowdy james comey". Watch what is said and tell me you think this doesn't stink to high Heaven.
  10. She set up a private email server in her home, used it to send and receive classified material from a non-state.gov email address thereby mishandling classified information, an offence under federal law. She then deleted 10's of thousands of emails, smashed phones, phones mysteriously went missing, all AFTER they had been subpoena'd by Congress and she lied under oath to Congress that she had never sent or received classified material to or from her home server which was later contradicted by FBI Director Comey. The FBI investigated and Director Comey concluded that she HAD mishandled classified material, had been grossly negligent in doing so, but decided not to recommend prosecution to the Attorney General citing lack of intent. Of course the FBI's decision was made after Bill Clinton just happened to coincidentally bump into the Attorney General Loretta Lynch on the Tarmac at Phoenix airport and had a 25 minute chat about Grandchildren and Golf (believe that if you will). Was political pressure then put on the FBI Director to reach the decision that he did? The FBI have since said that they are 99% certain that at least 5 foreign agencies hacked into Clinton's private email server which contained classified and Top Secret emails. Others have been prosecuted for far less, so why not Clinton? All the information is out there and the whole debacle stinks to high heaven. Search YouTube for the evidence. Here's one to get started with.
  11. I suppose I may be in the minority here but I'm glad Trump won. Maybe it's time for a change and Hillary Clinton wasn't going to be the one to do it. It's a disgrace that she's still walking the streets after all the lying and criminality that she's engaged in over the years. She's been protected at the highest levels because they were desperate to install the first woman as President of the USA. No-one else would have gotten away with what she done: breaching data protection laws, lying under oath, perverting the course of justice, etc. When you do the research it's clear that she's not a nice person, she puts on a facade, treats people like sh!t behind the scenes and is only interested in her own interests. I'm not surprised at Trump's victory, the masses are sick and tired of having political correctness rammed down their throats. First Brexit and now this. I expect there will be more surprises to come in Europe as people get fed up with naive liberal policies that advocate positive discrimination and free movement of people which actually erode their security and freedoms. Good luck President Trump!!
  12. Why anyone would want to go anywhere near the middle east these days is beyond me. You could offer me a 2 week all inclusive holiday in Turkey for a pound and I still wouldn't go.
  13. Yeah, until they change the goalposts again! Parliamentary sovereignty, remember? They can do what they like and get away with it. As long as it doesn't affect them of course.
  14. I wonder if they're also going to record drunk women on hen nights harassing men as a hate crime? Fair's fair.
  15. As long as you didn't wink at her you should be okay. I wonder if Ms Fish has ever been the subject of a wolf whistle?