Penbwlch

'Financial tsunami' forced police officers to retire

Recommended Posts

Never been quite sure about A19!! AS far as im aware the contract I signed was for 30 years service!! Can the Government be forced to extend a contract?? They can certainly break them when it suits them???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You didn't sign anything , unless you're different to others . There is no contract , just the visit to court to swear the oath . There was never any length to the time you could be apart from having to finish at 55 , which is what i had intended to do .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well said Mr Sawyer. Someone who tells it as it is.

30 years maximum for me. I would not want to do a day more. However I can understand why the A19 victims have gone to tribunal.

Good luck to them.

Hope the government have to pay them adequate compensation.

Then perhaps the country's policing can be done by a dads army of old school. A 60 plus scheme perhaps.

The public will look around and see PC Grandad taking on beefed up villians fresh from a daily training regime inside, tax payer funded crime flats, free counselling and running crack whores in the background of their sham lives.

Whilst officer OAP will have all sorts of health problems working 2 earlies, two lates and 2 nights, with rest days interrupted for court, courses and aid.

Sincronise your watches comrades the fun is about to begin!!!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My basic understanding was that A19 was in place to potentially get rid of the 'dead wood' and NOT in the interests of financial savings. My force invoked it a couple of years ago and a few went- some quite rightly with a huge chip on their shoulder. Just another example of the goalposts being shifted. Looking back though they went at the right time but I still hope that the decision goes in their favour and they receive some form of compensation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was always under the impression that A19 was the 'efficiency clause' and to be used for that purpose. I don't think efficiency was ever defined though, so did it mean cost saving or getting rid of inefficient officers ?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that A19 will adversely affect older officers, therefore an inequality claim based on age, can rightly be made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You didn't sign anything , unless you're different to others . There is no contract , just the visit to court to swear the oath . There was never any length to the time you could be apart from having to finish at 55 , which is what i had intended to do .

Ahhhh!!! Now thats interesting!! Because at training school I was also told "You have all signed the official secrets act! You havnt actually signed it BUT you have signed it because your in the Police"! My training class all looked puzzled!! Since this point very little has been put to me in plain terms as regards Police policy!! I feel that if I did indeed breach the official secrets act the fact that I 'hadnt but i had' signed it may keep a QC in fine wine for a few years!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Serving on after 30 years is just daft as you are working for half pay. I loved the job but with 20 years in my parents were shocked to hear me say "The next 10 years cannot come quick enough". Yes that showed just how much the job had changed by over legislation, and Chief Officers not knowing their backsides from their elbows.

Anyone serving over 30 years needs to be sectioned under the MentalHealth Act. :rolleyes:

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't get me wrong, I have every sympathy with those A19'd. HOWEVER, these are unique times, and in the event any of those taking their Force to a tribunal are reinstated at a cost to a mid service bobby being CS'd, it will be an outrage.

They have done their time, are lucky to have done so, and should have some thought for those of us left behind.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone working over 30 years is actually working for only a quarter of their pay as you get a two thirds pension or, at maximum commutation, a half plus the rest as a lump sum. I have never been able to understand those who work after 30 years although I do appreciate that there maybe a few who need the extra quarter salary for university expenses etc. However there are possibly more menial, less stressful jobs that would pay that extra bit. Many who work on are more senior officers in my experience, and this A19 challenge by the Superintendents Association backs that up, who are not burnt out by the stresses of everyday police work and who just cannot leave and become a simple 'mister' instead of a 'sir'. Many are so full of themselves I'm surprised they haven't tried to keep their rank as a title in retirement like military ranks do. As said by billysboots above, there will be outrage if any are reinstated at the expense of other officers being VR'd or CS'd. They should just go gracefully with their huge wedges and do whatever retired Cheif Supts and Supts do. Surely they can live on their large pensions. I will be able to and mine will be loads less. If they managed to get to Supt rank then surely they were intelligent enough and financially astute enough to plan for a 30 year retirement as that is all that was guaranteed when they joined up although I also appreciate that their rank has always entitled them to work until 60. We had a Ch Insp. who was a decent bloke and retired a couple of years ago after 40 years service. he was praised to the skys on his retirement but all I thought was, blimey he's just done 10 years work for 2.5 years pay!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Serving on after 30 years is just daft as you are working for half pay. I loved the job but with 20 years in my parents were shocked to hear me say "The next 10 years cannot come quick enough". Yes that showed just how much the job had changed by over legislation, and Chief Officers not knowing their backsides from their elbows.

Anyone serving over 30 years needs to be sectioned under the MentalHealth Act. :rolleyes:

Why, I don't get this. Anyone who has done 30yrs freeze their pension and continue working and get their pension ontributions in their hand without tax. When they retire they get full pension as they have paid max money into it and get it at their best 3 years from retirement date. So how are they on half pay?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do they really receive what would otherwise have been pension contributions free of tax? Surely this money is just wages for them then and therefore taxed as to all intent and purposes thay are out of the pension scheme regarding payments in at that point. Why would that extra money into their bank accounts be tax free?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but I just don't agree that this tribunal should have been brought. I cannot bring myself to support someone who has the full 30 in, with all its attendant benefits, refusing to accept that it's been great, but it's time to move on.

With all that's going on at present, I think many serving officers will find it difficult to muster up much sympathy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't get me wrong, I have every sympathy with those A19'd. HOWEVER, these are unique times, and in the event any of those taking their Force to a tribunal are reinstated at a cost to a mid service bobby being CS'd, it will be an outrage.

They have done their time, are lucky to have done so, and should have some thought for those of us left behind.

So you would not question a 33% pay cut ? As that is what retiring on two thirds salary is !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point is that most of us plan for retirement, and if A19 took these people by surprise they must have been the only ones who didn't see it coming.

And as I say, if their action costs someone currently serving it will be a scandal. Chiefs have to balance the books, and if officers with rank ever get reinstated, where do you think the axe will fall to compensate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are 33 hidden replies in this thread that you do not currently have access to as a Guest User of our forum. To unlock the forum register for an account for FREE today by clicking HERE

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.