We have detected that your browser is using AdBlock

Police Community is a not for profit organisation and advertising revenue is key to our continued viability.

Please disable your AdBlocker on our site in order to continue using it.
This message will disappear once AdBlock has been disabled.

Thank you for your support - we appreciate it !

If you feel you are getting this message in error please email support@policecommunity.co.uk


Resident Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


cheese_puff last won the day on October 20 2017

cheese_puff had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,041 Excellent

About cheese_puff

  • Rank
    Forum Member

Recent Profile Visitors

746 profile views
  1. cheese_puff

    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. cheese_puff

    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. cheese_puff

    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. cheese_puff

    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. cheese_puff

    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?
  6. cheese_puff

    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.
  7. cheese_puff

    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?
  8. cheese_puff

    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.
  9. cheese_puff

    Constant false allegations

    Zulu we are not giving legal advice, merely offering avenues for the OP to address the issues.
  10. cheese_puff

    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.
  11. cheese_puff

    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.
  12. cheese_puff

    Cressida Dick to be new Met Commissioner

    To be fair I think it was two NARPO meetings.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.