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


niccop last won the day on November 11 2012

niccop had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

95 Fair

About niccop

  • Rank
    Forum Member

Recent Profile Visitors

294 profile views
  1. niccop

    Judges win pension case

    It,s all coming together nicely - the ruling has nothing to with whether HMG can afford it. Justice will be done, everyone will eventually get the pensions they expected, even the oldies that will have to now sweat a bit like the guy who wrote the fed response! ? The pensions will be nothing compared to the accumulative cost if Brexit! That's all folks, I'll be back in another couple of years when the final outcome has been confirmed!
  2. niccop

    Judges win pension case

  3. niccop

    Judges win pension case

    Can you believe the fed are still trying to make out that this may effect transitional arrangements!! As a last stand to their approach to just accept HMG s imposition of the new scheme and say, we got some protection that's all we could do!! Its obvious that if transitional and full protection are discrimination on grounds of age, then to ensure NO discrimination the only approach is to close the schemes to new entrants on 2015 and allow all current members to remain!! The fed are hinting that transitional protection could be removed, but full protection is okay????? Talk about being in denial!!
  4. niccop


    That was more like one of your 'it's happening, so live with it' responses Cheese, instead of defending the legal reasons (or providing legitmate reason why) you believe HMG are acting lawfully to remove/avoid Section 2, and whether it will withstand legal challenge. I accept that HMG are introducing new legislation ( I have no choice!) but, you have been thin on the specifics of my argument. 'It may well have been designed to protect us. However that is of absolutely no relevance here as they have changed it.' Of course it is relevant - it is the ONLY relevant point - if they weren't changing it it would have no relevance. To clarify my opinion on Section 2 and it's legal standing - Of COURSE future HMGs were supposed to be beholding to 'Section 2' - that is EXACTLY what it was designed for. Your examples ref implied repeal and parliamentary sovereignty are completely different to the Section 2 issue. I understand the ‘ideals’ of parliamentary sovereignty and implied repeal, however, I don't think your examples are at all relevant to the provision of pension protection for Police Officers and Section 2. They are chalk and cheese! Your examples merely show stated cases that have 'cited' parliamentary sovereignty as the reason for them being upheld. They do not represent the same basis of challenge that would be presented to the courts by Police Officers for pensions ref Section 2. Your examples are nearly 100 years old, things have moved on considerably in 100 years. Modern Law and the overarching ECHR should ensure that the legal arguments for change in pensions protection legislation are held in context of pensions and individuals rights! The 'estates/land' case has very few similarities to any case that can be brought forward by current Police Officers. The real context for this matter being 'individual rights' of people who contribute to a pension scheme, that they depend upon for their retirement, and one that is provided by (and specifically protected by HMG legislation!) This is not a land 'compensation' claim by an 'estates company' against HMG. Where HMG have induced a compulsory purchase of land. i.e. business interests of the estates company Vs HMGs interest to carry out compulsory purchse, at a reasonable cost. Can you quote the relevant piece of protective legislation from the 1919 Land Act (was there such a thing?) that is relevant? And please direct me to the '1919 land act' equivalent of Section 2, that Ellen Street Estates Ltd and Vauxhall Estates were trying to base their claims on. Was there such specifically worded protection? Or, was it just an old law that hadn't been specifically repealed, thus Ellen St Estates and Vauxhall Estates were just 'chancing their arm' and trying to get more compensation as a result of the fact that they 'believed' the old legislation still applied; so they were trying to be compensated at the old rate - i.e. an attempt at a claim based on a legal 'loophole'. In this case (Land Act) I fully understand the ethic behind implied repeal and parliamentary sovereignty and the necessity for HMGs will/legislation to be upheld by the courts. However, Section 2 is ‘ethically’ completely different and it was effectively a promise in statute that CURRENT Police Officers would be protected. The court of appeal will have to balance the THREE issues – pensions protection, individual expectation about HMG implied repeal AND any associated parliamentary sovereignty issues. I firmly believe that the principles behind the Land Act cases you have quoted and any Section 2 challenge are vastly different, and will successfully be shown in the appeal courts to be so. NB: This was the lengthy reply I eluded to the other day!
  5. niccop


    My argument (and opinion) is (and always has been) based on the nature of the 1976 legislation and it’s original intended purpose. What was/is the ‘expectation’ of protection from Police Officers (and the Fed) AND the expectation of HMG when it was put in place? The principle behind the inclusion of Section 2 in the 76 Act by the Fed and HMG in the first place was to protect us – surely? The very nature of legislation means that it is SUPPOSED to behold future HMGs to it! It was clearly designed to protect people who had no other route of recourse to protect their financial future. Parliamentary Sovereignty and implied repeal are not REALLY relevant here. Section 2 does not mean ALL police pensions are protected for time immemorium! They (relevant pensions) are protected for 30 years from the date of the last member to join, that is (relatively) all. If this 'protective' legislation was going to be such a huge millstone around HMGs neck in the future, surely they would have prevented it from passing through both houses in the first place! HMG have valid remit to change the pension schemes by increasing contributions for current members or starting a new scheme that only effects new members. So, HMGs ‘ power to govern’ and control police pensions is not being forever thwarted as a result of this Section 2 protection. If this is now to be repealed or ‘dropped’ as a result of the 2015 regulations, there has to be a covering legal statement to quantify it. I firmly believe that HMG should be beholding to a piece of legislation that protects it's own public servants - Otherwise the very nature of the trust contract between HMG and it's own servants has been broken and the bond of trust that is to be expected from any HMG has to be questioned!
  6. niccop


    Apologies ! I am clearly wrong about the MHO thing - it seems they have the same protection as us based on NPA and age only. So, they will NOT be any use for our cause! I don't know why i picked that up wrong, but I obviously have - thanks for the explanation Cheese. A poor comment added after a quick bit of research into some other schemes. Ref your other comments - Haha! Thanks Cheese, but you are now making far reaching assumptions about me, my history and my future, based purely on the comments I add to this forum! Don't make me out to be some sort of guru who is going to blaze a trail to glory against HMG! I (probably) most certainly am not! I use this forum to keep pace with current thoughts and have a bit of intellectual banter about pensions and the changes. If people are banking on me as a 'William Wallace' character then they should be more internet savvy. I am only a 'forum handle' to all on here, and for all they know I may be a fully protected Fed rep with no axe to grind other than my disgust at HMG! The significant challenges will come from others not in my position, and I am unlikely to make a difference in this field, because of my personal circumstances. However, despite my error on the MHO protection, I know that there is a case to be answered ref age discrimination and the Section 2 dichotomy! I prepped up an extremely lengthy reply ealier to the 'implied repeal' saga, but I am saving it for another day -Pork Pie covered the pertinent points. Please continue to worry for the shafted folk using the forum, but don't worry that I am failing them, because HMG have done that far more than a light fingered, lap top lawyer!
  7. niccop


    Incorrect Cheese - All MHOs have protection and their pensions are not being changed. If they achieved MHO status before 1995 they are protected! So, why when we have officers who have joined the 87 scheme in 95 aren't they having their protection honoured?
  8. niccop


    The difference is that MHOs protection is being honoured! Our Section 2 protection is not - well.......not for some!
  9. niccop


    Actually Blueday it's better than that... The 1987 + 2006 schemes are being closed - in the same way as the 1987 Act was closed in 2006. However, they (HMG) are effectively giving Section 2 protection to some and not others! By forcing others onto a new scheme. (discrimination) This did not happen in 2006 and everyone had the choice, furthermore the 2006 Act spelled out that it was passed in full recognition of the 1976 protection - this time there is no choice - so, there are potentially two types of 'protected' officer. There are those that were in the '87 scheme and in 2006 they basically had it confirmed that the 1976 Act applied to them and they could choose if they wanted to change. By my reckoning anyone in the 1987 scheme should be completely protected by the introduction of this 2006 legislation and the manner in which it QUANTIFIED the protection the 1976 Act has - anyone in this 'Golden scheme' is like MHOs and they will end up getting what they have signed up for! Next we have the 2006 guys: who signed up after 2006 when Labour said - this was a pension solution to last 25 years!! - and now they are being forced into a change when they had seen colleagues be afforded Section 2 protection before and their relevant Act (2006) also made reference to it - vindicated it rather than repealed it! This coupled with HMGs '25 year' promise line, seems to be imply that hard working 'unique' public servants should be able to rely upon the law which they are upholding to provide a secure and reliable pension for them, and one that CANNOT just be sidestepped by techno babble and bloated bureacracy! The 2015 Act doesn't mention 1976 and says basically: 'We'll be starting from new and you have no choice!' - Well, that might be okay for public sector workers who don't have 'specific' protection written into statute, but not for cops, who are currently members of the Police force. My honest prediction in several years time (when the Condems no longer care) legal challenges and eventually concessions by HMG before they go full term, to effectively rule that the changes ONLY apply to new recruits. Thus, a whole lot of hullabaloo about pensions that could have been avoided. In amongst the text and the prose on these pages, many people seem to forget what is currently in black and white in the statutes and what has clearly been adhered to before by HMG for Police Pensions. The precedents and protections are there and they can't be 'conveniently' erased by a bloated, myopic 2015 Act that has blatantly failed to take cognisance of what has gone before and tried to bludgeon past the solid protection in place for the most vulnerable, restricted Majesty's servants!
  10. niccop


    Not quite, but similar. I am merely re-hashing words that I have said before about Section 2. Section 2 does not prevent the pension regulations being changed, however, it gives a means to lawful challenge if the new regulations do not secure the same results as the previous regulations. - in terms of compulsory age of retirement AND scale of pensions payable. Thus, there will be a challenge. It will only take a few (of the truly 150k+ shafted!) for their to be a meaningful challenge - after alternative legal advice, not the Fed because they wil provide none - and any success will pave the way for everyone. However! I don't think a 'direct challenge' under Section 2 will be necessary. That is the war...so to speak. The first battle will be the date of protection via the 10 year rule - that will be challenged first (possibly by the Fed as has been muted on this thread) ....then (as I said above) if that date is moved, what happens to tapering??? Does that move as well?? If it doesn't - do others have a valid claim of discrimination?? I think so, so after that challenge the tapering date is (let's say) moved as well. (Bearing in mind we are talking a few years down the line here, possibly - that's how long these things take!) By that time it will be clearly shown that the entire 2015 police pension discriminates against police officers, who believed they had more significant protection (and right to same!) than any other Public Sector workers because of Section 2 and that the timeline of the changes cCANNOT be effectivley forcefully implemented without discriminating against some of the previous members (like Section 2), so the changes will be adjusted so that they have no effect on people in the force before 1st April 2015 This is (in a nutshell) Section 2 protection. Anyone who joins AFTER 1st April 2015 will not have said protection and will have to hope for HMG wishy washy 25yrs should be enough without us having to raid your pensions again!
  11. niccop


    I have also noted something very interesting in the Section 2 wording: existing member of a police force is or may be required under the regulations to retire on the ground of age do not, unless he at any time elects otherwise, it says - existing member of a police force! - It says nothing about a member of the pension scheme!! What does this mean? Well, it certainly shows that is specific to Police officers and has nothing to do with individual pension schemes! Because it relates to compulsory age of retirement AND scale of pensions payable - so you could still retire at 55 or 30 years even if you haven't paid into the pension!! So, HMG have covered the compulsory retirement age bit with the new regs, but, have they achieved the 'scale of pensions payable'? to avoid a breach of Section 2 I suggest not because they have removed opportunity for double accrual and the scheme will move to CARE - this will clearly not be the same SCALE after 30 years or 55 for everyone who is a current member, there will be some huge disparities!!
  12. niccop


    It's not quite that straight forward Cheese - Section 2 becomes defunct on April 1st 2015 is what you are implying? As a result of repeal or implied repeal? Well, that thought process ensures that everyone IS 'protected' by Section 2 on 31st March 2015 - thus they CAN'T lawfully be forced onto the new pension scheme, without breaching Section 2 because: The result as to compulsory age of retirement referred to in subsection (1) above is that the times at which an existing member of a police force is or may be required under the regulations to retire on the ground of age do not, unless he at any time elects otherwise, differ from those which would have been applicable in his case if the regulations in question had not come into force. Regulations made under section 1 above shall not be invalid by reason that in fact they do not secure the results specified in subsections (2) and (3) above, but if the Secretary of State is satisfied, or it is held by the High Court or by the Court of Session, that any such regulations have failed to secure those results, the Secretary of State shall so soon as may be make under section 1 the necessary amending regulations, and any such amending regulations shall have effect as from the date of the coming into force of the regulations which they amend. These last two lines mean that the 2015 Act would have to be amended to reflect that all existing members are protected from the detrimental changes! SO, repeal or implied repeal makes no difference - it confirms that Section 2 has been breached for the officers who are FORCED to move onto the new regulations. What I really want to know is - WHO (which QC?) drafted Section 2, because the more I read it, the more I realise it is self repeating and a very good piece of legislation.
  13. niccop


    In 10 years time when poicing in the UK has hit new depths and the public start to ask why? I sincerely hope this thread/forum are still available so that commentators and media can have a look back and realise that experienced officers with knowledge had predicted this pyrammidal collapse to poor standards of policing, experience, training and leadership, as a DIRECT result of the pension changes!
  14. niccop


    Because I'm not sitting around (with thousands of others) and accepting having my pension conditions being forcibly changed in direct contravention of legislation that I believe fully protected me - this belief was solidified in 2006. AND I am driven by the fact that if I just accept these changes (as they stand) I will lose 50k+. Also, furthermore, (and this is what gets my goat with the Fed involvement!!) a legal challenge on the basis of Section 2 is essential for the continuity of policing AND the police pension! A full legal challenge on the basis of Section 2 is essential to clarify the situation either way! If it is proved that HMG have acted perfectly validly and within the bounds of the law AND swerved Section 2 successfully and lawfully! Then it shows that there is no such thing as pension protection for Police officers - who have NO other guarantees in their life/work situation because of the nature of the job and the lack of industrial rights. Thus, HMG's latest 2015 'wishy washy ' statement about a 25 yr 'guarantee' will have been proven to be worth nothing, AND people will pull out of the pension scheme and the occupation. HMG have NO grasp on how the two items go hand in hand and are essential to Policing. The pension (whichever one you sign up to at first!) HAS to be guaranteed otherwise you will not get participation or occupation!!
  15. niccop


    That may be the case, however, you should be entitled to stay on your current scheme for 10 years, and then choose of you want to carry on and transfer to the 2015 scheme for your last few years - whilst not claiming your 87 pensions of course. It's effectivley like Section 2 protection for 10 years from 31st March 2015! So, as I have muted many times before, if that does turn out to be the case ref the 10 yr rule; why should HMG have the right to discriminate against younger cops who are now 11, 12, 13 years away from retirement - do they get tapering?? If it is shown in a legal challenge that they should get tapering, surely that shows that no one should be discriminated against on this manner and EVERYONE has some claim along the same lines.......hence Section 2 has effectivley been achieved and the only people who end up on the new scheme are people who joined after 2015!! It will be the snowball effect, but it will happen. HMG will be able to limit the snowball effect to Police only, on the back of the Section 2 legislation - it WILL be linked to effective REPEAL of section 2 by the new act. Therefore the rest of the Public Sector will not be able to apply the same rules (apart from MHOs who have their own Section 2!) and have legitimate legal claims.