Originally Posted by
Donkey497
As it appears from the information, in previous parts of this thread, that he may have obtained his post in the Constabulary through a somewhat embellished C.V. it seems a fair point that had he not embellished his life, he would not have been entitled to access the pension scheme in the first place, at which point there then appears another argument that the accumulation of said pension from the local taxpayer was carried out fraudulently.
Unless there is much deeper rooted corruption in Northants Pol and the Home Office he obtained his position through relevant experience, having passed a Special Branch background check into his past, through having passed the relevant exams and through having passed the assessment boards. There doesn't seem to be any allegation of deception in any of those.
Even if there was it's an interesting hypothesis. Presumably you'd also count salary as part of the hypothetical dishonesty. In which case that should be paid back too? And the taxpayer would have obtained 30 years free service.
If we do go down this route where do we stop? Was I perhaps not quite "bar staff" at the student union, but instead merely "glass collector", and should therefore lose my entire career pay and pension for the last 50 years?
Generally speaking if you've done the job you're hired for then you're entitled to be paid for it.
It's not a blanket argument that everybody who is naughty at work should lose their pension, even as a result of an ops clerk encounter, but my 2 cents is that in some circumstances it does appear a reasonably equitable punishment
There is a statutory definition of when a constable should lose their pension. It's a high bar, but a lower bar than almost every other profession (in most professions it is "never").