PDA

View Full Version : The Police Even Do Themselves!!


jayteeto
29th Dec 2006, 11:21
Another police thread, however the regular police bashers should be happy!!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/6215293.stm

phnuff
29th Dec 2006, 11:27
Why should the regular police bashers be happy? Its just a bloke with an over enthusiastic right foot who got done - although I do respect his actions because I have no doubt he could have got away with it if he had wanted.

G-CPTN
29th Dec 2006, 11:34
I do respect his actions because I have no doubt he could have got away with it if he had wanted.
The point was that it is unlikely the the Chief was the driver, but he's stood up and accepted responsibility as the 'owner' of the vehicle. The fine will be paid either by the Chief, or, no doubt from Force funds. No points were added to the Chief's licence as he wasn't admitted as the driver.
A POLICE chief has been prosecuted after one of the force's cars was caught speeding on camera.
Med Hughes, chief constable of South Yorks, was fined £500 after the unmarked car was snapped travelling at 47mph in a 40mph zone.
He pleaded guilty by letter to Rotherham magistrates to failing to identify the driver despite an investigation.
He escaped penalty points on his licence as the driver of the car in Wickersley, South Yorks, in May is unknown. A police spokesman said: "We are willing to prosecute ourselves when required."
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23379713-details/Police+report+themselves+for+speeding/article.do

matelot
29th Dec 2006, 11:43
... but he's stood up and accepted responsibility ...

Don't think he had much choice. He has a vicarious liability.

phnuff
29th Dec 2006, 11:43
G-CPTN - I got distracted while reading the link and missed that point (Damn why didn't I remember to finish the article). Actually, it stinks !!

Grainger
29th Dec 2006, 12:06
So this is just a modified form of getting away with it.

The guy who drove the car hasn't been done, and no-one got any points !

The cops regularly slam the "I can't remember who was driving" defence (I believe it featured prominently in the infamous leaflet that had to be withdrawn after complaints upheld by the ASA), yet they use the same excuse it when it suits them !

G-CPTN
29th Dec 2006, 12:19
To be fair to the Chief Constable, (as I said he was unlikely to have been driving a Corsa), it's obvious that the requirement to record who was driving the vehicle has been neglected. No doubt the culprit decided not to fill-in the register after being flashed (or maybe the whole outing was unauthorised). There's little that the others can do.

As one who had access to a fleet of vehicles, I was 'supposed' to OK this with the foreman, but inevitably I became 'trusted' (as the Engineer in charge of the operation) and would occasionally do impromptu runs (for my own benefit - though whilst 'testing' the vehicle of course . . . ).
I nearly came unstuck one day when 'off-route' with an artic with a particularly difficult trailer to reverse and wrong-slotted down a no-through road.

None of the above
29th Dec 2006, 18:30
Gentlemen, FWIW, from today's issue of Her Majesty's Times:

Police prosecuted

A police force has been prosecuted after one of its vehicles was caught on camera breaking the speed limit.
Meredydd Hughes, Chief Constable of South Yorkshire, who is head of road policing for the Association of Chief Police Officers, pleaded guilty by letter on behalf of the force to failing to supply the driver’s identity after “diligent” inquiries failed to trace the offender.
The force was fined £500 by Rotherham magistrates, who were told that the unmarked Ford Corsa was travelling at 47mph in a 40mph zone.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2522441.html

Rick Storm
29th Dec 2006, 19:48
None of the above............
I'll think you'll find the 'Corsa' is made by Vauxhall???? I'm amazed it hit 47mph:p :p :p

Howard Hughes
29th Dec 2006, 20:10
The court heard "diligent inquiries" failed to track down the driver of the car,
What an absolute load of tosh!! Are they trying to tell us that Police record keeping is that bad, oh puleeeese....:hmm:

None of the above
29th Dec 2006, 21:06
None of the above............
I'll think you'll find the 'Corsa' is made by Vauxhall???? I'm amazed it hit 47mph:p :p :p
The Times is the nation's journal of record and as such is NEVER wrong.
Point taken, though!:confused:

All the best,

Nota:ok:

419
30th Dec 2006, 07:34
South Yorkshire Police Chief Constable Meredydd Hughes pleaded guilty on behalf of the force to failing to supply the driver's identity.
The force was fined £500 by magistrates in Rotherham on Thursday


Wouldn't it be good if we could do the same.

My car gets caught by a camera for speeding. I go to court, say I can't be sure who was driving, but plead guilty on behalf of my family, and get a £500 fine, which will end up getting paid by my local council tax payers.

Why was "the force" fined £500?. As the police chief, doesn't he have any liability?

G-CPTN
30th Dec 2006, 10:50
I guess that it wasn't HIS name on the vehicle registration document, but 'the Force'.

419
30th Dec 2006, 12:29
But surely if it was easy, all I would have to do is to register my car (which I use for business), in my company name, and I would never be able to get points on my licence.

ShyTorque
30th Dec 2006, 14:20
But you probably couldn't get the fine paid out of the public purse, as this one presumably was - or did the CP cough up the dosh himself?

G-CPTN
30th Dec 2006, 14:34
But surely if it was easy, all I would have to do is to register my car (which I use for business), in my company name, and I would never be able to get points on my licence.
It worked for them . . .

XXTSGR
30th Dec 2006, 17:28
I was wondering the same, Shy - so one is left to assume that it was actually the public who have paid for an offence committed by the police.

G-CPTN
30th Dec 2006, 17:35
As well as the time spent (!) researching the 'records' to see whether the scrote who committed the evil deed had signed the vehicle-use register, and then question all the likely suspects.

bjcc
30th Dec 2006, 22:05
In effect yes, the public did pay. But that would be the same as any public owned vehicle in the same circumstances. And no different from the Transport Manager of any organisation that couldn't trace the driver of one of it's vehicles, paying from the firms money.
I guess South Yorks do it different from the force I was in, where you booked a vehicle in and out in a book at the police station, and also filled in the milage in a seperate log book. But in an emergency, you could grab the keys and run.
Why wasn't the driver traced? Could be who ever did it lied, and denied everything, well that was suggested by a barrister on here as a way out of speeding offences, and it's also, in the eyes of at least one on here perfectly acceptable.
There are also innocent explanations. Not that the Police bashers on here would be interested...

419
31st Dec 2006, 00:08
In effect yes, the public did pay. But that would be the same as any public owned vehicle in the same circumstances.
What is this "in effect" sh1te?
The money comes from council tax payments, so the public do pay. There's no "in effect" about it.
And no different from the Transport Manager of any organisation that couldn't trace the driver of one of it's vehicles, paying from the firms money.
Yes, there's a very big difference. If a vehicle belonging to Stagecoach or National express was caught for speeding, the money would be deducted from their profits, and would not be paid by the general public.
This is simply another case of one rule for the police, and another for the man on the street.
But in an emergency, you could grab the keys and run
So, are you saying that a police driver can take a vehicle, and then commit an offence, in which an injury or death may occur, and there is no record of them taking or driving the vehicle concerned?
Bjcc you can give all the arguments you like, but the average motorist in the UK can see for themselves, that they are treated totally different to the police when it comes to driving standards and legalaties.

Flying Lawyer
31st Dec 2006, 07:53
bjcc
"Could be who ever did it lied, and denied everything, well that was suggested by a barrister on here as a way out of speeding offences"

That petty jibe at 'D SQDRN' is unfair.
It's how you interpreted a short comment he made. (I concede it was open to that interpretation.) However, when you accused him of advocating lying, he immediately responded to you, pointing out you'd misunderstood what he meant, and explained his point more fully and unambiguously.

bjcc
31st Dec 2006, 08:18
FL

Why do I never see you leap to anyone else's defence in the same circumstances?

419
I don't see any difference between your example of stagecoach and SYP. If a driver cannot be traced, then the company in the case of a vehicle owned by that company is responsible. They have no option to pay, whether they make a profit or are public funded. Councils, for example, are often have to pay fines for thier vehicles caught speeding, where the driver can't be traced.

Oh, and Police are not funded completely from Council Tax. A proportion comes from Central Goverment for all Policing and all is paid from the central pot for some aspects.

WorkingHard
31st Dec 2006, 09:21
BJCC - "Oh, and Police are not funded completely from Council Tax. A proportion comes from Central Goverment for all Policing and all is paid from the central pot for some aspects"
Quite true but it is all public money. The difference between the private company and a public funded body is that there is no way you can mitigate a fine; you cannot increase your next years precept to cover, you cannot even set it off against taxation, so the private company compared to the police get a double whammy. We pay you to uphold the the law and when you break it it seems we pay all over again.
Also please remember thare are very few private companies that can afford to spend 23%+ of their TOTAL income on pensions.
Why do YOU think the police in general have come in for such disdain from the public in recent years?

bjcc
31st Dec 2006, 09:33
Workinghard
Whether it is a Public Body, eg Police, or a Private Company eg Stagecoach, the public pays ultimatly. In the case of public bodies, via whatever taxation method they are funded, in the case of a private company, via money made from the public.
Just like a private company, using the police example, if the force is fined, it comes out of what money there is. The Chief Constable cannot go to the HO, or the local Council and ask for X amount more to fund fines, he has to use what he has, and not pay for something else. The amounts probably don't add up to much, so it's not really a concern, it just means a few less pens, white shirts, or a Police station doesn't get painted. The effect on operational Policing will be nil.
In the case of stagecoach, they make money from charging the public to use thier services. Again, the costs of speeding fines the company is obliged to pay is probably very low, but rest assurred, it's not going to come out of shareholders bonuses.
I doubt Police pensions are the cause of friction between some and police. Yes, they are good pensions, so are some private ones, the difference is in what a Police Officer pays towards it, which is a great deal more than most.
What do I think causes distain? Depends what you mean by destain. I don't think Police do themselves any favours sometimes. But then, thats nothing new. More reporting of police actions is probably the biggest cause, unfortunatly, that reporting is not as accurate as it could be, and often gives a wrong impression.
Most of my friends aren't, and never have been Police, but don't have the 'destain' you mention.
Speeding may be the subject some think of that causes friction. I'd agree it is, but again, thats something that has always been. Long before GATSO came along.

Grainger
31st Dec 2006, 09:53
The difference, bjcc, as you well know, is that the police force are the ones moralising about speeding, not Stagecoach.

Unlike most other offences, speeding is treated as an "absolute" offence, with no discretion or common sense applied. Yet when one of their own gets caught, they trot out all the same excuses that they criticise others for using.

The ones who enforce the laws should be the ones setting the best example. Not too difficult to understand, is it ?

419
31st Dec 2006, 09:56
Oh, and Police are not funded completely from Council Tax. A proportion comes from Central Goverment for all Policing

And where do you think that money comes from?
Yes, the tax payers again.

bjcc
31st Dec 2006, 09:58
Grainger
Yes, and that is what they have done, they have summonsed themselves. Been to court, pleaded guilty and been convicted, fined and paid it.
So what other example do you want them to set?
On the subject of moralising, they do the same overgoing through red lights, drink driving and just about any other offence you can mention. What you mean is, that YOU want to be able to drive at whatever speed YOU like, and don't like Police (or more properly legislation) interferring with that.

WorkingHard
31st Dec 2006, 09:58
BJCC methinks you do not understand sufficiently the differences between public and private funding. If the police run out of money because of overspend on something then the public pays next year from an increased contribution effected by way of a larger precept and a larger central government grant. This is all very handily tied up with "reductions" in this bit or other of the budget but overall the money increases. Now with a private company if you overprice you all go bust. Simple really and before you pen any more on fiscal matters it has been part of my life for 40 years. No company of which I am aware can afford anything like the contributions to a penson that the public pays for yours. I accept it as part of your conditions of service but once again your colleagues take the pi** by early retirement for all sorts of obscure reasons of health and live the life of riley. If it was not becoming such a problem why has it effectively been stopped? As for disdain, I think you answered my question, the public in general has much better information now about the way police conduct themselves and they do not like what they see. Put your own house in order and the EARN the respect of the public again.

ShyTorque
31st Dec 2006, 10:09
Public sector pensions - there's another very contentious subject! Most ordinary folk have recently seen that they have lost a large proportion of the value of their pension, due to a) a decline in the investment market and b) the Chancellor deciding he will take from the pot.

In view of this, it sticks hard in the craw indeed to be given a greatly increased council tax bill, in order to shore up the value of pensions for public sector staff including police (especially when some of them apparently can't even spell properly) yet constantly see a decline in the standards of real public service they provide.

Furthermore, we are told that we, as non-public sector workers, must now expect to work well past our present retirement dates. What about police personnel? Are their retirement ages to go up, too?

BJCC, as a self declared ex military / police employee, are you really in a position to know how much people outside those establishments pay into their pensions? On what facts do you base your statement?

bjcc
31st Dec 2006, 10:13
Workinghard.
You can't blame a police officer for a pensions policy. It was negociated with the goverment, at a time when Police Officers, on avarage lived 1 year after retirement. But during their 30 years (and sometimes more) service they paid 11% of thier pay towards it. As a finacial man, I'm sure you can see that the goverment would have been well and truely in profit! That it backfired, and ex police officers now live longer, is not those police officers fault. It doesn't happen often, but a Police officer that retries on ill health grounds can have that pension stopped if he recovers and would been fit to return to work as a Police Officer. You also don't seem to appriciate that something that has no effect on an office worker, does effectively end a police officers career. eg heart attack.
If you don't like the Police pensions scheme, then talk to the goverment over it.
If Police run out of money, then firstly the Chief Constable goes. Secondly, the chances of getting more (unless it is in connection with something specific eg major incident like Ipswich, or a terrorist attack) are nil. The Policing precept wont be raised because of missmanagment of the previous years funding. In any case, you are talking about very small sums. There are only 2 cases I can recall, where Police have been fined in these circumstances, I accept there may well be more.
In my force every january, we used to be subject to finacial cutbacks, eg restrictions on vehicle milage, bans on overtime, no replacement for clothing. I don't doubt other forces did the same. I also recall, that the budgets went down most years.
Lastly, I accept the public has more information, as the accuracy of that information?
ShyTorque
Yes, I am in a position to. I now pay 5% towards my current pension scheme. Yes, I will get 19 years of a Police pension as well, for which I paid my 11% monthly towards.
I was not, and have never claimed to be in the forces, my father was, and he paid 0% towards his. I hope you arn't suggesting thats not right? Oh and a fair number of servicemen can't spell either.

419
31st Dec 2006, 10:30
In the case of stagecoach, they make money from charging the public to use thier services. Again, the costs of speeding fines the company is obliged to pay is probably very low, but rest assurred, it's not going to come out of shareholders bonuses.

Yes, that's correct. The fine will be paid for by the public, but only the people who choose to use their services.

In the case of a fine being paid for out of police funds, the general public do not have the option whether or not to contribute towards it.
( I suppose they could withhold a small % of their council tax in protest, and end up in jail)

bjcc
31st Dec 2006, 10:33
419

So what exactly is your point?

419
31st Dec 2006, 10:48
My point is that a vehicle is caught for speeding.

No driver is prosecuted (due to the police not keeping records of who was driving)

No person receives any penalty, despite the fact that the chief police officer is ultimately responsible for people below him.

The only action is a fine, which comes from the public purse.

To put it bluntly, it looks as if the only reason the police decided to prosecute themselves, was so that they could pretend that they were treating themselves the same way they treat the general public.

bjcc
31st Dec 2006, 10:52
419

I see.

So, you are suggesting that, rather than just binning the ticket, which they could have and no one would be any the wiser, they go through a show trial?

Tell me, on your world, does the vauxhall Corsa have a different shaped gear knob?

UniFoxOs
31st Dec 2006, 11:07
Grainger
Yes, and that is what they have done, they have summonsed themselves. Been to court, pleaded guilty and been convicted, fined and paid it.
.

You are missing the point entirely. Any non-policeman who tried this in court would get a fine AND POINTS. Who got the points here?? NOBODY.

Cheers

UFO.

PS did you start your police career in Daventry?

Flying Lawyer
31st Dec 2006, 11:11
bjcc FL
Why do I never see you leap to anyone else's defence in the same circumstances? I don't know; I can't account for what you do or don't see.
Regulars here know I don't leap to the defence of lawyers or the legal system, and often criticise both. I thought your jibe at D Sqdrn was unfair given that he'd already explained you misunderstood his point, so said so.

FL

419
31st Dec 2006, 11:46
So, you are suggesting that, rather than just binning the ticket, which they could have and no one would be any the wiser, they go through a show trial

I'm not saying that's what happened, just that in my opinion, that's the way it looks to me.

Tell me, on your world, does the vauxhall Corsa have a different shaped gear knob????
I don't quite understand what you mean here, but if it's an attempt at a personal dig, it failed miserably. ( a bit like your defence of the police), and trying personal attacks is a sure sign that you've run out of valid arguments.

bjcc
31st Dec 2006, 12:27
UFO
No, I am not missing the point. What happened to SYP is EXACTLY what would have happened to any company, or organisation in the same circumstances. No one would have recieved points, as I recall, no one can in those circumstances. SYP were fined, in EXACTLY the same way as any other organisation would be.
419
I am at a loss as to what you suggest SYP do other than they did? Perhaps you can explain. As I have said, they were treated NO differently from anyone else.
I am not defending what happened. Due process of law has been followed, and that is that.
FL
Why was the 'jibe' unfair? He gave an explanation after the event, it may have been a correction to his meaning, it could of course also have been an attempt to wriggle out of something he should not, given his occupation, have said. Given his occupation, where word skills are fairly important, I cannot believe that he made an error, apart from of judgement. On that, we have all been guilty of, and it makes any of us open to attack, and yes, me included, as you have done on a number of occations.

419
31st Dec 2006, 12:47
they were treated NO differently from anyone else.

So if my car gets caught speeding, and I opt to go to court and say that I cannot remember who was driving, all I will get is a £500 fine, and no penalty points?

ShyTorque
31st Dec 2006, 12:47
"Yes, I am in a position to. I now pay 5% towards my current pension scheme. Yes, I will get 19 years of a Police pension as well, for which I paid my 11% monthly towards.
I was not, and have never claimed to be in the forces, my father was, and he paid 0% towards his. I hope you arn't suggesting thats not right? Oh and a fair number of servicemen can't spell either."

bjcc,
The reason you only see the need to contribute 5% now? Possibly because you have a police pension to fall back on, either now or in the future. Other folks without such privileges (including the opportunity to retire well before the age of 65) contribute much more than 5%, or go short of money in old age. An increasing number now do, according to recent studies by the government and hence the news that the state pensionable age for the masses must go up considerably in coming years.

BTW, a military salary includes deductions made to fund the pension, so in fact your father did actually pay, although the money wasn't shown on his pay slip.

Grainger
31st Dec 2006, 13:11
What happened to SYP is EXACTLY what would have happened to any company, or organisation in the same circumstances.Deliberately avoiding the point once again.

We have already established that a private individual or company would be unlikely to have their fine paid by the taxpayer, but whether the response was the same or not is irrelevant.

What is at issue here is the hypocrisy. None of the other organisations have spoken out against the "can't remember who was driving" defence. Criticising something and then doing it yourself is the problem.

bjcc
31st Dec 2006, 13:50
419

Of course you will, unless your car belongs to a company, and they have made enquiries to establish who the driver was, and could not do so. In which case the company is liable for a fine. The 'Company' cannot be disqualified from driver, not does it have a drivers licence, so points cannot be awarded. It is as simple as that.

Grainger

On the contray, many companies find themselves in the same boat. BA for example often used to say exactly the same, and yet when it came to trying to trace who abandoned one of their vehicles blocking a stand at LHR, or who was invloved in a failing to stop accident, claimed they couldn't trace the driver.

SYP didn't say they 'couldn't remember' who was driving the vehicle, they said, they couldn't trace who the driver was. It could be that the driver did a deny everything, in the same way as you and everyone else has the right to do. It could be that the person driving was long term sick at the time the enquiry was being made, and no one thought to ask him.

It could equaly be the driver didn't know. Suprising as that sounds, it's perfectly possible. There were 100 vehicles at Heathrow, and I knew the registration number of none of them. I couldn't tell you the following day what which one of the 8 panda type vehicles I drove the day before, or what day the previous week I drove a van, and which one of the 6 it was. Yes vehicles were booked in and out, and it was something enforced. But I could for example walk into work, and get asked to go out on an urgent call, grab any set of keys go and not have time to book it out, and later forget. It happens, the same as in every occupation, police officers are human. So because the driver couldn't be traced it does not mean it was dishonest. I accept that the opposite also applies.

Of course arn't you one of those that made much of the human rights challange currently going on? As a supporter of that, I am sure you fully support the officer if he was questioned and declined to 'inciminate' himself Or does that support only apply when it suits you?

ShyTorque

Please don't try to read my mind. You are wrong, the reason I pay that much is because thats what my pension contributions deduction is. No other reason. Nothing to do with my police pension.

I doubt you are in a position to reel off the benifits of a police pension verus a non police one. And to be honest, nor am I. However pensions and career choices are up to the individual, you can moan and whine about what Police officers get, even without knowing what that is, but that was part of the package offered. Sorry, but I am wouldn't have turned it down to keep you and a few others happy.

Grainger
31st Dec 2006, 13:58
Said it before and I'll say it again. Please actually read other people's posts before replying to them.

BA did not have their fine paid by the taxpayer, so they are not in the "same boat", but as I stated before, that is not the issue.

It was the police who issued a booklet denouncing the defence of being unable to determine who was driving. What people on here are complaining about is the hypocrisy of them subsequently using the same defence themselves.

Now you can pretend to not understand that, and make comments unrelated to the issue under discussion, but that's entirely your problem.

bjcc
31st Dec 2006, 14:45
Grainger

I did read, a shame you've not.

You asked:
"What is at issue here is the hypocrisy. None of the other organisations have spoken out against the "can't remember who was driving" defence. Criticising something and then doing it yourself is the problem."

I pointed one out to you.

Here's another, Local Concils. Mine certainly does, and in the same circumstances the fine would be (and has been) paid by taxpayers. The same would occur with the Ambulance services, Fire services, the forces, the civil Service, MI5 and every other public body.

Do they speak out about it? Of course, perhaps internally only, all claim to have the same processes in place in conection with booking in and out of vehicles, and no doubt all have been in court for the same thing, and you & I have paid.

If I am thinking of the same booklet as you, it was issued in respect of dishonesty in connection with requests made under S172.

There are certainly, in the case of my old force procceses in place to identify drivers of vehicles. I can safely assume that SYP has something if not identical, then similar. But that process is dependent on humans, and isn't infalable, for honest as well as dishonest reasons.


Quote:
"What people on here are complaining about is the hypocrisy of them subsequently using the same defence themselves."


SYP have not used any defence. They pleaded guilty to an offence, no defence was entered. As far as I can see, no mitigation was put forward either, so what defence are you talking about?

So what do you think should have happened?

ShyTorque
31st Dec 2006, 15:05
"So what do you think should have happened?"

How about the incumbent head of the relevant traffic department or the CC getting 3 points? :E

bjcc
31st Dec 2006, 15:12
ShyTorque
Because the legislation, as it stands precludes that. Where a company or goverment or public body owned vehicle is involved, and the driver cannot be identified, the comapany/public body as an organisation has the responsibility. If you read the reports you would see that SYP as an organisation pleaded guilty, not the CC as a person.
The law could be changed, but that would mean changed for everyone. While that may satisfy some, it would no doubt create a lot of vacancies for Transport Managers.

ShyTorque
31st Dec 2006, 15:24
"ShyTorque, Please don't try to read my mind. You are wrong, the reason I pay that much is because thats what my pension contributions deduction is. No other reason. Nothing to do with my police pension. I doubt you are in a position to reel off the benifits of a police pension verus a non police one. And to be honest, nor am I. However pensions and career choices are up to the individual, you can moan and whine about what Police officers get, even without knowing what that is, but that was part of the package offered. Sorry, but I am wouldn't have turned it down to keep you and a few others happy."

bjcc,
I wasn't trying to read your mind - I wouldn't wish to do so. I replied to take issue with your post claiming that non-public sector folk contribute less to a pension than you have been obliged to. I have no issue with the package offered to the police.

My issue was that at a time when my own pension fund was being doubly depleted, some of it removed by the Chancellor, I was suddenly compelled by law to contribute more to maintain the police pension fund at its present level through an increase in the quite separate and recently introduced "police share" of my council tax. Rather rubbed salt in the wound made by receipt of an increasingly poor service from the local police force, arguably already paid for by taxation.

In answer to your more recent post, Yes - a few jobs might go, but the documentation and control of vehicles would improve in leaps and bounds, which is surely what the police wish anyway!

Grainger
31st Dec 2006, 15:32
isn't infalableVery clever. I see what you did there.

The booklet in question was issued by Greater Manchester Police: http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2006/cheetah.pdf

The booklet goes on about "cheaters", "tricks", and threatens "don't become a criminal" (by implication, by using what they see as a trick).

On Page 3, it lists as one of these so-called "tricks": Stating that you don't know who was driving and that it could have been one of several people.

Now it may well be the case that the driver cannot be traced in this instance, but the point remains that threatening and condemning a particular course of action and then doing the same thing themselves isn't the best way to set a good example.

bjcc
31st Dec 2006, 15:34
ShyTorque

I agree, you are paying out 2 lots of money for policing, once through income tax, and the other through council tax.

The reasons for it are historical, Policing paid through rates/poll tax/council tax is supposed to pay for the local issues, the income tax for national police responsibilities.

The reality it gets lumped together in one pot for your local force.

Police pensions are as under threat as yours and everyone elses. The Goverment only has to change legislation and thats it. With only the Police Federation to argue its corner, which has no teeth, if it happens thats that. The majority of Po0lice Officers pensions are paid from the contributions made by current members of the service. With the growth of Police Civil Staff, who in the case of London, don't contribute towards thier pension, that ramps up the cost of police service pensions as a whole. So what you see in your local councils finance statements includes those.

bjcc
31st Dec 2006, 15:41
Grainger

So yes we were talking about the same document.

The reason it was issued was to stop people trying to evade responsibility, when they knew who the driver was. That is obvious from the very begining of it. It only refers to those trying to cheat the system.

It is not there to threaten those that tried to find out, but failed. You conceed that in this case, that may be the circumstances. In which case, the proper process has been followed, SYP were summonsed, pleaded guilty and were punished.

That it is in reality the public that pay, is a fact of life, SYP as an organisation only has one income, ie taxpayers money, so that is the only place payment can come from.

ShyTorque
31st Dec 2006, 16:21
bjcc,
I do understand how pensions work with regard to the present contributors paying the pensions of the present pensioners, most of us do.

The relevant point is that my future pension HAS gone down but the police one HAS NOT because I and other members of the public, both as a tax payer and council tax payer, have been mandated by law to pay extra to compensate, to maintain the latter at its previous level. Why should I? Why could the public sector soon-to-be pensioners not have taken the hit, as members of the public in a similar situation have already had to do?

This is just another issue of double standards and an arrogance within the system, to the detriment of those paying for the service.

bjcc
31st Dec 2006, 16:47
ShyTorque

You've lost me. How are you paying extra to keep police pensions at a previous level? There is no investment plan for police pensions, they are paid out of Goverment funds, as I understand it, Central Goverment, not local.

Even if you are correct, it's hardly the fault of Police. The HO agreed the Police pensions scheme, thats that. They can, and probably will renage on it at some point, they certainly have threatened to on a number of occations. But thats not evidence of double standards by Police Officers. Its in thier terms and conditions.

ShyTorque
31st Dec 2006, 17:16
bjcc,
See this link. Page 22 seems to be quite relevent.
http://www.nottinghamshire.police.uk/uploads/library/45/Statement_of_Accounts_04_05.pdf

Here's some interesting info, especially with its "Confidential - Not for publication" tag, as I found using Google search. Wonder who did it?

http://www.wiltshire.police.uk/policeauthority/meetingdocs/Agenda%20Item%206%20Revenue%20Budget%20Planning%202007_2008. pdf

bjcc
31st Dec 2006, 17:55
ShyTorque

Thanks, I only wish I understood it!

All I can say is that the numbers for 2004/05 seem to be reduced from 2003/04. Apart from one.

That is of course looking at The Police Pension Scheme, not the CC one, which is for Police Civil Staff.

Retruning to the question I asked though, why does this show double standards by Police Officers?

This may be a subject for debate, although more properly the subject of what HMG creams off pensions in general should be, but it realy is drifting well away from the subject of this thread.

ShyTorque
31st Dec 2006, 18:59
ShyTorque

Retruning to the question I asked though, why does this show double standards by Police Officers?

Not sure what "retruning" means but I didn't say that.

To re-quote my earlier post:

"This is just another issue of double standards and an arrogance within the system, to the detriment of those paying for the service."

I sincerely hope you always let your "suspects" from your previous employment write their own statements. :hmm:

Thread drift, yes and I'm now off to pursue more seasonal things.

Happy New Year, bjcc et al.