So sad it came to this.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: England
Age: 53
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So sad it came to this.
A sorry tale. To gamble a pension for this? William Donaldson: RAF serviceman stole £15,000 of life-saving military equipment and sold it on eBay | Mail Online
Shame on you Mr Donaldson.
F
Shame on you Mr Donaldson.
F
Last edited by Farrier; 19th Aug 2012 at 18:13.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When a Joint Service Establishment are tasked with monitoring eBay as a primary duty, this conclusion was inevitable from day one. I am amazed that it has built up as far as it has. He has plenty of time for reflection with regards to his own stupidity, but is his pension really on the line? I have heard such a threat in other Court Marshal scenarios but I would have thought that a pension cannot be touched by a disciplinary procedure even a clear cut case such as this.
AL1. Google was my friend:
Against that, the Forfeiture Act 1870, one of the oldest statutes still in force, allows all entitlement to PCSPS benefits to be withdrawn in certain circumstances.
The PCSPS deeds state: "The Minister will have power to withhold benefits payable under this scheme where a civil servant or former civil servant is convicted of an offence in connection with any employment to which this scheme applies, being an offence which is certified by a Minister of the Crown either to have been gravely injurious to the State or to be liable to lead to serious loss of confidence in the public service."
John Pearson, a pensions expert at City solicitors Lovells, said: "There are other powers to withhold pension benefits available to the Minister for the Civil Service.
"For example, benefits could be withheld where the scheme member is convicted of treason or offences under the Official Secrets Acts 1911 to 1989 and is sentenced to imprisonment for at least 10 years.
"However, before benefits may be forfeited, the person concerned is entitled to appeal to an independent board nominated by the Minister and he will accept the board's judgment on whether or not the appellant's pension should be forfeited."
David Astley of the National Association of Pension Funds emphasised that private sector employers have no such wide-ranging rights to sequester an employee's pension.
However, he added that there is one exception: "Whether you are in a final salary or a money purchase scheme in the private sector, the only way an employer can withhold pension rights is if you have committed fraud or caused financial loss to the employer and there is no way for the company to recover the debt, other than going after your pension.
"Even then, the trustees would need court approval before they could reduce a member's benefits by the amount of an outstanding debt. This would not be an easy course of action and it might even be necessary for the trustees to seek the Inland Revenue's approval that this would not prejudice the scheme's tax exempt status.
"For all these reasons, it is extremely unusual in the private sector for an employer to go after an employee's pension. In 17 years in the insurance industry, I only came across one case where trustees considered doing so and I do not think they went forward with the idea."
By contrast, pursuing the pension as a form of punishment is by no means uncommon in the public sector. On Tuesday this week Dorchester Crown Court heard that a retired Army major will lose his pension after pleading guilty to running a brothel and living off immoral earnings.
Ian Brazier, defending Michael Chubb of Gold Hill, Shaftesbury, Dorset, told the court: "He is a former Army officer and a conviction means he will lose his Army pension."
AL1. Google was my friend:
Against that, the Forfeiture Act 1870, one of the oldest statutes still in force, allows all entitlement to PCSPS benefits to be withdrawn in certain circumstances.
The PCSPS deeds state: "The Minister will have power to withhold benefits payable under this scheme where a civil servant or former civil servant is convicted of an offence in connection with any employment to which this scheme applies, being an offence which is certified by a Minister of the Crown either to have been gravely injurious to the State or to be liable to lead to serious loss of confidence in the public service."
John Pearson, a pensions expert at City solicitors Lovells, said: "There are other powers to withhold pension benefits available to the Minister for the Civil Service.
"For example, benefits could be withheld where the scheme member is convicted of treason or offences under the Official Secrets Acts 1911 to 1989 and is sentenced to imprisonment for at least 10 years.
"However, before benefits may be forfeited, the person concerned is entitled to appeal to an independent board nominated by the Minister and he will accept the board's judgment on whether or not the appellant's pension should be forfeited."
David Astley of the National Association of Pension Funds emphasised that private sector employers have no such wide-ranging rights to sequester an employee's pension.
However, he added that there is one exception: "Whether you are in a final salary or a money purchase scheme in the private sector, the only way an employer can withhold pension rights is if you have committed fraud or caused financial loss to the employer and there is no way for the company to recover the debt, other than going after your pension.
"Even then, the trustees would need court approval before they could reduce a member's benefits by the amount of an outstanding debt. This would not be an easy course of action and it might even be necessary for the trustees to seek the Inland Revenue's approval that this would not prejudice the scheme's tax exempt status.
"For all these reasons, it is extremely unusual in the private sector for an employer to go after an employee's pension. In 17 years in the insurance industry, I only came across one case where trustees considered doing so and I do not think they went forward with the idea."
By contrast, pursuing the pension as a form of punishment is by no means uncommon in the public sector. On Tuesday this week Dorchester Crown Court heard that a retired Army major will lose his pension after pleading guilty to running a brothel and living off immoral earnings.
Ian Brazier, defending Michael Chubb of Gold Hill, Shaftesbury, Dorset, told the court: "He is a former Army officer and a conviction means he will lose his Army pension."
Last edited by Tiger_mate; 19th Aug 2012 at 18:33.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doubt very much he has ANY regrets, arrogance beyond belief.
What makes it worse is his position and the affect he probably has had on countless sevicepeople who have had the misfortune to pass through his hands.
What makes it worse is his position and the affect he probably has had on countless sevicepeople who have had the misfortune to pass through his hands.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,073
Received 2,942 Likes
on
1,253 Posts
Considering the pay a WO is on compared to a lot in the Forces, it makes it even worse, if I have any sympathy it is for his kids who are unwilling participants in this...
Adios to your pension... You lost the right to that when you started down this path.
Adios to your pension... You lost the right to that when you started down this path.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Alton Hants
Age: 89
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tiger-mate
W.O. Donaldson is not a Civil Servant. The military are explicitly excluded from the definition of a Civil Servant.
It may be that the rules for service pensions are the same or similar to those for the Civil Service
I am not sure if the service pension is now treated as a contributory pension, if it is then Ex W.O Donaldson may well get his pension.
W.O. Donaldson is not a Civil Servant. The military are explicitly excluded from the definition of a Civil Servant.
It may be that the rules for service pensions are the same or similar to those for the Civil Service
I am not sure if the service pension is now treated as a contributory pension, if it is then Ex W.O Donaldson may well get his pension.
I'm working from memory here, so I could be wrong, however....
A couple of years ago, when I was a flight commander, one of my chaps was up in front of a military court facing likely dismissal. One of the things I did was check the relevant AP on court proceedings, which included a section on punishments and pensions. I seem to remember that, except in extreme cases, e.g. treason, any pension rights already earned were not generally lost as a result of the court decision.
Standing by to be proved wrong by someone more knowledgable.....
P.S. My chap was dismissed from the RAF.....
A couple of years ago, when I was a flight commander, one of my chaps was up in front of a military court facing likely dismissal. One of the things I did was check the relevant AP on court proceedings, which included a section on punishments and pensions. I seem to remember that, except in extreme cases, e.g. treason, any pension rights already earned were not generally lost as a result of the court decision.
Standing by to be proved wrong by someone more knowledgable.....
P.S. My chap was dismissed from the RAF.....
He will get his pension.
Quite a few years since the regulations change but IIRC only the Defence Council can decide to withhold a service pension and I don't think they have ever enacted the power since the regulations were changed.
Quite a few years since the regulations change but IIRC only the Defence Council can decide to withhold a service pension and I don't think they have ever enacted the power since the regulations were changed.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Different colour uniform - same offence within reason = pension lost.
Let's wait and see...Oh the arrogance of the untouchable WO.
What a twit.
G
Let's wait and see...Oh the arrogance of the untouchable WO.
What a twit.
G
Last edited by gijoe; 19th Aug 2012 at 22:05.
I also doubt that he'll ever spend much time in the Legion with others from his time in the mob.
Mind you the ladies' darts team I saw there last month looked as though they would have no trouble with the Lympstone course - what a tough looking bunch!
Pensions are very rarely lost. A review is carried out to determine if there should be any penison reduction (not sure of the right term) but the review is based on the assumption that the majority of the SP's career has been blameless.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: London
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
reduction of pension/forfeiture
Here is what the scheme rule says:
J.5 Events enabling forfeiture
(1) This paragraph applies to a member who is an active member, a deferred
member or a pensioner member if the member—
(a) is convicted of treason or one or more offences under the Official Secrets
75
(a) 1826 (7 Geo 4 c. 16)
Acts for which the member has been sentenced on the same occasion—
(i) to a term of imprisonment of at least 10 years; or
(ii) to two or more consecutive terms amounting in the aggregate to at
least 10 years;
(b) is convicted of an offence in connection with the service that qualifies the
member to belong to the Scheme which the Defence Council considers to
have been gravely injurious to the defence, security or other interests of
the State; or
(c) has after becoming a member of the Scheme incurred a monetary
obligation to the Crown which—
(i) arises out of a criminal, negligent or fraudulent act or omission by the
member; or
(ii) arises out of or in connection with the member’s service in the armed
forces.
(2) This paragraph applies to a person who is convicted of the murder or
manslaughter of the member or any other offence which involves the unlawful
killing of the member.
(3) In paragraph (2) “unlawful killing” includes unlawfully aiding, abetting,
counselling or procuring the death.
Looks like J5(1)(c) is what the powers that be will be addressing their minds to. As others have said, pensions are not reduced without a good deal of consideration at a very senior level.
J.5 Events enabling forfeiture
(1) This paragraph applies to a member who is an active member, a deferred
member or a pensioner member if the member—
(a) is convicted of treason or one or more offences under the Official Secrets
75
(a) 1826 (7 Geo 4 c. 16)
Acts for which the member has been sentenced on the same occasion—
(i) to a term of imprisonment of at least 10 years; or
(ii) to two or more consecutive terms amounting in the aggregate to at
least 10 years;
(b) is convicted of an offence in connection with the service that qualifies the
member to belong to the Scheme which the Defence Council considers to
have been gravely injurious to the defence, security or other interests of
the State; or
(c) has after becoming a member of the Scheme incurred a monetary
obligation to the Crown which—
(i) arises out of a criminal, negligent or fraudulent act or omission by the
member; or
(ii) arises out of or in connection with the member’s service in the armed
forces.
(2) This paragraph applies to a person who is convicted of the murder or
manslaughter of the member or any other offence which involves the unlawful
killing of the member.
(3) In paragraph (2) “unlawful killing” includes unlawfully aiding, abetting,
counselling or procuring the death.
Looks like J5(1)(c) is what the powers that be will be addressing their minds to. As others have said, pensions are not reduced without a good deal of consideration at a very senior level.
Last edited by Voxpop; 20th Aug 2012 at 07:13.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK and where I'm sent!
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Serving WO steals stuff - go to prison. MP steals allowances - pay it back and carry on. Lead by example and apply the law equally. They should all be in prison together.
While he deserves what he gets, methinks plod went after an easy target while turning a blind eye to more serious offences.
Just once I'd love to hear a defence barrister plead in mitigation;
In MoD,
1. It is not an offence to commit fraud
2. It is not an offence to issue an order to commit fraud
3. It is an offence to refuse to obey that order.
(Formal rulings by DGAS2, CDP, DPRD 1998-2004, upheld by five Ministers for the Armed Forces. The same RAF plod took no action. The money involved was was a lot more than 10 measly grand. And, according to those regs quoted, my future pension isn't at risk as I'm merely quoting unclassified Ministerial correspondence to my MP, forwarded to me).
Just once I'd love to hear a defence barrister plead in mitigation;
In MoD,
1. It is not an offence to commit fraud
2. It is not an offence to issue an order to commit fraud
3. It is an offence to refuse to obey that order.
(Formal rulings by DGAS2, CDP, DPRD 1998-2004, upheld by five Ministers for the Armed Forces. The same RAF plod took no action. The money involved was was a lot more than 10 measly grand. And, according to those regs quoted, my future pension isn't at risk as I'm merely quoting unclassified Ministerial correspondence to my MP, forwarded to me).
Well said, tuc. This case illustrates yet again that everyone is equal under the Law, it is just that some people are more equal than others...
All well and said Tecumseh, but your assertions have not been tested in Court, from what I understand. Even if this were to be the case, how does this get the Warrant Officer (ex) off the hook?
Just because some people are able to get their hands into the biscuit barrel but can avoid prosecution for doing so (howsoever achieved), does that mean that there should be no offence (and prosecution) for theft?
Imagine if it was GBP10K of your personal property that was taken and the CPS chose not to prosecute the perpetrator becasue of some unrelated larceny allegedly commited by other people?
Just because some people are able to get their hands into the biscuit barrel but can avoid prosecution for doing so (howsoever achieved), does that mean that there should be no offence (and prosecution) for theft?
Imagine if it was GBP10K of your personal property that was taken and the CPS chose not to prosecute the perpetrator becasue of some unrelated larceny allegedly commited by other people?