Police officer forfeits pension for professional misconduct.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hanger shuffle,
I think that if one was recalled from the reserve list but refused, then one probably would (and probably should) loose one's pension (on the basis that the pension is paid for the reserve liability).
However, I suspect the mechanics of it might go like this:
One gets recalled from the reserve list, so stops receiving pension, and starts getting regular pay instead.
One doesn't turn up.
One gets court-martialled (for failing to perform a duty which it was one's duty to perform).
One is convicted by CM and sentenced to something.
One is dismissed from regular service with an appropriate adjustments to one's pension, because one has been a naughty boy or girl.
But I could be wrong.
I think that if one was recalled from the reserve list but refused, then one probably would (and probably should) loose one's pension (on the basis that the pension is paid for the reserve liability).
However, I suspect the mechanics of it might go like this:
One gets recalled from the reserve list, so stops receiving pension, and starts getting regular pay instead.
One doesn't turn up.
One gets court-martialled (for failing to perform a duty which it was one's duty to perform).
One is convicted by CM and sentenced to something.
One is dismissed from regular service with an appropriate adjustments to one's pension, because one has been a naughty boy or girl.
But I could be wrong.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If those who agree with the OP's stance were to glance towards the private sector they'd see that hundreds of thousands of loyal and hard-working employees who haven't abused positions of trust to commit sexual offences have also lost their pensions.
Note to anyone who feels this PC's treatment is unreasonable: don't even think of working for any employer but the government.
Note to anyone who feels this PC's treatment is unreasonable: don't even think of working for any employer but the government.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personal or private pensions may have experienced fluctuating values, as they always do, and Monarch employees, I know, have suffered particularly badly with their occupational Final Salary pension going into protection - that's an appalling situation which reflects on the sellers and the buyers. The High Court is currently agonising over dipping into pensions for debt repayment, but that could (and would) apply equally to FS pensions too. However, this particular issue is different to any of the above - this is employment contract risk.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe in the same way that you might describe flying with far more precision than I might. However, for the record, I didn't describe 'people who've had their pensions wiped out as "experiencing fluctuating values"' - you did, and I certainly didn't do it in the manner you seem to be implying. I said that personal pensions experienced fluctuating values - and they do. Those values fluctuate for a number of reasons.
If an occupational pension is hammered, such as Monarch's, that's a reflection on the ownership of the business and not the financial services sector. Something like Equitable Life though, would be. I think that BALPA also appealed a decision made by the g'ment which affected the BA scheme.. but a management and legislative issue and again, not a financial services one?
If an occupational pension is hammered, such as Monarch's, that's a reflection on the ownership of the business and not the financial services sector. Something like Equitable Life though, would be. I think that BALPA also appealed a decision made by the g'ment which affected the BA scheme.. but a management and legislative issue and again, not a financial services one?
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely if someone is punished through the courts, then any additional punishment outside the courts would be challengeable.
It also raises the question that if the Service is able to take action against retired personnel, implying an obligation by retired personnel to the Service, then does the Service therefore have obligations to retired personnel above simply paying the pension?
And how much do you lose for a speeding fine? (a ... uhhh... friend of mine would like to know).
It also raises the question that if the Service is able to take action against retired personnel, implying an obligation by retired personnel to the Service, then does the Service therefore have obligations to retired personnel above simply paying the pension?
And how much do you lose for a speeding fine? (a ... uhhh... friend of mine would like to know).
Last edited by Bigbux; 19th Feb 2015 at 21:49. Reason: typo...but I've left the awkward expression. I'm done with ISS.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good moment for a quick update then.
The solicitor who argued that was talking through his or her backside - you can only lose a military pension after discharge for cooperating with the enemy in time of war, treason, buying the Daily Mail etc. But, deep within the bowels of the legislation are a few clauses for the Defence Council that can also arrange to restart it in favour of a next of kin in that event, and financial hardship will be one, and in the event you succumb to sticking a pair of shreddies on your head and two pencils up your nostrils, then your pension may be redirected in favour of a connected and relevant third party.
It seems that generally within the public sector, and each scheme seems to have various indiosyncracies, the circumstances that an individual can be penalised can be via pension retention or forfeiture (slightly different meanings in the context of legislation) depending on whether an individual's actions caused a monetary loss or whether one was simply sacked for breaching some law or regulation. The police pension scheme has the usual treason clauses as well as the ability to have a pension stopped if public confidence was seriously eroded in the service as the result of an officer's actions.
I think that the Rotherham children's sex scandals will also create pressures for the local government pension administrators to act. I have submitted some FoI requests to various agencies overseeing occupational public sector pensions to see if there was a common theme running through them. The one most which will be most interesting is the one relating to MPs. Given that their actions have pretty much made Westminster a laughing stock, and in light of recent legal actions, have any pensions been pinged recently? We'll see.
Almost by way of a metaphor of our times, underscoring the hypocrisy of the whole business, I discovered by chance that the hand wringing, blood letting MP who started asking specific questions of the local government pension scheme (re: Rotherham) was Clive Betts. Understandably, if a senior figure is employed to work in our name and be remunerated accordingly by a decent pension, if he or she falls short through negligence, there should be challenging questions asked about forfeiture. But, 10 years or so ago, Betts was found guilty by the Standards & Privileges Committee of breaching the MPs' code of conduct, by acting "extremely foolishly" and had "damaged public confidence in the integrity of Parliament".
At the risk of reading like Colonel Mustard writing to The Times, it adds fuel to the fire. It's appalling that on one hand, Betts et al can similarly erode public confidence, submit false accounting and manipulate the law (Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper flipped their house a few times - to see that buffoon pontificate about tax is particularly galling) and retain their pension (tbc!). Or worse, if it transpires that those who got actually prosecuted kept their's.
Whilst on the other hand of course, some servicemen were made redundant days shy of getting an immediate pension. The issue for those personnel is that their pension wasn't forfeited or retained, the benefit simply was not realised due to an employment contract being terminated. Flying Lawyer - you need to stare sternly at a transgressing junior barrister who was late for court, summon them to chambers and impress upon them the need to do some pro bono work.
The solicitor who argued that was talking through his or her backside - you can only lose a military pension after discharge for cooperating with the enemy in time of war, treason, buying the Daily Mail etc. But, deep within the bowels of the legislation are a few clauses for the Defence Council that can also arrange to restart it in favour of a next of kin in that event, and financial hardship will be one, and in the event you succumb to sticking a pair of shreddies on your head and two pencils up your nostrils, then your pension may be redirected in favour of a connected and relevant third party.
It seems that generally within the public sector, and each scheme seems to have various indiosyncracies, the circumstances that an individual can be penalised can be via pension retention or forfeiture (slightly different meanings in the context of legislation) depending on whether an individual's actions caused a monetary loss or whether one was simply sacked for breaching some law or regulation. The police pension scheme has the usual treason clauses as well as the ability to have a pension stopped if public confidence was seriously eroded in the service as the result of an officer's actions.
I think that the Rotherham children's sex scandals will also create pressures for the local government pension administrators to act. I have submitted some FoI requests to various agencies overseeing occupational public sector pensions to see if there was a common theme running through them. The one most which will be most interesting is the one relating to MPs. Given that their actions have pretty much made Westminster a laughing stock, and in light of recent legal actions, have any pensions been pinged recently? We'll see.
Almost by way of a metaphor of our times, underscoring the hypocrisy of the whole business, I discovered by chance that the hand wringing, blood letting MP who started asking specific questions of the local government pension scheme (re: Rotherham) was Clive Betts. Understandably, if a senior figure is employed to work in our name and be remunerated accordingly by a decent pension, if he or she falls short through negligence, there should be challenging questions asked about forfeiture. But, 10 years or so ago, Betts was found guilty by the Standards & Privileges Committee of breaching the MPs' code of conduct, by acting "extremely foolishly" and had "damaged public confidence in the integrity of Parliament".
At the risk of reading like Colonel Mustard writing to The Times, it adds fuel to the fire. It's appalling that on one hand, Betts et al can similarly erode public confidence, submit false accounting and manipulate the law (Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper flipped their house a few times - to see that buffoon pontificate about tax is particularly galling) and retain their pension (tbc!). Or worse, if it transpires that those who got actually prosecuted kept their's.
Whilst on the other hand of course, some servicemen were made redundant days shy of getting an immediate pension. The issue for those personnel is that their pension wasn't forfeited or retained, the benefit simply was not realised due to an employment contract being terminated. Flying Lawyer - you need to stare sternly at a transgressing junior barrister who was late for court, summon them to chambers and impress upon them the need to do some pro bono work.
