A story that makes me despair

www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/jan/15/shipman.health

This is interesting

Eleo - as always your posts make me think . I can see what you mean about a double punishment. I've been thinking about doctors who break the law and their pensions - Shipman's widow got his NHS widows pension after his suicide. How do I feel about that? His wasn't a one off was it - he murdered they believe throughout his whole medical career. Bit of a minefield

That style of policing sounds appalling, dj. I can easily imagine it being portrayed as necessary to keep violent elements under control, and thus leading to more & more control and repression, all in the interests of a 'peaceful society' of course.

GrannyTwice I do agree, as you say, that it is fundamentally much more serious if a police officer breaks the law and should therefore receive a much harsher penalty. In the particular case you mentioned, the officer was imprisoned and I believe police officers have a very hard time in prison so I just wondered if it was right that they should also be deprived of a large percentage of their pension.

durhamjen I think the cuts in policing are very worrying. They are saying that there is every chance that they will not be able to respond in person to anything other than violent crimes and emergencies. Along with the risks of a more heavy handed approach from the police, I think so far as protection of property is concerned, people in better off neighbourhoods may decide to all chip in and hire private security staff, leaving those who can't afford to do that more likely to be targeted and less likely to have crimes against their properties investigated.

"Policing:

Steve White, chair of the Police Federation, has warned that if further cuts are made to policing, then the police will be forced to take a more violent approach, stating that with less money “you get a style of policing where the first options are teargas, rubber bullets and water cannon.” We all know that policing without consent will lead to huge civil unrest. Poor police-community relations were the trigger for the 2011 riots. And in a society where mass-protesting is becoming a weekly activity, this paramilitary style policing will undoubtedly impact upon all of us."

I do not like the sound of this at all.

Definitely, and therefore they should expect to be punished severely for it. After all, they are the ones who are supposed to uphold the law for the rest of us.

US? is ( sighs)

Just musing - but U.S. there something fundementally much more serious about a police officer breaking the law?

X posts dj

It's only for extremely serious cases and yes, police do know that it can happen. It's very rare. The 40% figure was just in this one case - I don't think there's any fixed %. I don't know about other professions and pension reduction but those professions which are regulated like doctors. Dentists, solicitors etc face the ultimate sanction of being struck off their professional register and so not being able to work in that profession again.

With some professions like architecture, if you end up in prison you are not often able to go back into your previous employment, and would therefore lose the ability to pay into your pension until you retire, so there is an equivalent.
It would be nice if bankers who are found guilty of corruption had to pay back some of their pension pots, particularly as they are often responsible for some of their employees losing their jobs.

I have no sympathy with people who have behaved corruptly, particularly when they are supposed to be upholding the law. I believe they should face disciplinary proceedings and, if appropriate, be sacked. I don't believe they should have the option of avoiding by resigning.

However, if someone loses their job and is imprisoned for their crime, is it right that they also lose 40% of their pension? I realise that it is probably meant to act as a deterrent but it doesn't seem fair to me - does it happen to other professionals? Or am I missing something - is it the equivalent of them getting back the money they paid in but losing the benefit of the employer's contribution - and are these people explicitly warned that that percentage of their pension can be withheld should they be sacked?

Eleo - a recent example has been a senior policewoman who was imprisoned for taking money from the NOW in return for leaking information. Her pension was reduced by 40%. I believe it's quite rare but the police do know it can happen. I think it can happen in the armed forces too

I think it depends on the length of service and the severity of the reason for sacking, Eloethan. The police have a strong union.

www.thepeoplesassembly.org.uk/under_this_government_justice_belongs_to_those_who_can_afford_it

How the justice system has changed for ordinary people.

I don't really understand this issue about police pensions. If a police officer is sacked, does that mean the pension he/she has paid into is reduced in some way, but if he/she resigns the pension remains intact?

I think if a police officer has committed a sackable offence - and this certainly appears to be one - he/she should be sacked but I'm not sure if I agree that the pension should be affected when the officer has paid into it. Does anyone here know how this works?

Yes I think it changed in January as dj said ^^. But I don't believe the guiding principle is about the pensions, that just made a bad situation worse. The real issue for me is that of public confidence in the police force - the police are there to uphold the law. If there are allegations that they are not doing their job properly - as in this Hampshire case- then they have to be investigated and seen to be investigated to uphold public confidence. Remember as well that their actions can put members of the public at risk if they do not investigate crimes properly and criminsls run free.

I am a little (possibly a lot) confused. Is this not all about that ATM police officers can resign/retire before disciplinary action (which may effect their pension etc.) therefore avoiding the disciplinary action and safeguarding their pension. As I read it that is changing.

As to degree, yes, but I think the principle is the same. Perhaps. Just thinking out loud.

Thatbags I honestly don't think that you can compare that with the issue of why the police should have to go through a disciplinary process before retiring/ resigning - it's a completely different set of issues and principles

Disgrace certainly, yes, but it does not follow you like a sacking might. I suspect there is one law for the masses and another for those in very senior posts.

Such as Ed Miliband pretty much having to resign as leader of the Labour Party after the election.

Oh. Thanks, pompa. But, money aside, I think having to resign is seen as a bit of a disgrace sometimes, is it not? If not, why do people call for it when they are annoyed about someone's handling of a job?

I don't see resigning to be a disciplinary move, getting dismissed, yes. Most people who resign having screwed up in some way, come away financially better of, because sacking them opens a compensatory can of worms.

January this year, unfortunately. However, it shouldn't happen from now on.

www.gov.uk/government/news/new-regulations-prevent-police-officers-retiring-or-resigning-to-avoid-dismissal

Thatbags - there's been a long ongoing debate about police resigning/ retiring to avoid disciplinary action which has culminated in the above. It really can't be compared with someone resigning for not doing their job properly in eg a company because it's about the whole public confidence thing in the police service.