A public sector employee is funded by me and you. And that is the big difference - I'm not happy to pay for someone to not do the job they are paid to do. They have to play by the rules or face the consequences.
Anyone know if any of the MPs or lords convicted over the past few years have lost their pensions?
I think a prison sentence and loss of his job is sufficient punishment.
A public sector employee is funded by me and you
Respectfully (and I don't mean that as a BS term) public sector is funded by everyone, even the employees of the PS.
The whole "take their pension" is just a current trend of anger towards PS employees, and basically, is pathetic.
The law should apply and nothing more.
He was in a position of trust and a Police officer - it's not like he just did something a bit wrong, he proactively set out to lie, seemingly with the intention of damaging someone's career.
Correct he was that's right I'm not sure his intention was damage someone else's career though.
T&Cs seem to allow him to lose his pension - it would be good to make an example of him to warn others not to do the same.
If this case I disagree.
A private sector employee (and their pension) is funded by the business they work for. A public sector employee is funded by me and you.
It's funded by his wage and his employer, you know almost like a paying for private pension out of your wage. Ok it has the bonus of being matched by his employer but that came with his job, he no longer has that job but has paid into for what at 53 I would guess for awhile.
I'm not sure his intention was damage someone else's career though.
Why else would he fabricate the story, given there was already bad feeling towards the MP in question from sections of the Police? There had to be a motivation and this seems the logical conclusion, that he thought he could turn the knife on someone.
Why else would he fabricate the story, given there was already bad feeling towards the MP in question from sections of the Police?
A story they spun that got out of hand?
It's funded by his wage and his employer, you know almost like a paying for private pension out of your wage.
Police wages are funded by taxation, no? So 'we' pay for police pensions. Which then also have to be topped up, again through taxation.
[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9846000/Public-sector-pensions-could-cost-up-to-1600-a-year-per-household-says-think-tank.html ]link[/url]
Police wages are funded by taxation, no? So 'we' pay for police pensions.
'You' pay 'us' [i]X[/i] per annum to do our job on your behalf. That money is then ours, not yours. We then [i]choose[/i] to pay so much of our salary into a pension scheme.
We might also spend some of our money on goods or services that pay your wages, so depending on how long we want to follow this money round and round for, we no doubt find that 'we' in turn pay 'your' wages, and applying the same logic, your pension 😉
Oh the old "We Pay your wages' well guess what Police pay tax too as well as their contribution to the pension, thegreatape has covered what I was going to say too. The money they earn that is then spent too which will keep someone else in employment as well as the tax they pay 'topping up' their pension.
Everyone pays tax well except operations who register as American.
Seems to me the issue of whether his pension would be forfeited/cut for this sort of misconduct is the more important issue here, not the way in which he ceases to be a serving police officer with potentially dubious morals and decision-making capabilities...
One way or another, taxpayers pay for employment tribunals/disciplinaries etc in the public sector. Although I do have issue about how long and how costly these procedures are in public service: ie it is very very long, complex and expensive process to sack someone through really obvious misconduct let alone poor performance/being rubbish. Sometimes the most righteous course of action is (pragmatically speaking) not the best one due to the cost, and also whatever public service the people involved in it won't be able to do while they are busy doing the 'right' thing.
I remember someone I knew being sacked from a reasonably paid (about 35k iirc) health service post: the easily measurable and impossible to argue against bits were what he got dismissed for. To have sacked him for everything else it was widely alleged he had done wrong would have been far more 'right' for those involved (although TBF this was staff not patients iirc, perhaps it would have been different again had their been clear direct harm to individual patients rather than the service) butthis would have cost the trust (and so you the taxpayer) far more for the same end result. Obviously this would have been easier if he had resigned, but it was still better for taxpayer to have thrown a couple of books at him not the whole bookshelf.
Oh also, at what point could/can Andrew Mitchell take legal action against this [s]officer[/s] man for loss of earnings/career? Clearly his life and possibly bank balance now and in the future would be very different today had all this never happened or happened differently.
Oh also, at what point could/can Andrew Mitchell take legal action against this officer man for loss of earnings/career?
He resigned didn't he?
[quote=Drac said]Oh also, at what point could/can Andrew Mitchell take legal action against this officer man for loss of earnings/career?
He resigned didn't he?
Political resignations == not the resignee's choice
Political resignations == not the resignee's choice
Hmmm bit like this Police Officer then.
Apart from Mitchell being an innocent party and the police office being very far from that.
The more important issue is does anyone have moustaches like that other than coppers?
It might go down nicely (sorry) on one wing.
