View Full Version : Microsoft puts police link on Messenger
pultneytooner
25-Aug-06, 13:30
Microsoft puts police link on Messenger
Mark Sweney
Wednesday August 23, 2006
MediaGuardian.co.uk
Users of Microsoft's Messenger email service will be able to report suspected sexual predators directly to the police at the click of a mouse.
Link (http://technology.guardian.co.uk/news/stor...1855921,00.html)
I wonder how the police will manage, trying to cope with 11 million potential abusers once people start settling scores by reporting abuse?
j4bberw0ck
25-Aug-06, 13:44
I wonder how the police will manage, trying to cope with 11 million potential abusers once people start settling scores by reporting abuse?
Yes. Especially as they're all too busy doing useful things like investigating football fouls and spending sunny days oot and aboot with laser speed detectors, and are already too busy to investigate people being stabbed outside their own homes by yobbos who later (it seems) may have come back and shot the poor guy.
pultneytooner
25-Aug-06, 13:45
Yes. Especially as they're all too busy doing useful things like investigating football fouls and spending sunny days oot and aboot with laser speed detectors, and are already too busy to investigate people being stabbed outside their own homes by yobbos who later (it seems) may have come back and shot the poor guy.
Very true.
j4bberw0ck
26-Aug-06, 09:20
More police time spent investigating, preparing a prosecution case, then deciding to give a formal Caution instead, to the Celtic goalkeeper for allegedly committing a breach of the peace. In a recent "old firm" match, this (clearly) dangerous major criminal had the colossal audacity to (wait for it)................. bless himself!
Must be lovely being in the Police; retiring after 30 years at 48 or 49, and building a career on serious, interesting, challenging crimes such as Catholics blessing themselves, footballers fouling each other and so on.
Wait a mo'........ I know 2 isn't a statistically significant sample, but am I seeing the early start of a pattern here? Lots of football being watched........?
Of course it is lovely being in the police; going out on night shift wondering what mindless thug will decide to kick the you know what out of you for deciding that he really should not be shouting the odds, challenging everyone around him to a fight and arguing the toss with ambulance staff called out to lift yet another drunken female with her clothes around her waist out of her mind with drink (oh what a great weekend I had!) breaking the windows of the ex partner's house, kids cowering in a corner terrified of Dad on another of his drunken rants, wasting time on someone who likes to see blue lights flashing so dialled 999, trying to calm down a mother who is charge of small children but knew she deserved a drink, helping to cut some of our kids free from the wreckage of yet another car of young people out for a spin but one of them won't ever be going home because what a laugh terrifying passengers showing them what speed the car will do, mocking them for being uncool, breaking the news to parents who think their son/daughter is just at the local disco instead of lying in a mortuary, trying to wrestle a knife from a drug crazed idiot, defending medical staff from more drunken wastrels, wasting time on drunks incapable of looking after themselves, filling in paperwork to do with all these unnecessary idiotic antics.
Can't have them wasting their time on making the streets safe from people too lazy to walk the length of themselves, park their cars anywhere to impede other drivers, think they have the right drive fast past schools, frighten elderly people (old sods should stay inside anyway, what do they know) make it extremely difficult for elderly drivers to take their wives shopping and making them very nervous about making decisions because not everyone sticks to the rules.
Of course it's lovely; why don't you go out and try it?
philupmaboug
26-Aug-06, 10:42
Well said Ann, if half the moaners about the police got out and did something like become a special or even give evidence the police would stand a chance of making thier little world safer.
More police time spent investigating, preparing a prosecution case, then deciding to give a formal Caution instead, to the Celtic goalkeeper for allegedly committing a breach of the peace. In a recent "old firm" match, this (clearly) dangerous major criminal had the colossal audacity to (wait for it)................. bless himself!
Must be lovely being in the Police; retiring after 30 years at 48 or 49, and building a career on serious, interesting, challenging crimes such as Catholics blessing themselves, footballers fouling each other and so on.
<snip>
Though if it was Man City's Ben Thatcher's foul I think the police are quite right to get involved.
pultneytooner
26-Aug-06, 10:47
Though if it was Man City's Ben Thatcher's foul I think the police are quite right to get involved.
True ,saveman, assault is assault no matter where it occurs.
j4bberw0ck
26-Aug-06, 11:04
Fair point. I apologise if I've upset you, but perhaps the irony was a little too well hidden. Every job has its downside and the problem seems to be that many members of the public these days are subject to the same threats as you identify for the police. The difference seems to be (south, at any rate - not an issue here or I suspect in Caithness) that the police don't turn up when it's members of the public being attacked, but you'll find any number in traffic cars or loitering with intent, armed with laser guns.
A friend south was attacked on the street - an unprovoked attack, I hasten to add, trying to snatch his mobile phone - and the police simply weren't interested. Declined even to take a statement. A workmate (6'4" rugby player) was mugged by 4 people in London; 2 armed with knives. No action or response from the police.
Until various constabularies around the country buckle down and get on the the job of instilling confidence into the public, they'll continue to lose the hearts and minds battle. If that means getting more resource, then that's what senior officers presumably earn their remarkably generous salaries for.
You may be familiar with the joke about the man who, hearing a noise from his garden at 0200hr, looks and sees two men breaking into his garage. He phones the police who say they have no resource to respond just now.
Two minutes later he phones the police back and says "Don't worry, problem solved, I shot them". Three minutes later there are 40 police in his garden, an armed response unit, a helicopter overhead and the SOCO says "I thought you said you shot them?" "I thought you said you had no resources?" said the householder.
Not a terribly good joke, but the mere fact that it's been doing the rounds for years and people laugh at it says something about the public perception of the service provided - and again, let me say, not here, I presume not Caithness, but at a number of constabularies south.
Lastly, retirement after 30 years aged less than 50 is an unsustainable luxury when the rest of the country is expected to work until 65 / 67 / 70 (orwhatever the figure is this week), so a policeperson's lot has the potential to be far from an unhappy one, I'd suggest.
Fair point. I apologise if I've upset you, but perhaps the irony was a little too well hidden. <snip>
You didn't upset me....I take your point. :)
j4bberw0ck
26-Aug-06, 11:21
You didn't upset me....I take your point. :)
Actually, I was offering an apology for upsetting Ann, but thanks anyway! :lol:
Actually, I was offering an apology for upsetting Ann, but thanks anyway! :lol:
Ah.....oops....paranoia is my middle name.... ;)
The Scottish Police Federation want to legalise all drugs. And I think they're absolutely right. It is a battle lost a long, long, long time ago and there is no such thing as a drug free country and NEVER will be. It is a huge waste of police resources and it is also extremely dangerous. How they can make plants and mushrooms illegal completely BAFFLES me. More people die from LEGAL and prescription drugs every year then anything illegal. It's a lost cause! And there are much more useful things they could be up too.
Of course it is lovely being in the police; going out on night shift wondering what mindless thug will decide to kick the you know what out of you for deciding that he really should not be shouting the odds, challenging everyone around him to a fight and arguing the toss with ambulance staff called out to lift yet another drunken female with her clothes around her waist out of her mind with drink (oh what a great weekend I had!) breaking the windows of the ex partner's house, kids cowering in a corner terrified of Dad on another of his drunken rants, wasting time on someone who likes to see blue lights flashing so dialled 999, trying to calm down a mother who is charge of small children but knew she deserved a drink, helping to cut some of our kids free from the wreckage of yet another car of young people out for a spin but one of them won't ever be going home because what a laugh terrifying passengers showing them what speed the car will do, mocking them for being uncool, breaking the news to parents who think their son/daughter is just at the local disco instead of lying in a mortuary, trying to wrestle a knife from a drug crazed idiot, defending medical staff from more drunken wastrels, wasting time on drunks incapable of looking after themselves, filling in paperwork to do with all these unnecessary idiotic antics.
Can't have them wasting their time on making the streets safe from people too lazy to walk the length of themselves, park their cars anywhere to impede other drivers, think they have the right drive fast past schools, frighten elderly people (old sods should stay inside anyway, what do they know) make it extremely difficult for elderly drivers to take their wives shopping and making them very nervous about making decisions because not everyone sticks to the rules.
Of course it's lovely; why don't you go out and try it?
I think the police here do a crackin' job... you should see America... tis crazy. But, the BIG question is? Why do people need to be told by police that driving fast is dangerous to others? What's wrong with people? Why do people have no consideration for others? This should not even be a police issue.. it's a common sense issue. Are people just out to challenge the law? And this is a weird one... what is WITH people hurling projectiles and attacking ambulances??????? What is up with that??? I truly DO NOT understand it!
Scotland has more violent crime than ANY other country in the so called Western World. 3 times more violent crime than the US? Why?
Pultneytooner.. I agree... people will be pressing the button to get people they do not like in big trouble. It is a ridiculous thing to do and will waste serious amounts of time.
Kingetter
26-Aug-06, 12:17
The Scottish Police Federation want to legalise all drugs. And I think they're absolutely right. It is a battle lost a long, long, long time ago and there is no such thing as a drug free country and NEVER will be. It is a huge waste of police resources and it is also extremely dangerous. How they can make plants and mushrooms illegal completely BAFFLES me. More people die from LEGAL and prescription drugs every year then anything illegal. It's a lost cause! And there are much more useful things they could be up too.
Yes, it may seem to be a lost cause, but consider this scenario. Good parents, bringing up their kids as well as is possible, don't want their kids using drugs etc so say no. But the kids say its not illegal so why can't they use them? Oh yes, I hear the voices, well they might try them anyway but that would not be the point I think - let the kids question why they are illegal and they might learn something with less potentially drastic repercussions than by experimenting.
Yes, it may seem to be a lost cause, but consider this scenario. Good parents, bringing up their kids as well as is possible, don't want their kids using drugs etc so say no. But the kids say its not illegal so why can't they use them? Oh yes, I hear the voices, well they might try them anyway but that would not be the point I think - let the kids question why they are illegal and they might learn something with less potentially drastic repercussions than by experimenting.
Quite frankly, I think that alot of kids like to challenge the law which is why alot of them try "drugs" in the first place. "If it's illegal, it MUST be good!" My other point is that why are plants and mushrooms illegal?? They were put on this planet for a purpose... but, we seem to have alot of people questioning "gods gifts". :roll:
j4bberw0ck
26-Aug-06, 13:49
The Scottish Police Federation want to legalise all drugs. And I think they're absolutely right
Wow. sjwahwah, we've agreed on something :lol: . I can't help but feel that the logical way to control drugtaking isn't to make it illegal and to try to police that illegality (it didn't work for Prohibition in the US, and it hasn't worked for cannabis and ecstasy anywhere else), but to license the sale ofa range of commercially manufactured drugs through off-licences or pharmacies. Alcohol and tobacco might be sold on the same basis..... both are vastly more dangerous in mortality and cost-to-economy terms than cannabis or the majority of illegal drugs.
The government could take a tax cut, too, and still undercut the street price. Whether it would put the so-called "drug barons" out of business, I don't know - but perhaps it would restrict their activities to drugs which are taken by only a few "diehards" (literally) and are too dangerous to be licensed for open sale (crack is one that springs to mind).
And if every sale was accompanied by information on dosages, risks to health and so on, maybe of the numbers who dabble for the experience and then pass through to the other side as non-users will be increased.
I was watching TV last night and was depressed to note that Living TV have new Saturday morning programming called "Hangover TV". Tells you all you need to know about the exalted place of alcohol and the acceptance of antisocial behaviour in our society.
The Independent did a good piece on the relative risks of different drugs on 1 August. Their website requires logging in, or paying £1 for the article, but the URL is http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health_medical/article1207619.ece
Kingetter
26-Aug-06, 14:00
Quite frankly, I think that alot of kids like to challenge the law which is why alot of them try "drugs" in the first place. "If it's illegal, it MUST be good!" My other point is that why are plants and mushrooms illegal?? They were put on this planet for a purpose... but, we seem to have alot of people questioning "gods gifts". :roll:
"If it's illegal, it MUST be good!" Agreed, but "gods gifts"? my jury is still out on, thinking of the poisonous plants which are 'just another species in nature' - like Deadly Nightshade, Hemlock, certain fungi, etc etc.
Of course it is lovely being in the police; going out on night shift wondering what mindless thug will decide to kick the you know what out of you for deciding that he really should not be shouting the odds, challenging everyone around him to a fight and arguing the toss with ambulance staff called out to lift yet another drunken female with her clothes around her waist out of her mind with drink (oh what a great weekend I had!) breaking the windows of the ex partner's house, kids cowering in a corner terrified of Dad on another of his drunken rants, wasting time on someone who likes to see blue lights flashing so dialled 999, trying to calm down a mother who is charge of small children but knew she deserved a drink, helping to cut some of our kids free from the wreckage of yet another car of young people out for a spin but one of them won't ever be going home because what a laugh terrifying passengers showing them what speed the car will do, mocking them for being uncool, breaking the news to parents who think their son/daughter is just at the local disco instead of lying in a mortuary, trying to wrestle a knife from a drug crazed idiot, defending medical staff from more drunken wastrels, wasting time on drunks incapable of looking after themselves, filling in paperwork to do with all these unnecessary idiotic antics.
Can't have them wasting their time on making the streets safe from people too lazy to walk the length of themselves, park their cars anywhere to impede other drivers, think they have the right drive fast past schools, frighten elderly people (old sods should stay inside anyway, what do they know) make it extremely difficult for elderly drivers to take their wives shopping and making them very nervous about making decisions because not everyone sticks to the rules.
Of course it's lovely; why don't you go out and try it?
Well said, Ann. Why is it that those professions that are there to support and help society are those that get sworn at and abused, whilst the thugs and yobbos are hero-worshipped? As another thread recounts - we live in a sick society these days.
Is this the local cops you are describing? I'm not sure I recognise this picture. Many 'decent' locals are getting a tad annoyed about the lack of progress made dealing with the real problems in the area. Instead of busting the folk that are on the buroo but can still run around in massive SUVs (you know who they are and where they get the dosh!) they seem to pick on easy targets to get their arrest rate up. I know its a tough job but hey if someone hits them they can nick them! I can't. And I can't rely on them to do it for me.
I know the fault is not all on the Police- Sheriffs, PFs etc need to shoulder much of it. (One lad I know, already on bail was found in court with a knife and being threatening. Next day he's out, charged and waiting for another 6 months until he's up for the charge).
Equally child benefit or whatever it is should be cut from parents who allow their children to act like mini-thugs. Hit the wallet and less nice kids get hit at school. The balance has moved too far in wrongdoers favour as any one (Inc. Police) who work in the social services will agree.
Bobinovich
27-Aug-06, 12:16
I agree that allowing police to retire after 30 years is crazy - they're far from being useless and quite able to contine working. Why not make the fitter 'retiring age' ones do some investigations and the older/less fit ones take over much of the paperwork which appears to bog down our younger officers - freeing them up to persue the criminals. Then they can retire for real at a suitable age like the rest of us.
"If it's illegal, it MUST be good!" Agreed, but "gods gifts"? my jury is still out on, thinking of the poisonous plants which are 'just another species in nature' - like Deadly Nightshade, Hemlock, certain fungi, etc etc.
Foxglove is also poisonous but, used in prescription medications for heart conditions and if I remember correctly it is the most important cardiovascular agent in modern medicine. Hemlock is used as a poultice for malignant glands and piles of all things! :D And if I remember correctly.. Belladonna or Deadly Nightshade is used in the stuff optometrists use to dilate the pupils of the eyes... in small doses of course and homeopaths use it for treatment of the eyes too like conjunctivitis. In fact that is the first symptom of poisoning by this plant... pupil dilation... for which I think there is an antidote. In fact... is that what belladonna means? dilation of the eyes. The fungi play a big role in Chinese medicine and I do belive they use some poisonous ones although I couldn't tell you what ones or for what purposes. I truly believe every plant has a use and purpose no matter if it is poisonous when ingested or not. Which is why I'm completely baffled by the cannabis law. Hemp has more uses than this post would allow me to write.. I'd be here all day.
Kingetter
27-Aug-06, 15:05
Sure, I hear what you are saying about uses, it is misuses we need to be concerned about - legalising some things which could be left lying around for children to get hold of - seems to me that accelerates the rate of addiction rather than slow the growth of addicts.
Sure, I hear what you are saying about uses, it is misuses we need to be concerned about - legalising some things which could be left lying around for children to get hold of - seems to me that accelerates the rate of addiction rather than slow the growth of addicts.
I think we need to look at society and our culture to find out why people want to use drugs destructively. Children are smart lil' creatures and at a very young age you can teach them which plants are poisonous and what not.. do they teach it in school? not in mine they didn't... either that or I missed that day.
I agree that allowing police to retire after 30 years is crazy - they're far from being useless and quite able to contine working. Why not make the fitter 'retiring age' ones do some investigations and the older/less fit ones take over much of the paperwork which appears to bog down our younger officers - freeing them up to persue the criminals. Then they can retire for real at a suitable age like the rest of us.
One reason - cost.
You take older less fit bobbies off 'front line duty' you still have to pay them top whack wages. Admin support jobs can be done by civil servant support staff. For maybe a third of the cost.
Many forces are replacing what were police officer only posts with civilian equivalents - because it is cheaper. Even the Community Support Officers are policing on the cheap. Many forces in the south HAVE to have a quota of these in their strength even though they would prefer to spend the money on proper coppers.
And just watching the 'Copumentaries' which proliferate Sky and the physical abuse that the Bobby on the Beat has to put up with, the days of Dixon Of Dock Green are long past. No longer can they just give young Timmy a clip round the ear and send them home....
But the CEOP is not a police only operation - it may use police officers in its organisation but it also uses people from organisations such as the NSPCC and Childnet as well as secondments from key IT providers such as Microsoft and AOL. I suspect it is very similar in set up to the Internet Watch Foundation (http://www.iwf.org.uk/) which is based in my area. So it may have a couple of police officers - not enough to spoil your Friday night out. And they may even be older ones not fit for the rigours of town centre punchups....
Not sure how this discussion has veered away from something about ensuring children are safe on line from predators to abuse of plants and pensions!
[lol]
Link (http://technology.guardian.co.uk/news/stor...1855921,00.html)
Your link is broken -
try http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1855920,00.html
rockchick
27-Aug-06, 16:58
A couple of years ago a friend of mine was up from England for a visit, and I was taking her to a few of the sites. We visited the castle of Old Wick, and were going to drive up to see the Whaligoe steps. We weren't in the car for more than a few minutes when we realized that my dog wasn't anywhere to be seen - we'd left her at the parking spot in Old Wick! Turned the car around, zoomed back (may have broken the speed limit at this point, can't recall!) to find my wee dog barking furiously at the cliff side, poor thing.
What got us was that the police were already there! Someone had seen my doggie barking and thought the owner had gone over the cliff, called the police who responded before we returned...we'd been gone less than ten minutes. My friend was AMAZED at the speed of our police's response. And I had the joy of going to the officer and admitting that I was the owner who 'abandoned' my poor doggie...not fun!
Well I'm sure they were as pleased to see you as you were to see your dog!!!
So many people knock the police for the few instances where they may seem to let down the people they are meant to serve, but rarely do you hear of the thousands (nay, hundreds of thousands) of people who have to come into contact with the police either through crime or other problems who have nothing but good words to say about their treatment.
This in no way tries to excuse the instance where the upholders of law and order fail, but to have to deal with crime and calamity day after day, year after year is bound to have an affect on an individual.
Yes they get fairly well paid for their devotion to the job, but in the job market today how many occupations require you to confront danger on a daily basis? Yes, working on the rigs you do. You get well rewarded for that. For serving in the forces you get reasonably well paid but you get 'free travel' as a bonus - mind you who would wish to visit iraq or Afghanistan right now.
But dealing with the lowlife that populates town and city centres on a regular basis, turning up on strangers doorsteps to tell them a relative has died, seeing the aftermath of traffic accidents, being the first on the scene of a suicide, dealing in a 'humane way' with people who have a track record of abusing children, acting as a counselor between a warring couple for the umpteenth time, trying to treat illegal immigrants in a way that does not put them in fear for their lives and so on and so on.
Who on earth would wish to do this for a job?........
One reason - cost.
You take older less fit bobbies off 'front line duty' you still have to pay them top whack wages. Admin support jobs can be done by civil servant support staff. For maybe a third of the cost.
Many forces are replacing what were police officer only posts with civilian equivalents - because it is cheaper. Even the Community Support Officers are policing on the cheap. Yes, but surely we should be considering the total cost of retirement at 50. Is it more expensive to employ an older bobby than it is to employ a younger, cheaper person and to pay the bobby's pension?
The police actually pay towards their pension -
• officer contributes 11% of salary each month
• maximum pension of 2/3 final salary with option to commute up to 25% of the pension for a tax-free lump sum
• maximum pension after 30 years
11% of a monthly wage in the region of ±£2500 is £275 = 3300 PA = 99000 over 30 yrs. How many people have to donate that much of their wage towards a pension scheme?
In answer to your other point - I believe the answer is yes. New recruits do not reap the benefits that older officers might get such as rent allowance. Their terms and conditions of service may be radically different too. So it probably is cheaper to retire old plods and recruit better educated youngsters who can be moulded into the automatons of the state.
Thanks MP. I didn't know the Police paid such a large fraction of their salary into their pension scheme. I'm no expert, but 11% seems pretty high to me, and it's a good bit more that the 6-point-something that I pay. :eek:
j4bberw0ck
28-Aug-06, 00:51
11% is comparatively high. But it's nowhere near enough to provide for an index-linked 2/3 pension plus cash commutation to run from (say) age 50 to death plus dependent's pension thereafter. A pension fund of £100,000 buys an annuity income of approximately £5,500 p.a. from age 60; no index linking, and less if you want to commute some for cash.
I have no problem with people retiring young, where they've provided for early retirement by making the pensions sacrifice. None at all. But police pensions, like those of all puiblic sector employees, are subsidised by the tax payments of non-public sector employees, all of whom will be a great deal worse off.
In fact, for those not on a final salary public-sector pension scheme, if they have a large pension fund (£100,000 plus) they'll have just enough pension to ensure that they won't receive any State benefits at all.
The guy next door, who urinated it all away against a wall on a Saturday night, will get the same income provided as benefits by the State. Who's the mug?
J4bberw0ck,
A little bit further down the page from where I got the figures above it states,
The scheme is administered locally by police authorities, and is not currently funded, but is financed on a pay-as-you-go arrangement. Costs are met partly from the contributions of currently serving officers, with the balance met by police revenue expenditure. However, new financing arrangements are coming into effect from 6 April 2006 which will create a police fund.
The employee contribution rate for scheme members is a bit high at 11%, but the rate reflects the fact that police officers can retire with a full pension after 30 years instead of the normal 40 years in the public sector, and receive generous provision for early retirement on medical grounds if permanently disabled for police duty.
Does that make your sums add up?
j4bberw0ck
28-Aug-06, 16:08
Er, not entirely. Police revenue expenditure is taxpayers' money. The creation of a Police Fund is a worthy step but unlike private sector companies who have strict rules as to how to calculate any potential deficit in their pension funds, and who have to show it in their balance sheets as a current liability (which leads directly to the abandonment of final salary schemes in most of the private sector), the Police won't have a balance sheet to satisfy and any shortfall in the calculated or actual liability will simply come from that well known Government money-tree, the taxpayer.
I want to correct any misunderstanding there might be about my attitude to the police. I'm right in the middle of the population who should most have confidence in the Police force - I'm part of their natural constituency, if you like. I'm white, male and middle class, intelligent and reasonably well educated, and in my mid-life crisis years :lol: . Whenever I've had dealings with the police, they've been great - even including the one time when those dealings were, ah, official.
I don't envy the police many aspects of their job. I think the people they have to sort out are very often scum, and dangerous scum at that. I think they're under-resourced, but I have little confidence that being part of the public sector, the money they do have is being spent as well as it might be. A huge amount of it goes on pensions, for a start! I have a good deal of sympathy for the view that says there should be one Police authority rather than a zillion constabularies, but I can see that a change of such magnitude would upset quite a few apple carts. A single Police Authority, led by a suitably qualified person - possibly even not a copper - would give some real clout in negotiations with the Treasury over funding and resource.
Losing all the experience at 50, and being unable to recruit enough people at 18 is a tragedy not for the Police, particularly, but for their "customers" - us, each and every one. It's ludicrously expensive, because the index-linking of the pension scheme is an open-ended financial commitment, however it's funded, so a retiring policeperson has to be funded for maybe 35 years as opposed to perhaps 20 for the rest of us. 15 years at say £20k pension, index-linked, (just for example's sake) is £300,000 plus indexing at a compound rate of say 5% p.a. average; a quick bit of figuring on the back of a convenient fag-packet puts the figure at £600,000 additional funding requirement. That's some kind of earnings target for a pension fund, which the Financial Services Authority in its total incompetence has decreed must be invested "safely" - for which read, at low rates of return.
LIke all public sector pension schemes, it's writing cheques that future taxpayers will have to meet; and police life expectancies are increasing just like ordinary mortals' life expectancy.
j4bberw0ck
28-Aug-06, 17:13
MadPict, I just want to add a little something to the rather hastily written piece above.... I said a few posts up that a pension fund of £100,000 buys a non-indexed pension for a 60 year old of about £5,500 a year. I was wrong........ it's more like £4,600. A 65 year old would get nearer £5,500.
The effect of age and index-linking is that at 50, a £100,000 pension fund buys an index-linked pension of under £2,000 p.a. assuming there's a widow's pension payable as well. The mental arithmetic to calculate the necessary pension fund to pay out from 50 on the example above of £20,000 p.a. is easy. Pension fund of around £1 million. 11% of income for 30 years isn't likely to get anywhere near £1 million....... unless the police are extraordinarily well paid. I don't know offhand what the employer's contribution is, but it won't make up the shortfall!
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.