Why Are Public Servants Under Inquiry Allowed To Retire Early

Just to revisit Sir Norman Bettison, who we recall, much to everyone’s chagrin was allowed to retire before facing the music over his involvement with Hillsborough

It would seem that we now have the 'concerned brigade' out in force in the form of The Independent Police Complaints Commission; although it is still only rhetoric with no action

Deborah Glass, Deputy Chairman of the Independent Police Complaints Commission:

'.. I am very mindful of the public concerns around officer resigning or retiring while under investigation, thereby escaping misconduct sanctions ..'

'.. I do find it unacceptable that officers take that option rather than facing up to the case against them ..'

This whole shameful process, of allowing the police and public servants to play a 'get out of jail' card, rather than face an enquiry, has been going on for a very long time now, and nothing has been done to stop it being employed by those charged with an offense as a way of avoiding accountability

Don't simply pontificate about your concern Ms Deborah Glass - do something about it and change the way this whole process is addressed.

Anyway, why do matters have to reach this stage before the Independent (hint - supposed to be in the name) Police Commission wakes up to the fact that something is wrong. Failing to spot these things before they reach crisis point simply means total incompetence (or self interest) by those in charge

... and now we hear that the man may be receiving a pension of £87,000 per annum, which by any calculations must mean that he has a pension pot equivalent to at least £1.4 million and probably far more - funded at the taxpayers’ expense because of his status as a civil servant.

So who said there was not a two tier class system in the UK; because it definitely exists between people in these public positions and public/private sector pensions. A simple question - how long would it have taken Bettison to have accumulated a pension pot of this magnitude if he was in the private sector?

Nevertheless, it must be heartening to relatives of the victims of Hillsborough to know that Sir Norman Bettison has retired on a pension rumoured to be about £87,000 per annum (what was the tax free lump sum associated with that figure?).

Furthermore, as taxpayers, they will be paying for the comfortable pension of someone who is accused of misconduct surrounding the death of members of their families

Well the public needs some hard and fast rules about this sort of thing, and probably the first matter on the agenda is that public servants (in fact no-one) should be rewarded for dodging a disciplinary hearing and additionally they should not be entitled to a pension of this magnitude for retiring/resigning before facing a hearing

Either turn up for the disciplinary hearing or forfeit their pension, and if found guilty they should forfeit their pension in any event

Tags: | Categories: UK Government

Public sector pensions for new entrants should be stopped immediately because they are an unsustainable drain on the country that the UK simply cannot afford

The longer the Government prevaricates the harder it becomes to implement and the greater the problem becomes. Furthermore, there is no good reason for refusing to introduce the changes as soon as possible

The Private Sector decided long ago that this type of pension was totally unaffordable commercially. Therefore why are they acceptable in the Public Sector because they are just as unaffordable and the only difference is that they are funded by the state (rest of the community). This results in normal commercial considerations being ignored because the State is percieved as a bottomless pit and not required to make a profit

Once again mutualising benefits for one sector over the entire community, who even though they contribute to Public Sector Pensions receive nothing in return despite having paid for a comfortable retirement for others; whilst possibly in pension hardship themselves!

Very simply just place all new Public Sector employees pension funding on the same basis as that of the Private Sector.

The benefit would be an immediate small reduction in state liabilities with savings becoming greater over time, until all Public Sector Pension liabilities have washed out of the system in say 50 years. The Public Sector Pension debt liability will only reduce and benefit the country immensly over time as well as doing away withe the current pension aparthide, where the only winners are those in the Public Sector

This is an equitable and practical solution to reducing liabilities and must be introduced with immediate effect for new entrants

Tags: | Categories: UK Government

Who does Chris Patten think he is with his unbelievable arrogance? Mr Patten seems to have forgotten his place as a public servant, with a salary paid for by the taxpayer which makes him accountable to our elected representatives, whether he likes it or not.

Frankly Mr Patten seems to got above himself, and to make comments out of the gutter ('.. Do you want to know my toilet habits? What else do you want to know? ..') in response to perfectly valid questions from an MP on his use of BBC (his employers) time, in an attempt to score points or belittle the questioner is totally reprehensible; although it did seem to amuse some of the fawning other people in the room. Furthermore, no-one present reprimanded Mr Patten for his lack of respect - which just about says it all!

Unfortunately this simply demonstrates the calibre of the man and just how removed from reality some of these public servants really are in terms of accountability. Regrettably it would seem as though Mr Patten has ideas above his station in this matter

Let us just recap on what this whole matter is about - CHILD ABUSE and the failure of the BBC to conduct themselves in a proper manner in the past and present. Therefore, however, glib Mr Patten is IT IS NO LAUGHING MATTER. He would do well to remember this and demonstrate a bit of humility because latterly, he presided over this unaceptable situation, without doing anything about it and is therefore as culpable as everyone else who just stood by

Furthermore, an MP should not be told that his question is impertinent or to issue a Freedom of Information request to obtain answers to simple questions at a public enquiry

'.. he was asked for an itinerary of his day by Mr Davies, to which he refused, saying: "I think it's a thoroughly impertinent question ..'

'.. I think you're entitled to put down freedom of information requests for how many days I spend in the office, or how many days I spend doing other things ..'

Mr Patten seems to have presided over a complete shambles at the BBC and yet disavows all responsibility or blame for the various debacles other than to state that he is responsible for rebuilding trust in the BBC. Presumably this is the same trust that he has been instrumental in destroying during his tenure?

Neither is it appropriate for Mr Patten to block  any proposed enquiry by the National Audit Office into the payoff for Mr Entwistle

We are not simply talking about overseeing the hapless Mr Entwistle but also his predecessor Mr Thompson, although none of those involved seemed to have much grasp about what was going on in respect the Jimmy Savile saga

Mr Patten would do well to remember that it is not

'pass the buck'

but actually

'the buck stops at the top'

With all this in mind should Mr Patten continue with his role in the BBC or is his resignation required?


Guardian - Patten BBC Savile Hearing Put Down

Telegraph - Lord Patten clashes with impertinent MP over BBC role

Times - Patten letter blocks inquiry into payoff for Entwistle

Tags: | Categories: BBC

The latest example of this are members of the police force (Chief Constable Sir Norman Bettison - Hillsborough)

Probably more important is whether retirement heads off any further investigation and why are they permitted to retire early on 'gold-plated' pensions?

If there is a case to answer and it is proven then they should be stripped of their pension - after all the state should not really be in the game of rewarding failure or wrong doing with taxpayers money

Therefore can someone please explain why these individuals are permitted to retire rather than face due process and if found guilty thrown out

Tags: | Categories: UK Government