May 17th, 2009

Now they want to rob the dead

Posted in The Job - General by 200

Just as MPs are feathering their own nests, news that they are attempting to snatch away what sparse feathers there are in some others’; they’re trying to put a stop to money designed for officers & families of officers killed or injure don the way to work.

I mentioned in a previous entry that officers who are involved in RTCs whilst travelling to or from duty are considered as being on duty. This is about pension regulations which see officers killed or injured on duty entitled to enhanced benefits in the form of a lump sum and/or pension. partners of officers killed on duty receive a opension for life, unless they remarry.

Since 2000, 93 officers have been killed in traffic accidents, 50 of them were travelling to or from work.

The Home Office is considering removing the police injury benefits for officers killed or injured on the way to work. They have made 51 proposals to reform police injury payments one of which is to “discontinue the provision under which an officer qualifies for an award where the injury was sustained while travelling to or from work”. The matter is currently out to consultation with ACPO expected to give their view very soon.

Presumably, the more cash the government can claw back from dead or disabled police officers, the more they can spend boosting their private property portfolios.

You can skip to the end and leave a comment. Pinging is currently not allowed. RSS 2.0

11 comments

  1. Tony F says:

    You know when things are bad, The good tools and the silver get sold off, but the scum clings on…

    May 17th, 2009 at 18:20

  2. Paul says:

    I hope they do it. It will help get rid of the useless scumbags (more bad publicity like with the pay rise).

    It is also economically illiterate. 50 officers died in 9 or so years, that’s about 5 officers a year. In terms of the actual cost to the public purse, almost nothing.

    May 17th, 2009 at 18:50

  3. James says:

    like with the Gurkhas, price of everything, value of nothing. I don’t think they actually understand.

    I noticed when Gordon Brown was talking about the new crossrail project (after how many decades to get going!), he describes in terms of cost and size – not what it will actually do.

    He also wants your body when you die:

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3182388.ece

    May 17th, 2009 at 19:18

  4. MarkUK says:

    The police must be just about the only organisation that regards someone going to or from work as being at work.

    May 17th, 2009 at 20:35

  5. Ex-RUC says:

    Well, you know, they have got moats to clean. What’s the price of a bobby or 50 when you’re second home that you’re selling to keep a decent lifestyle?

    May 17th, 2009 at 20:49

  6. 200 says:

    MarkUK,

    yes, it must be quite unusual, but then being a police officer is an unusual job. You wouldn’t be expected to stop off on the way to work & serve someone some sausages as a butcher, or dish out some legal advise on the train journey in to the solicitor’s office, not the case with the police; it’s a unique job with some unique rules.

    May 18th, 2009 at 06:20

  7. Ben says:

    @200

    We all commute. For most people driving is the most dangerous part of their job. If your job doesn’t involve driving per se, then the commute is the most dangerous part of the job.

    And guess what, lots of us are on call and can be called at any moment day or night to fix a problem. This isn’t the big difference you are making out.

    We respect officers who have risked, and sometimes given, their lives to protect the public.

    Trying to include road accidents devalues that respect.

    May 18th, 2009 at 09:48

  8. Alpha Tango says:

    This country has a history of robbing the dead, physically! That practice ended many years ago thankfully.

    The current administration, short of funds seem to want to take this to a new low!

    I respect Ben’s comments, a valid point, however having my longest shift at 21 hours, with a 30 meal break in that time, you do feel somewhat tired and driving home is a lottery. Most people wouldnt accept those hours, police officers have to on ocassions

    Many officers have had a long shift and a quick turnaround, despite the regs saying you can have a 11 hour break between shifts.

    The law should stay as it is, or accept that officers work no more than 9 hours with a guarenteed meal break in that time

    May 18th, 2009 at 12:14

  9. 200 says:

    Ben,
    tell me what problems you have to fix when you’re off duty. Tell me what restrictions on your private life you have because you are employed in whatever role you have (apart from being on call, I presume you are on a rota for being on call, perhaps you are on call ever day of your life like us?)

    Yes the police is very different from most jobs, sure there are a few others like the military which have such an all-encompasing grip on your private life, but it is quite different.

    Have you wondered why HG drivers & pilots have restrictions in the number of hours they can drive. It’s strange that police officers can be expected to drive in some very high pressure situations for up to 10 hours a day, and then be told to stay on duty for another 4 hours or more & still be deemed safe when others in a similar situation break the law if they do so. But then if we weren’t forced to stay on duty & increase the risk of RTCs to ourselves & members of the public the whole system would collapse because it couldn’t run without all the enforced overtime.

    An increased financial compensation for these restrictions has been a part of the conditions of service. But if you think that’s taking the piss, then fine.

    May 18th, 2009 at 14:50

  10. Alpha Tango says:

    Central heating Engineer

    May 18th, 2009 at 15:54

  11. Ben says:

    It is right that where an officer dies in the line of duty we should take care of his family.

    What’s more, since it is part of the conditions of service that commuting counts, you have every right to object to it being taken away. That it would be taken from widows and orpans makes it particularly distasteful.

    May 18th, 2009 at 20:32

Leave a comment