We were just trying to establish why Andrew Mitchell was refused permission to cycle through the main gates. Something which has never been talked about in the media. It's not about defending cyclist's rights.
Not for you it isnt, other posters have a different agenda.
I assure you that a public sector worker, such as a civil servant, would forfeit all pension rights, save for what they'd paid in, if they were sacked for gross misconduct.
Not to mention being party to ruining someone's career by lying about them.
Why should he keep his, or any part of it ?
And how many would be offered the chance to go before they were sacked, many go that way rather than a drawn out affair.
If you can't see the glaringly obvious at a glance, I'm not going into detailed explanations.
Except both of the posts are correct. So what is the issue? Do you understand what is going on here? Are you refusing to elaborate because you've realised you're misunderstanding, or are you just being deliberately stubborn?
'The officer remains suspended and - while his lawyer says he will offer his resignation - it is understood that he would need permission from his superiors to do so'.
.. so he can intend as much as he wants, it doesn't mean he will be able to.
You jumped the gun with this thread
standard practice for police suspended under investigation to resign before any conclusion, to retain full pension rights, including West Yorkshire chief constable Sir Norman Bettison
Sometimes security concerns take precedent over such rules, particularly when Downing Street is not just any highway. Opening the vehicular gate is necessary to allow vehicles through, but exposes the street to a security risk whilst it is open. It is not necessary to it to open to allow a bicycle out. The bicycle quite easily fits through the smaller pedestrian gate.
Considering the amount of vehicles and the amount of times vehicles revisit Downing Street during the course of any day I am sure that the police are quite used to opening the gate very, very frequently subjecting the street to a constant security risk. Opening it one more time would have made very little difference to a normal working day.
I assure you that a public sector worker, such as a civil servant, would forfeit all pension rights, save for what they'd paid in, if they were sacked for gross misconduct.
Perhaps you could quote the relevant paragraph from some Civil Servant Handbook to support this or explain what additional rights are lost beyond anyone ceasing employment for any standard reason or opting out of the scheme.
Except both of the posts are correct. So what is the issue? Do you understand what is going on here? Are you refusing to elaborate because you've realised you're misunderstanding, or are you just being deliberately stubborn?
OK, since you don't get it.
I just find it ironic that he pleads guilty and will be sentenced without trial - perfectly reasonable. Yet there has to be a disciplinary hearing to establish the facts with regard to his job.
In most walks of life it would be far more likely that an employee is sacked for gross misconduct, rather than prosecuted for it.
Yes, he will need the permission of his superiors, but nowhere does it say that such permission will not be granted.
Indeed, I would ruddy well hope he does need permission
You seem to be digging yourself a bigger hole, if I may say so.
In your thread title and opening post, you seem to have either misunderstood or misrepresented the situation.
"Why should he be allowed to resign ? I wouldn't be given such a soft option, and allowed to keep my pension.
Not right in my book."
...in post #1 is by implication not a correct summary of the situation. It can't be "not right" as nobody in authority has suggested that it's likely to happen.
I just find it ironic that he pleads guilty and will be sentenced without trial - perfectly reasonable. Yet there has to be a disciplinary hearing to establish the facts with regard to his job.
In most walks of life it would be far more likely that an employee is sacked for gross misconduct, rather than prosecuted for it.
He wasn't prosecuted for gross misconduct, he was prosecuted for a criminal offence; Misconduct in a Public Office. As you can tell by the name, this applies to people who hold public office.
As with any employee, he can't be sacked until after internal disciplinary procedures.
A court case, and internal disciplinary procedures are two seperate things. However internal disciplinary procedures based upon committing a criminal offence can not go ahead until the criminal offence has been dealt with.
Good god you really haven't a clue what is going on, have you?
I just find it ironic that he pleads guilty and will be sentenced without trial - perfectly reasonable. Yet there has to be a disciplinary hearing to establish the facts with regard to his job.
In most walks of life it would be far more likely that an employee is sacked for gross misconduct, rather than prosecuted for it.
One is criminal, one is civil. As regards disciplinary hearings, no doubt it best to follow procedures to avoid any appeals or counter claims.
Most gross misconduct isn't illegal but would breach contract terms.
I just find it ironic that he pleads guilty and will be sentenced without trial - perfectly reasonable. Yet there has to be a disciplinary hearing to establish the facts with regard to his job.
In most walks of life it would be far more likely that an employee is sacked for gross misconduct, rather than prosecuted for it.
(gross) misconduct = contravening terms of employment = risk of dismissal.
breaking the law = criminal offence = risk of prosecution.
They are totally different, although, of course, some actions may contravene both.
Perhaps you could quote the relevant paragraph from some Civil Servant Handbook to support this or explain what additional rights are lost beyond anyone ceasing employment for any standard reason or opting out of the scheme.
Members’ Benefits Resignation & dismissal: 3.4 Annex A
3.4 Annex A Forfeiture
of PCSPS, CSCS and
CSAVC Scheme
benefits
Forfeiting benefits
1 The Minister for the Cabinet Office has the power to withhold
any PCSPS, CSCS or CSAVC Scheme benefits payable, either
completely or in part, when a member (or former member) is
convicted:
• of one or more offences under the Official Secrets Acts
1911 to 1989 for which the member has been sentenced:
- to a term of imprisonment of at least 10 years; or
- on the same occasion, to 2 or more consecutive terms of
imprisonment amounting in total to at least 10 years; or
• of an offence in connection with any employment covered
by the PCSPS and for which a Minister of the Crown
certifies the offence:
- to have been gravely injurious to the State; or
- to be liable to lead to serious loss of confidence in the
public service.
NOTE When a member, or former member is convicted of treason,
benefits are automatically forfeit under section 2 of the Forfeiture
Act 1870.
NOTE Any guaranteed minimum pension (GMP) payable under the
provisions of the Social Security Pension Act 1975 cannot be
forfeited in the case of ‘certified’ offences. This does not apply to
offences under the Official Secrets Acts or treason.
2 Employing departments must refer all cases in which
forfeiture is a possibility to:
• the Cabinet Office (Employment Policy and Practice
Division); and
• the Cabinet Office (Civil Service Pensions Div
I reckon that the Officer's offence would fall into the bit in bold.
He wasn't prosecuted for gross misconduct, he was prosecuted for a criminal offence; Misconduct in a Public Office. As you can tell by the name, this applies to people who hold public office.
As with any employee, he can't be sacked until after internal disciplinary procedures.
A court case, and internal disciplinary procedures are two seperate things. However internal disciplinary procedures based upon committing a criminal offence can not go ahead until the criminal offence has been dealt with.
Good god you really haven't a clue what is going on, have you?
So you're saying that what he did, as it applies to his job, isn't gross misconduct ?
To clarify. Most employees would just be dismissed by their employer for an impropriety such as internal fraud.
That same employer would be far less likely to go to the police about it.
You are deliberately misunderstanding every point I make to try and obfuscate the point of the thread.
It's the same with any thread which has the slightest hint of criticism of the police in it.
As soon as he had admitted lying he should have got instant dismissal before he even had the chance to resign. What he did in the career he had it should have been an instantly sackable offence.
As soon as he had admitted lying he should have got instant dismissal before he even had the chance to resign. What he did in the career he had it should have been an instantly sackable offence.
Yes, but even though he's admitted it and will be sentenced in a criminal court, it still has to go through a disciplinary hearing in his employment, and he might still be able to resign.
Comments
Not for you it isnt, other posters have a different agenda.
And how many would be offered the chance to go before they were sacked, many go that way rather than a drawn out affair.
Except both of the posts are correct. So what is the issue? Do you understand what is going on here? Are you refusing to elaborate because you've realised you're misunderstanding, or are you just being deliberately stubborn?
That's because there isn't any, and blueblade is getting confused and making suppositions about something which he doesn't understand.
standard practice for police suspended under investigation to resign before any conclusion, to retain full pension rights, including West Yorkshire chief constable Sir Norman Bettison
over 1,800 in 10 years
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9962734/How-1800-suspended-police-keep-their-pensions.html
Considering the amount of vehicles and the amount of times vehicles revisit Downing Street during the course of any day I am sure that the police are quite used to opening the gate very, very frequently subjecting the street to a constant security risk. Opening it one more time would have made very little difference to a normal working day.
So your saying that the security measures state that people are not allowed to ride a bike through the road gates?
I'd say it's down to the discretion of the officer who opens the gates, because where he has a choice, he is responsible for the decisions he makes.
The decision should be with those in charge of security.
OK, since you don't get it.
I just find it ironic that he pleads guilty and will be sentenced without trial - perfectly reasonable. Yet there has to be a disciplinary hearing to establish the facts with regard to his job.
In most walks of life it would be far more likely that an employee is sacked for gross misconduct, rather than prosecuted for it.
You seem to be digging yourself a bigger hole, if I may say so.
In your thread title and opening post, you seem to have either misunderstood or misrepresented the situation.
"Why should he be allowed to resign ? I wouldn't be given such a soft option, and allowed to keep my pension.
Not right in my book."
...in post #1 is by implication not a correct summary of the situation. It can't be "not right" as nobody in authority has suggested that it's likely to happen.
So in effect they can, in some ways, be a law unto themselves. Interesting!
He wasn't prosecuted for gross misconduct, he was prosecuted for a criminal offence; Misconduct in a Public Office. As you can tell by the name, this applies to people who hold public office.
As with any employee, he can't be sacked until after internal disciplinary procedures.
A court case, and internal disciplinary procedures are two seperate things. However internal disciplinary procedures based upon committing a criminal offence can not go ahead until the criminal offence has been dealt with.
Good god you really haven't a clue what is going on, have you?
Most gross misconduct isn't illegal but would breach contract terms.
(gross) misconduct = contravening terms of employment = risk of dismissal.
breaking the law = criminal offence = risk of prosecution.
They are totally different, although, of course, some actions may contravene both.
link
I reckon that the Officer's offence would fall into the bit in bold.
So you're saying that what he did, as it applies to his job, isn't gross misconduct ?
To clarify. Most employees would just be dismissed by their employer for an impropriety such as internal fraud.
That same employer would be far less likely to go to the police about it.
You are deliberately misunderstanding every point I make to try and obfuscate the point of the thread.
It's the same with any thread which has the slightest hint of criticism of the police in it.
well done, but the police are not in the Civil Service
You said it !!!
Yes, but even though he's admitted it and will be sentenced in a criminal court, it still has to go through a disciplinary hearing in his employment, and he might still be able to resign.
If you want to put it like that, or you could say they are in charge of security for that area, and they therefore comply with their policies.