Couzens pensions
Discussion
Seems he got stripped of his first one and the government want his second one as well.
https://news-sky-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/news.s...
Good idea, give it to a charity for victims.
https://news-sky-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/news.s...
Good idea, give it to a charity for victims.
Not strictly accurate, there are mechanisms to remove the employer funded part of his pension(s) but the money that he has put in to his pension(s) cannot be taken off him
Effectively it reduces his pension by about 2/3rds and delays his receipt of the remaining part
Khan is misleading when he says his pension has been removed
Re giving it to charity, there is actually no pension pot at all, the money comes direct out of the policing budget for the year in which the amount is paid out, ie direct from taxation exactly the same way as wages for currently serving officers
Effectively it reduces his pension by about 2/3rds and delays his receipt of the remaining part
Khan is misleading when he says his pension has been removed
Re giving it to charity, there is actually no pension pot at all, the money comes direct out of the policing budget for the year in which the amount is paid out, ie direct from taxation exactly the same way as wages for currently serving officers
oyster said:
What’s the criteria for losing a pension?
For example, can such pension loss only happen on DB schemes?
Is it based on a gross misconduct finding for an employee?
It’s a specific part of Police regulations, you have to forget “civilian” pensions as the Police pension is totally different/separate. For example, can such pension loss only happen on DB schemes?
Is it based on a gross misconduct finding for an employee?
The Police authority/Professional standards dept have to apply to the Home Secretary to remove the pension
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
CraigyMc said:
55palfers said:
Given Couzens is in prison for ever, won't taking away his pension just affect his wife in later years?
He was given a whole life tariff.That doesn't necessarily mean he'll be in prison for his whole life, sadly.
It's women who are likely to me hit by the action of taking away a pension far more than men. It's usually the man who is in prison, and the woman who's left at home trying to balance the finances.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
In principle though, taking away a pension does seem excessive. A married couple can make joint financial decisions meaning a spouse can be pretty much solely reliant on their other half's pension.
It's women who are likely to me hit by the action of taking away a pension far more than men. It's usually the man who is in prison, and the woman who's left at home trying to balance the finances.
His contributions will presumably be refunded- she can get by on that.It's women who are likely to me hit by the action of taking away a pension far more than men. It's usually the man who is in prison, and the woman who's left at home trying to balance the finances.
CraigyMc said:
He was given a whole life tariff.
That doesn't necessarily mean he'll be in prison for his whole life, sadly.
Yea it does. That doesn't necessarily mean he'll be in prison for his whole life, sadly.
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/sentencing-an...
EmailAddress said:
I'd rather be eating value bean juice from the bin than spend a waking moment with the psycho.
But that's not the choice, is it. He's locked up for years, so she wouldn't have to wake up next to him, pension or no pension. I can't see any logical reason to go after his pension, other than spite and throwing red meat to crowd. It's not like they are illegal earnings like a drug dealer. And even though he's a scumbag, I would guess that having been in the police for decades, most of his time was spent actually doing useful police work, as opposed to raping and murdering women.
LosingGrip said:
CraigyMc said:
He was given a whole life tariff.
That doesn't necessarily mean he'll be in prison for his whole life, sadly.
Yea it does. That doesn't necessarily mean he'll be in prison for his whole life, sadly.
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/sentencing-an...
TwigtheWonderkid said:
But that's not the choice, is it. He's locked up for years, so she wouldn't have to wake up next to him, pension or no pension.
I can't see any logical reason to go after his pension, other than spite and throwing red meat to crowd. It's not like they are illegal earnings like a drug dealer. And even though he's a scumbag, I would guess that having been in the police for decades, most of his time was spent actually doing useful police work, as opposed to raping and murdering women.
Agreed, it’s spite. He would have done some useful police work. His wife and children should get the money. I can't see any logical reason to go after his pension, other than spite and throwing red meat to crowd. It's not like they are illegal earnings like a drug dealer. And even though he's a scumbag, I would guess that having been in the police for decades, most of his time was spent actually doing useful police work, as opposed to raping and murdering women.
SS427 Camaro said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
But that's not the choice, is it. He's locked up for years, so she wouldn't have to wake up next to him, pension or no pension.
I can't see any logical reason to go after his pension, other than spite and throwing red meat to crowd. It's not like they are illegal earnings like a drug dealer. And even though he's a scumbag, I would guess that having been in the police for decades, most of his time was spent actually doing useful police work, as opposed to raping and murdering women.
Agreed, it’s spite. He would have done some useful police work. His wife and children should get the money. I can't see any logical reason to go after his pension, other than spite and throwing red meat to crowd. It's not like they are illegal earnings like a drug dealer. And even though he's a scumbag, I would guess that having been in the police for decades, most of his time was spent actually doing useful police work, as opposed to raping and murdering women.
His wife can't go back in time and start to build up an equivalent pension though.
Whilst parts of his met pension are gone, I understand khan is now after the nuclear police force pension, which is a different scheme overseen by the home secretary.
It does appear a very real case of "red meat" by khan, or, a distraction perhaps to minimise time on something khan doesn't want the press asking questions about.... can't think what that might be.
As awful as Couzens actions were, my opinion is that he earned that pension fairly, and his family should retain it (not him though, as I expect him to die in prison as parole will I think be refused)
Whilst parts of his met pension are gone, I understand khan is now after the nuclear police force pension, which is a different scheme overseen by the home secretary.
It does appear a very real case of "red meat" by khan, or, a distraction perhaps to minimise time on something khan doesn't want the press asking questions about.... can't think what that might be.
As awful as Couzens actions were, my opinion is that he earned that pension fairly, and his family should retain it (not him though, as I expect him to die in prison as parole will I think be refused)
Ian Geary said:
His wife can't go back in time and start to build up an equivalent pension though.
Whilst parts of his met pension are gone, I understand khan is now after the nuclear police force pension, which is a different scheme overseen by the home secretary.
It does appear a very real case of "red meat" by khan, or, a distraction perhaps to minimise time on something khan doesn't want the press asking questions about.... can't think what that might be.
As awful as Couzens actions were, my opinion is that he earned that pension fairly, and his family should retain it (not him though, as I expect him to die in prison as parole will I think be refused)
I believe his wife has divorced him (or is in the process of) Whilst parts of his met pension are gone, I understand khan is now after the nuclear police force pension, which is a different scheme overseen by the home secretary.
It does appear a very real case of "red meat" by khan, or, a distraction perhaps to minimise time on something khan doesn't want the press asking questions about.... can't think what that might be.
As awful as Couzens actions were, my opinion is that he earned that pension fairly, and his family should retain it (not him though, as I expect him to die in prison as parole will I think be refused)
Therefore she is entitled to a part of his pension, the amount of which will be decided through the divorcé courts as is usual, which will provide for her and their three children
Removing 2/3 of his pension punitively punishes his wife and children who not unreasonably can have expected to be beneficiaries of it
On dismissal from the Police the pension is frozen until state retirement age and then payable as a monthly sum, it cannot be cashed in, although, as above, the divorce courts can, i believe, make a judgement in favour of the wife/children. It would be interesting to see what the Judges decide though I doubt we will ever know.
As an aside the Civil Nuclear Constabulary is nothing to do with the Home Office but is under the remit of the Energy Secretary
His wife and three children are completely innocent of his crimes and arguably victims of them ( certainly their lives have been upended by them ) and yet the removal of the pension has punished them not Cousins who will never benefit from it
Earthdweller said:
On dismissal from the Police the pension is frozen until state retirement age and then payable as a monthly sum, it cannot be cashed in,
Can the employee contributions be refunded as a lump sum? I'm thinking that the (ex?)wife can reinvest that money into an alternative pension scheme.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff