Service Pensions Time not counted

Discussion in 'Finance & Pensions' started by trelawney126, Jun 26, 2009.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. witsend

    witsend War Hero Book Reviewer

    And yet the goverment can bail banks out and chief exc's walk away with sweet pensions.
  2. The nice shiney *rses at the MOD and goverment Quote "it would cost to much FFS. A very large number of those are deceased!!! Korean vets come to mind. pre 75 rule 8O 8O 8O
  3. That's what undermines the government's central argument about unaffordability. Nothing new. Their argument is that it would create a legal precident for other public sector employees, which is true. The problem is that MPs are inexplicably flexible when it comes to their own pension arrangements, where retroactivity becomes possible! So what of that precident? Oh but MPs pay and pensions are different... :roll:
  4. I can't see what the problem is. At the time of serving we all knew that no pension was payable unless you served 22 years (18 for occifers). This changed later.
    Now my wife served six years as a wren leaving as a PO so she would be entitled to 6/37 of a POs pension. yes she would like it, no she aint entitled to it.
  5. As I see it, the principle is no different to that of homosexuals in the navy when they were not permitted, even though homosexuality was legal in civvy life. They knew they weren't allowed in the mob and had no right to complain when they were found out then binned. Then there was wrens getting pregnant. Didn't they used to get hoofed out of the mob. Then there was the difference in pay and pension for the gurkhins, that was lower than for regular British squaddies.

    Now we accept gays and dykes, there's a creche in Drake for the lumpy jumpers to take their sprogs to, the Gurkhas now have the same pension and right to remain in the UK.

    If these things can be challenged and changed then it's entirely possible to challenge the old rules and regulations regarding pensions. Given the pension rules did change, and the way the MPs have been made to look after the expenses scandles, the way MPs are looked at regarding their pay and pension arrangements, now seems the perfect time to raise this issue and see if the rules can be changed. For those it affects it's got to be worth a punt.
  6. I joined in 1978 at the age of 16, serving 10 years, of which approx 1 year of that was classed as boy`s time and did not count towards my pension. I joined the prison service when I left and tranferred my navy pension into the pcsps and was given an extra 10%. A colleague left the navy in 1974 and joined the prison service at the same time as me under the same pension scheme rules with the one exception his time in the mob did not count and as such I have nearly 10 years more in my pension fund than him which is clearly not fair and this is what the problem is.
  7. The rules in 1956 when I joined where very clear and exact
    pensions were for serving members who completed 22 years service.
    In 1956 the engagements changed with the pay scales the nine years was introduced and the previous 7 and five discontinued .
    Bounty was given after 12 years and 14 years when leaving the service.

    The 1975 new rules was a chop date ---service before 75 counted as pension time for those leaving after 1975. The ones who left before 1975
    were still under the old rules ie 22 years to serve for pension rights.

    I was in a shortage category in 1965--they gave me a huge amount of money and a house purchase advance as a ''sign on for 22years '' thank you or I would've left the RN .
    Pensions in those days weren't really though about --it was a pittance
    on paper aswell.However due to the pay scales etc its worth having now

  8. Jimmy

    Many gays don't realize they bat for the other side until they're older. I only finally realized and acknowleged I was a wooly woofter just before the age of 30! I always expected to get married, have 2.4 children and bring my wife her slippers every morning, crawling on all fours with said footwarebetween my teeth. Woof, woof! :lol: just thinking what I've missed out...

    Nag, nag, moan, moan...

    Do you like my new dress?
    It's ok.
    Oh dear.....

    You poor unbendy ones :biggrin:
  9. Seadog

    Seadog War Hero Moderator

    FFS. The thread is about pre 75 time not counting towards a preserved pension. Only Thingy could make a 'hey, look at me, I'm gay' post in such a thread.

    Thingy, we know already. :roll:

    Thingy, in a more appropriate post wrote
    That raises a point; when banging on about public sector pensions, the fact that the Armed Forces are public sector is usually forgotton, the bile reserved for Civil Servants, coppers and teachers. Is increasing the size of the State's (the taxpayers') pension liabilities a good thing?

    Scouse wrote
    I expect that the 'shiney arrses' know that and haven't included the dead in the numbers. Living widows/widowers/civil partners - perhaps.

    Changing rules and laws is a fact of life. Some people dip out, some dip in. The pensions change (34 years ago) is a bummer for those who dip out but I won't be jumping on the outrage bus for this one. I am open to persuasion though.
  10. Ok well if speed limits were up'd on motorways I see that reimbursing all fines imposed between 70 and the new limit would be impracticable.
    But the Labour party did reimburse the trade unions the fines imposed under the Thatcher gov.
    Its inconsistency that most people are enraged by, like my little rant a week or two ago.
    I in no way condone benefit fraud, but hypocrisy is a trait I despise also.
    Not one fraud charge against any one MP, just clap trap. It will all die down and be covered up because our apathy allows it.
    However some old geezer who forgets(and there are some genuine cases) to declare a couple of bob and bang gotcha.
    How did that knob get away with saying "I forgot I had finished paying my mortgage" and get away with it. Two friggin years.
    So on the pension pose if they can get it good luck.
    Anyone who served in Pussers ships pre 75 did not exactley travel first class so if they can get it go for it. :twisted:
  11. I know this is off topic

    Granted, and I'm sure that for those who only realised they were on the other bus after they joined up found themselves in a difficult position, and the wise ones kept quiet about it. However, the rules then were clear, and anyone joining up who knew they were light on their loafers had no complaint if their orientation was discovered and subsequently got kicked out.

    Despite the rules, not everybody who was known to be a batty boy was stitched up. On one particular type 22 well before the beef ban was lifted, there was a Charge Chief who was a hatter, it was an open secret, and also one of the girlies was known to wear comfortable shoes. I think by this time attitudes were changing and although there were still many people who were uncomfortable with it in the mob a lot of people took the attitude of 'it doesn't affect me, crack on'. Then the rules were changed, but those that were already serving that came out of the cleaning gear locker didn't get kicked out. Because it was applied retrospectively.

    Back on topic...

    If the government can retrospectively change the regulations on sexuality and right of habitation, pay & pensions for Gurkhas, then it can retrospectively change the pension criteria for those who did not complete 22 years service prior to 1975.

    I'd rather my taxes went to support our armed forces veterans who have done something FOR this country instead of giving money to drug addicts and the other scum that leach off us and have done absolutely nothing constructive; or giving foreign aid to countries who waste their own resources, are involved in civil wars, have corrupt leaders etc.

    Then there's Boris Johnson's idea to have an amnesty for illegal immigrants already here in this country. How much will that cost us? Let's face it, how are we going to deter anyone coming to this country illegally if they know that should they stay undetected for X amount of years they will be allowed to remain indefinately? That's tantamount to an open doors border policy.

    I know that that was off topic as well, but it's still relevant because it all comes down to cost to the tax payer. The only reason not to give pre-1975 servicemen the same pension rights as those joining since 1975 is money.
  12. There are huge inconsistencies in pensions provision for Armed Forces personnel and their widows/widowers/partners/dependants. One way that a collective voice can be brought to bear is by joining the Forces Pension Society which campaigns for fair treatment.
  13. Nobody dips out some people just dip in more than others
  14. Sorry Seadog, but I bit (Jimmy)... :oops:

    If past experience on compensation issues is anything to go by, HMG will wait until there are only a few hundred pre-75'ers left before offering, as a "goodwill" gesture, some compensation, possibly in the fiscally limited form of a lump sum. The Tories are talking about reducing the cost to taxpayers, of public sector pensions, which will either mean a freezing of existing benefits and a move towards making public sector employees (PSEs) take out private pensions, or politically easier, raising the age of retirement to 70, which would mean most male PSE's would probably die before drawing their pension... Or am I just too cynical? :roll:
  15. Steve, you're in the right place to know more about what's going on than most of the rest of us, but I don't think you're being cynical based on previous records of either political party. BTW, I wasn't fishing for a bite, just trying to show examples of how the government will backpeddle if enough pressure is put on them.
  17. [quote="scouse" :wink: :wink: theirs a tot in it for you Steve if you can get mine 62/74 :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :sex: :lol: Ka Sera Sera[/quote]

    And mine 8) .(64/74) In fact I would spring for a bottle of Pusser's'.... :D
  18. witsend

    witsend War Hero Book Reviewer

    Watching the clip, I got the impression it was a case of people were forced out before the new rules came into place. I know some people are maybe jumping on the bandwagon, but some must have a case. Was there underhand moves by the MOD to chuck people outside before the 1975 rules became in place?

  19. Don't think there were any ''underhand '' rules or moves in 1975. The RN was down sizing I think at that time and signing on at the last gasp was possibly looked down on just to get the pension rights.
    The change over was well publicised because the whole UK pension and insurance contributions were changing including SERPS for second pension at 65 with OAP. We also were given the right to opt for dependants pension amount if we died before Wife.

    Quite honestly in 1975 nobody gave a toss about pensions -- its just
    this day and age everyone is a bit more alert especially with the Gov mentioning about upping retirement ages !!


Share This Page