Thirteen incidents during latest firefighter strike

Thirteen incidents during latest firefighter strike

Thirteen incidents during latest firefighter strike

First published in News

DURING a nine hour strike by members of the Fire Brigades’ Union between 10am and 7pm yesterday, Wiltshire Fire & Rescue Service dealt with 13 incidents.

Of these, nine were false alarms, three were related to bonfires and one was a co-responder attendance, supporting South Western Ambulance Service.

Five of the false alarms were attended by a resilience pump operating in Swindon, and were in Wroughton, Stratton, North Swindon, Walcot, and Meadowcroft. One in Stratton was attended by a Cricklade crew; one in Melksham was attended by a Corsham crew; one in Salisbury was attended by a crew from Wilton; and one in Downton was attended by a crew from Amesbury.

The Service is now planning for a series of two-hour strikes by the FBU over eight consecutive days, starting from July 14. Details of these actions are:

• Monday 14 July - 6am to 8am and 5pm to 7pm
• Tuesday 15 July - 6am to 8am and 5pm to 7pm
• Wednesday 16 July - 6am to 8am and 5pm to 7pm
• Thursday 17 July - 6am to 8am and 5pm to 7pm
• Friday 18 July - 6am to 8am and 11pm to 1am
• Saturday 19 July - 11am to 1pm and 11pm to 1am
• Sunday 20 July - 5pm to 7pm
• Monday 21 July - 6am to 8am and 5pm to 7pm.

For more safety advice for homes and businesses, visit www.wiltsfire.gov.uk

 

Comments (52)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:50am Fri 11 Jul 14

trolley dolley says...

The government should get tough on these so called fire fighters.

They should give them the same treatment that they gave the Miners.

All this nonsense over pay and conditions is just rubbish, if the people don't like what they have then they should resign and find other work more suitable to their attitude.

These people put everyone in danger by their deliberate action of striking, all our lives are put at risk to get them more money.

Get back to work or GET OUT.
The government should get tough on these so called fire fighters. They should give them the same treatment that they gave the Miners. All this nonsense over pay and conditions is just rubbish, if the people don't like what they have then they should resign and find other work more suitable to their attitude. These people put everyone in danger by their deliberate action of striking, all our lives are put at risk to get them more money. Get back to work or GET OUT. trolley dolley
  • Score: -33

11:28am Fri 11 Jul 14

Perfecthindsight says...

Perhaps when public service jobs are made so unattractive in terms of wages , hours and pensions, and there are no applications for them, you will be wondering why there are not enough firemen, nurses, carers, etc to respond when you need them.
Yes, we know there are badly treated people in the private sector, but the answer isnt to devalue all workers everywhere, but to try to improve conditions for the worse off, dont you think , to bring them up to a decent standard too.
Perhaps when public service jobs are made so unattractive in terms of wages , hours and pensions, and there are no applications for them, you will be wondering why there are not enough firemen, nurses, carers, etc to respond when you need them. Yes, we know there are badly treated people in the private sector, but the answer isnt to devalue all workers everywhere, but to try to improve conditions for the worse off, dont you think , to bring them up to a decent standard too. Perfecthindsight
  • Score: 22

11:51am Fri 11 Jul 14

Hmmmf says...

Perfecthindsight wrote:
try to improve conditions for the worse off, dont you think , to bring them up to a decent standard too

Because firemen are striking for such altruistic, noble and far-reaching reasons as bringing 'the worse off up to a decent standard too.' BS. They're striking for more money for themselves, for greed and pure, unadulterated self-interest.
And btw, the minimum wage is the standard set by government to accommodate the 'worse off', and it's over £12k pa for those who work a 37.5hr week.
[quote][p][bold]Perfecthindsight[/bold] wrote: try to improve conditions for the worse off, dont you think , to bring them up to a decent standard too[/quote] Because firemen are striking for such altruistic, noble and far-reaching reasons as bringing 'the worse off up to a decent standard too.' BS. They're striking for more money for themselves, for greed and pure, unadulterated self-interest. And btw, the minimum wage is the standard set by government to accommodate the 'worse off', and it's over £12k pa for those who work a 37.5hr week. Hmmmf
  • Score: -17

11:57am Fri 11 Jul 14

Sandor Clegane says...

Perfecthindsight wrote:
Perhaps when public service jobs are made so unattractive in terms of wages , hours and pensions, and there are no applications for them, you will be wondering why there are not enough firemen, nurses, carers, etc to respond when you need them.
Yes, we know there are badly treated people in the private sector, but the answer isnt to devalue all workers everywhere, but to try to improve conditions for the worse off, dont you think , to bring them up to a decent standard too.
Great idea. Let's pay everyone more money.

So that taxes then have to be increased to pay the additional public sector wages and all goods and services have to increase in price to pay the additional private sector wages.

And so everyone needs another pay rise because the cost of living's just rocketed.
[quote][p][bold]Perfecthindsight[/bold] wrote: Perhaps when public service jobs are made so unattractive in terms of wages , hours and pensions, and there are no applications for them, you will be wondering why there are not enough firemen, nurses, carers, etc to respond when you need them. Yes, we know there are badly treated people in the private sector, but the answer isnt to devalue all workers everywhere, but to try to improve conditions for the worse off, dont you think , to bring them up to a decent standard too.[/p][/quote]Great idea. Let's pay everyone more money. So that taxes then have to be increased to pay the additional public sector wages and all goods and services have to increase in price to pay the additional private sector wages. And so everyone needs another pay rise because the cost of living's just rocketed. Sandor Clegane
  • Score: -25

12:03pm Fri 11 Jul 14

chrisward2011 says...

Disgrace to the uniform
Disgrace to the uniform chrisward2011
  • Score: -20

12:23pm Fri 11 Jul 14

Davey Gravey says...

Treating life saving hero's how they do is a disgrace. Keep up the fight just like you do the fires, car pile ups, disasters, even cats up trees.
Treating life saving hero's how they do is a disgrace. Keep up the fight just like you do the fires, car pile ups, disasters, even cats up trees. Davey Gravey
  • Score: 3

12:59pm Fri 11 Jul 14

back_to_reality says...

"Perhaps when public service jobs are made so unattractive in terms of wages , hours and pensions, and there are no applications for them, you will be wondering why there are not enough firemen, nurses, carers, etc to respond when you need them.
Yes, we know there are badly treated people in the private sector, but the answer isnt to devalue all workers everywhere, but to try to improve conditions for the worse off, dont you think , to bring them up to a decent standard too"

I think we're a long way off that happening. Dont be so ridiculous.

Firemen badly treated? Yeah, like we're all gonna be able to retire at 50 on a full pension. Prat.
"Perhaps when public service jobs are made so unattractive in terms of wages , hours and pensions, and there are no applications for them, you will be wondering why there are not enough firemen, nurses, carers, etc to respond when you need them. Yes, we know there are badly treated people in the private sector, but the answer isnt to devalue all workers everywhere, but to try to improve conditions for the worse off, dont you think , to bring them up to a decent standard too" I think we're a long way off that happening. Dont be so ridiculous. Firemen badly treated? Yeah, like we're all gonna be able to retire at 50 on a full pension. Prat. back_to_reality
  • Score: -22

2:19pm Fri 11 Jul 14

PJC says...

If all these people complaining that public sector jobs are so cushy compared to their private sector penury, then surely it would be 'them' that were quitting and changing jobs? Thought not...
If all these people complaining that public sector jobs are so cushy compared to their private sector penury, then surely it would be 'them' that were quitting and changing jobs? Thought not... PJC
  • Score: 13

2:20pm Fri 11 Jul 14

Perfecthindsight says...

Sandor Clegane wrote:
Perfecthindsight wrote:
Perhaps when public service jobs are made so unattractive in terms of wages , hours and pensions, and there are no applications for them, you will be wondering why there are not enough firemen, nurses, carers, etc to respond when you need them.
Yes, we know there are badly treated people in the private sector, but the answer isnt to devalue all workers everywhere, but to try to improve conditions for the worse off, dont you think , to bring them up to a decent standard too.
Great idea. Let's pay everyone more money.

So that taxes then have to be increased to pay the additional public sector wages and all goods and services have to increase in price to pay the additional private sector wages.

And so everyone needs another pay rise because the cost of living's just rocketed.
No shortage of money for MPs wage increases, starting wars in the Middle East illegally, selling off Royal Mail ( and losing a billion to the public purse in the process), letting big companies offwith their fair share of taxes, losing millions in badly thought out computer projects, etc etc. Just no money for things that would improve peoples lives like the NHS, better housing, a decent safety net in adversity, increased minim um (living) wage...so maybe if those in power acted more in the interests of the population than their big business friends , we might all benefit.
[quote][p][bold]Sandor Clegane[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Perfecthindsight[/bold] wrote: Perhaps when public service jobs are made so unattractive in terms of wages , hours and pensions, and there are no applications for them, you will be wondering why there are not enough firemen, nurses, carers, etc to respond when you need them. Yes, we know there are badly treated people in the private sector, but the answer isnt to devalue all workers everywhere, but to try to improve conditions for the worse off, dont you think , to bring them up to a decent standard too.[/p][/quote]Great idea. Let's pay everyone more money. So that taxes then have to be increased to pay the additional public sector wages and all goods and services have to increase in price to pay the additional private sector wages. And so everyone needs another pay rise because the cost of living's just rocketed.[/p][/quote]No shortage of money for MPs wage increases, starting wars in the Middle East illegally, selling off Royal Mail ( and losing a billion to the public purse in the process), letting big companies offwith their fair share of taxes, losing millions in badly thought out computer projects, etc etc. Just no money for things that would improve peoples lives like the NHS, better housing, a decent safety net in adversity, increased minim um (living) wage...so maybe if those in power acted more in the interests of the population than their big business friends , we might all benefit. Perfecthindsight
  • Score: 25

2:22pm Fri 11 Jul 14

Perfecthindsight says...

PJC wrote:
If all these people complaining that public sector jobs are so cushy compared to their private sector penury, then surely it would be 'them' that were quitting and changing jobs? Thought not...
I agree. They never explain just why they havent applied for the cushy jobs with the 'gold plated pensions' , do they. Perhaps someone will tell us?
[quote][p][bold]PJC[/bold] wrote: If all these people complaining that public sector jobs are so cushy compared to their private sector penury, then surely it would be 'them' that were quitting and changing jobs? Thought not...[/p][/quote]I agree. They never explain just why they havent applied for the cushy jobs with the 'gold plated pensions' , do they. Perhaps someone will tell us? Perfecthindsight
  • Score: 14

2:23pm Fri 11 Jul 14

Hmmmf says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
Treating life saving hero's how they do is a disgrace. Keep up the fight just like you do the fires, car pile ups, disasters, even cats up trees.
Just like they did the 13 incidents across the entire county, including the heroic life-saving 9 false alarms (got to drive with the nee-nahs on though, so that was exciting), three disastrous bonfires, and the one support call to assist a life-saving ambulance crew.
If you're going to appeal to emotion or employ the kind of emotional blackmail tactics used by the FBU to big up their members, you need first to grasp the nettle which is the fact that most of the time the heroes you're worshipping are sat on their backsides doing diddly, and getting paid handsomely for it.
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: Treating life saving hero's how they do is a disgrace. Keep up the fight just like you do the fires, car pile ups, disasters, even cats up trees.[/p][/quote]Just like they did the 13 incidents across the entire county, including the heroic life-saving 9 false alarms (got to drive with the nee-nahs on though, so that was exciting), three disastrous bonfires, and the one support call to assist a life-saving ambulance crew. If you're going to appeal to emotion or employ the kind of emotional blackmail tactics used by the FBU to big up their members, you need first to grasp the nettle which is the fact that most of the time the heroes you're worshipping are sat on their backsides doing diddly, and getting paid handsomely for it. Hmmmf
  • Score: -16

2:27pm Fri 11 Jul 14

Hmmmf says...

PJC wrote:
If all these people complaining that public sector jobs are so cushy compared to their private sector penury, then surely it would be 'them' that were quitting and changing jobs? Thought not...
If all these people complaining that their public sector jobs are so bad compared to the rich uncaring private sector paymasters, then surely it would be 'them' that were quitting and changing jobs? Thought not...
[quote][p][bold]PJC[/bold] wrote: If all these people complaining that public sector jobs are so cushy compared to their private sector penury, then surely it would be 'them' that were quitting and changing jobs? Thought not...[/p][/quote]If all these people complaining that their public sector jobs are so bad compared to the rich uncaring private sector paymasters, then surely it would be 'them' that were quitting and changing jobs? Thought not... Hmmmf
  • Score: -16

2:52pm Fri 11 Jul 14

Sandor Clegane says...

Perfecthindsight wrote:
Sandor Clegane wrote:
Perfecthindsight wrote:
Perhaps when public service jobs are made so unattractive in terms of wages , hours and pensions, and there are no applications for them, you will be wondering why there are not enough firemen, nurses, carers, etc to respond when you need them.
Yes, we know there are badly treated people in the private sector, but the answer isnt to devalue all workers everywhere, but to try to improve conditions for the worse off, dont you think , to bring them up to a decent standard too.
Great idea. Let's pay everyone more money.

So that taxes then have to be increased to pay the additional public sector wages and all goods and services have to increase in price to pay the additional private sector wages.

And so everyone needs another pay rise because the cost of living's just rocketed.
No shortage of money for MPs wage increases, starting wars in the Middle East illegally, selling off Royal Mail ( and losing a billion to the public purse in the process), letting big companies offwith their fair share of taxes, losing millions in badly thought out computer projects, etc etc. Just no money for things that would improve peoples lives like the NHS, better housing, a decent safety net in adversity, increased minim um (living) wage...so maybe if those in power acted more in the interests of the population than their big business friends , we might all benefit.
This is all just socialist nonsense.

MPs wages increases amount to the square root of next to nothing. Head teachers get paid DOUBLE what MPs are paid in anycase. And, if you hadn't noticed, MPs are public sector workers just like yourself.

The government didn't 'lose' a billion by selling off Royal Mail, they dumped a liability and gained £2 Billion for the taxpayer - and even then they only sold 60% of their shares.

Let's not forget, your fellow public sector workers in the Royal Mail shared another 10% of OUR company's shares, but you no doubt think that's all fine and dandy.

In many ways I agree with the things the government wastes money on, the NHS and welfare being by far the two biggest wastes of our money in the country, but your numbers are cloud cuckoo land.

If the MPs pay increase was completely scrapped overnight and the money saved was handed out to just public sector workers alone they'd each receive an extra 81p per year.

If Britain hadn't gone to Iraq and Afghanistan, over the course of those years, if the money had been spent on public sector employees salaries they'd each have received an extra £74 per year. After tax, that'd work out to about £3.60 a month.

It's so easy and simplistic to say, 'If they didn't do that, this would be fine' but it just doesn't work that way.

Even if the government gave every public sector worker a £20 a month pay increase, that'd cost the nation over £1.5 Billion per year.

And this is the problem. It may look as though 'big business' does well (although that also means its employees and shareholders do also), what you're really talking about is a tiny percentage of people verses a massive percentage... the 1% and the 99%, if you will.

Giving £1m to one person changes their life forever. Giving £1m to ten million people merely inconveniences them as they try to think what to do with a 10p piece.
[quote][p][bold]Perfecthindsight[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sandor Clegane[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Perfecthindsight[/bold] wrote: Perhaps when public service jobs are made so unattractive in terms of wages , hours and pensions, and there are no applications for them, you will be wondering why there are not enough firemen, nurses, carers, etc to respond when you need them. Yes, we know there are badly treated people in the private sector, but the answer isnt to devalue all workers everywhere, but to try to improve conditions for the worse off, dont you think , to bring them up to a decent standard too.[/p][/quote]Great idea. Let's pay everyone more money. So that taxes then have to be increased to pay the additional public sector wages and all goods and services have to increase in price to pay the additional private sector wages. And so everyone needs another pay rise because the cost of living's just rocketed.[/p][/quote]No shortage of money for MPs wage increases, starting wars in the Middle East illegally, selling off Royal Mail ( and losing a billion to the public purse in the process), letting big companies offwith their fair share of taxes, losing millions in badly thought out computer projects, etc etc. Just no money for things that would improve peoples lives like the NHS, better housing, a decent safety net in adversity, increased minim um (living) wage...so maybe if those in power acted more in the interests of the population than their big business friends , we might all benefit.[/p][/quote]This is all just socialist nonsense. MPs wages increases amount to the square root of next to nothing. Head teachers get paid DOUBLE what MPs are paid in anycase. And, if you hadn't noticed, MPs are public sector workers just like yourself. The government didn't 'lose' a billion by selling off Royal Mail, they dumped a liability and gained £2 Billion for the taxpayer - and even then they only sold 60% of their shares. Let's not forget, your fellow public sector workers in the Royal Mail shared another 10% of OUR company's shares, but you no doubt think that's all fine and dandy. In many ways I agree with the things the government wastes money on, the NHS and welfare being by far the two biggest wastes of our money in the country, but your numbers are cloud cuckoo land. If the MPs pay increase was completely scrapped overnight and the money saved was handed out to just public sector workers alone they'd each receive an extra 81p per year. If Britain hadn't gone to Iraq and Afghanistan, over the course of those years, if the money had been spent on public sector employees salaries they'd each have received an extra £74 per year. After tax, that'd work out to about £3.60 a month. It's so easy and simplistic to say, 'If they didn't do that, this would be fine' but it just doesn't work that way. Even if the government gave every public sector worker a £20 a month pay increase, that'd cost the nation over £1.5 Billion per year. And this is the problem. It may look as though 'big business' does well (although that also means its employees and shareholders do also), what you're really talking about is a tiny percentage of people verses a massive percentage... the 1% and the 99%, if you will. Giving £1m to one person changes their life forever. Giving £1m to ten million people merely inconveniences them as they try to think what to do with a 10p piece. Sandor Clegane
  • Score: -20

2:55pm Fri 11 Jul 14

Sandor Clegane says...

PJC wrote:
If all these people complaining that public sector jobs are so cushy compared to their private sector penury, then surely it would be 'them' that were quitting and changing jobs? Thought not...
I still know plenty of people in the public sector from my days working there and it's actually quite difficult to get into many of the jobs these days, specifically because people know the salary, pension, working conditions and hours will be, let's say, 'congenial'.

You'd also be amazed at how much having family and friends already working in a public sector department influences who's able to obtain any job opportunities that do arise...
[quote][p][bold]PJC[/bold] wrote: If all these people complaining that public sector jobs are so cushy compared to their private sector penury, then surely it would be 'them' that were quitting and changing jobs? Thought not...[/p][/quote]I still know plenty of people in the public sector from my days working there and it's actually quite difficult to get into many of the jobs these days, specifically because people know the salary, pension, working conditions and hours will be, let's say, 'congenial'. You'd also be amazed at how much having family and friends already working in a public sector department influences who's able to obtain any job opportunities that do arise... Sandor Clegane
  • Score: -17

4:50pm Fri 11 Jul 14

messyits says...

Hmmmf wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
Treating life saving hero's how they do is a disgrace. Keep up the fight just like you do the fires, car pile ups, disasters, even cats up trees.
Just like they did the 13 incidents across the entire county, including the heroic life-saving 9 false alarms (got to drive with the nee-nahs on though, so that was exciting), three disastrous bonfires, and the one support call to assist a life-saving ambulance crew.
If you're going to appeal to emotion or employ the kind of emotional blackmail tactics used by the FBU to big up their members, you need first to grasp the nettle which is the fact that most of the time the heroes you're worshipping are sat on their backsides doing diddly, and getting paid handsomely for it.
On another day putting their lives at risk saving men women and kids in raging fires--or cutting mangled bodies from horrendous crashes and a host of high risk factor situations--there when needed.
[quote][p][bold]Hmmmf[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: Treating life saving hero's how they do is a disgrace. Keep up the fight just like you do the fires, car pile ups, disasters, even cats up trees.[/p][/quote]Just like they did the 13 incidents across the entire county, including the heroic life-saving 9 false alarms (got to drive with the nee-nahs on though, so that was exciting), three disastrous bonfires, and the one support call to assist a life-saving ambulance crew. If you're going to appeal to emotion or employ the kind of emotional blackmail tactics used by the FBU to big up their members, you need first to grasp the nettle which is the fact that most of the time the heroes you're worshipping are sat on their backsides doing diddly, and getting paid handsomely for it.[/p][/quote]On another day putting their lives at risk saving men women and kids in raging fires--or cutting mangled bodies from horrendous crashes and a host of high risk factor situations--there when needed. messyits
  • Score: 15

5:22pm Fri 11 Jul 14

trolley dolley says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
Treating life saving hero's how they do is a disgrace. Keep up the fight just like you do the fires, car pile ups, disasters, even cats up trees.
To call them "Life saving hero's" is an insult to all our servicemen and women.

They are not hero's, they are just doing a job of their choosing and trying very hard to milk the system.

The government should take them on by the scruff of the neck.
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: Treating life saving hero's how they do is a disgrace. Keep up the fight just like you do the fires, car pile ups, disasters, even cats up trees.[/p][/quote]To call them "Life saving hero's" is an insult to all our servicemen and women. They are not hero's, they are just doing a job of their choosing and trying very hard to milk the system. The government should take them on by the scruff of the neck. trolley dolley
  • Score: -18

5:31pm Fri 11 Jul 14

messyits says...

Sandor Clegane wrote:
PJC wrote:
If all these people complaining that public sector jobs are so cushy compared to their private sector penury, then surely it would be 'them' that were quitting and changing jobs? Thought not...
I still know plenty of people in the public sector from my days working there and it's actually quite difficult to get into many of the jobs these days, specifically because people know the salary, pension, working conditions and hours will be, let's say, 'congenial'.

You'd also be amazed at how much having family and friends already working in a public sector department influences who's able to obtain any job opportunities that do arise...
So you are not aware your full history is online--together with quotes you made in numerous log ins in more than 1 site. You angered many on T/S.
[quote][p][bold]Sandor Clegane[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PJC[/bold] wrote: If all these people complaining that public sector jobs are so cushy compared to their private sector penury, then surely it would be 'them' that were quitting and changing jobs? Thought not...[/p][/quote]I still know plenty of people in the public sector from my days working there and it's actually quite difficult to get into many of the jobs these days, specifically because people know the salary, pension, working conditions and hours will be, let's say, 'congenial'. You'd also be amazed at how much having family and friends already working in a public sector department influences who's able to obtain any job opportunities that do arise...[/p][/quote]So you are not aware your full history is online--together with quotes you made in numerous log ins in more than 1 site. You angered many on T/S. messyits
  • Score: 14

5:32pm Fri 11 Jul 14

messyits says...

Sandor Clegane wrote:
PJC wrote:
If all these people complaining that public sector jobs are so cushy compared to their private sector penury, then surely it would be 'them' that were quitting and changing jobs? Thought not...
I still know plenty of people in the public sector from my days working there and it's actually quite difficult to get into many of the jobs these days, specifically because people know the salary, pension, working conditions and hours will be, let's say, 'congenial'.

You'd also be amazed at how much having family and friends already working in a public sector department influences who's able to obtain any job opportunities that do arise...
So you are not aware your full history is online--together with quotes you made in numerous log ins in more than 1 site. You angered many on T/S.
[quote][p][bold]Sandor Clegane[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PJC[/bold] wrote: If all these people complaining that public sector jobs are so cushy compared to their private sector penury, then surely it would be 'them' that were quitting and changing jobs? Thought not...[/p][/quote]I still know plenty of people in the public sector from my days working there and it's actually quite difficult to get into many of the jobs these days, specifically because people know the salary, pension, working conditions and hours will be, let's say, 'congenial'. You'd also be amazed at how much having family and friends already working in a public sector department influences who's able to obtain any job opportunities that do arise...[/p][/quote]So you are not aware your full history is online--together with quotes you made in numerous log ins in more than 1 site. You angered many on T/S. messyits
  • Score: 15

5:33pm Fri 11 Jul 14

Davey Gravey says...

Royal mail workers opposed it's privatisation and publicly stated it was being undersold.
They were labeled lazy trouble makers on this site by the usual suspects.
1 billion pounds of public money down the **** Tories will brush under the carpet yet people begrudge firefighters a decent pension.
Royal mail workers opposed it's privatisation and publicly stated it was being undersold. They were labeled lazy trouble makers on this site by the usual suspects. 1 billion pounds of public money down the **** Tories will brush under the carpet yet people begrudge firefighters a decent pension. Davey Gravey
  • Score: 16

5:42pm Fri 11 Jul 14

Davey Gravey says...

trolley dolley wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
Treating life saving hero's how they do is a disgrace. Keep up the fight just like you do the fires, car pile ups, disasters, even cats up trees.
To call them "Life saving hero's" is an insult to all our servicemen and women.

They are not hero's, they are just doing a job of their choosing and trying very hard to milk the system.

The government should take them on by the scruff of the neck.
Rubbish. Its not an insult to anyone. They are hero's. Here's hoping you don't have to directly find that out yourself.
[quote][p][bold]trolley dolley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: Treating life saving hero's how they do is a disgrace. Keep up the fight just like you do the fires, car pile ups, disasters, even cats up trees.[/p][/quote]To call them "Life saving hero's" is an insult to all our servicemen and women. They are not hero's, they are just doing a job of their choosing and trying very hard to milk the system. The government should take them on by the scruff of the neck.[/p][/quote]Rubbish. Its not an insult to anyone. They are hero's. Here's hoping you don't have to directly find that out yourself. Davey Gravey
  • Score: 14

6:20pm Fri 11 Jul 14

Phantom Poster says...

Hmmmf wrote:
PJC wrote:
If all these people complaining that public sector jobs are so cushy compared to their private sector penury, then surely it would be 'them' that were quitting and changing jobs? Thought not...
If all these people complaining that their public sector jobs are so bad compared to the rich uncaring private sector paymasters, then surely it would be 'them' that were quitting and changing jobs? Thought not...
Maybe because the jobs are boring and non-challenging - everything is not just about pay and benefits, you know! I really don 't want to stay in a job for years on end just pushing paper around or never being involved in anything technical beyond A-Level standard. I won't end up as wealthy as you when I retire, but at least I will have led an interesting life.

In any case, the writing is on the wall for public sectors pensions, they are simply unsustainable, as anyone who has a grasp of simple arithmetic and demographics can work out.
[quote][p][bold]Hmmmf[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PJC[/bold] wrote: If all these people complaining that public sector jobs are so cushy compared to their private sector penury, then surely it would be 'them' that were quitting and changing jobs? Thought not...[/p][/quote]If all these people complaining that their public sector jobs are so bad compared to the rich uncaring private sector paymasters, then surely it would be 'them' that were quitting and changing jobs? Thought not...[/p][/quote]Maybe because the jobs are boring and non-challenging - everything is not just about pay and benefits, you know! I really don 't want to stay in a job for years on end just pushing paper around or never being involved in anything technical beyond A-Level standard. I won't end up as wealthy as you when I retire, but at least I will have led an interesting life. In any case, the writing is on the wall for public sectors pensions, they are simply unsustainable, as anyone who has a grasp of simple arithmetic and demographics can work out. Phantom Poster
  • Score: -14

6:24pm Fri 11 Jul 14

Sandor Clegane says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
Royal mail workers opposed it's privatisation and publicly stated it was being undersold.
They were labeled lazy trouble makers on this site by the usual suspects.
1 billion pounds of public money down the **** Tories will brush under the carpet yet people begrudge firefighters a decent pension.
Here are some more actual facts for you.

If the government took £1 Billion and paid it as pensions to the last 10 years worth of firefighters to retire and for the next 20 years (average length of retirement for firefighters), they would each receive:

£20 per year.
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: Royal mail workers opposed it's privatisation and publicly stated it was being undersold. They were labeled lazy trouble makers on this site by the usual suspects. 1 billion pounds of public money down the **** Tories will brush under the carpet yet people begrudge firefighters a decent pension.[/p][/quote]Here are some more actual facts for you. If the government took £1 Billion and paid it as pensions to the last 10 years worth of firefighters to retire and for the next 20 years (average length of retirement for firefighters), they would each receive: £20 per year. Sandor Clegane
  • Score: -14

6:26pm Fri 11 Jul 14

house on the hill says...

Perfecthindsight wrote:
Perhaps when public service jobs are made so unattractive in terms of wages , hours and pensions, and there are no applications for them, you will be wondering why there are not enough firemen, nurses, carers, etc to respond when you need them.
Yes, we know there are badly treated people in the private sector, but the answer isnt to devalue all workers everywhere, but to try to improve conditions for the worse off, dont you think , to bring them up to a decent standard too.
You seem to have no grasp of how business works. There is one major difference between private and public sector and that is competition or in your case the lack of it. Private sector have to be competitive which means keeping prices down ans customer service high and therefore wages down or they go out of business. Millions of private sector workers are on very different contracts than they signed up for or in many many cases different companies, towns and even vocations.

The public sector have none of these things, very few redundancies and most of them are still doing the same job or at least area of work they started in as well as having pensions even with your increase that most would give anything for.

You need to get out into the real business world more from behind your nice protected tax payer funded non competitive picket line and open your flipping eyes to the reality of how **** lucky you are and not some special case.
[quote][p][bold]Perfecthindsight[/bold] wrote: Perhaps when public service jobs are made so unattractive in terms of wages , hours and pensions, and there are no applications for them, you will be wondering why there are not enough firemen, nurses, carers, etc to respond when you need them. Yes, we know there are badly treated people in the private sector, but the answer isnt to devalue all workers everywhere, but to try to improve conditions for the worse off, dont you think , to bring them up to a decent standard too.[/p][/quote]You seem to have no grasp of how business works. There is one major difference between private and public sector and that is competition or in your case the lack of it. Private sector have to be competitive which means keeping prices down ans customer service high and therefore wages down or they go out of business. Millions of private sector workers are on very different contracts than they signed up for or in many many cases different companies, towns and even vocations. The public sector have none of these things, very few redundancies and most of them are still doing the same job or at least area of work they started in as well as having pensions even with your increase that most would give anything for. You need to get out into the real business world more from behind your nice protected tax payer funded non competitive picket line and open your flipping eyes to the reality of how **** lucky you are and not some special case. house on the hill
  • Score: -15

6:29pm Fri 11 Jul 14

Sandor Clegane says...


More than one in 10 firefighters failed to reach a recommended fitness standard in the past year, the BBC has found.

Results in Scotland were worse than the UK average, with only a third of staff in Strathclyde meeting the standard.

A Freedom of Information request found 2,890 firefighters of 24,272 failed the tests, which measure the rate of oxygen consumed during exercise.


http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/uk-24111259
[quote] More than one in 10 firefighters failed to reach a recommended fitness standard in the past year, the BBC has found. Results in Scotland were worse than the UK average, with only a third of staff in Strathclyde meeting the standard. A Freedom of Information request found 2,890 firefighters of 24,272 failed the tests, which measure the rate of oxygen consumed during exercise. [/quote] http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/uk-24111259 Sandor Clegane
  • Score: -15

6:31pm Fri 11 Jul 14

Phantom Poster says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
trolley dolley wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
Treating life saving hero's how they do is a disgrace. Keep up the fight just like you do the fires, car pile ups, disasters, even cats up trees.
To call them "Life saving hero's" is an insult to all our servicemen and women.

They are not hero's, they are just doing a job of their choosing and trying very hard to milk the system.

The government should take them on by the scruff of the neck.
Rubbish. Its not an insult to anyone. They are hero's. Here's hoping you don't have to directly find that out yourself.
Oh the usual emotional blackmail. If I'm in a car crash and a fireman has to cut me out of a car I will be very appreciative. However, how does doing the job he is paid to do make him a hero? He's not exactly driving through Iraq never knowing if he's going to drive past an improvised explosive device.

Would you consider builders to be heroes? From the Telegraph:

In the UK builders are putting themselves at risk - 39 people died in the construction industry between 2012 and 2013, the majority of them by falling from a height. According to the Guardian it is the most dangerous sector in the country, with more construction workers killed on British sites since 2001 than British soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan in the same period
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]trolley dolley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: Treating life saving hero's how they do is a disgrace. Keep up the fight just like you do the fires, car pile ups, disasters, even cats up trees.[/p][/quote]To call them "Life saving hero's" is an insult to all our servicemen and women. They are not hero's, they are just doing a job of their choosing and trying very hard to milk the system. The government should take them on by the scruff of the neck.[/p][/quote]Rubbish. Its not an insult to anyone. They are hero's. Here's hoping you don't have to directly find that out yourself.[/p][/quote]Oh the usual emotional blackmail. If I'm in a car crash and a fireman has to cut me out of a car I will be very appreciative. However, how does doing the job he is paid to do make him a hero? He's not exactly driving through Iraq never knowing if he's going to drive past an improvised explosive device. Would you consider builders to be heroes? From the Telegraph: In the UK builders are putting themselves at risk - 39 people died in the construction industry between 2012 and 2013, the majority of them by falling from a height. According to the Guardian it is the most dangerous sector in the country, with more construction workers killed on British sites since 2001 than British soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan in the same period Phantom Poster
  • Score: -16

8:04pm Fri 11 Jul 14

Davey Gravey says...

Phantom Poster wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
trolley dolley wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
Treating life saving hero's how they do is a disgrace. Keep up the fight just like you do the fires, car pile ups, disasters, even cats up trees.
To call them "Life saving hero's" is an insult to all our servicemen and women.

They are not hero's, they are just doing a job of their choosing and trying very hard to milk the system.

The government should take them on by the scruff of the neck.
Rubbish. Its not an insult to anyone. They are hero's. Here's hoping you don't have to directly find that out yourself.
Oh the usual emotional blackmail. If I'm in a car crash and a fireman has to cut me out of a car I will be very appreciative. However, how does doing the job he is paid to do make him a hero? He's not exactly driving through Iraq never knowing if he's going to drive past an improvised explosive device.

Would you consider builders to be heroes? From the Telegraph:

In the UK builders are putting themselves at risk - 39 people died in the construction industry between 2012 and 2013, the majority of them by falling from a height. According to the Guardian it is the most dangerous sector in the country, with more construction workers killed on British sites since 2001 than British soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan in the same period
I'd say anyone who saves peoples lives is a hero.
Firefighters most definitely are in that category.
[quote][p][bold]Phantom Poster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]trolley dolley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: Treating life saving hero's how they do is a disgrace. Keep up the fight just like you do the fires, car pile ups, disasters, even cats up trees.[/p][/quote]To call them "Life saving hero's" is an insult to all our servicemen and women. They are not hero's, they are just doing a job of their choosing and trying very hard to milk the system. The government should take them on by the scruff of the neck.[/p][/quote]Rubbish. Its not an insult to anyone. They are hero's. Here's hoping you don't have to directly find that out yourself.[/p][/quote]Oh the usual emotional blackmail. If I'm in a car crash and a fireman has to cut me out of a car I will be very appreciative. However, how does doing the job he is paid to do make him a hero? He's not exactly driving through Iraq never knowing if he's going to drive past an improvised explosive device. Would you consider builders to be heroes? From the Telegraph: In the UK builders are putting themselves at risk - 39 people died in the construction industry between 2012 and 2013, the majority of them by falling from a height. According to the Guardian it is the most dangerous sector in the country, with more construction workers killed on British sites since 2001 than British soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan in the same period[/p][/quote]I'd say anyone who saves peoples lives is a hero. Firefighters most definitely are in that category. Davey Gravey
  • Score: 17

8:08pm Fri 11 Jul 14

Davey Gravey says...

Sandor Clegane wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
Royal mail workers opposed it's privatisation and publicly stated it was being undersold.
They were labeled lazy trouble makers on this site by the usual suspects.
1 billion pounds of public money down the **** Tories will brush under the carpet yet people begrudge firefighters a decent pension.
Here are some more actual facts for you.

If the government took £1 Billion and paid it as pensions to the last 10 years worth of firefighters to retire and for the next 20 years (average length of retirement for firefighters), they would each receive:

£20 per year.
Why would I engage in debate with you considering your conduct on here?
You were banned and meddle with the voting system. Do one !
[quote][p][bold]Sandor Clegane[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: Royal mail workers opposed it's privatisation and publicly stated it was being undersold. They were labeled lazy trouble makers on this site by the usual suspects. 1 billion pounds of public money down the **** Tories will brush under the carpet yet people begrudge firefighters a decent pension.[/p][/quote]Here are some more actual facts for you. If the government took £1 Billion and paid it as pensions to the last 10 years worth of firefighters to retire and for the next 20 years (average length of retirement for firefighters), they would each receive: £20 per year.[/p][/quote]Why would I engage in debate with you considering your conduct on here? You were banned and meddle with the voting system. Do one ! Davey Gravey
  • Score: 14

8:55pm Fri 11 Jul 14

messyits says...

I agree the firemen have a valid claim. Do not be deceived by figures given by agitators. The facts are very simple-they agreed to PAY into a pension until a certain age at higher rates than other pensions as it was deemed the job required a high level of fitness above and beyond most jobs due to the dangers and trauma they could witness doing their jobs.
To change that for more years means their contributions would be drastically higher level to maintain the pension and reduce income.
As the nurses that face increases have a choice to retire at the agreed age they signed up to--or work on and lose income--most retire--and take on part time shifts.
Firemen cannot do that as they have passed the active working age.
I agree the firemen have a valid claim. Do not be deceived by figures given by agitators. The facts are very simple-they agreed to PAY into a pension until a certain age at higher rates than other pensions as it was deemed the job required a high level of fitness above and beyond most jobs due to the dangers and trauma they could witness doing their jobs. To change that for more years means their contributions would be drastically higher level to maintain the pension and reduce income. As the nurses that face increases have a choice to retire at the agreed age they signed up to--or work on and lose income--most retire--and take on part time shifts. Firemen cannot do that as they have passed the active working age. messyits
  • Score: 13

10:24pm Fri 11 Jul 14

Phantom Poster says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
Phantom Poster wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
trolley dolley wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
Treating life saving hero's how they do is a disgrace. Keep up the fight just like you do the fires, car pile ups, disasters, even cats up trees.
To call them "Life saving hero's" is an insult to all our servicemen and women.

They are not hero's, they are just doing a job of their choosing and trying very hard to milk the system.

The government should take them on by the scruff of the neck.
Rubbish. Its not an insult to anyone. They are hero's. Here's hoping you don't have to directly find that out yourself.
Oh the usual emotional blackmail. If I'm in a car crash and a fireman has to cut me out of a car I will be very appreciative. However, how does doing the job he is paid to do make him a hero? He's not exactly driving through Iraq never knowing if he's going to drive past an improvised explosive device.

Would you consider builders to be heroes? From the Telegraph:

In the UK builders are putting themselves at risk - 39 people died in the construction industry between 2012 and 2013, the majority of them by falling from a height. According to the Guardian it is the most dangerous sector in the country, with more construction workers killed on British sites since 2001 than British soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan in the same period
I'd say anyone who saves peoples lives is a hero.
Firefighters most definitely are in that category.
Definition of hero:

A person, typically a man, who is admired for their courage, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities

How is doing their job as expected an "outstanding achievement"?

It's people like you who totally degrade the the title of "hero" for people who actually are!
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phantom Poster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]trolley dolley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: Treating life saving hero's how they do is a disgrace. Keep up the fight just like you do the fires, car pile ups, disasters, even cats up trees.[/p][/quote]To call them "Life saving hero's" is an insult to all our servicemen and women. They are not hero's, they are just doing a job of their choosing and trying very hard to milk the system. The government should take them on by the scruff of the neck.[/p][/quote]Rubbish. Its not an insult to anyone. They are hero's. Here's hoping you don't have to directly find that out yourself.[/p][/quote]Oh the usual emotional blackmail. If I'm in a car crash and a fireman has to cut me out of a car I will be very appreciative. However, how does doing the job he is paid to do make him a hero? He's not exactly driving through Iraq never knowing if he's going to drive past an improvised explosive device. Would you consider builders to be heroes? From the Telegraph: In the UK builders are putting themselves at risk - 39 people died in the construction industry between 2012 and 2013, the majority of them by falling from a height. According to the Guardian it is the most dangerous sector in the country, with more construction workers killed on British sites since 2001 than British soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan in the same period[/p][/quote]I'd say anyone who saves peoples lives is a hero. Firefighters most definitely are in that category.[/p][/quote]Definition of hero: A person, typically a man, who is admired for their courage, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities How is doing their job as expected an "outstanding achievement"? It's people like you who totally degrade the the title of "hero" for people who actually are! Phantom Poster
  • Score: -16

10:31pm Fri 11 Jul 14

Phantom Poster says...

messyits wrote:
I agree the firemen have a valid claim. Do not be deceived by figures given by agitators. The facts are very simple-they agreed to PAY into a pension until a certain age at higher rates than other pensions as it was deemed the job required a high level of fitness above and beyond most jobs due to the dangers and trauma they could witness doing their jobs.
To change that for more years means their contributions would be drastically higher level to maintain the pension and reduce income.
As the nurses that face increases have a choice to retire at the agreed age they signed up to--or work on and lose income--most retire--and take on part time shifts.
Firemen cannot do that as they have passed the active working age.
I totally agree "Do not be deceived by figures" given by agitator or otherwise. Work it out for yourselves and come to a conclusion as to whether or not firemen have a case.

I have and the don't think they do!
[quote][p][bold]messyits[/bold] wrote: I agree the firemen have a valid claim. Do not be deceived by figures given by agitators. The facts are very simple-they agreed to PAY into a pension until a certain age at higher rates than other pensions as it was deemed the job required a high level of fitness above and beyond most jobs due to the dangers and trauma they could witness doing their jobs. To change that for more years means their contributions would be drastically higher level to maintain the pension and reduce income. As the nurses that face increases have a choice to retire at the agreed age they signed up to--or work on and lose income--most retire--and take on part time shifts. Firemen cannot do that as they have passed the active working age.[/p][/quote]I totally agree "Do not be deceived by figures" given by agitator or otherwise. Work it out for yourselves and come to a conclusion as to whether or not firemen have a case. I have and the don't think they do! Phantom Poster
  • Score: -11

11:16pm Fri 11 Jul 14

messyits says...

Phantom Poster wrote:
messyits wrote:
I agree the firemen have a valid claim. Do not be deceived by figures given by agitators. The facts are very simple-they agreed to PAY into a pension until a certain age at higher rates than other pensions as it was deemed the job required a high level of fitness above and beyond most jobs due to the dangers and trauma they could witness doing their jobs.
To change that for more years means their contributions would be drastically higher level to maintain the pension and reduce income.
As the nurses that face increases have a choice to retire at the agreed age they signed up to--or work on and lose income--most retire--and take on part time shifts.
Firemen cannot do that as they have passed the active working age.
I totally agree "Do not be deceived by figures" given by agitator or otherwise. Work it out for yourselves and come to a conclusion as to whether or not firemen have a case.

I have and the don't think they do!
Some of your comments are double edged--applying different standards. Soldiers track explosive devices--placing their lives at risk--part of the job-likewise firemen who enter burning buildings to hopefully save lives--all the training cannot prevent the trauma of failing to save a life.
[quote][p][bold]Phantom Poster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]messyits[/bold] wrote: I agree the firemen have a valid claim. Do not be deceived by figures given by agitators. The facts are very simple-they agreed to PAY into a pension until a certain age at higher rates than other pensions as it was deemed the job required a high level of fitness above and beyond most jobs due to the dangers and trauma they could witness doing their jobs. To change that for more years means their contributions would be drastically higher level to maintain the pension and reduce income. As the nurses that face increases have a choice to retire at the agreed age they signed up to--or work on and lose income--most retire--and take on part time shifts. Firemen cannot do that as they have passed the active working age.[/p][/quote]I totally agree "Do not be deceived by figures" given by agitator or otherwise. Work it out for yourselves and come to a conclusion as to whether or not firemen have a case. I have and the don't think they do![/p][/quote]Some of your comments are double edged--applying different standards. Soldiers track explosive devices--placing their lives at risk--part of the job-likewise firemen who enter burning buildings to hopefully save lives--all the training cannot prevent the trauma of failing to save a life. messyits
  • Score: -14

10:14am Sat 12 Jul 14

Goat67 says...

Perfecthindsight wrote:
PJC wrote: If all these people complaining that public sector jobs are so cushy compared to their private sector penury, then surely it would be 'them' that were quitting and changing jobs? Thought not...
I agree. They never explain just why they havent applied for the cushy jobs with the 'gold plated pensions' , do they. Perhaps someone will tell us?
Perhaps they don't want to spend their working lives clearing up dog s**t, human s**t, vomit, blood, needles, bottles of urine, broken and discarded everything along with millions of dog ends.

Perhaps they don't want to run alongside a recycling lorry all day, in all weathers, whilst sorting out the stuff people put out, 90% of which has not been cleaned or even emptied of its often putrid contents.
[quote][p][bold]Perfecthindsight[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PJC[/bold] wrote: If all these people complaining that public sector jobs are so cushy compared to their private sector penury, then surely it would be 'them' that were quitting and changing jobs? Thought not...[/p][/quote]I agree. They never explain just why they havent applied for the cushy jobs with the 'gold plated pensions' , do they. Perhaps someone will tell us?[/p][/quote]Perhaps they don't want to spend their working lives clearing up dog s**t, human s**t, vomit, blood, needles, bottles of urine, broken and discarded everything along with millions of dog ends. Perhaps they don't want to run alongside a recycling lorry all day, in all weathers, whilst sorting out the stuff people put out, 90% of which has not been cleaned or even emptied of its often putrid contents. Goat67
  • Score: -2

2:52pm Sat 12 Jul 14

MrAngry says...

Perfecthindsight wrote:
PJC wrote:
If all these people complaining that public sector jobs are so cushy compared to their private sector penury, then surely it would be 'them' that were quitting and changing jobs? Thought not...
I agree. They never explain just why they havent applied for the cushy jobs with the 'gold plated pensions' , do they. Perhaps someone will tell us?
The public sector have reduced staff numbers, so there aren't a lot of job vacancies on offer.

So if you don't like you private sector you leave for another private sector job.

You can argue both ways. If the public sector is so tough, why do the unions fight redundancies. Surely staff would be happy to get a pay off and then walk into a cushy private sector job.

The country is broke. There is no money for public sector pay rises.
[quote][p][bold]Perfecthindsight[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PJC[/bold] wrote: If all these people complaining that public sector jobs are so cushy compared to their private sector penury, then surely it would be 'them' that were quitting and changing jobs? Thought not...[/p][/quote]I agree. They never explain just why they havent applied for the cushy jobs with the 'gold plated pensions' , do they. Perhaps someone will tell us?[/p][/quote]The public sector have reduced staff numbers, so there aren't a lot of job vacancies on offer. So if you don't like you private sector you leave for another private sector job. You can argue both ways. If the public sector is so tough, why do the unions fight redundancies. Surely staff would be happy to get a pay off and then walk into a cushy private sector job. The country is broke. There is no money for public sector pay rises. MrAngry
  • Score: -14

3:44pm Sat 12 Jul 14

higashi says...

Perfecthindsight wrote:
PJC wrote:
If all these people complaining that public sector jobs are so cushy compared to their private sector penury, then surely it would be 'them' that were quitting and changing jobs? Thought not...
I agree. They never explain just why they havent applied for the cushy jobs with the 'gold plated pensions' , do they. Perhaps someone will tell us?
Perhaps they have! Can you provide figures on how many private sector employees apply for public sector jobs?

Can you supply figures on how many former private sector employees now work in the public sector?

You really haven't thought your argument through, have you?
[quote][p][bold]Perfecthindsight[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PJC[/bold] wrote: If all these people complaining that public sector jobs are so cushy compared to their private sector penury, then surely it would be 'them' that were quitting and changing jobs? Thought not...[/p][/quote]I agree. They never explain just why they havent applied for the cushy jobs with the 'gold plated pensions' , do they. Perhaps someone will tell us?[/p][/quote]Perhaps they have! Can you provide figures on how many private sector employees apply for public sector jobs? Can you supply figures on how many former private sector employees now work in the public sector? You really haven't thought your argument through, have you? higashi
  • Score: -14

3:59pm Sat 12 Jul 14

Phantom Poster says...

messyits wrote:
Phantom Poster wrote:
messyits wrote:
I agree the firemen have a valid claim. Do not be deceived by figures given by agitators. The facts are very simple-they agreed to PAY into a pension until a certain age at higher rates than other pensions as it was deemed the job required a high level of fitness above and beyond most jobs due to the dangers and trauma they could witness doing their jobs.
To change that for more years means their contributions would be drastically higher level to maintain the pension and reduce income.
As the nurses that face increases have a choice to retire at the agreed age they signed up to--or work on and lose income--most retire--and take on part time shifts.
Firemen cannot do that as they have passed the active working age.
I totally agree "Do not be deceived by figures" given by agitator or otherwise. Work it out for yourselves and come to a conclusion as to whether or not firemen have a case.

I have and the don't think they do!
Some of your comments are double edged--applying different standards. Soldiers track explosive devices--placing their lives at risk--part of the job-likewise firemen who enter burning buildings to hopefully save lives--all the training cannot prevent the trauma of failing to save a life.
Your presuming that failing to save a life causes trauma. People who work in hospitals fail to save lives on a daily basis.

You really have a romantic notion of firefighting. With all the health and safety regulations, how many firefighter in Swindon risk their lives in burning buildings to save people? I'm not saying that it might never happen - if someone goes over and above the call of duty then they shoild indeed be celebrated as heroes. However, to call every single firefighter in Swindon a hero and base the pay structure and pension plan on that is just ridiculous!
[quote][p][bold]messyits[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phantom Poster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]messyits[/bold] wrote: I agree the firemen have a valid claim. Do not be deceived by figures given by agitators. The facts are very simple-they agreed to PAY into a pension until a certain age at higher rates than other pensions as it was deemed the job required a high level of fitness above and beyond most jobs due to the dangers and trauma they could witness doing their jobs. To change that for more years means their contributions would be drastically higher level to maintain the pension and reduce income. As the nurses that face increases have a choice to retire at the agreed age they signed up to--or work on and lose income--most retire--and take on part time shifts. Firemen cannot do that as they have passed the active working age.[/p][/quote]I totally agree "Do not be deceived by figures" given by agitator or otherwise. Work it out for yourselves and come to a conclusion as to whether or not firemen have a case. I have and the don't think they do![/p][/quote]Some of your comments are double edged--applying different standards. Soldiers track explosive devices--placing their lives at risk--part of the job-likewise firemen who enter burning buildings to hopefully save lives--all the training cannot prevent the trauma of failing to save a life.[/p][/quote]Your presuming that failing to save a life causes trauma. People who work in hospitals fail to save lives on a daily basis. You really have a romantic notion of firefighting. With all the health and safety regulations, how many firefighter in Swindon risk their lives in burning buildings to save people? I'm not saying that it might never happen - if someone goes over and above the call of duty then they shoild indeed be celebrated as heroes. However, to call every single firefighter in Swindon a hero and base the pay structure and pension plan on that is just ridiculous! Phantom Poster
  • Score: -12

6:48pm Sat 12 Jul 14

Goat67 says...

MrAngry wrote:
Perfecthindsight wrote:
PJC wrote: If all these people complaining that public sector jobs are so cushy compared to their private sector penury, then surely it would be 'them' that were quitting and changing jobs? Thought not...
I agree. They never explain just why they havent applied for the cushy jobs with the 'gold plated pensions' , do they. Perhaps someone will tell us?
The public sector have reduced staff numbers, so there aren't a lot of job vacancies on offer. So if you don't like you private sector you leave for another private sector job. You can argue both ways. If the public sector is so tough, why do the unions fight redundancies. Surely staff would be happy to get a pay off and then walk into a cushy private sector job. The country is broke. There is no money for public sector pay rises.
Luckily that doesn't get in the way of MP's voting for their above inflation pay rises!

If the people have to suffer from continued austerity measures our leaders should suffer along with the rest.

Recently in a Council briefing, the Directer whom was making the presentation was talking about how happy he was to have been able to attract a certain high end supermarket to the area and then asked if any of us had used it.

The response was stunned silence from an audience that have found themselves unable to continue shopping at the largest supermarket and forced to purchase from a cheaper one which is normally associated with people living on benefits and state pensions, which was in fact born out of the Berlin airlift.
[quote][p][bold]MrAngry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Perfecthindsight[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PJC[/bold] wrote: If all these people complaining that public sector jobs are so cushy compared to their private sector penury, then surely it would be 'them' that were quitting and changing jobs? Thought not...[/p][/quote]I agree. They never explain just why they havent applied for the cushy jobs with the 'gold plated pensions' , do they. Perhaps someone will tell us?[/p][/quote]The public sector have reduced staff numbers, so there aren't a lot of job vacancies on offer. So if you don't like you private sector you leave for another private sector job. You can argue both ways. If the public sector is so tough, why do the unions fight redundancies. Surely staff would be happy to get a pay off and then walk into a cushy private sector job. The country is broke. There is no money for public sector pay rises.[/p][/quote]Luckily that doesn't get in the way of MP's voting for their above inflation pay rises! If the people have to suffer from continued austerity measures our leaders should suffer along with the rest. Recently in a Council briefing, the Directer whom was making the presentation was talking about how happy he was to have been able to attract a certain high end supermarket to the area and then asked if any of us had used it. The response was stunned silence from an audience that have found themselves unable to continue shopping at the largest supermarket and forced to purchase from a cheaper one which is normally associated with people living on benefits and state pensions, which was in fact born out of the Berlin airlift. Goat67
  • Score: 11

6:52pm Sat 12 Jul 14

Goat67 says...

MrAngry wrote:
Perfecthindsight wrote:
PJC wrote: If all these people complaining that public sector jobs are so cushy compared to their private sector penury, then surely it would be 'them' that were quitting and changing jobs? Thought not...
I agree. They never explain just why they havent applied for the cushy jobs with the 'gold plated pensions' , do they. Perhaps someone will tell us?
The public sector have reduced staff numbers, so there aren't a lot of job vacancies on offer. So if you don't like you private sector you leave for another private sector job. You can argue both ways. If the public sector is so tough, why do the unions fight redundancies. Surely staff would be happy to get a pay off and then walk into a cushy private sector job. The country is broke. There is no money for public sector pay rises.
Luckily that doesn't get in the way of MP's voting for their above inflation pay rises!

If the people have to suffer from continued austerity measures our leaders should suffer along with the rest.

Recently in a Council briefing, the Directer whom was making the presentation was talking about how happy he was to have been able to attract a certain high end supermarket to the area and then asked if any of us had used it.

The response was stunned silence from an audience that have found themselves unable to continue shopping at the largest supermarket and forced to purchase from a cheaper one which is normally associated with people living on benefits and state pensions, which was in fact born out of the Berlin airlift.
[quote][p][bold]MrAngry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Perfecthindsight[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PJC[/bold] wrote: If all these people complaining that public sector jobs are so cushy compared to their private sector penury, then surely it would be 'them' that were quitting and changing jobs? Thought not...[/p][/quote]I agree. They never explain just why they havent applied for the cushy jobs with the 'gold plated pensions' , do they. Perhaps someone will tell us?[/p][/quote]The public sector have reduced staff numbers, so there aren't a lot of job vacancies on offer. So if you don't like you private sector you leave for another private sector job. You can argue both ways. If the public sector is so tough, why do the unions fight redundancies. Surely staff would be happy to get a pay off and then walk into a cushy private sector job. The country is broke. There is no money for public sector pay rises.[/p][/quote]Luckily that doesn't get in the way of MP's voting for their above inflation pay rises! If the people have to suffer from continued austerity measures our leaders should suffer along with the rest. Recently in a Council briefing, the Directer whom was making the presentation was talking about how happy he was to have been able to attract a certain high end supermarket to the area and then asked if any of us had used it. The response was stunned silence from an audience that have found themselves unable to continue shopping at the largest supermarket and forced to purchase from a cheaper one which is normally associated with people living on benefits and state pensions, which was in fact born out of the Berlin airlift. Goat67
  • Score: 11

7:07pm Sat 12 Jul 14

messyits says...

P.P
Did you take a drama course?

Your presuming that failing to save a life causes trauma. People who work
in hospitals fail to save lives on a daily basis.

Are you saying hospital staff are not affected by losing a patient--I actually referred to the new rules for their pensions.

Fortunately I take the view the risks are ever present for firefighters despite elf'n'safety regulations in a variety of situations they are called to.

The pension plan is based on sound medical evidence and age related and research. If you paid into a pension plan (private or public) other than the state pension I feel sure you would feel very aggrieved to have to pay a much higher rate to then secure that pension. In addition you would have more years to pay the state pensions.
Consider also with retirement ages rising to an age where the hospitals try to keep the elderly at home to be treated for chronic illness--or have you not heard many GP practices will not refer elderly to hospital consultants and indeed many practices are closing as they cannot cope.
P.P Did you take a drama course? Your presuming that failing to save a life causes trauma. People who work in hospitals fail to save lives on a daily basis. Are you saying hospital staff are not affected by losing a patient--I actually referred to the new rules for their pensions. Fortunately I take the view the risks are ever present for firefighters despite elf'n'safety regulations in a variety of situations they are called to. The pension plan is based on sound medical evidence and age related and research. If you paid into a pension plan (private or public) other than the state pension I feel sure you would feel very aggrieved to have to pay a much higher rate to then secure that pension. In addition you would have more years to pay the state pensions. Consider also with retirement ages rising to an age where the hospitals try to keep the elderly at home to be treated for chronic illness--or have you not heard many GP practices will not refer elderly to hospital consultants and indeed many practices are closing as they cannot cope. messyits
  • Score: 12

7:27pm Sat 12 Jul 14

Phantom Poster says...

Goat67 wrote:
MrAngry wrote:
Perfecthindsight wrote:
PJC wrote: If all these people complaining that public sector jobs are so cushy compared to their private sector penury, then surely it would be 'them' that were quitting and changing jobs? Thought not...
I agree. They never explain just why they havent applied for the cushy jobs with the 'gold plated pensions' , do they. Perhaps someone will tell us?
The public sector have reduced staff numbers, so there aren't a lot of job vacancies on offer. So if you don't like you private sector you leave for another private sector job. You can argue both ways. If the public sector is so tough, why do the unions fight redundancies. Surely staff would be happy to get a pay off and then walk into a cushy private sector job. The country is broke. There is no money for public sector pay rises.
Luckily that doesn't get in the way of MP's voting for their above inflation pay rises!

If the people have to suffer from continued austerity measures our leaders should suffer along with the rest.

Recently in a Council briefing, the Directer whom was making the presentation was talking about how happy he was to have been able to attract a certain high end supermarket to the area and then asked if any of us had used it.

The response was stunned silence from an audience that have found themselves unable to continue shopping at the largest supermarket and forced to purchase from a cheaper one which is normally associated with people living on benefits and state pensions, which was in fact born out of the Berlin airlift.
I agree that MPs ought to have their pay increases constrained in the current situation,

Then again, I pay to give royals their luxurious lifestyles.

Sorry, you are talking absolute crap - are you saying that people who shop at Aldi and Lidl are are associated with being on benefits? You really need to get out more!
[quote][p][bold]Goat67[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MrAngry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Perfecthindsight[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PJC[/bold] wrote: If all these people complaining that public sector jobs are so cushy compared to their private sector penury, then surely it would be 'them' that were quitting and changing jobs? Thought not...[/p][/quote]I agree. They never explain just why they havent applied for the cushy jobs with the 'gold plated pensions' , do they. Perhaps someone will tell us?[/p][/quote]The public sector have reduced staff numbers, so there aren't a lot of job vacancies on offer. So if you don't like you private sector you leave for another private sector job. You can argue both ways. If the public sector is so tough, why do the unions fight redundancies. Surely staff would be happy to get a pay off and then walk into a cushy private sector job. The country is broke. There is no money for public sector pay rises.[/p][/quote]Luckily that doesn't get in the way of MP's voting for their above inflation pay rises! If the people have to suffer from continued austerity measures our leaders should suffer along with the rest. Recently in a Council briefing, the Directer whom was making the presentation was talking about how happy he was to have been able to attract a certain high end supermarket to the area and then asked if any of us had used it. The response was stunned silence from an audience that have found themselves unable to continue shopping at the largest supermarket and forced to purchase from a cheaper one which is normally associated with people living on benefits and state pensions, which was in fact born out of the Berlin airlift.[/p][/quote]I agree that MPs ought to have their pay increases constrained in the current situation, Then again, I pay to give royals their luxurious lifestyles. Sorry, you are talking absolute crap - are you saying that people who shop at Aldi and Lidl are are associated with being on benefits? You really need to get out more! Phantom Poster
  • Score: -17

8:39pm Sat 12 Jul 14

Davey Gravey says...

Have you not seen the comments from the usual bigots regarding lidl and aldi on here?
The usual clueless sweeping statements of course. The norm on here.
Have you not seen the comments from the usual bigots regarding lidl and aldi on here? The usual clueless sweeping statements of course. The norm on here. Davey Gravey
  • Score: 15

9:03pm Sat 12 Jul 14

messyits says...

Phantom Poster says... Then again, I pay to give royals their luxurious lifestyles.

You mean they pay no taxes--guess you think they do not contribute to tourism either and thus the economy?
Phantom Poster says... Then again, I pay to give royals their luxurious lifestyles. You mean they pay no taxes--guess you think they do not contribute to tourism either and thus the economy? messyits
  • Score: 5

8:36am Sun 13 Jul 14

house on the hill says...

Phantom Poster wrote:
Hmmmf wrote:
PJC wrote:
If all these people complaining that public sector jobs are so cushy compared to their private sector penury, then surely it would be 'them' that were quitting and changing jobs? Thought not...
If all these people complaining that their public sector jobs are so bad compared to the rich uncaring private sector paymasters, then surely it would be 'them' that were quitting and changing jobs? Thought not...
Maybe because the jobs are boring and non-challenging - everything is not just about pay and benefits, you know! I really don 't want to stay in a job for years on end just pushing paper around or never being involved in anything technical beyond A-Level standard. I won't end up as wealthy as you when I retire, but at least I will have led an interesting life.

In any case, the writing is on the wall for public sectors pensions, they are simply unsustainable, as anyone who has a grasp of simple arithmetic and demographics can work out.
Absolutely agree, far too many public sector workers are lazy, complacent and one dimensional in their business outlook and have a panic attack at the mention of change let alone actually having to do some.

Working in a non competitive, no consequence for failure and very low chance of redundancy environment turns you into that sort of person and for anyone with any sort of drive, innovation or desire to succeed and put the customer first that is not how they want to live their life. I probably work twice as hard now as I did in the public sector but I wouldn't go back for twice the money to work with those sorts of people. Most have been there so long they don't know any different.

As for all this "Hero" comments that is as usual typically short sighted. Without the water companies and the coach builders they wouldn't even be able to do their jobs so clearly they are "hero's" too then to make the whole thing happen. Pretty much every job is as important as another that support it and you need to get away from this one dimensional way of looking at the world and see the bigger picture. And as with any job if you don't like it then change it as many private sector workers have to do when they get made redundant or want to improve their lives, probably not something public sector workers understand though.
[quote][p][bold]Phantom Poster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hmmmf[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PJC[/bold] wrote: If all these people complaining that public sector jobs are so cushy compared to their private sector penury, then surely it would be 'them' that were quitting and changing jobs? Thought not...[/p][/quote]If all these people complaining that their public sector jobs are so bad compared to the rich uncaring private sector paymasters, then surely it would be 'them' that were quitting and changing jobs? Thought not...[/p][/quote]Maybe because the jobs are boring and non-challenging - everything is not just about pay and benefits, you know! I really don 't want to stay in a job for years on end just pushing paper around or never being involved in anything technical beyond A-Level standard. I won't end up as wealthy as you when I retire, but at least I will have led an interesting life. In any case, the writing is on the wall for public sectors pensions, they are simply unsustainable, as anyone who has a grasp of simple arithmetic and demographics can work out.[/p][/quote]Absolutely agree, far too many public sector workers are lazy, complacent and one dimensional in their business outlook and have a panic attack at the mention of change let alone actually having to do some. Working in a non competitive, no consequence for failure and very low chance of redundancy environment turns you into that sort of person and for anyone with any sort of drive, innovation or desire to succeed and put the customer first that is not how they want to live their life. I probably work twice as hard now as I did in the public sector but I wouldn't go back for twice the money to work with those sorts of people. Most have been there so long they don't know any different. As for all this "Hero" comments that is as usual typically short sighted. Without the water companies and the coach builders they wouldn't even be able to do their jobs so clearly they are "hero's" too then to make the whole thing happen. Pretty much every job is as important as another that support it and you need to get away from this one dimensional way of looking at the world and see the bigger picture. And as with any job if you don't like it then change it as many private sector workers have to do when they get made redundant or want to improve their lives, probably not something public sector workers understand though. house on the hill
  • Score: -19

8:51am Sun 13 Jul 14

MrAngry says...

messyits wrote:
P.P
Did you take a drama course?

Your presuming that failing to save a life causes trauma. People who work
in hospitals fail to save lives on a daily basis.

Are you saying hospital staff are not affected by losing a patient--I actually referred to the new rules for their pensions.

Fortunately I take the view the risks are ever present for firefighters despite elf'n'safety regulations in a variety of situations they are called to.

The pension plan is based on sound medical evidence and age related and research. If you paid into a pension plan (private or public) other than the state pension I feel sure you would feel very aggrieved to have to pay a much higher rate to then secure that pension. In addition you would have more years to pay the state pensions.
Consider also with retirement ages rising to an age where the hospitals try to keep the elderly at home to be treated for chronic illness--or have you not heard many GP practices will not refer elderly to hospital consultants and indeed many practices are closing as they cannot cope.
That is exactly how pensions work. If you have a private pension, you get paid out based on market conditions. We are all seeing our pensions eroded.

Most people have a choice between paying more into their pensions or paying the same and getting a reduced pension at the end.

The level of private pensions depends on how well the money is invested and life expectancy. Pensions are being hit by poor returns and increased life expectancy. Most people in private pension schemes will need to pay in more and retire later.

I would need to contribute 20% of my salary to match the final salary pension (6% contribution) that I used to have when I worked in the public sector.
[quote][p][bold]messyits[/bold] wrote: P.P Did you take a drama course? Your presuming that failing to save a life causes trauma. People who work in hospitals fail to save lives on a daily basis. Are you saying hospital staff are not affected by losing a patient--I actually referred to the new rules for their pensions. Fortunately I take the view the risks are ever present for firefighters despite elf'n'safety regulations in a variety of situations they are called to. The pension plan is based on sound medical evidence and age related and research. If you paid into a pension plan (private or public) other than the state pension I feel sure you would feel very aggrieved to have to pay a much higher rate to then secure that pension. In addition you would have more years to pay the state pensions. Consider also with retirement ages rising to an age where the hospitals try to keep the elderly at home to be treated for chronic illness--or have you not heard many GP practices will not refer elderly to hospital consultants and indeed many practices are closing as they cannot cope.[/p][/quote]That is exactly how pensions work. If you have a private pension, you get paid out based on market conditions. We are all seeing our pensions eroded. Most people have a choice between paying more into their pensions or paying the same and getting a reduced pension at the end. The level of private pensions depends on how well the money is invested and life expectancy. Pensions are being hit by poor returns and increased life expectancy. Most people in private pension schemes will need to pay in more and retire later. I would need to contribute 20% of my salary to match the final salary pension (6% contribution) that I used to have when I worked in the public sector. MrAngry
  • Score: -23

9:00am Sun 13 Jul 14

MrAngry says...

Further to my previous post, I do sympathise with fire fighters feeling aggrieved at having to pay more for the same pension, but this isn't about the employer trying to make cuts.

Pensions are significantly more expensive than they used to be. Either the fire fighters or the employer (ie. tax payer) will have to pay more.

Isn't it equally fair for the tax payer to feel aggrieved at having to pay more.
Further to my previous post, I do sympathise with fire fighters feeling aggrieved at having to pay more for the same pension, but this isn't about the employer trying to make cuts. Pensions are significantly more expensive than they used to be. Either the fire fighters or the employer (ie. tax payer) will have to pay more. Isn't it equally fair for the tax payer to feel aggrieved at having to pay more. MrAngry
  • Score: -21

2:33pm Sun 13 Jul 14

Goat67 says...

higashi wrote:
Perfecthindsight wrote:
PJC wrote: If all these people complaining that public sector jobs are so cushy compared to their private sector penury, then surely it would be 'them' that were quitting and changing jobs? Thought not...
I agree. They never explain just why they havent applied for the cushy jobs with the 'gold plated pensions' , do they. Perhaps someone will tell us?
Perhaps they have! Can you provide figures on how many private sector employees apply for public sector jobs? Can you supply figures on how many former private sector employees now work in the public sector? You really haven't thought your argument through, have you?
Private sector = profit margins

Public sector = budget constraints

Both = no more money for the serfs!
[quote][p][bold]higashi[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Perfecthindsight[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PJC[/bold] wrote: If all these people complaining that public sector jobs are so cushy compared to their private sector penury, then surely it would be 'them' that were quitting and changing jobs? Thought not...[/p][/quote]I agree. They never explain just why they havent applied for the cushy jobs with the 'gold plated pensions' , do they. Perhaps someone will tell us?[/p][/quote]Perhaps they have! Can you provide figures on how many private sector employees apply for public sector jobs? Can you supply figures on how many former private sector employees now work in the public sector? You really haven't thought your argument through, have you?[/p][/quote]Private sector = profit margins Public sector = budget constraints Both = no more money for the serfs! Goat67
  • Score: 0

3:06pm Sun 13 Jul 14

messyits says...

MrAngry wrote:
Further to my previous post, I do sympathise with fire fighters feeling aggrieved at having to pay more for the same pension, but this isn't about the employer trying to make cuts.

Pensions are significantly more expensive than they used to be. Either the fire fighters or the employer (ie. tax payer) will have to pay more.

Isn't it equally fair for the tax payer to feel aggrieved at having to pay more.
Most pensions are underwritten and all taxpayers contribute to the many taxes as well as their own pension--you are grasping at straws.
[quote][p][bold]MrAngry[/bold] wrote: Further to my previous post, I do sympathise with fire fighters feeling aggrieved at having to pay more for the same pension, but this isn't about the employer trying to make cuts. Pensions are significantly more expensive than they used to be. Either the fire fighters or the employer (ie. tax payer) will have to pay more. Isn't it equally fair for the tax payer to feel aggrieved at having to pay more.[/p][/quote]Most pensions are underwritten and all taxpayers contribute to the many taxes as well as their own pension--you are grasping at straws. messyits
  • Score: 16

6:07pm Sun 13 Jul 14

MrAngry says...

Messyits, do you have any idea how pensions work? Thought not !
Messyits, do you have any idea how pensions work? Thought not ! MrAngry
  • Score: -17

11:16am Mon 14 Jul 14

messyits says...

MrAngry wrote:
Messyits, do you have any idea how pensions work? Thought not !
If you had the common sense to access professional sites--instead of your inaccurate biased views--there are accurate figures on who pays what on the whole spectrum--fully explained--there are hundreds.
[quote][p][bold]MrAngry[/bold] wrote: Messyits, do you have any idea how pensions work? Thought not ![/p][/quote]If you had the common sense to access professional sites--instead of your inaccurate biased views--there are accurate figures on who pays what on the whole spectrum--fully explained--there are hundreds. messyits
  • Score: 15

1:34pm Mon 14 Jul 14

MrAngry says...

messyits wrote:
MrAngry wrote:
Messyits, do you have any idea how pensions work? Thought not !
If you had the common sense to access professional sites--instead of your inaccurate biased views--there are accurate figures on who pays what on the whole spectrum--fully explained--there are hundreds.
You clearly don't understand the huge difference between a public sector final salary pension and a private sector money purchase scheme.

I have one of each. The public sector one is worth considerably more.

Wiltshire's Local Government Pension Scheme currently has a deficit of £610 million. Surely you must understand that this level is unsustainable.
[quote][p][bold]messyits[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MrAngry[/bold] wrote: Messyits, do you have any idea how pensions work? Thought not ![/p][/quote]If you had the common sense to access professional sites--instead of your inaccurate biased views--there are accurate figures on who pays what on the whole spectrum--fully explained--there are hundreds.[/p][/quote]You clearly don't understand the huge difference between a public sector final salary pension and a private sector money purchase scheme. I have one of each. The public sector one is worth considerably more. Wiltshire's Local Government Pension Scheme currently has a deficit of £610 million. Surely you must understand that this level is unsustainable. MrAngry
  • Score: -22

3:34pm Mon 14 Jul 14

messyits says...

messyits wrote:
MrAngry wrote:
Messyits, do you have any idea how pensions work? Thought not !
If you had the common sense to access professional sites--instead of your inaccurate biased views--there are accurate figures on who pays what on the whole spectrum--fully explained--there are hundreds.
I do not need to repeat myself--
[quote][p][bold]messyits[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MrAngry[/bold] wrote: Messyits, do you have any idea how pensions work? Thought not ![/p][/quote]If you had the common sense to access professional sites--instead of your inaccurate biased views--there are accurate figures on who pays what on the whole spectrum--fully explained--there are hundreds.[/p][/quote]I do not need to repeat myself-- messyits
  • Score: 8

7:34pm Mon 14 Jul 14

MrAngry says...

messyits wrote:
messyits wrote:
MrAngry wrote:
Messyits, do you have any idea how pensions work? Thought not !
If you had the common sense to access professional sites--instead of your inaccurate biased views--there are accurate figures on who pays what on the whole spectrum--fully explained--there are hundreds.
I do not need to repeat myself--
The head of pensions at Hargreaves Lansdown states that typical public sector pension is 66.67% of final salary compared with 40% in the private sector.

The ONS figures show that EMPLOYER contributions to a final salary-style scheme were 15.2pc in 2012, but only 6.6pc for defined contribution alternatives. Most public sector employees have final salary pensions and most private sector are defined contribution.

http://www.telegraph
.co.uk/finance/perso
nalfinance/pensions/
10336591/Gap-widens-
on-public-vs-private
-pensions.html
[quote][p][bold]messyits[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]messyits[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MrAngry[/bold] wrote: Messyits, do you have any idea how pensions work? Thought not ![/p][/quote]If you had the common sense to access professional sites--instead of your inaccurate biased views--there are accurate figures on who pays what on the whole spectrum--fully explained--there are hundreds.[/p][/quote]I do not need to repeat myself--[/p][/quote]The head of pensions at Hargreaves Lansdown states that typical public sector pension is 66.67% of final salary compared with 40% in the private sector. The ONS figures show that EMPLOYER contributions to a final salary-style scheme were 15.2pc in 2012, but only 6.6pc for defined contribution alternatives. Most public sector employees have final salary pensions and most private sector are defined contribution. http://www.telegraph .co.uk/finance/perso nalfinance/pensions/ 10336591/Gap-widens- on-public-vs-private -pensions.html MrAngry
  • Score: -15

10:31pm Mon 14 Jul 14

messyits says...

If you had the common sense to access professional sites--instead of your inaccurate biased views--there are accurate figures on who pays what on the whole spectrum--fully explained--there are hundreds.

AGAIN--nothing there shows the whole spectrum-just a very small part.
If you had the common sense to access professional sites--instead of your inaccurate biased views--there are accurate figures on who pays what on the whole spectrum--fully explained--there are hundreds. AGAIN--nothing there shows the whole spectrum-just a very small part. messyits
  • Score: -1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree