peterms Posted January 26, 2018 Share Posted January 26, 2018 1 hour ago, NurembergVillan said: She's been telling me for years to put more into my pension funds as I won't be able to rely on the government when I retire. Turns out you can't trust the private pension schemes that much either. Perhaps we should have a system similar to tax and NI, where money is passed from the employer to government, based on the amount contractually agreed with the employee. In the case of pensions, it could be collected through the paye system, and paid over to a state-run pension system. It could be a second system alongside the basic state scheme, where funds are invested rather than pensions being paid out of incoming tax. That would get rid of the exorbitant charges that some funds charge, would do away with paying in too little, and would basically remove the risk. No doubt the argument against would be that all these fund managers exercise careful judgement to maximise returns for pensioners, but I believe that studies show they typically have the forecasting ability of a blindfolded monkey, so I don't think it's much of an argument. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a m ole Posted January 26, 2018 Share Posted January 26, 2018 1 hour ago, NurembergVillan said: My Mom, who's 82, called me a couple of days ago. Her final job before retirement back in the late 90s and early 00s was with "the railway", working as a low level accounts and ledger clerk. Her final employer after things had changed hands was GTRM - GEC Tarmac Railway Maintenance. On the call to me, she was worried. She's received a letter saying that the pension scheme she'd paid into at GTRM was in part owned by Carillion. As such work was underway to ascertain if her pension was at risk, and they would be in contact again in due course. It's not a lot of money in the grand scheme of things. It pays enough per month for a couple of weeks worth of groceries. But it's her money. And money that my parents rely upon. Neither of them earned much during their working years, but what they did earn they were careful with. They've put enough aside to be able to live now, but not enough that they can afford to lose any of it. She's been telling me for years to put more into my pension funds as I won't be able to rely on the government when I retire. Turns out you can't trust the private pension schemes that much either. I'll be absolutely fuming if that money is stolen away from her. Fuming. I'll also be a couple of hundred quid a month lighter myself, as it'll need replacing somehow. Sticky-fingered, corporate cum-flingers. What gets me is that these words removed know the knock on effect of what they planned and did it anyway because their million pound salaries aren’t enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted January 26, 2018 Share Posted January 26, 2018 2 hours ago, NurembergVillan said: My Mom, who's 82, called me a couple of days ago. Her final job before retirement back in the late 90s and early 00s was with "the railway", working as a low level accounts and ledger clerk. Her final employer after things had changed hands was GTRM - GEC Tarmac Railway Maintenance. On the call to me, she was worried. She's received a letter saying that the pension scheme she'd paid into at GTRM was in part owned by Carillion. As such work was underway to ascertain if her pension was at risk, and they would be in contact again in due course. It's not a lot of money in the grand scheme of things. It pays enough per month for a couple of weeks worth of groceries. But it's her money. And money that my parents rely upon. Neither of them earned much during their working years, but what they did earn they were careful with. They've put enough aside to be able to live now, but not enough that they can afford to lose any of it. She's been telling me for years to put more into my pension funds as I won't be able to rely on the government when I retire. Turns out you can't trust the private pension schemes that much either. I'll be absolutely fuming if that money is stolen away from her. Fuming. I'll also be a couple of hundred quid a month lighter myself, as it'll need replacing somehow. Sticky-fingered, corporate cum-flingers. the letter is online here if you want to see it .. I tried to quote the doc but the formatting endeing up one letter per line !! My take on it is she isn't affected by it (for now at least) , but you'll know her situation better than I will Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NurembergVillan Posted January 26, 2018 Moderator Share Posted January 26, 2018 3 minutes ago, tonyh29 said: the letter is online here if you want to see it .. I tried to quote the doc but the formatting endeing up one letter per line !! My take on it is she isn't affected by it (for now at least) , but you'll know her situation better than I will Thanks for finding that. I've not seen the letter in full but I expect that's the same one. Her take on it is that she's ok for now, but naturally there's a risk pending the outcome of the assessments. It's a lot for an 82 year old woman, albeit one who banks online and uses WhatsApp, to take in. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted January 26, 2018 Share Posted January 26, 2018 The level of personal debt is at a new high. The number of bankruptcies continues to increase. Homelessness continues to rise. This guy was put out of his home, and froze to death in his own garden. Quote Lowestoft 'frozen to death' patient had been evicted A man thought to have frozen to death 16 hours after police voiced concerns about his welfare had recently been evicted from his home, it has emerged. Concerns about Anthony Barnard, 57, were first voiced after he was spotted sitting outside the property in Lowestoft on 27 December. The East of England Ambulance Service decided at that stage no ambulance was required. The following morning - 19 hours after the first 999 call - he was found dead. Suffolk Police has confirmed it has referred itself to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) - formerly known as the Independent Police Complaints Commission - over its handling of the incident. The ambulance service is currently investigating its handling of Mr Barnard's case but has previously told the BBC his death occurred during a very busy period. The BBC has now learned Mr Barnard was declared bankrupt in 2017 and that he had been evicted from his Priors Close home at the end of September... Is this what we want? Are we prepared to tolerate a government which wilfully creates these sutuations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wazzap24 Posted January 27, 2018 Share Posted January 27, 2018 I've just seen a great comment on Twitter along the lines of... The fact that Will Grigg is still on fire, tells you everything you need to know about this government and their cuts to public services. Tickled me anyway 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted January 27, 2018 Share Posted January 27, 2018 On 26/01/2018 at 12:16, NurembergVillan said: Turns out you can't trust the private pension schemes that much either. The old defined benefit schemes, absolutely. It's scandalous that companies are allowed to turn a profit while having a pension deficit. I feel pretty secure with a defined contribution pension pot, though, and that's the vast majority of pensions for people currently working. It's just a savings account that I can invest how I choose, rather than an empty promise relying on a specific companies future performance and future CEOs' good will. If defined contribution schemes somehow don't pay out, it's going to be due to a total economic collapse, and we'll have bigger things to worry about than getting paid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amsterdam_Neil_D Posted January 27, 2018 Share Posted January 27, 2018 52 minutes ago, Davkaus said: pension deficit. Pension deficit = no dividend on shares and no bonuses / shares paid to executives. Or they go to prison and lose all assets. Something like that ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meregreen Posted January 27, 2018 Share Posted January 27, 2018 3 hours ago, Davkaus said: The old defined benefit schemes, absolutely. It's scandalous that companies are allowed to turn a profit while having a pension deficit. I feel pretty secure with a defined contribution pension pot, though, and that's the vast majority of pensions for people currently working. It's just a savings account that I can invest how I choose, rather than an empty promise relying on a specific companies future performance and future CEOs' good will. If defined contribution schemes somehow don't pay out, it's going to be due to a total economic collapse, and we'll have bigger things to worry about than getting paid. Defined benefit pensions are vastly superior to defined contribution schemes. They pay out better returns than simply investing a savings pot. Annuity returns have collapsed. Why do you think so many companies have closed final salary schemes. I worked 39 years at JLR. Nothing special, just an ordinary car worker. I retired last year with a good pension. If you have a choice always choose defined benefits. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted January 27, 2018 Share Posted January 27, 2018 The promised return is certainly better. When you consider the risk of the company going belly up, it becomes a bit more uncertain. Annuities are a scam though, I'll be keeping my cash and going in to a modest draw down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meregreen Posted January 28, 2018 Share Posted January 28, 2018 1 hour ago, Davkaus said: The promised return is certainly better. When you consider the risk of the company going belly up, it becomes a bit more uncertain. Annuities are a scam though, I'll be keeping my cash and going in to a modest draw down. I believe eligible Pensions are protected up to 90% by the Govt pension protection fund. The reason the Govt went after Sir Philip Green so hard was because they didn’t want to pick up the tab. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PompeyVillan Posted January 28, 2018 Share Posted January 28, 2018 Anyone watching ITV the other night? They led with a story about crime rates being the highest in record and police talking about cuts affecting services, then there was a story about homelessness and the lack of affordable housing and then this was followed by a story about hospital waiting times and bed space being pushed to the absolute limit in NI. I don't often watch ITV news and I don't think they've particularly got an axe to grind with the government. It was a news agenda that made me chuckle because I know there would be many claiming it's pure fake news intended to discredit the government. All were based around the release of new data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post peterms Posted January 28, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted January 28, 2018 30 minutes ago, PompeyVillan said: Anyone watching ITV the other night? They led with a story about crime rates being the highest in record and police talking about cuts affecting services, then there was a story about homelessness and the lack of affordable housing and then this was followed by a story about hospital waiting times and bed space being pushed to the absolute limit in NI. I don't often watch ITV news and I don't think they've particularly got an axe to grind with the government. It was a news agenda that made me chuckle because I know there would be many claiming it's pure fake news intended to discredit the government. All were based around the release of new data. What's even worse is that all this is entirely avoidable, and they are just running down services out of political dogma. We should be building houses, adding hospital capacity, reversing the cuts in the police, and doing all that would both improve our collective public good and stimulate the economy. It's really not hard to understand, unless you have a blind hatred of any kind of public provision. 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 On 1/22/2018 at 12:10, Xann said: Quote Stephen Hawking and leading doctors to take Jeremy Hunt to court over 'back-door privatisation' of NHS Exclusive: Full judicial review granted to determine the lawfulness of the Secretary of State's proposals to introduce Accountable Care Organisations Independent Oops, not going to sneak that through on the quiet. Cleverest man in the World has already outed Hunt and the Tories as pricks. Hopefully he'll get to do it again in a blaze of publicity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amsterdam_Neil_D Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 11 minutes ago, Xann said: Cleverest man in the World has already outed Hunt and the Tories as pricks. Hopefully he'll get to do it again in a blaze of publicity. I doubt it, if ever there was an easy target Hawking is the one for the Tories. Their bread and butter target so to speak, basically he is defenceless. They like very much. Hunt will try and get his wheelchair off him, move him to a tower block with no lift or humiliate him at a "Prove you are disabled meeting". Hunt vs Hawking on Newsnight, I would watch that. Hunt would be destroyed against Hawking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 UK mass digital surveillance regime ruled unlawful Quote Appeal court judges have ruled the government’s mass digital surveillance regime unlawful in a case brought by the Labour deputy leader, Tom Watson. Liberty, the human rights campaign group which represented Watson in the case, said the ruling meant significant parts of theInvestigatory Powers Act 2016 – known as the snooper’s charter – are effectively unlawful and must be urgently changed. The court of appeal ruling on Tuesday said the powers in the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014, which paved the way for the snooper’s charter legislation, did not restrict the accessing of confidential personal phone and web browsing records to investigations of serious crime, and allowed police and other public bodies to authorise their own access without adequate oversight. The three judges said Dripa was “inconsistent with EU law” because of this lack of safeguards, including the absence of “prior review by a court or independent administrative authority”. Responding to the ruling, Watson said: “This legislation was flawed from the start. It was rushed through parliament just before recess without proper parliamentary scrutiny. “The government must now bring forward changes to the Investigatory Powers Act to ensure that hundreds of thousands of people, many of whom are innocent victims or witnesses to crime, are protected by a system of independent approval for access to communications data. I’m proud to have played my part in safeguarding citizens’ fundamental rights.” Martha Spurrier, the director of Liberty, said: “Yet again a UK court has ruled the government’s extreme mass surveillance regime unlawful. This judgement tells ministers in crystal clear terms that they are breaching the public’s human rights.” She said no politician was above the law. “When will the government stop bartering with judges and start drawing up a surveillance law that upholds our democratic freedoms?” The Home Office announced a series of safeguards in November in anticipation of the ruling. They include removing the power of self-authorisation for senior police officers and requiring approval for requests for confidential communications data to be granted by the new investigatory powers commissioner. Watson and other campaigners said the safeguards were “half-baked” and did not go far enough. The judges, headed by Sir Geoffrey Vos, declined to rule on the Home Office claim that the more rigorous “Watson safeguards” were not necessary for the use of bulk communications data for wider national security purposes. The judges said the appeal court did not need to rule on this point because it had already been referred to the European court of justice in a case which is due to be heard in February. Watson launched his legal challenge in 2014 in partnership with David Davis, who withdrew when he entered the government as Brexit secretary in 2016. The European court of justice ruled in December 2016 that the “general and indiscriminate retention” of confidential personal communications data was unlawful without safeguards, including independent judicial authorisation. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 Quote But another story broke this weekend: six of the 10 largest academy trusts have issued warnings over pay, short-staffing, building safety and financial risks. The trusts cover hundreds of English schools. There’s a disturbing whiff of Carillion about this. Inadequate state investment? Check. Unaccountable, profiteering management? Check. The lines between private and public provision relentlessly blurred, leaving both sides over-exposed? Check... ... Cue the bloated executive salaries that are now commonplace. We pay for one head’s £180,000 salary and insurance on his Jaguar. Other things we’ve coughed up for include Marco Pierre White meals, broadband at holiday homes, luxury flats, sex toys and various expenses that even MPs circa 2008 wouldn’t have fleeced us for. At the same time, teachers complain of running out of basic resources from textbooks to glue sticks. Jaguars aside, there is a chronic funding deficit in education. We are billions short of the amount needed to get school buildings up to decent standards. We have a crisis in teacher recruitment and retention, and £2.8bn in real-terms cuts sustained across education since 2015. The highly localised campaign against school cuts was an often-unsung contributor to the Tories’ loss of their majority at the general election. New funds pledged in 2017’s budget do not make up the gap, and with the moderate Justine Greening forced out as education secretary, there are risks that money will go on ideological experiments on children, such as new grammar schools. Independent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villakram Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 Jesus, I hadn't popped in here in a while. What a depressing stream of news Reality is such a hard place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coda Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 Might be him, who knows. Quote Multiple eyewitnesses say the hooded protester who went nose-to-nose with Jacob Rees-Mogg tonight is a Corbynista, Momentum and Labour supporter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PompeyVillan Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 13 minutes ago, coda said: Might be him, who knows. I'm pretty sure Guido Fawks is on the banned sources list. "exclusive, exclusive, exclusive, exclusive, flash bang wallop, >> insult your intelligence>>, flash red and yellow, polarise and demonise, indulge in whataboutism, distort facts and ignore inconvenient truths. Exclusive..." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts