Tourerfogey wrote: Zeb wrote:
Tourerfogey wrote:Oi Zeb!! I just tried to quote from your post but you've just deleted it - did you realise you were talking nonsense before I pointed it out to you?
Ah but you'll never prove it now will you..
(Not that this was the reason for deletion..cos it wasn't nonsense.
T'was nonsense sir - read my previous post to see why
Could be chancing my arm here, but I doubt it. I believe that LGO pensions (don't forget these are 'defined benefit' schemes, now a dying instrument in the private sector because they are so good (too good for commerce to cover when the money could be paid as bonuses to directors), are entirely contribution free to members (at least they used to be). There is a facility for additional contributions on a voluntary basis, together with additional voluntary contributions (AVC's) in the form of lump sums. These are commonly used to 'buy back years' of service so as to allow earlier retirement on a 'full' pension.
The advent of these schemes was to compensate civil servants for allegedly lower salaries than they would enjoy in the private sector. Ha! I should cocoa. They were a sop to buy loyalty, discretion, and silence from employees who knew were the bodies were buried. Civil servants, far and away most of them decent people, have long benefitted from a 'client electorate' philosophy of government. They did not ask for these special schemes but were hardly likely to say 'no thank you' now were they?
Due to recent military activities, most people are now aware of the 'military covenant' between armed forces and government. Well, there is also a similar in-house attitude to the civil service in that gov. knows they need to keep the civil service close. This is not political bile or venom; it is apolitical, born of many years of direct involvment in the pension and allied fields. But of course, if anyone knows better....