Cop and a crime scene investigator busted for paedophilia yet still keep their pensions

[teqniq]

So it says here

A shamed police inspector jailed for “warped” child sex offences and a crime scene investigator exposed as a paedophile have been allowed to keep their comfortable public sector pensions.

Despite being sacked in disgrace, both former South Wales Police inspector Geraint Lloyd Evans and ex-North Wales Police staff member Ian Wyn Williams are entitled to claim the cash.

The chief executive of a leading victim support charity last night blasted the move as “an outrage” and said the vast majority of police officers would be “appalled” by the revelations.

The men are among four police staff in Wales convicted of child sex abuse since 2007....

Just wtf

 

[kraepelin]

Not sure anyone should lose there pension for being convicted of a crime, the police officer maybe,

But crime scene investigator if its a civilian position than no way.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Should someone lose their pension for being caught dealing a bit of dope?

Or for offences made up by the cops to justify beating the shit out someone on a demo?

I'd guess most people would say no.

So what's special about paedophile crimes that this extra penalty should be applied?

Or to put it another way, what's to stop this penalty from being applied in the former cases once it's been introduced in the latter ... ?

 

[Pickman's model]

i like the way it's a cushy "public sector" pension. there's more than one agenda here.

 

[teqniq]

Not sure anyone should lose there pension for being convicted of a crime, the police officer maybe,

But crime scene investigator if its a civilian position than no way.

Yes I see what you mean, I guess I'm generally pissed off with the way that cops get to routinely lie and cover up stuff the most recent example being the Duggan case. If that was you or me....

E2A I think the telling paragraph for me which I omitted from the OP quote is

They are able to claim the money because their crimes are not deemed to have been “gravely injurious to the interests of the state or to be liable to lead to a serious loss of confidence in the public service”.

my bold

 

[kraepelin]

Oh come on everyone knows the high correlation between public sector pensions and pedophilia.

Instead of the complaining about public sector pensions, it would be nice if people complained about the shitty pensions in the private sector, but no its a race to the bottom

 

[kraepelin]

Yes I see what you mean, I guess I'm generally pissed off with the way that cops get to routinely lie and cover up stuff the most recent example being the Duggan case. If that was you or me....

E2A I think the telling paragraph for me which I omitted from the OP quote is



my bold

I'm against pensions being revoked based on crimed comitted, but the bolded text does have the ring of, that the victims of abuse don't deserve justice. Like how you rape someone and get 4yrs but rob a bank and its 14yrs, fuck with people O.k mess with the states money, your fucked

 

[farmerbarleymow]

I'm against pensions being revoked based on crimed comitted, but the bolded text does have the ring of, that the victims of abuse don't deserve justice. Like how you rape someone and get 4yrs but rob a bank and its 14yrs, fuck with people O.k mess with the states money, your fucked

I would interpret 'gravely injurious' to mean national security level stuff, damage to diplomatic relations, damage to military operations and effectiveness, etc. Look at the Business Impact Levels and the Government Security Classifications for more examples - you can easily find these through Google.

So while paedophilia is of course a very serious crime, it's not in the same category. That's how I guess it works anyway, but I might be completely wrong.