Selfish Firefighters on Strike

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Selfish Firefighters on Strike

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 1 of 12 1 2 3 4 5 > Last >>

Pussay Patrol 31 Oct 14 7.57pm
Around bonfire time. They won't reform on their pensions when everyone else has had to. They are being told to work till 60 and they will still get a very generous pension when they retire which will be £26k a year when you add state pension. Any other worker would bite your hand off for such a pension deal. They want to keep their current cushy arrangement and expect the taxpayer to stump up the £600M funding gap. No, F-ck you, you reform like everyone else has had to. I support the Nurses as 1% pay rise is a piss take, but the Firefighters pensions row is disgusting and I think the public would be at least divided and mostly unsupportive Paua oouaarancì Irà chiyeah Ishé galé ma ba oo ah
Alert a moderator to this post

Pussay Patrol

31 Oct 14 7.57pm

Around bonfire time.

They won't reform on their pensions when everyone else has had to.

They are being told to work till 60 and they will still get a very generous pension when they retire which will be £26k a year when you add state pension. Any other worker would bite your hand off for such a pension deal. They want to keep their current cushy arrangement and expect the taxpayer to stump up the £600M funding gap. No, F-ck you, you reform like everyone else has had to.

I support the Nurses as 1% pay rise is a piss take, but the Firefighters pensions row is disgusting and I think the public would be at least divided and mostly unsupportive

Paua oouaarancì Irà chiyeah Ishé galé ma ba oo ah

Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8 Hevon 31 Oct 14 8.00pm
Firemen really do put their lives on the line for 25 years and they will automatically enter burning houses to save total strangers who, one day, could be a close and much-loved member of your family. They deserve everything they want and more. Selfish? Firemen? Barking. Big chest and massive boobs [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8

Hevon 31 Oct 14 8.00pm

Firemen really do put their lives on the line for 25 years and they will automatically enter burning houses to save total strangers who, one day, could be a close and much-loved member of your family.

They deserve everything they want and more.

Selfish? Firemen?

Barking.

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk Top half 31 Oct 14 8.08pm
I posted this earlier in the week. There's nothing unreasonable about the changes that are needed. The argument of no one wanting 60 year old firemen is a non-starter. Optimistic as ever
Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk

Top half 31 Oct 14 8.08pm

I posted this earlier in the week.

There's nothing unreasonable about the changes that are needed. The argument of no one wanting 60 year old firemen is a non-starter.

Optimistic as ever

Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8 Hevon 31 Oct 14 8.11pm
Quote Stuk at 31 Oct 2014 8.08pm I posted this earlier in the week. There's nothing unreasonable about the changes that are needed. The argument of no one wanting 60 year old firemen is a non-starter. I would agree if they started at aged 30 or 35 but if they have been doing such a dangerous job since aged 21 surely cutting them some slack is entirely reasonable. Big chest and massive boobs [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8

Hevon 31 Oct 14 8.11pm

Quote Stuk at 31 Oct 2014 8.08pm

I posted this earlier in the week.

There's nothing unreasonable about the changes that are needed. The argument of no one wanting 60 year old firemen is a non-starter.

I would agree if they started at aged 30 or 35 but if they have been doing such a dangerous job since aged 21 surely cutting them some slack is entirely reasonable.

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 31 Oct 14 8.35pm
government have played clever here. The fire minister (or whatever title she's called) Penny Mordaunt, agreed to the FBU's demands a few weeks ago in conciliatory talks, which is why previous strikes (due to take part in the past few weeks) were called off. The FBU need to give 7 days notice before any strike action. The government knew full well that industrial action would resume if they went back on the deal. When did the government renege on the deal that had been agreed? 8 days ago. I bet they did this knowing full well that strike action would then take place when public sympathy would be at it's lowest. Cunds.
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 31 Oct 14 8.35pm

government have played clever here. The fire minister (or whatever title she's called) Penny Mordaunt, agreed to the FBU's demands a few weeks ago in conciliatory talks, which is why previous strikes (due to take part in the past few weeks) were called off.

The FBU need to give 7 days notice before any strike action. The government knew full well that industrial action would resume if they went back on the deal. When did the government renege on the deal that had been agreed? 8 days ago. I bet they did this knowing full well that strike action would then take place when public sympathy would be at it's lowest. Cunds.

Alert a moderator to this post

Pussay Patrol 31 Oct 14 8.35pm
Quote Kermit8 at 31 Oct 2014 8.00pm Firemen really do put their lives on the line for 25 years and they will automatically enter burning houses to save total strangers who, one day, could be a close and much-loved member of your family. They deserve everything they want and more. Selfish? Firemen? Barking. What's unreasonable about the current reforms when you compare it to most other pensions schemes? Paua oouaarancì Irà chiyeah Ishé galé ma ba oo ah
Alert a moderator to this post

Pussay Patrol

31 Oct 14 8.35pm

Quote Kermit8 at 31 Oct 2014 8.00pm

They deserve everything they want and more.

Selfish? Firemen?

Barking.

What's unreasonable about the current reforms when you compare it to most other pensions schemes?

Paua oouaarancì Irà chiyeah Ishé galé ma ba oo ah

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 31 Oct 14 8.38pm
Quote Pussay Patrol at 31 Oct 2014 8.35pm Quote Kermit8 at 31 Oct 2014 8.00pm Firemen really do put their lives on the line for 25 years and they will automatically enter burning houses to save total strangers who, one day, could be a close and much-loved member of your family. They deserve everything they want and more. Selfish? Firemen? Barking. What's unreasonable about the current reforms when you compare it to most other pensions schemes? Some on here are happy with a race to the bottom. People with this attitude make me sick. Just because those in other pension schemes didn't fight hard enough to keep them, doesn't mean the FBU should just roll over.
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 31 Oct 14 8.38pm

Quote Pussay Patrol at 31 Oct 2014 8.35pm

Quote Kermit8 at 31 Oct 2014 8.00pm

They deserve everything they want and more.

Selfish? Firemen?

Barking.

What's unreasonable about the current reforms when you compare it to most other pensions schemes?

Some on here are happy with a race to the bottom. People with this attitude make me sick.

Just because those in other pension schemes didn't fight hard enough to keep them, doesn't mean the FBU should just roll over.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk Top half 31 Oct 14 8.39pm
Quote Kermit8 at 31 Oct 2014 8.11pm Quote Stuk at 31 Oct 2014 8.08pm I posted this earlier in the week. There's nothing unreasonable about the changes that are needed. The argument of no one wanting 60 year old firemen is a non-starter. I would agree if they started at aged 30 or 35 but if they have been doing such a dangerous job since aged 21 surely cutting them some slack is entirely reasonable. Starting age is irrelevant. We're living longer and retirement age has been pushed back for all. 60 is cutting them some slack when they want everyone else to go to 68, and surely rising. Optimistic as ever
Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk

Top half 31 Oct 14 8.39pm

Quote Kermit8 at 31 Oct 2014 8.11pm

Quote Stuk at 31 Oct 2014 8.08pm

I posted this earlier in the week.

There's nothing unreasonable about the changes that are needed. The argument of no one wanting 60 year old firemen is a non-starter.

I would agree if they started at aged 30 or 35 but if they have been doing such a dangerous job since aged 21 surely cutting them some slack is entirely reasonable.

Starting age is irrelevant. We're living longer and retirement age has been pushed back for all.

60 is cutting them some slack when they want everyone else to go to 68, and surely rising.

Optimistic as ever

Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk Top half 31 Oct 14 8.41pm
Quote nickgusset at 31 Oct 2014 8.38pm Quote Pussay Patrol at 31 Oct 2014 8.35pm Quote Kermit8 at 31 Oct 2014 8.00pm Firemen really do put their lives on the line for 25 years and they will automatically enter burning houses to save total strangers who, one day, could be a close and much-loved member of your family. They deserve everything they want and more. Selfish? Firemen? Barking. What's unreasonable about the current reforms when you compare it to most other pensions schemes? Some on here are happy with a race to the bottom. People with this attitude make me sick. Just because those in other pension schemes didn't fight hard enough to keep them, doesn't mean the FBU should just roll over. If they want to retire at 55 they still can. They just have to make some of their own provisions like anyone else. How is that racing to the bottom? Optimistic as ever
Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk

Top half 31 Oct 14 8.41pm

Quote nickgusset at 31 Oct 2014 8.38pm

Quote Pussay Patrol at 31 Oct 2014 8.35pm

Quote Kermit8 at 31 Oct 2014 8.00pm

They deserve everything they want and more.

Selfish? Firemen?

Barking.

What's unreasonable about the current reforms when you compare it to most other pensions schemes?

Some on here are happy with a race to the bottom. People with this attitude make me sick.

Just because those in other pension schemes didn't fight hard enough to keep them, doesn't mean the FBU should just roll over.

If they want to retire at 55 they still can. They just have to make some of their own provisions like anyone else. How is that racing to the bottom?

Optimistic as ever

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 31 Oct 14 8.54pm
Quote Stuk at 31 Oct 2014 8.39pm Quote Kermit8 at 31 Oct 2014 8.11pm Quote Stuk at 31 Oct 2014 8.08pm I posted this earlier in the week. There's nothing unreasonable about the changes that are needed. The argument of no one wanting 60 year old firemen is a non-starter. I would agree if they started at aged 30 or 35 but if they have been doing such a dangerous job since aged 21 surely cutting them some slack is entirely reasonable. Starting age is irrelevant. We're living longer and retirement age has been pushed back for all. 60 is cutting them some slack when they want everyone else to go to 68, and surely rising. Due to the rigorous medical fitness tests that firemen have to take, it's unlikely they will be allowed to work beyond 60 anyway and let go. They will then suffer severe financial penalties on their pensions for leaving the scheme early - a fireman friend of mine reckons it's upwards of 35 percent. A facking stitch up. Fireman are only striking in England, not Scotland and Wales where the governments there accept that it's ludicrous for firemen to carry on past 60. Of course you won't read this in the mainstream media...
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 31 Oct 14 8.54pm

Quote Stuk at 31 Oct 2014 8.39pm

Quote Kermit8 at 31 Oct 2014 8.11pm

Quote Stuk at 31 Oct 2014 8.08pm

I posted this earlier in the week.

There's nothing unreasonable about the changes that are needed. The argument of no one wanting 60 year old firemen is a non-starter.

I would agree if they started at aged 30 or 35 but if they have been doing such a dangerous job since aged 21 surely cutting them some slack is entirely reasonable.

Starting age is irrelevant. We're living longer and retirement age has been pushed back for all.

60 is cutting them some slack when they want everyone else to go to 68, and surely rising.

Due to the rigorous medical fitness tests that firemen have to take, it's unlikely they will be allowed to work beyond 60 anyway and let go. They will then suffer severe financial penalties on their pensions for leaving the scheme early - a fireman friend of mine reckons it's upwards of 35 percent. A facking stitch up.
Fireman are only striking in England, not Scotland and Wales where the governments there accept that it's ludicrous for firemen to carry on past 60.
Of course you won't read this in the mainstream media...

Alert a moderator to this post

Jimenez SELHURSTPARKCHESTER,DA BRONX 31 Oct 14 8.58pm
Quote nickgusset at 31 Oct 2014 8.54pm Quote Stuk at 31 Oct 2014 8.39pm Quote Kermit8 at 31 Oct 2014 8.11pm Quote Stuk at 31 Oct 2014 8.08pm I posted this earlier in the week. There's nothing unreasonable about the changes that are needed. The argument of no one wanting 60 year old firemen is a non-starter. I would agree if they started at aged 30 or 35 but if they have been doing such a dangerous job since aged 21 surely cutting them some slack is entirely reasonable. Starting age is irrelevant. We're living longer and retirement age has been pushed back for all. 60 is cutting them some slack when they want everyone else to go to 68, and surely rising. Due to the rigorous medical fitness tests that firemen have to take, it's unlikely they will be allowed to work beyond 60 anyway and let go. They will then suffer severe financial penalties on their pensions for leaving the scheme early - a fireman friend of mine reckons it's upwards of 35 percent. A facking stitch up. Fireman are only striking in England, not Scotland and Wales where the governments there accept that it's ludicrous for firemen to carry on past 60. Of course you won't read this in the mainstream media... I'd argue and be correct as well, that the Construction industry is Far more dangerous and far more physically demanding on the body than being a firefighter. Pro USA & Israel
Alert a moderator to this post

Jimenez

SELHURSTPARKCHESTER,DA BRONX 31 Oct 14 8.58pm

Quote nickgusset at 31 Oct 2014 8.54pm

Quote Stuk at 31 Oct 2014 8.39pm

Quote Kermit8 at 31 Oct 2014 8.11pm

Quote Stuk at 31 Oct 2014 8.08pm

I posted this earlier in the week.

There's nothing unreasonable about the changes that are needed. The argument of no one wanting 60 year old firemen is a non-starter.

I would agree if they started at aged 30 or 35 but if they have been doing such a dangerous job since aged 21 surely cutting them some slack is entirely reasonable.

Starting age is irrelevant. We're living longer and retirement age has been pushed back for all.

60 is cutting them some slack when they want everyone else to go to 68, and surely rising.

I'd argue and be correct as well, that the Construction industry is Far more dangerous and far more physically demanding on the body than being a firefighter.

Pro USA & Israel

Alert a moderator to this post

Mapletree Croydon 31 Oct 14 9.06pm
This is one topic that really rings my bells The ridiculous pension arrangements entered into with the baby boom generation are going to cripple the newer generations It simply isn't fair Just look at the smug generation currently in their 60s, 70s and 80s. They are effectively taking money from my children. There is no way they paid enough in for the benefits they are now receiving. As you can tell by the way BA is on it's knees. 75% of final salary index linked, you're having a laugh. It needs reforming and fast. Nobody should be immune. DB schemes are massively immoral, everyone knows it yet people will fight tooth and nail to keep them for obvious reasons. There is nothing more special about the previous generation, why should the young be forced to pay for one golden generation that designed a scheme that benefited it but would never be sustainable. Biggest con ever.
Alert a moderator to this post

Mapletree

Croydon 31 Oct 14 9.06pm

This is one topic that really rings my bells

The ridiculous pension arrangements entered into with the baby boom generation are going to cripple the newer generations

It simply isn't fair

Just look at the smug generation currently in their 60s, 70s and 80s. They are effectively taking money from my children. There is no way they paid enough in for the benefits they are now receiving. As you can tell by the way BA is on it's knees. 75% of final salary index linked, you're having a laugh.

It needs reforming and fast. Nobody should be immune. DB schemes are massively immoral, everyone knows it yet people will fight tooth and nail to keep them for obvious reasons.

There is nothing more special about the previous generation, why should the young be forced to pay for one golden generation that designed a scheme that benefited it but would never be sustainable. Biggest con ever.

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 1 of 12 1 2 3 4 5 > Last >>

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Selfish Firefighters on Strike

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors