Should Superintendent Jim Fitzgerald be entitled to a full pension

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

Forget about him been caught, that is one issue already discussed here and we will see if anything comes of that court date....


but , should he be entitled to a full pension from the state (tax payer)

your views ( not on his despicable behavior i am sure that has been discussed here already)

this is a question on his pension....
your views please.

godtabh

\m/_(>_<)_\m/ wrote:

Forget about him been caught, that is one issue already discussed here and we will see if anything comes of that court date....


but , should he be entitled to a full pension from the state (tax payer)

your views ( not on his despicable behavior i am sure that has been discussed here already)

this is a question on his pension....
your views please.

Why shouldn't he?

He is getting disciplined for what he did but there is no rule/law that says he shouldn't get a pension (that I'm aware of).

If there was a rule that meant he couldn't get a pension then he shouldn't.

cathald

Yes he should be entitled to a full pension!

r3nu4l

Yes, full pension. The fact that his pension is payed for by the taxpayer is irrelevant.

Heinrich

I don't know about the pension...

He, along with other Gardai should be properly investigated before they get a chance to *resign*. This case brings to mind the Gardai at the American Embassy recently. Drunken rowing and the sack!

What we should be looking at is the issue that these protecters of law and order are behaving in a totally inappropriate manner. Are there any clauses in the Garda employment contract relating to improper activities? Let's see that one before we proffer our opinions.

thelordofcheese

i can't see why he wouldn't get one, to be honest.

FlutterinBantam

Thats a no brainer-of course he should.

The only thing at issue might be the value of such a pension relative to any internal garda disciplinary procedures .

Incidents like this could attract a demotion penalty,(I don't know) and the issue then would be at what rank the pension kicks in...

otherwise he should be treated like any other citizen in the same situation.

Jumpy

FlutterinBantam wrote:

Thats a no brainer-of course he should.

The only thing at issue might be the value of such a pension relative to any internal garda disciplinary procedures .

Incidents like this could attract a demotion penalty,(I don't know) and the issue then would be at what rank the pension kicks in...

otherwise he should be treated like any other citizen in the same situation.

Well that depends. Is a gardai entitled to a pension upon suspension and dismissal?

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

i presume the same view is held for Judge Curtain(sp) as well.... is it?

and what ever happened to the two boys in the Embassy fiasco in Dublin?
same for them ( thats if they were 'let go' )

crybaby

i think it would take a more serious charge to void his pension and that seems right to me

NutJob

\m/_(>_<)_\m/ wrote:

Forget about him been caught, that is one issue already discussed here and we will see if anything comes of that court date....


but , should he be entitled to a full pension from the state (tax payer)

your views ( not on his despicable behaviour i am sure that has been discussed here already)

this is a question on his pension....
your views please.

Why shouldn't he he worked for the state for x amount of years.
What good would turning him into a bankrupt old man do for the tax payer.

He'll loose his licence, he's lost his good name and he's lost his job.

i presume the same view is held for Judge Curtain(sp) as well.... is it?

Difference being Curtain off on a technicality. Big difference no comparison there.

PeakOutput

kearnsr wrote:

Why shouldn't he?

He is getting disciplined for what he did but there is no rule/law that says he shouldn't get a pension (that I'm aware of).

If there was a rule that meant he couldn't get a pension then he shouldn't.

my grandfather was a garda and according to my mother if he gets discharged he wont get his pension and if he gets prosecuted he wont get his pension.....

if he "retires" before he gets discharged then he will still be entitled to his pension but if he gets prosecuted he wont be is what i have been told

personally i dont think he should get it simply as if he does then there is no real deterant to other gardai to do the same

edit; just to be clear this is the garda pension he could lose he can still claim the state pension

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

PeakOutput wrote:

my grandfather was a garda and according to my mother if he gets discharged he wont get his pension and if he gets prosecuted he wont get his pension.....

if he "retires" before he gets discharged then he will still be entitled to his pension but if he gets prosecuted he wont be is what i have been told

personally i dont think he should get it simply as if he does then there is no real deterant to other gardai to do the same

so is he pulling a fast one by retiring BEFORE he gets disciplined...
is that fair,

timmywex

he worked for thirty years, has signed a contract saying he will get a pension so if he doesnt,it will be breaking the contract, ok,he broke the law and i'm sure he's resentful,everyone knows him know,his reputation is ruined,he has no job and i think he will never do it again

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

timmywex wrote:

he worked for thirty years, has signed a contract saying he will get a pension so if he doesnt,it will be breaking the contract,

i don't know the employment law, but I'm sure he broke his employment contract first himself by driving a unmarked police car drunk...
so by your recking should he be penalised for breaking his employment contract first.

Zebra3

No, he shouldn't be.

datk

timmywex wrote:

he worked for thirty years, has signed a contract saying he will get a pension so if he doesnt,it will be breaking the contract, ok,he broke the law and i'm sure he's resentful,everyone knows him know,his reputation is ruined,he has no job and i think he will never do it again

In the public and civil service the contract you sign also says that if you are dismissed you lose your pension. If what he did would have lead to him being dismissed for gross misconduct then he would have lost his entitlement to a pension. Letting him resign before being dismissed would seem unfair if the same privilege isn't applied to other civil or public servent.

megadodge

he's lost his good name

his reputation is ruined

I don't believe in spreading vague rumours, so what I'm about to say should not be taken lightly.

I was talking to a very good friend last night who is a guard.
He used to work with this man in his previous station (Nenagh).

According to this friend he had neither a good name or good reputation.
What happened was as inevitable as he has a very bad track record to say the least.

I'll leave it at that.

stovelid

He should be subject to the full extent of the law for what he did but still keep his pension.

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

megadodge wrote:

What happened was as inevitable as he has a very bad track record to say the least.

that could lead to another question
so how the hell does somebody like this get PROMOTED so.

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

stovelid wrote:

He should be subject to the full extent of the law for what he did but still keep his pension.

apparently that's not possible. if he is charged with drink driving and get dismissed from the force ( full extent of the law) then he is NOT entitled to his pension ( according to another poster ) that is why he is retiring before the dismissal comes up, therefor skipping the full extent of the law and keeping his pension...

simple question...is this fair?

Mossy Monk

These people shouldn't be allowed to retire before investigation. Makes a mockery of the whole thing imo.

kraggy

\m/_(>_<)_\m/ wrote:

therefor skipping the full extent of the law and keeping his pension...

How would he skipping the full extent of the law?

Personally, I think he should get his pension as (if found guilty) he will be getting the same sentence as any other citizen (hopefully).

If I, or any of you, were found guilty and we work for the Civil Service or as a Teacher, our pension wouldn't be taken from us.

Another point. He wasn't drunk in the workplace, on the job or in any place or capacity as a Garda Superintendent.

The car he was in was an unmarked, unofficial car that he was given because of the large amount of travelling these Supers in charge of the Traffic Divisions have to do.

In summary, you or I wouldn't have ours taken from us, so why should he if he's going to (presumably) be fined, disqualified from driving, sent to prison or all of the above?

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

kraggy wrote:

so why should he if he's going to (presumably) be fined, disqualified from driving, sent to prison or all of the above?

because its part his employment agreement

kraggy wrote:

Another point. He wasn't drunk in the workplace, on the job or in any place or capacity as a Garda Superintendent.

would ya listen to this.... :rolleyes:
this is exactly why the majority of the public distrust the force, because one can be caught red handed..... but their is always a valid excuse.

galah

pension is fair enough, he did serve the country before this thing happened. However, I heard on the radio this morning, that he also gets like 100 000 Euros "for his services" (can't remember the exact term they used) - and I don't think he should get that...

humanji

\m/_(>_<)_\m/ wrote:

would ya listen to this.... :rolleyes:
this is exactly why the majority of the public distrust the force, because one can be caught red handed..... but their is always a valid excuse.

But it's a very valid point. Personally, I don't like the idea of him getting away with his pension, but there's no real reson for him not to.

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

humanji wrote:

But it's a very valid point. Personally, I don't like the idea of him getting away with his pension, but there's no real reson for him not to.

its not valid....well maybe to a guard,
he was in a official car ( yes mate believe it of not that IS considered in the work place think of the smoking ban)
if he wasn't on official business why was he driving the unmarked car, surly if not on official business he would not have been insured, just like all other cop cars, marked and unmarked....or is his particular car 'special'

valid my ass...


and this 'but there's no real reason for him not to'
excuse me but its in his employment agreement, if he is disciplined he loses his entitlement to a pension...

why do ya think he is retiring BEFORE he gets disciplined...you must be the only person missing this point...

event

\m/_(>_<)_\m/ wrote:

this is a question on his pension....
your views please.

\m/_(>_<)_\m/ wrote:

that could lead to another question
so how the hell does somebody like this get PROMOTED so.

anyway, i dont think he should get his pension

stovelid

\m/_(>_<)_\m/ wrote:

would ya listen to this.... :rolleyes:
this is exactly why the majority of the public distrust the force, because one can be caught red handed..... but their is always a valid excuse.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding this but it should be seen as a normal drink driving scenario. He doesn't seem to be getting away with anything because he's a guard? If he was caught breaking the law off duty, he should be punished like any other citizen. I hope he is severely punished BTW. I think guards should be allowed to keep their pension unless they have blatantly abused their position a la Donegal.

\m/_(>_<)_\m/ wrote:

that is why he is retiring before the dismissal comes up, therefor skipping the full extent of the law and keeping his pension...

I assume that even if he retires to keep his pension, he is hardly going to escape the drink driving charge?

humanji

\m/_(>_<)_\m/ wrote:

its not valid....well maybe to a guard,
he was in a official car ( yes mate believe it of not that IS considered in the work place think of the smoking ban)

Not if he's off duty.

\m/_(>_<)_\m/ wrote:

if he wasn't on official business why was he driving the unmarked car, surly if not on official business he would not have been insured, just like all other cop cars, marked and unmarked....or is his particular car 'special'

Never heard of a company car? Convenient.

\m/_(>_<)_\m/ wrote:

and this 'but there's no real reason for him not to'
excuse me but its in his employment agreement, if he is disciplined he loses his entitlement to a pension...

why do ya think he is retiring BEFORE he gets disciplined...you must be the only person missing this point...

Well, you just post up your copy of his contract that you seem to be in possession of, and we'll have a gander at that. The point I was making is that his job can't really discipline him for something he did out side of work. Granted, I may be wrong, but I haven't read that he was on duty. So would you like it if your boss disciplined you for somethign you did on your own time? Would that seem fair to you? Would you even care about this guy if he wasn't a gard? It's simply a matter of irony because of his position.

As was said before, it seems to take away someones pension for something like this. Although if what Galah says about the €100k, then that seems a little bit too fishy to me.

timmywex

im just after reading of him getting a golden handshake of 140000 or somthing, i dont agree with this but do with the pension, i think the way he left doen't warrent the golden handshake

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

stovelid wrote:

I think guards should be allowed to keep their pension unless they have blatantly abused their position

am i missing something here,
Superintendent of the Traffic Corp caught driving and police vechile while drunk.
how more could he of abused his power in the traffic corp... by killing somebody while driving the police car drunk...
come on like, lets get real here.

hermit

The fact that he broke the law has nothing to do with his pension - as a public servant he would have been paying a superannuation charge each week and will therefore be entitled to his pension - why shouldn't he get one?

The other thing of course is that if he does not get his Garda pension he will be entitled to a state pension at the age of 66 - albeit it wouldn't be as much as his Garda one.

hermit

In fairness - we don't know that was "Drunk" - if I drink 3 pints I'm far from drunk but I would still fail a breathalyser (SP) test!!!

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

hermit wrote:

The fact that he broke the law has nothing to do with his pension

I have been informed by a member of the force that as a guard it does, its in their employment agreement.

again, again and again.....that is why he is retiring before the disciplinary action... because it will affect the pension

thats my point,

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

hermit wrote:

In fairness - we don't know that was "Drunk"

OH MY FCUKING GOD...

that is it end of discussion for me. This post proves all that is wrong with the force today....and proves the mentality of the few on here who defend the guards to the hilt every time they fcuk up... no matter what,


Thank you hermit for proving a point to me that i suspected for years, i never thought somebody would put it so blatantly down in writing for me.

kraggy

No point in asking peoples' views and then giving them rolleyes when they make a valid point.

humanji

Abd what does it say about you and your crusade against "The Man"? What does it say about your mentality that you have to continuously attack the gardai and anyone who questions your rants?

kraggy

OP what age are you because your debate skills are that of a 12 year child.

Go and sulk and don't bother asking for a debate on an issue again when you aren't prepared to listen to other peoples' opinions.

stovelid

\m/_(>_<)_\m/ wrote:

am i missing something here,
Superintendent of the Traffic Corp caught driving and police vechile while drunk.
how more could he of abused his power in the traffic corp... by killing somebody while driving the police car drunk...
come on like, lets get real here.

With all respect \m/_(>_<)_\m , He was not on duty as the Superintendent of the Traffic Corp when he offended. His offence is deeply ironic because of his position but he broke the law as a citizen and is now rightly being subjected to the law. His position has not stopped the process going ahead (yet) so I don't see how he is abusing it. He didn't so much abuse his powers as acted like an idiot and a hypocrite.

Also, as somebody else pointed out, his car means nothing unless it was a squad car or he was using it in a Garda capacity.

I'm far from being a Garda apologist but unless I'm mistaken, Garda being prosecuted like any other citizen for breaking the law = good.

The fact that he is probably a convenient public case to counteract some of the recent negative Garda publicity is another matter.

Oh - and I'm not dodging the issue of his retirement, dude. Its a moot point to me if I think he shouldn't lose his pension in the first place.

lennox1

The super allegedly broke the law and will be treated like any other member of the public,no better,no worse.He can legally retire on full pension as he has served for 30 years and will receive a contributory pension,as is his right.Unless the law is changed so that everyone who is convicted of an offence loses their entitlement to a pension,the super should not be treated differently just because he's a Garda.As for driving a state car while off duty,its no different to a company car being driven out of work hours.Unfortunately there are some people who will never be happy until gardai are hung,drawn and quartered simply because of the job they do.Lets hope that in our own jobs we never,ever make any mistakes of any kind,major or minor.

hermit

\m/_(>_<)_\m/ wrote:

OH MY FCUKING GOD...

that is it end of discussion for me. This post proves all that is wrong with the force today....and proves the mentality of the few on here who defend the guards to the hilt every time they fcuk up... no matter what,


Thank you hermit for proving a point to me that i suspected for years, i never thought somebody would put it so blatantly down in writing for me.

I'm not really sure what your problem is to be honest?? Its one thing to say the man was drink driving (nobody is gonna deny that) but to say he was drunk is completely incorrect (maybe he was/maybe he wasn't but you can't go making wild assumptions either). And going off on one like you did above makes me wonder are you one of these people who hear 10 good things about Gardai, then hear one negative thing and thats it the whole force is in disrepute, corrupt etc... cop on!!! (no pun intended).

PeakOutput

ok i clarified this today

if he stayed in the force he would be disciplined(discharged) and would lose his pension

because he is resigning/retiring he will keep his pension because this charge is not serious enough to warrant removing his pension

if it was something else(cant think of anything of the top of my head but say murder) then it is irrelevant about when he leaves dosnt leave he would lose his pension

i have also heard that a number of people are suprised he has lasted this long and couldnt believe when he made superintendant but i cant provide any proof or watever about this so dont quote me on it