[Kizzy]

But why should they..... My point is if they have worked for 25 or 30yrs in service to the public in this role that I don't think many take the time to grasp the magnitude of, or how valuable these men and women are in our society then why can they not retire at 55?
The benchmark of 60 is all well and good but when you take into account the physical and mental pressure this role requires then I cannot understand why it is not seen as acceptable to allow them time to carry on.

Look at army pensions and how they compare...
When you join the Armed Forces, you will automatically be enrolled into the scheme - and you won't be asked to pay a penny
After two years of Regular service you'll have earned an Army pension that will be paid when you get to the age of 65
Anybody aged over 40 who has served for at least 18 years gets the right to claim an immediate pension linked to their final salary, a tax-free lump sum on leaving the Army and a second lump sum when they turn 65
The pension scheme will change on 1 April 2015 and from this date Reserve Forces will also be automatically enrolled'

That's whether you have seen active service or not...

http://www.army.mod.uk/join/20101.aspx


The current Armed Forces pension scheme has two main sections, for those who joined between 1975 and 2005 and those who joined afterwards.

In both cases the normal pension age is 55.
A spokeswoman for the Ministry of Defence (MoD) said that only 2% of those who serve in the Armed Forces do so until that age.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19070222