Compulsory Retirement at Hull 1925

 

Officers from LNER police at Hull forced to retire by a new rule lowering the retirement age from 65 to 60.:  Photo The Hull Daily Mail 17 September 1925 p6

Every day I count myself lucky for my police pension – especially in periods when other work is in short supply.  I worry about the future of serving officers and their reduced pension opportunities and the requirement for everybody to work longer before we receive our state pensions.  My interest in history reminds me that pensions have always been a source of campaigning for the police federations.  From the very beginning, even in the aftermath of the of the defeats of the 1919 strikes, the police federations have campaigned for a decent pension for their members.  The Railway Police Federation (now the BTP Federation) worked for decades for provision to be made for officers in retirement.  My research into the history of specialist policing reminds me that the pension issue is linked to the question of the age of retirement.  How old can we expect police officers to be and still perform the full range of operational duties

In the case of the London North Eastern Railway (LNER) Police this debate came to a head in 1925 when it was decided – rather abruptly – that the all officers should retire at 60.  This decision meant that many of those effected had to find other work at an age when this was not an easy task.  As always policy decisions impact most heavily on those least able to deal with change.

The Hull Daily Mail ran a long piece on the individuals in that city who were required to retire early.  It provides a considerable amount of biographical detail (and a group photograph) and gives us a snapshot of the railway police at the time.  I say railway police but many of these officers were policing the docks at Hull.  A task that continued until the services of BTP at docks nationwide was dispensed with in the mid 1980s.   One striking feature of the officers forced into retirement was their long service.  In addition, many of them had previously served in the armed services.  Some had left the police to temporarily re-joined the colours during the Boer War and the Great War.  Unfortunately, the article does not tell us what they thought about being cast out.  However it is clear that most of them were far from happy with the termination of their services.  There is no talk of compensation.  The Railway Police Federation were, at the time of publication, appealing against the decision.

As an illustration I mention a few of the officers featured by the Hull Daily Mail:

Sergeant Thomas IVESON (62) had been a police officer for 41 years and had previously worked on the railway from the age of 13, joining the company in 1876.  He had served at many locations in the North East, both on the railways and the docks.  He had been involved in royal visits and movements of the royal train.  He was qualified to carry a rifle (the railway police had access to firearms until the late 1980s and then again from 2012).

Sergeant Frederick JACKSON (61) served for 33 years and had previously served in the Hull and Barnsley Railway Police.  He was an ex Royal Marine and Navy Fitness Instructor. He had served overseas and seen a considerable amount of action.   It was his proud boast that he had never had a day off sick.

PC William SIDDLE (62) had served for 35 years having previously been a soldier.  He served during the violent disturbances during the various dock strikes and performed rescue duties during the Great War attacks on Hull.  He was (like many of his contemporaries) a keen St John Ambulanceman and a specialist bone setter.  In one year he performed first aid 97 times – a reminder that the railway and docks were dangerous places. 

Superintendent BOUSFIELD had served for 34 years and was a former detective constable and detective sergeant.  At the time of his compulsory retirement he was in charge of the Eastern Division of the LNER Police.

Presumably the edict requiring compulsory retirement touched officers throughout the LNER Police,  not just in Hull.  We do not know the total number of officers affected.

The career summaries of these officers and others are an important source of information.  This will be passed to the British Transport Police History Group (BTPHG) for inclusion in the nominal roll of officers – a vital source for historians and genealogists.

Sources such as this article reinforce the fact that the officers who served before us were real people who faced as many up and downs during their service as we did.  They were not always appreciated and were not always treated as well as they deserved.  They showed great loyalty and carried out duties in difficult circumstances, especially in wartime.  It is nice to think of them as individuals rather than as a collection of grey figures from the past.