Permanent vs. rolling contract?

[brassmonkey]

I have been with my firm for 18 months now, it is a small business and I was employed for the first 12 months on a probationary basis, following by a 6 month period on a rolling contract basis.

I have now been offered a 6 month rolling contract with 6 months notice as a permanent arrangement. This seems on the surface to be better than a permanent contract with less notice period - am I correct in my assumption?

What is the benefit to the employer of offering me such a deal instead of a permanent contract? Does a 6 month rolling contract count as permanent employment for things like mortgage payment protection?

Thanks for any assistance!

[Fr33styler]

It appears to me (Recruiter for 16 years) that all they are doing is shirking any responsabilities, for examlpe if they neede to make you redundant or terminate your contract they could do so without any comeback. If you had been permanently employed for 2 years it would be difficult for them to release you from employment without incurring some financial penalty. Check the BERR website it could prove helpful

[buildersmate]

Utter tripe, I'm afraid (whether 16 years in recruitment or not).
If you are on 6 months notice, that sounds good to me. Few people walk away with 6 months salary when the worst happens.
A typical contract would be one months' notice, as you know, and an organisation making you redundant could 'get away' with as little as a few hundred pounds in statutory redundancy if it was that way inclined.
As a matter of interest, once you've been working there for 24 months continuously, you could anyway claim rights as if you were a non-rolling contract employee. This is why agency staff are so often removed from employment after 23 months continuous contract work - to avoid the employer falling into the employee rights issue.
Clearly Fr33 hasn't come across that either.

[brassmonkey]

Two opposing views! Can anyone add anything else?