Blowin’ in the Wind

“I sit on a man’s back choking him and making him carry me, and yet assure myself and others that I am sorry for him and wish to lighten his load by all means possible….except by getting off his back.” ― Leo Tolstoy, What Then Must We Do?

…and how many times must they say they must review
Before there’s no savings to be gained?
The answer, my friend, is blowin’ in the wind

This song speaks about humanity, war and peace and other ambiguous questions which people refuse to answer. Bob Dylan claims that the answers are already there.  In his own words:

Too many of these hip people are telling me where the answer is but oh I won’t believe that. I still say it’s in the wind and just like a restless piece of paper it’s got to come down some …But the only trouble is that no one picks up the answer when it comes down so not too many people get to see and know . . . and then it flies away. I still say that some of the biggest criminals are those that turn their heads away when they see wrong and know it’s wrong. I’m only 21 years old and I know that there’s been too many . . . You people over 21, you’re older and smarter.

We at IODPA have been piecing together some of the pieces of the electronic paper trail left blowing in the wind by police forces, and they tell a story of their true agenda concerning reviews of injury pensions.

Some forces are two-faced.

With their public face, HR managers bang on about how they have a duty to hold reviews. They point to the Regulations in support of this claim. With their hidden, private, yet so revealing face they chatter away about the cost of injury pensions and how reviews might save them money. The hidden face reveals attitudes towards disabled people which are close to being hateful.

So many times have disabled former officers been told about the supposed positive, statutory, power to review an injury award, whenever the fancy takes them, and we have seen how certain police pension authorities relish the task. They, just like Tolstoy’s piggy-backer, claim in the same breath that they are a reluctant agent; that their hands are tied and they have no choice in the matter.

Blow the health and sanity of those caught up in the review roller-coaster.

On every opportunity we’ve argued against this hogwash.  Repeating our assertion that the Regulations intend that a review should be a blue moon event solely dependent on the circumstances of the individual.

And then yet another piece of paper flutters down in front of us.  This time from Cambridgeshire Constabulary.

The latest IOD policy from Cambridgeshire is that as there are no savings to made then the ‘proactive’ review policy of the force will be suspended.

“That in the absence of current national guidance on Injury Award Reviews and the diminishing likelihood of accruing further savings, the current proactive review process be suspended. “

How very interesting.

It seems then, from this that the attitude of those in authority is the review provision within the Regulations is there to allow them to save money. This is about as far away from the true purpose and intent of the Regulations as it is possible to bend one’s thinking. According to Cambs, they review to try to save money, then stop reviewing when it becomes clear that there will be no savings.

Thus the ‘proactive’ review policy was always down to a desire to make financial savings and with the intention to reduce the band of those reviewed.

2.5       The process of carrying out first reviews has generated some savings through the reduction in bandings of allowance for some recipients.  However, experience shows that any further reductions in bandings is less likely as a result of second and further reviews.

Their ‘positive power’ to review evaporates as easily as turning off the tap.  When there are no savings they think there is no point.

Our message is, and has always been, that the true purpose of the review provision within the Regulations is nothing to do with ‘making savings’.  Any attempt to review on this basis is blatantly unlawful.

Cambridgeshire police pension authority has clearly fallen far short of the statutory legal requirements set out in the Regulations.

Cambridgeshire cannot say they inadvertently carried out a lawful duty defectively.  Once those defects become apparent or the authority was made aware of the legal issues, if, those defects go uncorrected and the action continues, it is our understanding from that point onwards those people working for the authority, and/or the authority itself, then commit the criminal offence of misconduct in public office.

Read their latest policy and decide for yourself.

(To go to page two move your cursor to the bottom left and click the arrow.)


Blowin’ in the Wind
Tagged on:

11 thoughts on “Blowin’ in the Wind

  • 2016-10-16 at 3:20 pm

    Forgot to say: And a sincere thanks to IODPA for all you do.

  • 2016-10-16 at 3:05 pm

    Well doesnt that just say it all!

    Thanks Cambs.

  • 2016-10-15 at 10:49 am

    As a tax payer I welcome my money being spent on the pensions of officers injured in the execution of their public service protecting me, a member of the public. I do however object strongly to my tax money being spent on medical reviews and tribunals, the sole aim of which is to save money – ironic when they employ so called doctors who appoint themselves as ‘experts’ when clearly‘ they are the bottom feeders of the profession lining their pockets and their expertise is questionable to say the least. If forces wish to save money, simple: get rid of hiring the ‘expert’ doctors’ and HR staff. They used to have Personnel departments with personnel officers who assisted the professionals. Now they pay large salaries to employ clerks and give them inflated titles such as ‘Director’ of HR, ‘Head ‘of HR , HR Manager ‘etc. They have given the sociopaths a license to make decisions far beyond their competence. The tail now wags the dog. Of course you can’t blame these minions; they haven’t got the bottle to face a knife brandishing thug in a dark alley at night, far easier to sit in a warm office shafting the officer who did just that and got injured doing so. Just take a look at some of their profiles on Linkedin (You know who you are).The words they use to describe their talents and skills is nothing less than verbal masturbation. And take a look at the qualifications they have…so many letters, most of which equate to nothing more than a bronze tripadvisor award but great if you like to play wanker scrabble!
    As a tax payer, it seems my money has contributed to Northumbria Forces 500K legal defence bill against Denise Aubrey who was dismissed for bringing senior officers into ‘disrepute’ . What a laugh, they manage that on their own, this force command is Hot Fuzz and half the general population knew about the farcical shenanigans of these buffoon bosses long before Ms Aubrey opened her mouth. Take a look at the line up…The CC just another overpaid administrator who has probably never seen an angry man (apart from the Chief Super who thumped him for his grand master encounter with his wife that is). Northumbria is just another force that is in a big bubble. The bubble is getting bigger and bigger and bigger but like all bubbles sooner or later it will burst. All it will take is a little prick……and we all know his name don’t we…………

  • 2016-10-13 at 5:15 pm

    Surely then, they have admittd that all the reviews they have done have been unlawful!? Grounds for challenge?

  • 2016-10-13 at 10:26 am

    Another good article. But what I still don’t understand or more correctly am amazed at is the way each Force from Lands End to John o’ Groats differs in how they interpret the Regulations (or bend them).

    Also the doctors who blatantly it seems use the review and IHR process to try and save money while lining their own pockets appear to have forgotten why they became doctors in the first place. Im fortunate that I at least have met two Doctors from my own IOD,IHR that properly examined me and treated me as a patient/human being and not a number on a payroll. There has to be some way that those SMP’s(doctors) who fail to acknowledge genuine documented injuries and illnesses can be brought to account. The GMC have specific guidelines and I hope that any and all illegal practices like those Dr’s mentioned in the article prescribe to are reported.

  • 2016-10-12 at 8:59 pm

    The official side of the Police Force are an absolute disgrace the way they unlawfully treat injured on duty police pensioners. And can I remind you that the official side is represented by the Chief Constable of that force!
    This has been going on for years but only now are the IOD pensioners strong enough and conversant enough with the regulations to fight back for what is legally and rightfully theirs. We, of course, are aided by good solicitors who know the law. (The police Regulation injury benefit regulations are law).

  • 2016-10-12 at 7:58 pm

    Another well written blog. So this force have actually written it’s all about saving money. Not what the Regulations were written for. They were written to protect injured police officers. Did the lawmakers have an idea that corrupt forces would try to fleece their injured officers?
    Well done IODPA for highlighting yet another shocking revelation. How did we ever cope without you?

  • 2016-10-12 at 12:35 pm

    They allege that reviews are to make sure every IOD officer is getting the correct amount of IOD pension, when in actual fact they are looking to reduce those reviewed IOD pensions and save money. It seems that no credit is actually paid to the initial IOD retirement in a lot of cases. There are actually cases where the IOD retirement pension is NOT correctly awarded from the start and that can come out in a review but that will cost the forces more money especially with Band 1 IOD retirees!

    I wonder how much these reviews cost the Force? Recent history is showing that they have spent whatever it costs for SMP’s, reduced IOD pensions unlawfully, and end up paying it back, with interest, and usually with legal fees added an in some cases with compensation! What they have cost the IOD Pensioners is a huge amount of stress, humiliation, increased anxiety and a worsening of their symptoms, especially where PTSD is concerned.

    As word is getting around to a much larger ‘audience’ of IOD officers, both retired and still serving, is that most HR’s dealing with these reviews enjoy doling out hard ‘facts’, which are erroneous in most cases, since the IOD Pension rules and regulations have not been followed, and HR ‘interpretations’ as to what they mean are what are used and are totally out of order. Their bullying tactics are being well noticed now and action is being taken to ensure that it is stopped!

    Smp’s are also to blame! They try to deny whatever medical evidence is brought forward to show the IOD pensioners condition is the same or has deteriorated, they try to use apportionment too!

    Shame on them all! Hopefully all will be educated without delay as to what the IOD Pension rules and regulations DO state and how to deal with seriously injured, both physically and mentally, people who have had their lives seriously altered whilst doing their duty. We are not looking for pity! We are looking for our rights and their understanding of them!

  • 2016-10-12 at 12:22 pm

    I would like to see forces, stop wasting public tax payers money in trying to cut the IOD awards. Savings are not to be made at the expense of these awards, may i suggest to look elsewhere.

  • 2016-10-12 at 11:51 am

    I suggest the forces should make their “savings” by not giving out lucrative SMP contracts to Selected Medical Practioners, Force Medical Advisors who unlawfully conduct reviews. It is getting to the stage were in my humble opinion afforded to me under art 10 of the ECHR that there must be great difficultly arising getting suitably qualified people to take on the role, not that there are not suitably qualified people in my opinion there are plenty but their moral compass wouldn’t allow them to be dictated to and be bought by Police Forces. Integrity for a police officer IS NON NEGOTIABLE! This should be the same for those who decide on injury awards and police pensions. IODPA have never objected to lawful reviews held under the regulations and in line with Home Office Guidelines and the GMC DR/Patient relationship. Just look at the mountain of case law found against these people.The people that are loosing in the end due to lost legal fees and lucrative SMP contracts awarded again in my opinion to those with no other agenda than to save forces money are the tax payers. Count up the legal costs and lucrative contracts, how much are Forces really costing the UK taxpayer by not just simply adhering to the Regulations and using people who are truly independant.

  • 2016-10-12 at 10:36 am

    During this post I will use the acronym of FC you the reader can make up your own minds what it stands for.
    I have read emails from Dr Bullpitt FC, from Avon and Somerset stating that those who are on a band four balding are fortunate, FORTUNATE what a FC, these people are severely injured either physically or mentally!
    DR Bullpitte FC goes on to say that these very fortunate IODs are delaying reviews for other IOD’s i.e band ones who could be increased what a FC!
    Well I am sorry for being fortunate and selfish and I can only hope that one day those in HR and OH such as DR Bellpat FC are as fortunate as every band four IOD and they suffer pain and mental anguish for the rest of their pitiful days on this earth.
    I hope that the likes of Dr Johnson FC, Dr Billpen FC,That Owens FC idiot from Merseyside and all those in HR, SMPs FMA’s and any other person trying to tread all over IODs read this post.
    I have gone beyond caring you cannot hurt me anymore because you have destroyed me you are beyond disgusting.
    We were never the enemy but you have made us the enemy now. WE WILL NOT GO AWAY!!!!!

Comments are closed.