Redacted/Unredacted

“And above all, watch with glittering eyes the whole world around you because the greatest secrets are always hidden in the most unlikely places. Those who don’t believe in magic will never find it.”
Roald Dahl

Here’s the reality. This blog and the examples of institutional corruption we are highlighting  against medically-retired former police officers – and likely, those who are both vulnerable and mentally fragile – is part of the large-scale abuse of those with injury awards in this country. To an abuser who likes power and control, a disability is perfect.  The adversary to power and control is exposure.

Exposure can be denied.  So when is something off-limits and how can a public body hide disclosure under the Freedom Of Information Act?  The Freedom of Information Act in the UK does have some limits on disclosure. One method to comply with the act whilst meeting these limits is supplying material in a censored or “redacted” format.

Often you have to take the word of the public body that the redaction has been applied correctly. So when you have both the redacted and un-redacted versions of minutes from the same Avon & Somerset meetings – all of which are concerning their administration (or should that read maladministration) of injury awards – it’s evident that taking this word at face value is a mistake.

Now that these minutes are in the public domain you have the opportunity to decide whether their redaction was legitimate.

Before we get there, let us just discuss redaction.  In this method, a document is made available but with some text removed (often literally with a black marker pen). In the most straightforward cases, this may be just removing the names of junior officials or office staff, usually for privacy reasons.

It’s understandable when  redacted information constitutes personal data, and the public body would be in breach of the Data Protection Act if it were to put such information into the public domain.

But in other cases, large amounts of text are illicitly removed so that documents are almost unreadable and the information value is minimal – for no other reason than they’ll rather you not see it.

This redaction technique is abused so that certain nincompoops can deliberately leave no trace of their decision-making process within the public body they serve.

Strangely enough, such cretins seem to pop up in the administration of injury awards.

Can the disclosure of un-redacted meeting minutes really be prejudicial to the effective conduct of public affairs?  What happens if the public affairs being minuted involves evidence of Malfeasance in a public office, or official misconduct?

Redaction does not give officials an excuse to cover-up the commissioning of their unlawful acts, done in an official capacity, which affects the legitimate performance of true official duties.

It is both highly disturbing and in the public interest to discover an official policy tasked to look at the medical files relating to every individual who was medically retired by a certain deceased police surgeon (employed by Avon & Somerset police between 1972 and 2006), to ascertain if such medical retirement was in their ‘view’ unlawful/illegal.  Especially as this doctor is at the epicentre of an ongoing historical sexual abuse inquiry named Operation Hay.

Potential victims – all who served as police officers – now are suffering the ignominy of a small number of devious employees within Avon & Somerset Police digging through (and without any consent to process) sensitive personal and medical data relating to their injury awards.  In other words, a shadow investigation exists – running parallel to a major criminal inquiry – with the sordid misapprehension that every decision made by this police surgeon (employed by this force for over 30 years) is now open to be revisited.

Isn’t it absolutely abhorrent that the force chooses to investigate only the things relating to their mania to reduce injury awards and seemingly they are in no hurry to question the blood tests of convicted drunk drivers, rape cases or assaults this police surgeon helped to convict?

The IPCC is currently looking into allegations that when a number of officers – likely the same people whose medical files retained by this force are now being ferreted by Dr David Bulpitt –  came forward on separate occasions throughout the 1990s to complain about Dr Bunting, those complaints were not properly investigated by the force.  In other words, whilst the IPCC’s investigates the Operation Hay cover-up the same force is conspiring against the victims whose complaints were brushed aside.

Here are a few choice sentences that the eager redaction gremlins working in A&S attempted to hide from Freedom Of Information disclosure of the minutes of an Avon & Somerset injury award liaison group meeting.  Redaction that we’ve recovered (hence the slightly different font) that tried to hide that Dr David Bulpitt, the current force medical advisor, has been tasked with the thorough inspection of the files of potential victims.

DBu [David Bulpitt] to review all individuals’ records identified through Op Hay to ascertain which Dr awarded their band or undertook a review of a band given.Avon & Somerset OH Review meeting 23rd October 2015 action log

And

During the course of conversations it became clear that there were some concerns around why certain awards may have been made by the Dr in post at the time. It was agreed that DBu would review all of the names that are on the Op Hay list to see if they had been given an illegal/incorrect award as a result of being seen by the individual who is currently subject of an investigation.Avon & Somerset OH Review meeting 23rd October 2015 Minutes

Of course, A&S do not want the public to know this as it contrary to the law for them, in any way imaginable, to try to revisit old statutory decisions – so they take the black marker to it and redact it all in an attempt to cover it up.

Fortunately for the public good, there is an un-redacted version in the public domain.  The left side shows what happens when you give a black permanent marker to crazed scribblings of an over-enthusiastic denier of public disclosure:

Redacted Un-redacted
minutes-23rd-october-2015-before minutes-23rd-october-2015-after
 Raw & Unformated Version

Click on the image and a new tab will show the disclosure in it’s entirety.  You can use the arrows in the bottom right to toggle to the page two for those with multiple pages.pdf-next-page
We now also get to see evidence that legal services has finally accepted that the GMC enforces that every individual seen by a SMP is a patient of that SMP.

DJ [Daniel Johnson] indicated that due to the information forward to Legal Services from DBu [Dr David Bulpitt] they now had a much clearer understanding of the difficulties being experienced as a result of the GMC indicating that each individual under the review is classified as being a patientAvon & Somerset OH Review meeting 23rd October 2015 Minutes

That each and every person seen by a Selected Medical Practitioner (the prerequisite of such being GMC registration) is their patient is fact – after all it is a medical question – but they want to censure that they now accept it.  We’ve been trying to tell them this for years: the GMC guidance is unambiguous:

The first duty of a doctor registered with the GMC is to make the care of their patient their first concern. The term ‘patient’ in this guidance also refers to employees, clients, athletes and anyone else whose personal information you hold or have access to, whether or not you care for them in a traditional therapeutic relationship.
GMC Confidentiality: disclosing information for insurance, employment and similar purposes

So why is it redacted?  Could it be because it proves their position wrong perhaps.

They also decided to retract information about Operation Hay, as mentioned above, and they talk about the implied threat that legal services are going to put in the letter about suspending an injury award when consent to medical information is withdrawn.

This leads us to the ‘action log’ from the same meeting.  They redacted the recorded statement that their lawyer, Daniel Johnson, stated that such suspension is unlawful but, as an aside, they’ll still write a letter dripping with a purely heinous form of blackmail, that will be sent out to imply an unlawful thing will be actually be carried out.

Were these threatening letters actually sent out?  Perhaps they were, and the poor recipient capitulated to a threat with menaces.  Ironically, to acquiesce to such blackmail usually results in a ‘gun for hire’ SMP applying apportionment or some unlawful earnings assessment to reduce the injury award; see the predicament the former officer faces? – they are truly damned if they don’t and then damned anyway.

If anyone reading this has received such a letter, then they are advised to seek counsel with a specialist solicitor.

Looking behind the black permanent marker and you see this:

DJ advised the Pension Authority that when sending out letters to individuals who have withdrawn consent that a reduction in banding given can only be implied as you cannot predetermine and outcome if release is not madeAction Log 23rd October 2015

So far they have obviously redacted the truths that we have been shouting for a while, but few in a position of power believed – the truth that they manipulate the law for their own ends.

Here is the action log for the 23/10/2015 meeting in its ingloriously malignant splendour:

Redacted Un-redacted
action-log-23rd-october-2015-before action-log-23rd-october-2015-after
 Raw & Unformated Version

Rather than try to hide it by redacting, the stuff found within shouldn’t have been thought, said nor written in the first place.

What else have these deviants been up to?

The 1st of March minutes has a section redacted that mentions reviewing people without passing the medical question to the SMP. On it’s own, this isn’t too aberrant.  However, if you factor in the draconian practice this force has conducted to drag severely ill people – those who haven’t had any correspondence from the force for a long time – in front of Dr Philip Johnson without exemption, you start to wonder why the sudden deviation from their usual behaviour.

Apparently a band four (therefore one of Dr Bulpitt’s  unfavoured selfish and preposterous few) and band one were reviewed on paper by Dr Bulpitt himself, without the demand to be medically examined.  Rather a change of tactic here given that Dr Philip Johnson earned £74,220 for 46 days work from Avon & Somerset in from December 1st 2015 to 11th October 2016.

Redacted Un-redacted
minutes-1st-march-2016-before minutes-1st-march-2016-after

If Bulpitt was doing the work of a SMP, why was Johnson still being paid?  And why are some retired officers forced to see Dr Johnson and interrogated for two hours when others get a free pass for a paper review?  Consistency is not their strong point.

And finally onto the 14th June 2016 minutes.  This is the excerpt that has been redacted from the document on the left:

RW raised the issues of information disclosed via FOI’s, as LG personal email  had been disclosed, although we are unsure through which avenue FOI or
Subject Access request.
Action: SA to check with relevant depts. and CD to check with JK  SA/CD

RW is Richard Wand.  He is a former constable and now a civilian employed by Avon & Somerset Federation JBB as a Regulations and Welfare Advisor

Redacted Un-redacted
14th-june-2016-notes-of-iod-liaison-group-mtg-before 14th-june-2016-notes-of-iod-liaison-group-mtg-after
Raw & Unformated version

Hardly a section that screams out to be redacted given LG is unidentified and RW is listed, un-redacted, as an attendee: Richard Wand RW Police Federation.  There does not seem to be any sane reason why redaction has been implemented but it is a clear example why you shouldn’t trust the whys and wherefores they use to justify redacting something.

They want to hide behind the black permanent marker.  Unfortunately on this occasion the marker was filled with disappearing ink.

Abuse of the Freedom of Information Act is bad enough when it happens.  When it is the Police performing the abuse the affect is magnified exponentially as their expected standard is higher given their position and that they have a near-monopoly on the use of coercive force.

It is also clear that when these people do things in the full knowledge that they are wrong they put aside the fact that the legitimacy of the police in the eyes of the public is a significant determinant of police effectiveness.

For those reading this, shocked and with their mouths agape, staring at a screen and trying to parse everything that has happened, here’s a recap:

  • The lead solicitor for the Legal Services department of Avon & Somerset constabulary has confirmed that Regulation 33 PIBR 2006 cannot be used to punish the withdrawal of medical consent.  Despite this, he is fully prepared to deceive a member of the public into believing that their injury award can be punitively reduced by suggestion alone.  This policy had been redacted as a means of censorship to avoid the ensuing scandal. 
  • The force medical advisor of the same police force that employed a doctor (now deceased), whose actions are currently under investigation for dozens of sex attacks on young officers during medical examinations, has taken it upon himself to revisit final statutory decisions by looking whether all the ill-health retirements decided by the police pension authority, over a period of 30 years, were unlawful.   This policy had been redacted as a means of censorship to avoid the ensuing scandal.

You might think that sounds conspiratorial. It is.

This is more than just isolated bad-apples.  The utterings of those who attended these IOD liaison meeting meetings was not redacted by them – powers above them allowed this happen.  Another internal department would’ve been complicit in deciding  to remove whatever they considered sensational:  Corporate Information Management, Legal Services and no doubt, members of the senior executive team must have had a role to authorise this.  You can imagine how it was said, with a red-faced senior figure screaming “whatever you do, don’t let that get out!

What does it say about the culture of ethics existing in such an organisation that allows a cover-up to evolve into a conspiracy.

When a member of Parliament gives such a damning speech in the House of Commons – Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con) on the Chief Constable Of Avon And Somerset Police Force – there is clearly a systemic ‘rotten barrel’ explanation that permeates through the senior management subculture.

From this point onwards do not give the police force you served with the benefit of the doubt.  When you are sent a threatening letter, think that they are probably lying and trying to coerce you to do something you have no lawful obligation to do.

If you are disclosed heavily redacted information then demand them to explain the exemption applied.  If they refuse to explain why each and every sentence has been blacked out then take the matter to the ICO.

The minutes should be specific to the matter being minuted.  You asked for disclosure from that meeting and therefore everything talked about, excluding the obvious personal information, should be in play for disclosure.

Hiding behind a veil of secrecy is an act deployed by Soviet Union’s KGB and East Germany’s Stasi.  It is unforgivable for such tactics to be seen in the UK.

As our skin crawls, it is worth forcing ourselves to look at the reality – we must confront not only the scale of these abused, disabled victims but also this country’s failure to help them.

 

 

Redacted/Unredacted

31 thoughts on “Redacted/Unredacted

  • 2016-12-02 at 12:24 am
    Permalink

    I like many others am shocked by the findings here. I too am a victim of this force and the predator that was Dr Bunting. It is not an exaggeration to state that they have ruined my life and there seems to be no end to the pain that they are willing to allow me to suffer.
    I would give anything for them to spend one day in my world and realise the consequences of their actions.
    Thank you for bringing this to our attention and I hope action will follow against these devious traitors.




    0



    0
  • 2016-12-01 at 10:52 am
    Permalink

    Mr Marsh had one of two ways to turn on his somewhat dubious return to A&S.
    knowing that the persecution of Officers with IODA, is MountStevens baby ( when the heat has died down ) ably supported by her cohorts Kern, Bull***t, & Johnson , Marsh fitted the bill.
    He chose the road of confrontation, corruption, dishonesty and downright cruelty, intermingled with a total lack of respect.
    I am NOT surprised by this, nor am I surprised that they tried to use their influence as a leader in law enforcement, to try and get WDTK, to redact their mistakes in accidentally disclosing material legal facts.
    They can’t catch a cold in the first instance, but they even try and tamper with the evidence before it is disclosed!!
    What a complete shower of smelly stuff.
    They have gone to the dogs, & I am now seriously concerned for the wellbeing and reputation of Avon Fire & rescue!!




    0



    0
  • 2016-11-27 at 11:29 am
    Permalink

    Having reflected further on this matter.

    I understand the externally led investigation and the legal basis for it.

    However, I am perplexed as to the legality of Dr Johnson accessing retired officers medical research records, on the face of it this would be a breach of the Access to Medical Records Act and the DATA Protection Act. The FMA can’t access the records solely on the basis that he is a DR in the same way Police Officers can’t randomly access the records available to them solely based on the fact they were Police officers.

    Where the officers notified and there consent sort?, what was the basis in law to access these medical records?, why are bandings being looked at, what legal advice has been sort, as causation cannot be revisited as a matter of law.

    Also why are the reviews being focused on injury awards. This is a force that has engaged in unlawful reviews and the PCC has made comments which seem to indicate she feels injury awards are a burden. The motif would appear to be accountancy led policing which in respect of injury awards is unlawful. Is the investigation setting parameters , where do we start, medical school, pre police employment ?

    Scandalous, I’m not ex Avon and Somerset and I’ve worked this out using my grey matter and some.basic on line research…..

    I feel for my brothers and sisters in blue who are now being retraumatised.




    0



    0
  • 2016-11-25 at 12:24 am
    Permalink

    The unlawful reviews, accompanied by demands with menaces, wholesale disability discrimination, and blatant corrupt practices, were appalling enough, but this latest discovery goes beyond the reprehensible.
    To persecute victims of sex offences, who have already felt the shame and humiliation of having their earlier complaints brushed aside, is despicable to the core. To then victimise those who were not only victims of a perverted doctor employed by the police, but were also injured on duty to the point of losing their careers, is beyond vile.
    It goes against everything policing should stand for and is cruel. The corrupt practices going on in Avon and Somerset Police equals the disgusting acts discovered by Macpherson and others.
    Andy Marsh – you are the force figurehead now. You are where the buck stops. You are therefore responsible.
    I once worked with you and thought you were an OK bloke – but you stand by and do nothing like the insecure little cretins who stand and cheer the school bully. Of course all this shows is that you are as institutionally discriminating as those who do the dirty and corrupt deeds on behalf of you and your sidekick Mountstevens.
    I just hope the public enquiry happens whilst you are still alive to stand there and account for your neglect of these abusive practices !
    I send my solidarity to each and every one of those being abused by Marsh and his cronies…stay strong people…we will need you to speak at the public enquiry !




    0



    0
  • 2016-11-24 at 1:09 am
    Permalink

    I am deeply deeply concerned for my own safety, my own health and wellbeing having read this article. I can assume with great certainty that my own ‘force’ do exactly the same!

    Great post and fantastic work in uncovering the corrupt bastards!!!




    0



    0
  • 2016-11-23 at 6:36 pm
    Permalink

    What a miserable read. These ongoing revelations just get worse. The sooner these clandestine malpractices are exposed on a larger public platform, the better – preferably in a court of law before judges.

    And to think they have the temerity to call IODPA a vexatious group. Since when is outing professional malpractice a vexatious act? It’s called WHISTLEBLOWING, as highlighted in Bricktop’s above link.

    Well done IODPA for shining a bright light on their shameful antics.

    If only they had adhered to the regulations and their professional code of conduct, this escalating situation would have been avoided. But they’re evidently incapable of doing so, and so be it. The courts will inevitably be full of cases in due course as all this – and more – is exposed, publicly scrutinised and tested.




    0



    0
  • 2016-11-23 at 2:42 pm
    Permalink

    So if I’m reading this correctly, if this doctor is being looked at for his intergrity, then that would potentially open up all prosecutions he was a witness on, all the convictions he was involved in will be looked at again, all rape victims he saw…….is this another can of worms about to be unleashed?

    This is now well in the public interest. I can’t believe what I’m reading to be honest.




    0



    0
  • 2016-11-23 at 1:20 pm
    Permalink

    1984 Orgreave …. 1989 Hillsborough …. 1993 Stephen Lawrence …. 2012 Plebgate …. 2016 Cliff Richard …. 2017 Portishead!




    0



    0
  • 2016-11-23 at 12:53 pm
    Permalink

    I’m shocked and mortified. I have never worked for A & S, I am a retired Police Officer IOD. This review appears totally unlawful, also there appears to be no sense of proportionality, a shadow investigation.

    How many cops have A and S sacked for corruption ? Do A & S investigate every case where that cop was arresting officer, disclosure officer, exhibits officer, OIC, SIO, witness ?




    0



    0
  • 2016-11-22 at 10:40 pm
    Permalink

    Hi you guys and girls are having a real rough time of it with these reviews and my heart goes out to you all.
    What I don’t understand why senior officers in these forces do not step in and crack a few heads, surley the Chiefs must see that these reviews and persecution of former injured Law enforcement officers is downright wrong if not illegal.
    From what I read it is all about money money money and saving it at any cost to any person,this behaviour is deplorable.
    Come on Chiefs step in and support those officers who have given their all for their force.
    At the end of the day the buck stops with you Chiefs and if you are letting your staff carry out illegal acts then you all deserve to end up in prison.
    I wouldn’t want to be a Chief who stands up for his staff in this situation.




    0



    0
  • 2016-11-22 at 9:46 pm
    Permalink

    I’m one of the victims and have now found out that I have been identified on the internet. I was supposed to be a number, not a name!

    Why is Bulpitt allowed to access my file on Operation Hay? How?? This was over a year ago so how far has this despicable man gone to try to have my pension removed from me??

    This man is a Doctor, he is supposed to be a figure that is respected by all! Bunting was a Doctor and the force swept victims complaints under the carpet back in the 90’s and it appears that the forces present Doctor is being allowed to commit criminal offences against us and is again, getting away with it!

    TALK ABOUT HISTORY REPEATING ITSELF!!!!

    Nothing, absolutely NOTHING has been learned from the Bunting case and it’s not even complete yet!!! And the force are not allowing another Force Doctor to think he is above the law and untouchable.

    Carry on A&S………………… Your time if fast approaching and so are your jobs. I will not be fobbed off by any cuffing of this complaint. Bulpitt needs to be sacked along with all those personnel who were sat in that meeting. I won’t rest until this happens.

    You evil, evil bastards!!




    0



    0
  • 2016-11-22 at 8:39 pm
    Permalink

    I’m not sure how much more I can take from this force. I’m being pushed to my absolute limit. I am a band 4 IOD from severe physical injuries and related PTSD. My quality of life has been ruined. I am a physical and emotional wreck and to top it all, I was also a victim of Bunting and had to re-live the trauma during my reluctant participation in Operation Hay.
    I dread each day when the post arrives, fearing that I will be dragged trough the process of the force trying to reduce my only means of income.
    I am ‘doped’ up to the eyeballs with medication to treat chronic pain and mental illness.
    I now learn that price I am going to pay for partaking in the operation Hay investigation is to have my case put under the microscope !!
    This scandalous behaviour needs to stop. The mental torture is getting just too much to cope with I am at the end of my tether and I hold the force entirely responsible should the unthinkable happen. I don’t deserve this, none of us deserve this !




    0



    0
  • 2016-11-22 at 6:29 pm
    Permalink

    Absolutely shocking, they all need to hang their heads with shame. No better than the dregs of society that fill the cells in police stations and prisons.




    0



    0
  • 2016-11-22 at 3:08 pm
    Permalink

    It really does sadden me. Shame on them !!!! Rotten apples galore.




    0



    0
  • 2016-11-22 at 3:04 pm
    Permalink

    Injured on duty Officers have been claiming for years that the Review process by SMPs, overseen by Chief Constables, is maladministered and ultimately corrupt. These unreacted FOIs show this in black and white!
    I believe no injured police officer should engage with the review process anymore until the official side has been investigated and those responsible charged or sacked! Although the regulations state that you must engage with the review process this is obviously only the case if the process is conducted lawfully which it is patently not!
    This information should be presented to the Government’s select committee on home affairs, the newspapers and everybody else who can bring these injustices to an end!




    0



    0
  • 2016-11-22 at 2:33 pm
    Permalink

    Dr Bullshire FC, Dr Johnson FC, Julian Kern CC. Denial Johnson CC(force legal)
    They all remind me of a previous German Goal keeper I recall hiss name began with a K.
    This revelation is not only upsetting it shows the depths that this and any other force will go to in order to reduce injury awards. Why why why do they hate IODs so much and why oh why do they want to punish ex officers for being injured in the course of their duty.
    I wonder what the press would make of this? And how this would affect the standing of the force with the public.
    This needs to come out and heads need to roll for their abuse of every act and regulation that they have breached.
    I seriously pray that someone out there sees this and takes all forces to task over the way they treat injured officers.
    Imagine what a victim of Bunting abuse feels like knowing that these so called doctors and HR muppets know who they are and what they have suffered i for one would be screaming for justice and resignations immediately.
    I can only End by saying that if any injured officer is made worse by these revelations then it will be classed as a moral injury and it needs to be brought to the attention of A and S.




    0



    0
  • 2016-11-22 at 1:58 pm
    Permalink

    Well, Im not the brightest due to to PTSI but using IODs data for a random fishing exercise to save a few quid doesn’t sound that good to me. So as a cop I have someones medical file with disclosure for say a prosecution file, but I think fuck it I will pass it around and see if we can find some flaw on the victim and then illegally blackmail them. Sounds like a fairly straight forward malfeasance in a public office or conspiracy to blackmail to me.

    They then go onto send out letters threatening vulnerable people that unless they comply with a illegal process they will stop there injury awards. Again not nice or indeed clever.

    These guys must be really pleased with themselves, protecting the public, doing nights, taking a kicking, or hey lets persecute those injured in the course of there duty, and maybe make them more ill. They should all be pleased with the level they have sank to .They clearly lost there moral compass and focus on what the cops are supposed to do a long way back. They maybe want to try lying on a North London Street thinking they were dying and hoping to die and then live with a nice bit of complex PTSI.

    I am sure this sort of activity is going on all over the country. The Met police come at it a different way by denying very ill officers EIHR . They pay some so called medics to write false reports and mis diagnose you despite clear evidence to the contrary and then threaten you with UPP. Many of us including me gave all our adult life to this mob. Now I need to run away from them as fast as my broken mind can take me. Trust me I need to get very far away from these poisoned people and what they did to me and many others.




    0



    0
  • 2016-11-22 at 1:35 pm
    Permalink

    In my humble opinion afforded to me under art 10 of the European Rights Act this amounts again in my opinion to a possible allegation of criminality. Every single serving police officer in Avon and Somerset Constabulary that reads this especially senior officers should make themselves aware of their duties under the said forces code of ethics dept or at the very least seek guidance on the matter.




    0



    0
  • 2016-11-22 at 1:30 pm
    Permalink

    I am not ex-A&S but a former member of an equally corrupt force. I am disgusted by these revelations. What a shameful organisation A&S are. I thought my force was bad but they couldn’t hold a candle to A&S. They bring discredit on the police throughout the country. Its seems that there is one scandal after another. The fellas out there on the streets, having to face the public, are the ones I feel sorry for. It’s about time there was a full criminal investigation into how these people are conducting themselves.

    The management, starting with their Chief Constable, PCC and the people associated with this scam are the one’s who deserve everything that is going to come their way.




    0



    0
  • 2016-11-22 at 12:45 pm
    Permalink

    A great blog and KEITHs comments are bang on. However, it is not an individual force that needs to get its act together regarding IODs but all of them. They are all suffering the same delusional disease spread by a few. The heart of the problems stem from NAMF and the College of Policing with SMPs being hypnotised and believing the meaningless and worthless words of WIRZ and his henchmen. It now appears the grim reapers in the form of the SMPs are likely to be on the receiving end for their lies and deliberate evasion of AMRA, GMC and FOM guidelines, lets hope that those who write these guidelines and administer them have the balls to sanction those who deliberately flaunt and stray from them.




    0



    0
  • 2016-11-22 at 12:45 pm
    Permalink

    Seems to me something fishy that PD and JL were paper reviewed by Dr Bullshit.
    Hopefully this is a new tactic of the farce and we will see many more paper reviews in the future.




    0



    0
  • 2016-11-22 at 12:19 pm
    Permalink

    Operation Hay was supposedly under the control of an independent SIO from an outside force but clearly the A&S management have access to restricted personal details or do all sex abuse victims have their personal details supplied to the Finance Department & HR?

    We know that A&S are aware of these posts, so if the Chief Constable does nothing, then he is as guilty as those under his control who have been acting unlawfully and he belongs in the dock next to them.




    0



    0
  • 2016-11-22 at 11:57 am
    Permalink

    What an insight into the warped minds of those who are involved in what can only be called institutional corruption.

    Why would there be any ‘difficulties’ in a SMP having to accept that a former officer retired on an injury-on-duty pension should enjoy the same ethical protections as any other person who sees a doctor, for whatever purpose?

    The answer is that the review process, as conducted by Avon and Somerset Police Pension Authority (The Chief Constable) is so far outside the law that it is viewed, in the words of another SMP from another corrupt force, as an ‘inquisitorial consultation’.

    In other words, a way of abusing the damaged individual, applying pressure, twisting their replies to aggressive questions so as to ‘justify’ a reduction in the amount of pension paid.

    If police officers treated suspects under interview in this way, they would be suspended, investigated, disciplined and probably fired.

    That this sort of attitude towards disabled former officers is able to germinate and grow in this stinking cesspit of a police force tells us that the corruption is at every level. I point a finger at the Chief Constable, at the Police and Crime Commissioner, at their legal advisors, and at the spineless, compliant, staff – the ordinary workers who by their inaction have allowed this totally repellant corruption to take root and become endemic. I also point a finger at all decent serving officers of all ranks who need to look inwards, at their own management, supervisors, and senior officers to see where there is criminal behavior, but have failed to do so.

    To those working on Operation Hay – how have you allowed Bulpitt and his cronies to hi-jack your investigation and turn it into a witch-hunt against innocent former colleagues who were injured in duty. Of what possible concern to your investigation is it that the sexual pervert who was once the force doctor might have erred in decisions he made concerning the grant or review of injury awards?

    As the blog has pointed out, those decisions can not now be revisited or changed. If there was any error, and let’s for a moment pretend there were, then what is the Police Pension Authority going to do about them? He can’t remove an injury award, or demand repayment of pension and gratuity monies paid. He can’t reduce the amount of pension paid.

    The whole tone of these documents is that it is assumed that some pensioners are being paid too much. Where is the balance? Is is not entirely and equally possible that the sexual pervert made decisions which either denied grant of an injury pension, or ensured payment at too low a level?

    Operation Hay seems to have spawned an offshoot. Let’s call it ‘Operation Opportunist’ which will look at ways to use the actions of a deceased sexual pervert as the key to reducing injury pension payments.

    Let’s hope that another offshoot is spawned. It should be ‘Operation Augean Stables’ where some heroic investigators get to clean up the muck and filth that is bespoiling what should be a fine and upstanding police force.




    0



    0
  • 2016-11-22 at 11:53 am
    Permalink

    I agree with the above comment, if they had just followed the Regulations, which are quite clear, and case law, which again, is quite clear, they would have avoided all this.
    However, well done to IODPA for confronting these bullies yet again.




    0



    0
  • 2016-11-22 at 11:10 am
    Permalink

    When you are in a hole, stop digging. – But the idiots just can’t help themselves. They could have avoided all this if they just FOLLOWED THE REGULATIONS




    0



    0
  • 2016-11-22 at 11:08 am
    Permalink

    Absolutely shocking. Bastards the lot of them. This will end up in front of a Judge, I hope they all have good lawyers.




    0



    0
  • 2016-11-22 at 10:39 am
    Permalink

    More disgusting antics from a disgusting force. They are complete s**** in how they treat their injured on duty officers. People who have put their lives on the line for the public. Whilst these idiots who are conspiring against them, sit in their cosy, warm offices.
    It’s about time the Chief Constable did something to put a halt to this.




    0



    0
  • 2016-11-22 at 9:25 am
    Permalink

    Organised crime .




    0



    0
  • 2016-11-22 at 9:20 am
    Permalink

    This has well and truly let the “cat” out of the bag, what chance a legal challenge against A+S ?




    0



    0
  • 2016-11-22 at 9:15 am
    Permalink

    Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha HA Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
    Someone is in the Sh*t, Someone is in Poo
    Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
    We have another load of very good evidence against a deceitful, Corrupt bunch of pathetic individuals, and we are going to start using it, in the courts.
    Personally, I simply cannot wait.
    Marsh. Mountstevens, The Bag Man ( Yes you know who you are, because I wrote you a nice letter ) and the rest of you, even down to the simple clerical workers, in the OHU.
    We are coming to GET YOU!




    0



    0

Comments are closed.