Then there was a man, smart as Satan, who, lacking some perception of human dignity and knowing all too well every aspect of human weakness and wickedness, used his special knowledge to warp men, to buy men, to bribe and threaten and seduce until he found himself in a position of great power ― John Steinbeck, East of Eden
There is a runaway trolley barrelling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two options:
- Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track.
- Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.
Which is the most ethical choice? Above is a demonstration of what we asking of you here.
Notwithstanding that the Regulations do not allow such a perversion of its application we need your help to decide whether, those who pull the levers of power in the land of injury awards (such as Wirz, Cheng, Broome etc), are true psychotics.
You may think the question that follows is an abomination. That it is asked to make a point rather than to elicit an answer. Unfortunately this is a fallacy. Northumbria police are enacting variations on their theory of all injury awards shall be undone. Under the mask of they have to “test” the law.
So let us rephrase the question…
The reality of this question unfortunately is that the SMP would probably show up at the IOD’s bedside, and would invoke option 2. Prior to the accident the IOD had acute PTSD, but now that he is in a coma, it means that it is impossible to deduce whether he still has PTSD, because of lack of cognitive function. Had the IOD had an obvious physical injury, say a leg amputation, then although he is in a Coma, he still has a leg amputation
The SMP would probably still opt for option 2, but, it could be successfully argued that he still has his disability, despite the coma.
Option 5 is the sympathetic vote. But, as has been shown time and time again, there is no room for sympathy, when it comes to the desire to save money from the IODA budget.
The problem is that the public haven’t got a clue what is going on in the police and the majority are oblivious. After all May and her cronies wax lyrical about the public services when they have to on the news (though we know they actually could’nt give a damn). The sad fact is, there are many young people out there who are oblivious, willing and vulnerable because they don’t think it will ever happen to them. The Government know this so while they have a ready supply of cannon fodder why should they care?
There are a lot of armchair generals who are the opinionated ignorant…until of course it happens to them or their child…then they will be knocking at the door of IODPA
So, for Option 2, any more recent catastrophic illness/injury following an IOD award should reduce an injury banding to a minimum. At the time of posting, that option has 8% of the votes.
What’s the thought process behind that? Without any evidence to the contrary, how on earth can it be concluded that his police injury has significantly changed for the better, just because he can’t possibly respond, owing to another, subsequent, life changing tragedy?
I don’t see how logic dictates that many would go for Option 2. Here’s just one random example why, but there are sure to be many more scenarios –
If Option 2 were invoked, fortunately the IOD in his coma wouldn’t be aware that his home had since been reposssessed – he was young in service when he was pensioned out and therefore had a very small ill health pension, which meant he had been totally reliant on his injury pension. Lucky for him, he won’t know that his cancer suffering partner and disabled child are now homeless and in debt, just because the police and their SMP went for Option 2 when he was hopelessly vulnerable.
They say that hard cases make bad law, but hard cases also show up glaringly iniquitous issues when formulating law.
I’d love to see how that pensioner’s force and the SMP behind invoking Option 2 could possibly justify that to the media. Who in their right mind would want to join the job, knowing that you and your family could be so terribly abused at your – and their – lowest possible point?
Option 2 is a non-starter.
Logic dictates many would opt for option 2, however, what if 1 of the 5 happen to be a serial killer (or the potential to be), what if the 1 is someone who would go on to save countless lives in the future, a conundrum for sure.
At times there are placed before us ” Impossible Questions ” which sometimes result in impossible answers because human response takes over, rather than rationale. Imagine being on an airliner, seatbelt signs go off, and two idiots jump up and grab two of the cabin crew holding stanley knives to their throats. History tells us, that if you allow them into the cockpit, everyone is going to die, so you gather enough people to rush them, and hope they don’t cut the carotid artery.
So I would say that the question is one of those, where it is easy to let sentiment influence a decision, of a normal person.
Unfortunately, it would appear that in order to qualify as an SMP, being a normal fair minded person, and a good doctor do not sit well together.
The one word that needs to be removed from any future legislation is the word independent, because they are about as independent as a kangaroo court.
Take Wirtz for example. Here we have an alleged lawyer, who has allowed personal grievances influence his mind and decisions, over guidance given to SMP’s but also to the court, irrespective of whether the advice is correct.
Unfortunately his puppet Broome, is frightened to death of him, so will just do anything to appease the Northumbria attack puppy.
So in this case, if it were the Broommeister , he would be passing go, forgetting about the 200 quid and going straight for the throat, regardless of whether it was the correct decision in law.
The WHOLE subject of SMP’s needs to be ripped up, and reconfigured!
I sadly know now how corrupt the plod are after suffering from complex PTSI after 27 years on various front line dutys. I was abused and nearly died at the hands of a Met FMA, a so called Dr Pitkannen and a SMP Cheng all of whom in my humble opinion of serious crime investigations are committing fraud and malficence in a public office. These people and others like them up and down the country would do anything for money like all criminals do. I note the Met have gone over to OPTIMA health, was it getting a bit hot paying criminals to do there dirty work. These people have been doing ACPOOS dirty work for a long time and now maybe they don’t like the heat. I know some of you so called Quacks read this so if you do remember the hypoctartic oath you took to do no harm. Now you have become money grabbing egotystical vile people with no morals about damaging some very ill people. So sad but not surprising, I spent all of my adult life dealing with criminals, trust me I know one when I see one.
Police injury awards used to be managed by each Chief Constable under delegation from the scheme manager, which was the police authority.
That was bad enough as most police authoritites just let the CCs get on with it. They did not provide the necessary oversight required of them.
Now the police authorities no longer exist – they were replaced by Police and Crime Commissioners.
However, the then Government decided, in its wisdom, to make Chief Constables the scheme manager for each force area. That is like giving the local poacher the job of gamekeeper.
Moreover, the money for injury awards now comes out of the police budget, not from contributions made by serving officers.
Thus it would take a saintly Chief Constable to perform the unlikely contortion of forgetting all about his budget when making decisions with his police injury scheme manager’s hat on.
The injury benefit scheme is a generous one – rightly so. That causes misplaced jealousy in certain quarters, by people who should know better. NARPO, at local level is completely unskilled in dealing with the complexities of the injury benefit regulations and the case law relating to them. Most HR departments also lack the legal knowledge necessary to avoid maladministration, and are under undue pressure from the top floor too.
And as for the worst of the SMPs – they are just crooks and chancers.
On the bright side, we have IODPA and some excellent solicitors and a top-notch QC.
The only way to ensure injury awards are managed properly and within the regulations is to keep on using the courts until all forces see that the cost of getting things wrong will always outweight any possibility of making savings by trying to reduce injury pension payments unlawfully.
Staffordshire is in line for a sharp lesson, as is Northumbria.
We know what they will do,the but questions is what should they do. The inconsiderate force will stop the police pension. Stating that the duty police injury has now been overtaken and no longer exists.
Other comments can be read by clicking on the ‘results’ link under the survey, and then on ‘comments’.
We’ll post a follow up blog to this question soon.