All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us? ~ Reg: Monty Python’s Life of Brian
In a recent Police Oracle news story concerning Merseyside police taking a former officer’s award away because – quite rightly from his position – he said he wouldn’t fill in any ridiculous questionnaire, a representative of Merseyside reportedly said:
“The only issue determined by the judicial review was whether the former officer’s pension payments should have been suspended”
Solicitors warn other forces about acting in a similar way. A solicitor has warned forces that attempts to make injured retired officers provide more personal information than required by law for reassessments of their pensions will be challenged. Former Merseyside Police officer Paul McHugh issued judicial…
What an example of spin – right out of the text book of Malcolm Tucker in the BBC sitcom The Thick of It. We wonder if Mr/Mrs Merseyside spokesperson asked three straightforward questions of the people who, within Merseyside, took the injury award away from Mr McHugh.
First: are they certifiably insane? That is, are they — as the Americans put it — crazier than a shithouse rat?
Second, if the unlawful removal wasn’t for not filling in the questionnaire as well as not giving full medical records from birth to the z-team HR minions, messrs Peter Owens and Supernintendo Markay, then why did they take the award away?
Did they randomly wake up one morning and arbitrarily select a victim to suspend an award!
And third: do they have anything to gain, financially, from making these assertions? Merseyside saved a lot of money by reducing people by use of this questionnaire and by not using a SMP. All these people have grounds to demand a reconsideration.
Our guess is that none of those questions have been asked. And they have not been asked because those are not the sort of question a spokesperson working for the police is allowed to ask any more. Such a poor excuse for a glib individual must take everything at face value these days. They must not exercise their judgement — or, as we would put it, the truth…
Never mind that a sworn officer of the law at a rank of senior manager at executive level with a position to set strategy, standards and policy across a department or organisation, did something so illegal that Supernintendo Markay and Peter Owens couldn’t persuade Merseyside to defend it in the high court, and then got a spokesperson to say the judicial review wasn’t about what it was actually about to save their careers.
Quite worrying isn’t it when the upholders of the law revert to spin to cover up a major wrong?
IODPA hates it when people don’t come clean. When they don’t mention what is staring them in the face. When the truth is hidden.
Speaking of spin. The Internet is such a clever thing.
We’ve found the six year old draft change to the Police Injury Benefit Regulations sat on a virtual shelf gathering dust. This never became law and was first put forward in 2011. All of the proposals were dropped and there are interesting conversations between the staff side and the Home Office between what should stand and what should go. Mostly the Federation was for the proposals. We might talk about these cosy chats in another blog.
Anyway, here it is:Item6A,AnnexA
Regulation 33 (failure to attend a medical examination) of the 2006 Regulations becomes Regulation 32 in this proposal.
Remember, all these proposals were dropped. But the content of this new Regulation 32 is telling:
32.—(1) This regulation applies where a relevant medical question is referred to a medical
authority under regulation 29, 30 or 31 and the person concerned wilfully or negligently fails to—
(a) submit himself to a medical examination;
(b) attend an interview; or
(c) consent to the disclosure of medical records
which the medical authority considers necessary in order to enable him to make his decision.
The real, current and active Regulation 33 makes no reference at all to medical records. But the proposal makes an explicit reference to it. In other words the current Regulations do not do what they want it to do. So they wanted it changed. They failed.
If this is not an admission that the production of medical records is not required under the current Regs, we don’t know what is.
And why was the 2011 proposed change to the Regulations dropped? Probably because there is a provision in law that means such sweeping changes could not be applied retrospectively, and that rather defeated their point.
What the debacle of the questionnaire reveals is the untruths that underpin what certain individuals in police forces tell those who are medically retired to get them to acquiesce to unlawful demands. The HR minion tells a porky; the head of legal services finds a clever lawyer-trick to skirt a way around a “problem”; the chief constable says all is well and right in a world of right and wellness; and the PCC says the chief is the best thing since sliced bread. The IPCC says any such complaint is nothing to do with them and the cycle circulates infinitely.
The language of those who administer injury awards is therefore a truly transformative grammar. There are words which, when uttered by a such a person, lose all sense of themselves — such as ‘duty’ and ‘must’ and ‘shall’.
It is not simply that these words can mean different things to different people — it is that when these people such as supernintendo Markay, Owens and Andrew Colley use them they are at best an euphemism and at worst a downright lie.
And from that you have to draw the conclusion that their whole injury award edifice is built upon a perpetually shifting succession of imaginative falsehoods.
If IODPA is unable to do anything else, our readers can be assured we will always speak the truth and like Ockham’s razor, cut through the crazy, complicated spin and constructions spouted by those who should know better.