The Truth Of It

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”

Injured ex-officer sees pension reinstated after legal fight

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.

 

 

 

The Truth Of It

23 thoughts on “The Truth Of It

  • 2017-08-18 at 7:56 am
    Permalink

    I sincerely hope that Police Forces and the corrupt minions acting on their behalf read the blogs and comments on this website.

    There should be a lot of police staff involved in the review of police pensioners injured on duty, feeling worry and concern at the part they have played.

    However, I suspect that their arrogance gets the better of them and they believe they are untouchable.

    Clearly, in the eyes of these Forces, we are just a group of moaning, undeserving nobodies who can be treated in such an appalling manner with no comeback at all.

    Oh how I wish we could disclose some of what our lawyers intend in the future. The vast amount of work that is taking place behind the scenes to bring some of these criminals, because that is what they are, to buck for their part in these criminal review processes.

    We know it will take some time. We’re not in any rush. But the wait will be worth it.




    0



    0
  • 2017-08-07 at 9:11 pm
    Permalink

    Why do Staffs executives continue to ‘lie’ about matters relating to IOD.

    We have had enough of all the rubbish, bring it on and do your worse !




    0



    0
  • 2017-08-02 at 1:16 pm
    Permalink

    How very appropriate to introduce Malcolm Tucker to theses pages. For those who don’t know Malcolm, I would describe him as an arrogant, manipulative bully. Does that description fit someone you may have had dealings with lately ? In my minds eye I can see this character prowling along those corridors of various Police H.Qs buildings.

    For those that have not seen the sit com The Thick Of It, I urge you to do so. You may identify other characters in it. It is fall of Back Stabbers, Bum Licks and other spineless self serving creeps. Again in my minds eye I can also see these odious creatures lurking in those same corridors.

    BBC Political Satire The Thick Of It




    0



    0
  • 2017-08-02 at 6:47 am
    Permalink

    Trying
    Still trying
    Very trying
    I feel so very personally insulted by all of this, I gave my everything to the job I lived for and loved.
    The job took all of that away from me and pensioned me off after an injury on duty, I’m shocked and dismayed to see the unlawful ways forces are trying to take pensions from their injured officers.




    0



    0
  • 2017-08-01 at 11:07 am
    Permalink

    Alas Poor Yorick I knew him well!

    Heavens forbid, that a ” Civvie ” should fall on his or her sword for what is commonly called ” Fu@@ing it up ”

    Avon and Somerset have at least had the good grace in the end to realise that indeed they had ” Fu@@ed it Up ”

    It took them three years mind you to realise that in fact they had driven an articulated lorry into a narrowing cul de sac with standard SatNav , that failed not only to notify them of the the low bridge but there was a sharp bend at the end of it, plus the only way out, was to reverse all the way out.

    This author along with some others realised two years ago, that withdrawal was the only option open to them.

    You would have thought that given the sums of money involved, that just maybe, someone would have been held, erm accountable.

    Of Course Not!!

    Instead, despite being asked through Freedom of Information requests, how and where they intend to account for this large amount of money, in their financial accounting process, together with the size and quantity of calamitous errors, caused by civilian staff, the Avon and Somerset Constabulary, true to their customary tactic, have shut up shop, declaring everything, to do with Injury on Duty Pensions, the selection of crawler reverse gear out of the culdesac, and anything whatsoever linked, vexatious under S14 of the FOIA, no doubt protected by their very good compatriots in that other useless and toothless quango the ICO.

    The simple FACT is this, there are three relevant Acts of Parliament. The Police Pensions Act 1976, the 1987 Police Regulations, and the 2006 Police Injury Benefit Regulations.

    All anyone with half a brain had to do was to READ them and then UNDERSTAND them. Obviously too much to ask.

    Instead, the Police having been soundly rebuffed by the Home Office after the withdrawal of 46/2004 put ALL their eggs in one basket, with a certain Nicholas Wirtz at the then NAMF.

    Had they bothered to check the guys ” Feedback ” scores in the first instance, or check out a few reviews of their own, they might have thought better of it, because this guy is a serial loser.

    Oh the beauty of hindsight!

    The simple fact of the matter is, that in the ” Review ” game they were about to play, the ” Rules of engagement ” simply did not allow them to do what they wanted them to do. They wanted to pass go, AND collect the £200!

    But generally, if you drive a big enough truck at it, something usually gives, this was their great hope, then precedent could be followed.

    However, they picked a fight, with a group of ex Police Officers, who had nothing else to do with themselves during the day or night, who were immensely motivated!

    They have obviously not tried to get money out of a Police Officer for the Tea fund, so when some upstart comes along with a ruse, to chop their pension in half, they seriously underestimated the fight they were going to have on their hands!

    I mean seriously, what did they really think of their questionnaire?

    Do you drive a car? Yes.

    What sort of car? A silver one

    IF, they had gone about this properly, a questionnaire and a paper review would perhaps have made sense.

    But now, they have lost so much credibility, they could send out a questionnaire signed by the Queen herself, and it will end up in the bin.

    Back to the drawing board, for everyone. Those Forces who stayed out of it, ” watching” from afar, must be laughing their nuts off.

    But, STAFFORDSHIRE, seem to have hired the same size truck that AS had, and are happily driving it down a windy country lane as we speak.

    IT’S GOING TO GET STUCK! HELLO!! ANYONE IN THERE? YOU ARE GOING TO GET THAT LORRY STUCK IN AN ALMIGHTY MESS.

    They won’t listen. Gareth Morgan is pig ignorant, and I genuinely hope that all the Band 1’s in STAFFS go for a reconsideration, because the use of PEAM is unlawful, and I would dearly like to see STAFFS ordered to repay all the money they have illegitimately snaffled from their IOD’s.

    NOW that WOULD BE FUNNY!




    0



    0
  • 2017-08-01 at 5:30 am
    Permalink

    Just as you think that they can’t do anything worse than they, the Police, have already done they just blunder on regardless.

    Another victory for IODPA, i dread to think what carnage would have happened had it not been for their persistent research and monitoring and unwavering support.

    oustanding




    0



    0
  • 2017-08-01 at 1:55 am
    Permalink

    When are they going to remember we are all ex cops and legal things is what we did/do.
    They covers are off and they need to watch their backs.
    They may get away with it now but we’ve all seen retrospective enquiries into actions of the police result in them getting in the brown.
    Their actions affect people’s health and are dishonest and fraudulent.
    Are they stupid enough to not see us coming up behind them with a set of cuffs.
    Might be a lengthy pursuit but we,ll get them in the end.




    0



    0
  • 2017-07-31 at 1:46 pm
    Permalink

    I wish I could say this is shocking, sadly it is not. As an injured officer I’m broken and down. However it seems that I’m constantly being kicked whilst down for being a cash burden. Well I’m sorry that I got injured and broken beyond repair, a physical and mental burden I have to live with for life. Now I have the constant assault on my integrity, and permanent concern about the forces trying to remove my only means of living from me, by any way they can possibly try to. There is only so much a person can take!




    0



    0
  • 2017-07-31 at 11:38 am
    Permalink

    Oh dear, did the HR types and ACPO think that their attepted tinkering with the rules would go unnoticed.

    Well you have to remember there are some better investigators in IODPA than you could ever have on your forces, why, because they were trained in the art properly in the first place not like some of the wet weeks you currently employ, most of them couldn’t find their ass with a torch.

    Forces which are reviewing ought to give it up in the face of overwhelming odds, and whilst they still maintain a shred of credibility.




    0



    0
  • 2017-07-31 at 10:11 am
    Permalink

    HR, SMPs and CC’s deliberately intimidate. They know the IOD’s involved whose interests differ from theirs and use intimidation and misinformation as a weapon. The power to intimidate in this case is carefully though amateurishly disguised as part of their armoury. They naively play upon what they perceive as the IOD’s sense of powerlessness and fear, particularly a fear of reprisal. Whilst they keep us with this sense of fear they can control and avoid reprisal, that is until……IODPA opened our eyes! The boot is firmly on the other foot don’t fear reprisals, those effected by these perverse and unlawful methods go for a Reg 32 (2) reconsideration and hit hem where it hurts, no not the genitalia as most of those involved have been emasculated but in their pockets!




    0



    0
  • 2017-07-31 at 10:05 am
    Permalink

    Is a shame that forces like Staffs and others in the NMAF/NWEF circle, not spend their time more constructively, ratger than trying to find new ways to circumvent the Regulations. How many times has a HR minnion been criticised at JR for unlawful decisions or actions.

    To try to ‘spin’ this that only the withdrawal was wrong, shows how much contempt they have for law that they don’t agree with.




    0



    0
  • 2017-07-31 at 9:27 am
    Permalink

    Another great find by the IODPA. Who ever writes these articles should be employed by the Home Office, they would save millions of pounds a year in wasted tax payers money.

    Once again well done IODPA, you’re support in greatly appreciated. where would I be with out it!!!!




    0



    0
  • 2017-07-30 at 10:58 pm
    Permalink

    https://staffordshire-pcc.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Item-9.-Terms-of-Reference-DRAFT-June-2015.pdf

    The link to Staffordshire PCC Ethics, Transparency and Audit Panel.

    It is quite a substantial document and makes an interesting read.

    If there is something very wrong going on in Staffordshire in regard to the review of pensioned officers and it is the Chief Constable leading that review then it seems to me that the PCC and this panel would want to know about it.

    As the document states

    AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
    As an independent body, the Ethics, Transparency and Audit Panel (ETAP), known throughout this document as the Panel, will seek to provide assurance to the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) and also to the Chief Constable around decisions, policies and processes of both organisations.

    A review of the decisions taken and the subsequent process would surely reassure the PCC, CC and the panel that it is all good, no worries and most importantly no impact on budgets and the public purse, no dishonesty or abuse of position, no litigation costs and all decisions made in an ethical way with proper ‘checks and balances’ along the way!

    These are weighty matters and ones which appear to be spiralling out of control.

    If everything is above board and in line with the legislation and recent case law then one would presume that these reviews could be swiftly dealt with without referral to the courts and the additional costs that court action would bring.

    The next meeting is in August and is open to the public, an ideal time to reassure everyone involved that there is oversight and that they (ETAP)keep a close eye on matters like this!




    0



    0
    • 2017-07-31 at 8:47 am
      Permalink

      Sorry to say we’ve been down this road with the panel on another issue relating to Staffs Police and the panel and PCC did nothing but back the CC .In my opinion it’s just a token panel and they will let the Police and PCC do whatever!




      0



      0
    • 2017-07-31 at 12:02 pm
      Permalink

      So if the CC (this one and the last) and PCC have already discussed and agreed the reviews,
      does that mean that they are ‘in it together’ and they may both be held to account for their actions???




      0



      0
  • 2017-07-30 at 5:32 pm
    Permalink

    Bent, corrupt, criminal, odious or just plain evil. I am not describing the likes of the Kray twins or the Moors Murdereres no I am referring to the likes of Peter Owens and the Stupidintendent Murky. Both the worst kind of HR person you may have the displeasure to meet.
    Peter Owens funnily enough is a band one IOD, and he has given himself the power to reduce IODS on the return of an illegal questionnaire even though it has to be an SMP that reduces awards.
    His side kick Stupidintehdent Murky just goes along with it all probably because he either isn’t intelligent enough to understand the regs or he just can’t be bothered to read them for himself.
    I hope that they have the decency to write to those IODS they have reduced on the return of a questionnaire and say we have made a mistake and your banding has been changed back the the original banding and the money you have lost will be returned in your next pay packet.
    What’s the chance of that happening? Nothing because arrogance and egos will not let it and to admit they were wrong in the first place is to admit we were right, and that will never do.
    More money wasted in court I presume.




    0



    0
  • 2017-07-30 at 4:35 pm
    Permalink

    If the cycle begins with an HR flunky breaking the law, he/she should be allowed the opportunity to defend themselves in a court of law. This is where prosecutions need to be brought, to deter other bright sparks and their bright money saving ideas in future to LEAVE THE REGS ALONE.




    0



    0
  • 2017-07-30 at 2:38 pm
    Permalink

    Jeez, I was thinking I couldn’t be shocked anymore over the behaviour of the official side! They are malicious, vindictive and lying ba****ds! You couldn’t describe them any other way. Criminals are treated with a hell of a lot more respect than injured ex officers.

    Is it simply beyond these people to adhere to lawful regulations?

    In my time on the streets I obviously came into contact with so many people of criminal intent. However, a lot of these people still acted with a higher amount of decency than the so called Senior Officers and HR/Legal people.

    Absolutely disgraceful!




    0



    0
  • 2017-07-30 at 1:59 pm
    Permalink

    Something is so seriously wrong about the behind doors goings on in some Police Legal and HR Departments, Home office, self appointed new national organisation (NWEF), SMP’s that it is time a full legal inquiry was made into them. It seems the focus of all these departments is how to save money on IOD pensions.

    Don’t any of them care about what happens when an officer is injured and is forced to retire? Their whole lives are turned upside down. All their plans for a secure future are ripped away from them. Marriages are broken, families separated because of the stresses and strains of dealing with symptoms and pain of an injury on duty. They don’t know who they are anymore or where they are going. As if this wasn’t bad enough they now have to deal with the harassment and even bullying by the force they had loved and trusted.

    An injury on duty pension was organised many many years ago to safeguard any officers who could no longer do the job. There are rules and regulations to follow and, for anyone with any amount of intelligence, it can be seen just reading those rules and regulations that they are worded to assist the IOD OFFICER who has been forced out of what he thought was a job for life, NOT the greedy bastids who want higher salaries and are kissing ass to make everyone else happy.

    IODPA is going to straighten all these unlawful betrayals out!! Watch out! RIGHT IS MIGHT!!!




    0



    0
  • 2017-07-30 at 11:27 am
    Permalink

    There is only one set of Injury Pension Regulations. They were written and intended to look after the interests and welfare of officers injured on duty. Read in that context they are clear and unambiguous. To those who are concerned in administering and overseeing the the implementation of the regs I can offer this advice:- READ THEM. Don’t take the word of someone else such as NWEF as gospel, – read them for yourself and if you still don’t understand them, read the relevant blogs on this site which are factually correct. If you still don’t understand them, GET ANOTHER JOB.




    0



    0
  • 2017-07-30 at 10:13 am
    Permalink

    I am a very new member of the IODPA having only become aware of the organisation after reading the article about Merseyside Police. One of the things which causes me great concern about the actions of the various “civil servants” who work for government departments is that they are generally not amenable for their actions. Despite the cost of those actions where, as in this case, the force concerned has to pay the legal costs of both sides – no action is ever taken against those who initiated the procedure in the first place. If I decide to take legal action and I subsequently lose – I pay the bill. Not so these faceless individuals. If the person who initiates the action had to pay the costs associated with those actions I think there would be fewer such actions. Come the day when those who discriminate, remove or suspend pensions etc are individually liable for their actions. Fewer such actions would be taken, methinks.




    0



    0
  • 2017-07-30 at 10:04 am
    Permalink

    Police injury pensions are governed by the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006.

    These Regulations are a form of Statutory Instrument.

    Statutory instruments are made in a variety of forms, most commonly Orders in Council, regulations, rules and orders.

    Statutory Instruments are a form of legislation which allow the provisions of an Act of Parliament to be subsequently brought into force or altered without Parliament having to pass a new Act.

    Hence the injury benefit Regulations are made by a Minister of State and are not subject to the same level of Parliamentary scrutiny and debate which is required when primary legislation is being proposed.

    The injury on duty Regulations are made under provision of the Police Pensions Act 1976.

    The Minister does not sit down at his desk and dream up regulations. He may initiate the process of revision or updating, but the actual work is done by civil servants.

    The Minister responsible for binning the 2011 draft update/revision of the 2006 Regulations will have known that the proposed inclusion of compelling IOD pensioners to give access to medical records would not be lawful. That power would be challenged very swiftly by means of a judicial review the first time it was used.

    It would not stand. The reason being that secondary legislation can not overrule primary legislation. The ‘give us your medical records, or else’ provision is contrary to the Data Protection Act – which is primary legislation.

    The proposed provision is also arguably contrary to the Access To Medical Reports Act.

    What we are witnessing now, with Merseyside and Staffordshire, are feeble and underhand attempts to bring into general practice procedures which are unlawful. However, if they were allowed to continue, and even spread elsewhere, the Home Office would undoubtedly claim that it was normal procedure, accepted by all concerned. On the back of that they would try again to get something into the next update of the injury benefit Regulations.

    The Home Office has lost the plot. It is trying to use techniques which are no longer effective. They are whispering in ears, trying to exert influence, scratching away with their quill pens, whilst IOD pensioners use the combined power of being able to instantly communicate with each other, share information, devise strategy to counter threats to their pensions, and to implement legal challenges effectively. IOD pensioners have a radar system which detects and alerts every time a force, the NWEF, the Home Office or individuals such as those mentioned above, try to find a way around the law.




    0



    0

Comments are closed.