Judge, Jury And Jackass

“One’s dignity may be assaulted, vandalized and cruelly mocked, but it can never be taken away unless it is surrendered.”
― Michael J. Fox

There is a selected medical practitioner.  Let us be irreverent and childish and call him Dr Brush.  Dr Brush works for a particular force but sometimes he extends his range.  On one such occasion he came South, the midlands in fact, to perform a Regulation 37 review as the incumbent SMP of that parish had breathed his last breath.

On a midwinter’s morning there were two doctors sat behind a desk.  One was Dr Brush, the other was a specialist in his particular arena.  Across the desk from our two medical practitioners sat three members of the public.  Perfect in their own way, there was nothing special, remarkable or wondrous about these three other people other than one was entitled to an injury award – and accordingly Dr Brush thought this individual had no rights – and the remaining two were there to give much needed succour.  Indeed even in the surreal world of injury awards, Dr Brush must have surely been of the opinion that two doctors to one vulnerable person without any companionship would be … Oppressive? Intolerable?  Overwhelming? Abusive? You choose the appropriate adjective.

So there were five people in this room.  The medical examination under Regulation 37 “took place”.

For 200 minutes the “interview” raged.  Voices were raised.  Tempers flared.  Dr Brush thought he had evidence of substantial change but would not tell the three sat opposite him what that change was supposed to be. And then it was over, in a manner not unlike an EU/UK Brexit negotiation, without a standout conclusion.

Dr Brush had burnt himself out red faced and confrontational; the specialist was no doubt thinking along the lines “what is this corruption of an assessment“; the person with an injury award was in tears and inconsolable and suffering the manifesting agonising symptoms of the PTSD they suffered from; and the accompanying friends were thinking what corner of hell were they just privy to.

Within days the  specialist disqualified himself from the debacle – he said he can’t be party to such an intimidating process.  Mr Brush did the same but for different reasons – now without an ally he was open to be discredited and he begrudgingly walked away only after igniting a bomb – he dropped the microphone with menacingly aplomb.  Brush wrote to the midland based police force and told them the person with an injury award failed to attend a medical examination by failing to answer his questions.  The Kafkaesque interpretation is that Dr Brush did not get the answers he wanted.

Within days, thinking their ships had all come in at once with the green light from Dr Brush, the police force removed, totally and entirely, the injury award.  Suddenly the cogs of justice clunked together and a solicitor put a stop to this madness.  The injury award was restored but missed the following payroll.  Six weeks elapsed before the victim received the money they had always been due.

Roll on to the present to Staffordshire and a Dr Charlie Vivian.  Andrew Colley, the HR operative in Staffordshire has given several dates for people to see Dr Vivian.  You see, the paper-sift potential of only sending certain select individuals seemingly ripe (to Colley) for reduction through questionnaire answers has been denied to Mr Colley.  Arguably the mass review program should end here but Colley thought he had no other option but to give dates to see the SMP.

These dates were booked for late August but Staffordshire changed its mind (or Dr Vivian was otherwise engaged) and rearranged them for mid-September.  Some people were to see Dr Vivian locally in Staffordshire, some will have to travel a 180 mile round trip – it being 90 miles to Dr Vivian’s office in Cheltenham.  The arbitrary criteria to travel (or not) seemed to be based on gender.  Males got Cheltenham, females Staffordshire.

All these appointments were made with full knowledge of what the person with the injury award had or had not disclosed.  The dates were rescheduled with the same insight.

Just a matter of days before the attendance, Dr Vivian has cancelled indefinitely all the appointments on the basis that he now demands to have full medical records – the only permissible redaction he allows is where the medical records show third party identifiers of family members.

You see, Vivian – like Brush – think they are judges and that they can subpoena people to conditionally attend only if they provide full medicals from birth and that this conditional attendance isn’t under duress – no, it’s of your own volition apparently.  You “shall” do this and you “shall” do that but you shall do this willingly “or else“.

Incidentally Vivian is using the same terms inventing his quasi-judicial power than Brush used.  Coincidence?  We think not.

Staffordshire thought that by doling out dates they could pass their problem of fishing for change to justify a review to the SMP. Vivian doesn’t seem to want to play ball so he has bounced the conditional threats back to the vulnerable and disabled former officer.  DCC Baker recently told Police Oracle that no awards will be suspended.  Will they use Dr Vivian’s teddy and pram Olympic throwing event as a gold opportunity to renege on this?  If they believe Vivian’s whining remonstration then it seems judicial reviews on this matter are inevitable.

Now there is the self-made ignominious fiasco of a police pension authority (Staffordshire) trying to use the SMP to leverage compliance.  Just like Dr Brush used his position to bully and intimidate a former police officer with a psychological illness.

We remember how Dr Philip Johnson dug himself into holes by blustering and flustering when dealing with the now cancelled mass review program in Avon & Somerset.  History seems to be repeating itself.  No one working for the police seems to learn.

We thought you should know…



Judge, Jury And Jackass
Tagged on:

17 thoughts on “Judge, Jury And Jackass

  • 2017-09-13 at 10:43 am

    Unfortunately I am well aware of this case. I know the individuals concerned. They have done more good for the whole cause, by remaining dignified and silent, in the face of what can only be described as a vindictive treacherous onslaught, of vitriolic bile, thrown in their direction by the surrogate love child of a certain Nicholas Wirtz.

    Wirtz, must have selected Dr Brush as his first prey some time before this awful incident, advising, and convincing the hapless Brush, that he was NOT a Selected Medical Practitioner, but in fact was a quasi judicial officer, with powers more akin to some horrible beastie, you would find in a childrens horror story.

    This incident, bore little or no resemblance to what is generally known as a Regulation 37 Review.

    It was in essence an assault.

    Dr Brush’s sidekick obviously thought through the process PDQ, and felt that under the circumstances there was no way he was going to carry the can, for the hapless Brush, or for the sinister and Evil torturer Wirtz.

    It was of course recorded.

    Will anything become of it?

    Well, the individuals pension was reinstated, which is a good thing, but, it still leaves a torrid stain, on the whole process. But will anything be done about the manner in which this was carried out. Of course not.

    The Police, are in effect a much bigger gang, of bullies, and will always get away with it, because their attitude to telling lies, to avoid embarrassing situations is quite frankly appalling.

    It will only be a matter of time, that these idiots, do step over the line in front of the wrong person, and summary justice will prevail.

    One day, either an SMP will be killed, or an IOD will turn the gun on himself.

    Personally, I don’t give a tinkers cuss, if it involves the SMP, but the loss of ONE IOD due to the unacceptable attitude and behaviour of these Selected Medical Dick@@@ds would be terribly sad, and wrong.

  • 2017-09-04 at 8:19 am

    The problem is that so many years have passed with these doctors and HR departments going unchallenged and developing a process that is both illegal and immoral.
    The only thing an unqualified SMP should be doing when presented with specialist reports is tipping their cap in acknowledgement of the more qualified expert doctor and complete a paper excercise to HR to comment on the presence of a higher level of evidence than they can provide and suggest the degree of disablement based on evidence presented which realistically should negate a physical exam.
    But that would involve less work and less billable time.
    I wonder what drives these corrupt doctors??

  • 2017-09-03 at 7:56 pm

    This is an appeal for a good cause.

    £750 if that figure is correct seems a lot of money, but if you are not able to put in a lot of claims, that money has to go a long way. Maybe poor Doctor Vivien needs a helping hand.

    So come on you Staffs Injured On Duty Police Officers on Band 1, if you think that there has been a change in your condition, seek a review. You have nothing to lose and you may have been missing out. Come on get those requests in, it’s all in a good cause. Sailing and skiing holidays are not cheap don’t you know.

    Perhaps NARPO could help in this appeal by advising all IODs on Band 1 to seek a review. They will probably advise you to send a S.A.R. in to Staffs Police. This is basically asking for all information that they have a duty to hold on you.

  • 2017-09-03 at 5:42 pm

    Come on folks travelling around 90 miles each way to visit a Doctor can’t be that bad, just pop a few more pills to help with your disability. Be sure to visit the chemists before you go to stock up on medication. After all the good Doctor and Staffs Police could have been really vindictive and obstructive to the process. They could have sent you to Lands End or even John O Groats. Oops shouldn’t have said that, don’t want to put any ideas in to their silly little heads.

    You will have the peace of mind at the end of your journey, that you will be in the safe hands of a caring doctor, who will lend you a sympathetic ear and help you with your trauma.

    I think that we should get off the good Doctors back, after all he must be fretting about where is next £750 is coming from. Oh I know why not ask the good people of Staffordshire. Not bad for three hours skulduggery.

  • 2017-09-02 at 11:41 pm

    PPA’s consistently misbehave when performing the pension review process. We have come to expect nothing less.

    They are vile.

    But I cannot comprehend the despicable behaviour of the so called Doctors who act as SMP.

    Those who trained for at least 5 years at medical school.

    Those who supposedly care for people and, according to the guidelines of their governing body, the GMC, should put the needs of their patient above everything else.

    Dr Brush and others like him are shameful. When they stray away from their professional role of being a Doctor and breach those GMC guidelines to perform these traumatic and often unlawful reviews, and are called out for doing so, they try to rewrite their role to allow them to continue to breach those guidelines.

    Dr Brush and his cronies claim that they are “judges” in a “quasi-Judicial” role. They say for the purpose of the medical examination, they are NOT Doctors!


    So, we have a set of Doctors, acting as SMP’s, who are deliberately and actively trying to find ways to breach their own governing body guidelines.


    But to be fair, there are always two sides to every story.

    That of the SMP, and

    that of the police pensioner … and their digital recording!!

  • 2017-09-02 at 8:46 pm

    What does Dr Charles Vivian have in common with Dr Harold Shipman?

    Well they are/ we’re both medical doctors. They also had or hope to have many many victims.

    Yes Dr Shipman had over 250 victims and if Staffordshire Police have their way Dr Vivian will have a similar number if not more.

    Whilst Dr Shipman killed his victims, Dr Vivian would appear to be only interested in putting his victims down by demanding what he isn’t legally entitled to.

    Where in any Act of Parliament or accompanying regulations does it say that Doctors can demand their patients to provide previous medical records or in fact demand anything from them?

    Whilst Dr Vivian hasn’t actually killed anyone, as far as we know, it would seem that his raison d’être is to suck the life out of those unfortunate former Police Officers who through no fault of their own had to retire because they were injured doing the job they loved.

    Why would any Doctor who has sworn the Hippocratic Oath to amongst other things act “for the benefit of the sick, avoiding any voluntary act of impropriety or corruption” , behave in such a way?

    Money they say is the route of all evil and it would appear that it’s Dr Vivian’s motivation to act to the detriment of his patients. Yes that’s correct. The SMP is in a Doctor patient relationship with the injured pensioner.

    As for Staffordshire Police all they are interested in is also money. They will do anything within their power to try and save money by illegally attacking injured disabled former officers. Well shame on you both.

  • 2017-09-02 at 8:20 pm

    Doctors are held in high esteem and quite rightly so. A great family GP knows their patients and families that they CARE about.

    I believe that the majority of people enter the health profession with ideals about caring for people and making a definite difference to peoples lives.

    A plague on these few scum doctors, dragging the name of their honourable profession through the mud. You know who you are, as do we.

  • 2017-09-02 at 7:00 pm

    How can the system be judged as fair when SMPs just do the bidding of their paymasters.

    None of this would stand up to a proper investigation.

    Thank God for IODPA.

  • 2017-09-02 at 6:10 pm

    The review process is to consider IF a SUBSTANTIAL change has occurred. It is not a carte blanche to conduct a witch hunt interrogation.

    Medical records are highly personal and protected by LAW.
    No one has the right to demand access, still less under threats and or with intimidation which is exactly what has been happening.

    What reasonable and lawful purpose can there be for now demanding access to a persons medical records FROM BIRTH ?

    Not a single IOD pensioner was granted a pension before a thorough examination by a Selected Medical Practitioner supported by Specialist reports.

    These are not work shy individuals trying to scam the system. The fact that they are DISABLED has already been established.

    No Medical Practitioner worth his salt should ever have anything to do with any action or process that is not conducted within the best principles and practices of their profession.

    If they are ever in doubt they should seek guidance from the General Medical Council.

    It does appear that some MedicalPractitioners are in dire need of such guidance.

  • 2017-09-02 at 1:25 pm

    Glad to hear this perhaps now Staffordshire will realise that this unlawful review is going to be more of a headache than they thought.

  • 2017-09-01 at 8:20 pm

    The comment made mentioning toe rags is a good explanation for the way these SMP’s act. It’s as if the SMP’s think they are dealing with toe rags, liars, cheats etc. They are dealing with Police Officers being/ having been retired due to an injury on duty. These injuries can have affected the whole lives of these IOD pensioners yet they are being dealt with callously and dishonestly. It may well be that those activities have gone unnoticed before now but, believe me, they are being well observed now by an ever growing group of previously and presently bullied and abused IOD Pensioners who have found IODPA!

    Whatever schemes, devices, conspiracies and lies being used presently by SMP’s and HR’s to REDUCE any IOD pensions, unlawfully, are being dealt with and new case law is being formed regularly to stomp out these villains.

    It is time that the Police Injury Pension rules and regulations laws were completely adhered to lawfully and any unlawful acts involved acted upon with suitable punishments. Every action has a consequence, good or bad. It’s time for these consequences to come about and the job done properly. Some of these SMP’s, particularly Dr B and DrV should be disbarred!

  • 2017-09-01 at 3:26 pm

    As retired police officers that have served under the rules of PACE this Dr Vivian and Dr Brush are laughable in their demands. Just imagine sitting in front of Billy the Burglar at the commencement of a PACE interview and saying.
    “You will answer all my questions”
    “You will give me all the evidence”
    “You will provide me with all you accomplishes”
    The reply from the toe rag would be, after they have wet themselves laughing.
    “No comment init”
    Imagine the solicitors face, imagine a judges face.
    Why then is it that Dr V and Dr B feel that they can treat us worse than the tie rags we used to lock up?
    They call themselves quasi Judges and the only reason for that is because Nicholas Twerps told them all they were at a NAMF training session.
    Well good luck with that and if you read this blog you SMPs out there you must realise that your gravy train is slowly grinding to a halt and there is no more coal to keep you going.

  • 2017-09-01 at 2:35 pm

    I was initially assessed by Dr. Charles Vivian. I found him to be understanding, compassionate and fair. He told me that I probably would not qualify for an award as I barely had a 24% disability. He promised that in his report he would do the best he could for me. When my award finally came through (it took 7 months of waiting and wondering) I received a 50% award. I put this down entirely to the way Dr. Vivian phrased his report. Incidentally, while he works out of Cheltenham he is willing to travel and when I explained my problems with driving he came to visit me at a neutral location between Oxford and London, saving me a two hour journey each way.

    • 2017-09-01 at 3:09 pm

      Good to hear. He needs to carry that compassion across to all those that are placed in front of him

    • 2017-09-03 at 7:49 pm

      Sounds to me that Vivian wrote this himself! Any percentage from 0 to 24 inclusive is a Band 1 injury award. So, he obviously doesn’t know the regs.

      You have problems driving and he still made you drive halfway to Cheltenham? How very accommodating! Perhaps he should have seen you at home after all he’s getting paid for it. You weren’t!

      Maybe I’m a cynic but I don’t think this reply is genuine.

      • 2017-09-03 at 9:25 pm

        I am afraid that you, like me, are a cynic. (I think it’s a by-product of the job). I can only speak as I find. Many people on this thread are making judgements of Dr. Vivian but I seem to be the only person who has met, and been assessed, by him.
        Regarding the comment about travel – I explained, by ‘phone, prior to my interview, that driving was difficult. Dr. Vivian suggested a suitable location only 7 miles from where I lived. He had to drive about 50 – 60 miles to meet me there.
        Before you repeat, or expand, on your suggestion; I’m not Charles Vivian, I’m not in his pay or employment, I’ve only met him twice and I’m not a friend of his. I have not met or communicated with him since the early 2000s when he worked for a different company. From LinkedIn I believe that he now runs his own company specialising in this type of assessment. Perhaps he has changed in the last 10 or so years but I can only relate my experience of his assessment of my condition.

      • 2017-09-03 at 9:42 pm

        I, like you, am a cynic (It comes as part of the job). I am not Charles Vivian. Unlike the people contributing to this thread I have met, and been assessed, by Dr. Vivian. I can only speak as I find. My assessment was several years ago (2010) and maybe Dr. Vivian has changed his attitude, or allegiances, recently.
        Regarding travelling – Dr. Vivian rang me prior to our meeting and I explained my difficulty with driving. He arranged a meeting 7 miles from where I live but 50 – 60 miles from Cheltenham.
        I repeat that I am NOT Charles Vivian; neither am I an employee, friend, associate of Dr. Vivian, having only met him on two occasions and those meetings were nearly a decade ago.

Comments are closed.