“Who are you to judge the life I live?
I know I’m not perfect
-and I don’t live to be-
but before you start pointing fingers…
make sure you hands are clean!”
― Bob Marley
Some SMPs have acquired a fundamental misunderstanding of what is meant by them acting in a quasi-judicial capacity when conducting their part in a review of the degree of disablement in respect of the injury pension of former officers.
They have gone so far, in some instances, of thinking they have the power to direct IOD pensioners to do certain things – like handing over their medical records from birth, or travelling many miles to attend an appointment at the convenience of the SMP. Some try, (and fail) to forbid the pensioner having a friend, supporter, carer or chaperone present during a medical interview or examination. Some, in the grip of their delusions, have taken to calling a medical examination a ‘medical inquisition’. One SMP even thinks she is a Judge and is in the habit of ordering all and sundry to do her bidding, but we discount the rumours that she has a wig and ermine trimmed robe which she secretly wears in the bathroom at home.
The plain fact is that SMPs and even Police Pension Authorities, under whose authority they act, have no power to command or demand anything of a police injury on duty pensioner. Merseyside police recently came a cropper on this exact same point by capitulating on a judicial review. Ron Thompson of Haven solicitors said,
“This was an unnecessary and totally avoidable dispute. All the Chief Constable’s staff had to do was to read the wording of the Regulations to see that they had no power to force former officers to hand over medical notes or fill in questionnaires, particularly in advance of any decision to make a referral to the SMP. The lesson from this episode for Forces is that no amount of misguided “advice” from the National Attendance Management Forum can change the meaning of the words of the Regulations.
Any other Force that tries this tactic can expect to be served with the same type of legal challenge”
Yes, you read that right. No power whatever. If any HR manager, SMP or Police Pension Authority thinks otherwise, then IODPA has just this to say to them – ‘See you in court.’
At review, a SMP is required to make a decision. That’s it. That all parties are bound by the final decision (final if not appealed) is where the quasi-judicial bit comes from, and that is where it ends. The SMP’s decision is an action taken on behalf of a public administrative agency, the police pension authority, and a SMP is obliged upon to decide a question as the foundation for official actions. In plain words, they make a medical decision, and hand that decision to the PPA. A decision, only once made and so final that the PPA has to act in accordance with it, and is forbidden to alter, change or dismiss or get HR to pipe into a magic calculator to spit out a band one, is de facto a quasi-judicial decision. The decision. Not the process or the process maker.
But let us delve into the murky world of SMP’s enthusiastically failing to act as an independent arbitrators. It is a fundamental requirement that any decision-maker should be impartial. ‘Disinterested’ is the word – have no axe to grind, nothing to gain or lose by making a decision, neither having the interests of the pensioner or the PPA in mind, but being a servant of the law, medical ethics and of reason. Making a decision on verifiable facts and on professional opinion, and being prepared to explain and justify that decision.
We would like here to focus on the antics of one SMP – Dr Charlie Vivian, who works as SMP for Staffordshire PPA (police pension authority). (A reminder to readers – the PPA is none other than the Chief Constable alone.)
Dr Charlie Vivian says the process, his process, is quasi-judicial, but we are not convinced he understands what that means. His actions indicate he thinks he has unbridled power, including the right to discard the normal legal and ethical standards of conduct required of a decision-maker.
At a rare and brief resumption of normality, the National Wellbeing and Engagement Forum (formerly the NAMF) reconvened in September after their lack of members hiatus, and Dr Vivian sat at the same table as Andrew Colley of Staffordshire HR. This is unacceptable. Wouldn’t it be quite a thing for a judge or a coroner to seen hobnobbing over lunch with representatives of the prosecution and having discussions during the course of which the acceptability of process is discussed in the absence of the defendant and the public?
This behaviour would not serve the best interests of open, transparent justice but it’s sadly happened before. Health Management Ltd. has a Home Office contract to run police medical appeal boards but they only recently realised attending NWEF/NAMF compromises their independence. Or perhaps they knew all along but thought that nobody would notice, or care.
Their realisation of the bias was minuted in the June 2016 NAMF conference
This never stopped the chair of HML (and therefore head of all PMAB panelists) regularly attending NAMF himself whilst on the side labeling himself as a consultant of HML and giving speeches to the Association of Local Authority Medical Advisors (ALAMA) on the pitfalls SMPs face at PMAB hearings.
Take a look at this agenda of a 2012 ALAMA conference
Wallington spent 45 minutes advising SMPs about how to avoid the pitfalls for the unwary at a PMAB. Perhaps Wallington should perform the same service for those disabled former officers who are forced to attend PMABs because of an unjust SMP decision?
The Home Office has declared via a freedom of information request that very same Dr Wallington is the only PMAB panel member to attend a NAMF conference. Just look at question 5 found towards the bottom of this request:
34242.pdf
This is an HTML version of an attachment to the Freedom of Information request ‘ Police Medical Appeal Board’.
Vivian claims he acts in a quasi-judicial capacity, but like Wallington, the company he keeps seems to suggest he is in cahoots with one side to the detriment of the other. What legal precedent does Dr Vivian rely on in the quasi-judicial matters in hand? First off, he thinks he is a coroner. Secondly, he thinks the Scottish high court judgement of Rooney v Strathclyde 2008 empowers him to be a coroner. The Rooney case is not dissimilar to the England & Wales judicial review of Sidwell v Derbyshire 2015. Both say a court only has limited scope to interfere with medical opinions supporting decision to compulsorily retire a police officer.
We’ve delved into the inner workings of the Internet and found the Rooney case. Here is it is:
MATTHEW ROONEY Petitioner; against STRATHCLYDE JOINT POLICE BOARD
There is the not insignificant matter that Scottish courts have no judicial precedent over England & Wales as Scotland has a different legal system. Judicial precedent refers to the set of rules specifying when a court must have regard to, or consider, the decision of another court, and the circumstances in which the decision of that other court is binding. What is decided in Scotland applies only to Scotland.
Quoting a Scottish court decision to support a view is rather like claiming that as they drive on the right in Canada, then it is OK to do so in Burton-on-Trent.
Vivian also has the problem that the Rooney judgement, read in its entirety, does not give SMPs in Scotland the quasi-judicial power he purports it does. In fact the only reference to the term “quasi-judicial” comes from an extract from a letter written by the solicitors for the Medical and Dental Defence Union of Scotland (MDDUS) to palliate the position of the SMP, a Dr Patience.
The purpose of the letter was to inform Rooney’s solicitors that the MDDUS was content that Dr Patience’s decision should be defended by Stathclyde Joint Police Board, and that Dr Patience would not therefore be taking part in the proceedings.
The judges in the Rooney case didn’t say, as claimed:
The regulations required him to act in a quasi-judicial capacity and to construe complex regulations that have been the subject of repeated litigation in recent years, and to grasp legal distinctions of some nicety … However, he did not have the benefit of a legally qualified clerk or assessor.
The above was actually quoted in this letter from the SMP’s professional body, the MDDUS. So Dr Vivian is using a quote from a letter, referring to a Scottish court case, from a professional body representing the very doctor whose decision is being challenged, and is claiming this as a legal precedent and therefore case law! Wow … just wow.
We don’t expect our lawyers to be experts on medical matters, and neither do the Regulations expect SMPs to be experts on legal matters. They have to follow the Regulations, and if they need guidance in that respect, they should be able to rely on their PPA. As so many PPA’s have little to no grasp of the requirements of the Regulations, and as the Home Office has decided not to issue any more guidance, SMPs have been turning to the biased and plainly wrong opinions presented by the likes of Nicholas Wirz, via the College of Policing and the NWEF.
That is a recipe for disaster. Just as our wrong-headed driver in Burton-On-Trent would discover.
So back to our quasi-judicialness. The decision of a SMP is final and is binding on all parties (save if appealed via Regulation 31 or Regulation 32) or challenged by way of judicial review. This is the only meaning implied by the Regulations in a judicial sense.
Scotland has The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service which is the independent public prosecution service for Scotland and is an inquisitorial legal system where the court or a part of the court is actively involved in investigating the facts of the case. England & Wales does not have anything remotely close to this.
Dr Vivian, the NWEF, and Wirz should not be quoting Scottish law to bolster their biased and self-serving perversions of the Regulations. That itself is bad enough, and is unprofessional in the extreme, but we are appalled to see them use these false arguments to attempt to bully and bluster vulnerable disabled people into compliance with their extra-regulatory demands.
The role of a SMP is not quasi-judicial. The decision of a SMP is quasi-judicial insomuch that it is a decision which invokes finality and has to be implemented. Dr Vivian, please take note.
…And they call Police officers “pigs” ????!!!!
The Regulations state that a pensioner in receipt of an IODA will be seen by & here is the clue for those complete idiotic imbeciles at the top of the tree, a SELECTED MEDICAL PRACTITIONER.
Maybe they need a dictionary, but those three words are perfectly described in the English Dictionary.
Strangely they actually mean the same in any language in the world.
Nicholas Wirtz, yes that erstwhile non descript bespectacled straight haired buffoon from ” Up North ” thinks it means something else.
Fine…. let him think that.
At your review, First Question is are you a Doctor registered with the GMC.
If the clown says no, I’m a quasi judicial judge, authority, whatever get up and walk out!
You may as well offer or submit to be examined by a car mechanic.
IF he says yes, you then ask him whether for the purpose of your review he is going to comply with the GMC guidelines , specifically regarding dual responsibility, and whether he or she is going to act as your Doctor, and you as his or her patient.
If he or she says no.
Get up and walk out.
It really is quite simple.
The regulations are simple, it is the twisted minds of people who try and over complicate them, for their own ill gotten gain that makes them complicated.
Why is it that they are constantly being brought before tribunals, courts while they attempt to screw over the unsuspecting IOD, who for some inexplicable reason, thinks,that they, the Police, will do him or her no harm?
In all my time I never came across a bent copper.
That is solely because I didn’t frequent with Senior Officers. Nuff said
The reference to ” get HR to pipe into a magic calculator to spit out a band one” is so very true.
At the time of my last review, several years prior to the introduction of the withdrawn Home Office guidance, the SMP assessed me at 55%. At my very last review the SMP used income figures he had plucked from mid-air and using a formula he arrived at a disablement figure of 0.87%. How very convenient.
The SMP carried out his review on paper and not by means of a medical examination or even reference to the opinion of doctors who had examined me.
The object of all these reviews is to reduce the cost of these injury pensions. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the well-being of police officers injured on duty. The Forces who permit their SMP’s to use these unlawful methods could care less. If they want to save money, why not cut out the SMP altogether and just use someone in HR and the “magic calculator”.
A very well written article and well researched.
I too have been subjected to the illegal process which was adopted by my Force following the introduction of the now withdrawn Home Office Circular 46/2004. However, subsequent reviews and a PMAB, that I have gone through, reveal that illegal methods are still being employed.
It is in the interests of these rogue SMP’s and others associated to the process to continue with these methods because they are receiving payment with absolutely no risk to themselves, apparently.
As for Doctor Wallington attending NAMF that is at best an example of bad judgment but at worst an example of collusion which is inexcusable.
My Chief Constable at the time of my injury on duty was an honorable man who visited me at my home. The current Chief may very well be just as honorable but on the other hand he might be just sticking his head in the sand hoping the problem will disappear.
Well it won’t.
Dr Broome considers himself as Judge, Jury and Executioner in each and every case he handles., let alone ‘quasi judge’. Yet he loses all cases where his decision is appealed. He is a person hired by the Police Force to supposedly give HIS INDEPENDENT OPINION on the present condition of an injury on duty received by a Police officer at some time in the past. It seems to be completely overlooked that there would have to have been ‘a substantial improvement or deterioration in that condition’ for him to be ever brought in to give that opinion. How come he is still being used by a Force? Does the CC know that he/she is the one held responsible?
If Broome, who is supposed to be a Doctor, was working in an NHS hospital would he be more truthful in his opinions or would he be losing patients thick and fast? In which case his manner would be brought to question a lot quicker than it appears to be doing here and he would be fired, and possibly prosecuted and jailed.
There should be a way that each and every IOD pensioner he has lied about and put through hell by his decisions could actually sue him personally for his actions. It may teach him where his priorities SHOULD be! Oh! Wait a minute! There IS a way for this to happen! A Class Action through IODPA. I wonder if that were to happen would Broome still consider himself a quasi Judge and fight the case under that premise?
I know a police pensioner.
Injured in the line of duty, they received a catastrophic psychological injury which had, and continues to have, a devastating impact on them and their family.
The pensioner was required to attend a medical assessment with 2 SMP’s, Dr Broome and Dr Mumford.
Dr Broome had determined that there was evidence of a substantial alteration in the pensioner’s degree of disability within their medical records which is why he requested that the pensioner attend an assessment.
The assessment lasted over 3 hours. Dr Broome was not happy about the pensioner, suffering from serious mental health issues, being accompanied at the assessment. The pensioner argued that they could not cope with the assessment without support.
The pensioner screamed and cried throughout the assessment as they were so traumatised. During the 3 hours, neither of the Doctors asked the severely distressed pensioner if they were alright or if they required a break or a drink
The pensioner answered everything they were asked but Dr Broome repeatedly refused to provide the details of the apparent evidence of substantial alteration to the pensioner.
The SMP’s, Dr Broome and Dr Mumford, made a number of statements which are a significant cause for concern:
Broome: THIS IS AN INQUISITORIAL MEDICAL PROCESS
Broome: I AM CHAIRING THIS MEETING. I CAN DECIDE WHO ATTENDS
Broome: I’M NOT YOUR DOCTOR. I’M ESSENTIALLY A MEDICAL JUDGE
(When repeatedly begged to disclose the supposed evidence of substantial alteration)
Broome: YOU’RE ASKING A JUDGE TO GIVE A JUDGEMENT BEFORE THE CLOSING EVIDENCE
Mumford: THE WAY TO THINK OF THIS IS BEING LIKE A TRIAL … YOU’RE ASKING US TO SAY WHETHER SOMEONE IS GUILTY OR NOT GUILTY.
(When asked if this is how a Doctor should behave)
Broome: I’M SEEING YOU AS A MEDICAL JUDGE TODAY AND THAT ACTUALLY COMES UNDER PROCEDURAL
Pensioner: YOU’RE NOT MY DOCTOR THEN?
Broome: NO, NO I’M NOT
The pensioner asked Dr Broome if he was fully aware of the GMC guidelines regarding a Doctor-patient relationship and the first concern of a Doctor being that of the welfare of the patient:
Broome: YES. YOU’RE NOT MY PATIENT
Pensioner: HOW CAN I NOT BE YOUR PATIENT?
Broome: WELL, YOU’RE NOT I’M AFRAID
Broome: YOU’VE GOT TO ANSWER MY QUESTIONS
Pensioner: I’VE GOT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS?
Broome: YES
The pensioner stated that they would answer all of the questions when Dr Broome provided details of the apparent evidence of substantial alteration
Broome: IT’S NOT A CONDITIONAL THING. WE’RE HERE TO CARRY OUT AN INQUISITORIAL PROCESS
The pensioner had not provided consent for the SMP’s to have or use their full medical records but Dr Broome was in possession of the full medical records and when repeatedly told that he did not have the pensioners consent or permission to have or use the records he said:
Broome: WELL I HAVE THEM
Pensioner: YOU CAN’T USE THEM, MR MUMFORD CAN’T USE THEM
Broome: NO, I CAN USE THEM
The full details of this so-called medical assessment are quite literally unbelievable. No decent human being would treat another, suffering from severe mental health issues, in the manner these two SMP’s did.
During the assessment, Dr Broome claimed not to have seen a medical questionnaire completed by the pensioner. This questionnaire was completed when the pensioner was falsely informed by the Police that they MUST fill it in to avoid the possibility of their injury award being reduced. The pensioner revoked consent for its use prior to the assessment.
Dr Broome claimed not to have seen a report from the pensioners GP, denying the “incredulous” suggestion that there had been any substantial alteration in the medical condition.
The pensioner ‘spotted’ both of these documents amongst Dr Broome’s papers in his file and challenged him. He stuttered and spluttered and claimed that they had been lost amongst his paperwork which is why he had not seen them!!
The pensioner wrote to both SMP’s at the conclusion of the assessment to complain that they were in possession of, and had used medical records for which they did not have consent.
Dr Mumford wrote immediately to the pensioner and declared he had withdrawn his services as he did not want to be part of such an “acrimonious process.”
Dr Broome wrote to the Police Pensions Authority and withdrew his services claiming that he could not continue as Dr Mumford had chosen to withdraw as a result of complaints from the pensioner which Dr Mumford did not have time to answer!
As a final insult, Dr Broome wrote to the Police Pensions Authority and informed them that they did, of course, have the option of dealing with the pensioner under Regulation 33. As a result of this, the Police Pensions Authority unlawfully reduced the pensioner’s injury award to 0%.
The way Dr Broome treated this poorly police pensioner is criminal. How ironic then that as a criminal he would have more rights and receive more care and compassion than the pensioner in his “inquisitorial medical process.”
MESSAGE TO JUDGE BROOME (Because I know you and your mates read these blogs)
Dr Broome. You attended medical school. You (somehow) graduated with a medical degree. That allows you to practice medicine NOT law. You are NOT a judge. Police pensioners under a Regulation 37 review are not on trial. They are not your prisoners.
Stick to what you are supposedly trained in. More importantly, stick to the rules and regulations that govern you and spend less time trying to circumvent them.
As previously mentioned It is a matter of fact that a certain SMP wrote to the General Medical Council seeking exemption from the required Doctor – Patient relationship. . He maintained, and it would appear continues to maintain, that he is acting in the role of a Quasi Judicial Judge.
This request was refused by the GMC
A Quasi-judge who is paid by the Police, who are seeking to reduce their pension budget using every underhand and immoral method that they think that they can get away with.
This is confirmed with them continuously loosing Judicial Reviews concerning their shocking conduct in failing administer reviews of their disabled pensioners in a fair and lawful manner.
This Doctor thinks that there is nothing wrong with being wined and dined and paid to attend meetings hosted by those that seek to devise methods to reduce their pension budgets.
A Judge is supposed to be independent and apply the LAW impartially based on the facts.
This SMP is not a Judge a Quasi -Judge or whatever nonsense he thinks he is, he has no qualifications in law whatsoever and further, he proves his complete unsuitability to perform such a function with his unprofessional conduct by not putting the interests of his patient first as dictated by the General Medical Council.
Is this yet again another indication of the deep seated corruption at the heart of this persecution of Police Officers injured on duty. A persecution that appears to be carried out by some morally bankrupt individuals indeed.
Those people I doubt would have the courage even to don a Police Officers uniform. I doubt they would even consider wearing one to attend a fancy dress party, for I believe that they hold the uniform in such contempt.
I do believe that some senior ranks of our Constabularies wear one occasionally to keep the pretence up.
What a wonderfully researched and clearly written article.Many congratulations to The compiler.I address my comments to all Solictors,Doctors,Chief Constables.I P C’s and H R’s and those who do there bidding.”You are acting unlawfully” and you have been caught doing so over and over again.A quick look at a segment of “The One Show”on Wednesday night should point you in the right direction.It is my strongly held belief that you are hastening the demise of IOD’s in order to achieve your ultimate goal,”Saving Money”.You appear to have no idea of the problems you causing very sick and seriously ill people.WELL,now it is our turn.You are going to find
out what it feels like.You are about to find out that taking on IODPA is like buying your own pet COBRA.Start looking over your shoulders.Start checking your mail boxes.You are an utter disgrace to your professions.Shame on you.
Like the MP’s expenses scandal, I firmly believe this is the ‘tip of the iceberg’, dig much deeper and I’m sure a nest of vipers will be revealed, there is undoubtedly a concerted effort and agenda to save money through ANY means possible, whether that be through unlawful reviews and lowering of bands, trickery, intimidation or simply being railroaded into specific courses of action, tinfoil hat stuff to some, but as the saying goes “just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you”, let’s see.
IOPDA are a fantastic charity whose sole aim is fairness and support, and ,highlighting complete systemic failures.
Other major bodies are taking a keen interest in how the government policies are affecting the disabled in the UK
United Nations disabled rights committee ( the Guardian 21/8/17 reported)
In November 2016 the UN committee issued a scathing report on austerity policies pursued by the UK government in welfare and social care, which it described as “systematic violations” of the rights of people with disabilities. The government dismissed that report as patronising and offensive.
No surprises there then.
I am a new member of IODPA, formally Staffs Police. I wish and encourage others who are thinking of joining the charity to join as you will make that difference.
Punishments must be meted out as a deterrent, to stop others from meddling with the law. Perhaps Vivian could be the first example made? Struck off, fined, jail…all good.
SMPs & PMABs – Independent, Unbiased?
Additional to the fallacies already outlined, one of their representatives (as revealed in a FOI response) wrote to the General Medical Council with a view to exempting doctors acting in this capacity from their usual ethical standards. The only conclusion I can draw from this is that they fully recognise the unethical and unlawful manner in which they act.
Some have got it wrong. These people are not well educated. They just happen to be promoted. In fact these people are not as well educated or switched on as the people who contribute to your blogs. This is their downfall….
As usual very informative, an interesting read, a few years ago I would have said that it was unbelievable what these people are doing, but sadly now it is totally believable.
Keep up the great work IODPA
This is not about posturing, it is a question of trust and what is right, proper and legal.
Trust in the Regulations
Trust in the Chief Constable
Trust in those who do the Chief Constables bidding
Trust in the Pensions Board
Trust in the Selected Medical Practitioner
Trust in those ‘advising’ all of the above
These are after all the Police, Legal and Medical professions we are talking about here!
How can one set of regulations give these professionals so much trouble and cause them to inflict so much pain on what is a minority group who have served the public and have already gone through an exhaustive process to even be awarded an injury on duty in the first place!
Why are the Home Office seemingly silent on this issue and allowing this victimisation of a minority group to continue?
When the xxxx hits the fan, as it surely will, where will those in high office be and who will be hung out to dry?
As time passes, arrogance and the invisibility cloak you all thought you were wearing may not be enough to save your skin!
These professionals, these institutions, have access to extensive resources yet choose to continually share bad and illegal practice between themselves!
You would think that they would learn, but no, they continue to try and drive a bulldozer through the regulations, paying no attention at all to what is legal or morally the right thing to do!
How can members of the public trust these institutions!
By refusing to accept the regulations as they stand and by trying to manipulate the regulations for their own ends they all bring shame on their profession!
Why?
What would lead this merry band of brothers to conspire and resort to such acts, acts which when taken at face value appear to be against everything that they are supposed to stand for and protect?
A sweeping statement this, but as with most things at the heart of any corrupt and discredited process, is it Money?
Who ultimately benefits from mass reviews and an abuse of process?
Is there no Chief Constable, SMP or administrator brave eneogh to make a stand and say eneogh is enough, this is simply wrong and I will not allow it to continue?
As each day passes more ex officers and also those who are at the start of the procees are subjected to illegal practices, maladministration and data breaches.
This abuse and victimisation is both historical and current with
more and more coming into the public domain, it does not make for good reading or reflect well on the authors!
The law is there to protect all sides and anyone abusing their position should think long and hard before continuing along that road.
So is Money at the heart of this?
Money that the PCC ( The Chief Constable)believes he can save?
Money that an SMP can receive if reviews take place, even more if a mass review takes place!
Money that those ‘advising’ these professionals can make by taking part in meetings, maintaining their profiles and by ‘sharing’ information and ‘tactics’which ultimately may justify there very existance.
Money earned by those who form part of the ‘club’ and are sunsequently given positions of ‘power and influence’.
Some would call this ‘jobs for the boys’ or ‘guns for hire’.
After reading with interest a number of blogs, JR,s and case law it strikes me that those administering the regulations best get to grips with them sooner rather than later, engage with those who have the ‘relevant’ experiance and disassociate themselves from those advocating and carrying out illegal and morally corrupt practices.
Given the circumstances some people may now find themselves in this would seem to be the most moral and logical step to take.
In short Just a simple request for you all to pause for thought and to do what appears to me to be both morally and legally right.
It never ceases to amaze me how IODPA, their Solicitors and Barrister can understand and explain the Law surrounding the Police Injury Benefit Regulations in such a clear and understandable way. The clarity is shown in the amount of success at Judicial Review with supporting caselaw!
Why can’t the Official Side of the CC, HR, PPA and SMPs understand it so readily? It’s obvious, they do! They purposefully ignore the law to prevent paying the entitled pensions to medically discharged and disabled former officers.
It’s a disgrace.
I have been subjected to one of these unlawful acts during my retirement when called for review. I was originally assessed by the Police’s own SMP and given a 100% injury award after being told I would never be able to work again in any capacity.
It took well over a year to sort the mess out after they unlawfully and substantially reduced my injury pension.
I urge anybody in a similar position to seek the advice of IODPA, which unfortunately did not exist when I had my troubles. However, I did receive legal help which was funded by the police Federation.
They keep getting it wrong, wrong, and wrong again.
When will they actually realise that fact though?
They just plough on regardless.
This blog is spot one! Congratulations to the Author.
Doctor Vivian, despite being advised to the contrary, continues to espouse this mantra of Quasi-Judicial Judge and ‘Disinterested’ party, no doubt gained at one of the NWEF/NAMF meetings he attends, often with the ‘official side’.
He’s like the Emperor from the fable, struting around thinking he’s covered in a glorious coat of ‘legal clothing’, when in fact, he’s actually ‘naked’. Everyone can see it, but him and as a result, he’s derided.
He would do well to listen to the advice of others and leave the ‘Madhouse’ of NWEF/NAMF once and for all.
Independence and impartiality, it’s not too much to ask for surely?
It never ceases to amaze me how these people use any way possible to try and circumvent the regulations. Using a none existent legal precedent from a Scottish court case just beggars belief.
The likening of the process of the SMP to a quasi-judicial process is pure fantasy.
In fact if you think of fantasy, Victor Hugo’s similar sounding fictional character, Quasimodo, had many traits that some of these SMP’s are showing.
He was described as ‘hideous’, and a ‘creation of the devil’.
I’m sure just like the character in the novel, these SMP’s were once, and may still be fairly kind at heart, but they commit the unlawful acts on the instructions of others, these being the PPA whose only aim in this process is to reduce their ever decreasing budgets.
Thankfully the injured former officers who are being unfairly treated have the ‘Sanctuary’ of IODPA to look after their interests.
Another brilliant and informative blog which should be read and inwardly digested by the likes of Wirz and certain Chief officers.
Unfortunately the phrase ” I can explain it to you but I cannot understand it for you” comes to mind. Some people’s understanding of the Regs only extends as far as their own twisted agenda will allow.
Who is the stupid one here? Who gets paid to go to PMABs? Who gets paid to go to appeal hearings?
SMP that is who. So do we really think that it is in their interests to get it right? Right or wrong they get paid and still the forces employ them. Maybe if forces sacked them for their mistakes and bad decisions may be they would get it right in the first place.
They don’t think they are above the law, they actually think they are the law. There are so many of them that believe they are untouchable.
Maybe just maybe the screw is turning in our favour and right will win against those that have had it their way for so long.
I still struggle to believe that doctors, solicitors, Chief Constables and their staff, who are well educated people, would conspire against a minority group who have done nothing worse than received injuries as a result of serving the public. However, they refuse to learn from the reoccurring instances of judicial reviews finding against the way that they misinterpret the regulations. Surely once proven to be wrong, these people should be eager to right the wrongs that they have committed to so many blameless individuals, but continue to disregard the regulations and court rulings.
I’m left with no option but to accept that the police pension regulations are being managed in many cases by people who are conspiring to deliberately mal-administer them to the detriment of disabled police officers, presumably in the name of cost cutting. What comes next, will they try to get the regulations changed to legalise their discrimination against retired injured officers…no they have already tried that and failed.
Yet again IODPA shine that very bright searchlight into the dark and murky corners wherein the blind, and those who do not wish to see dwell.
They scatter like woodlice and beetles when they see the light and by now must surely realise the game is up.
If you haven’t yet grasped it I will spell it out, IODPA are coming for you, get ready.