We recently published a letter sent by Chief Constable Morgan of Staffordshire Police to pensioners in our blog found here – https://iodpa.org/2018/07/13/chief-constable-morgan-sends-letters-to-vulnerable-pensioners/
He invited pensioners who are currently subject to an ongoing review to meet him, so that he may discuss his obligation to make a determination under regulation 33 of The Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006.
Any such determination under Regulation 33 is a legal decision and Mr Ron Thompson of Haven Solicitors who represents a number of the pensioners has quite rightly requested that he and his colleague Mark Botham be allowed to attend the meeting in order to represent his clients best interests.
Mr Morgan has refused to allow the vulnerable pensioner’s legal representatives to attend the meeting on their behalf on the basis that
…it was not not my intention for the meeting to be adversarial in any way.
We’ve been passed Mr Morgan’s response by one of the pensioners.
38 thoughts on “CC Morgan refuses pensioner’s legal representatives to attend a meeting”
Another date 8th August ! How much more information does this man require ?? There is certainly no shortage now for heavens sake. Get the bullet bitten and let’s have it in writing!!
This CC. Morgan really is a piece of work, attempting to convene a “meeting” at his HQ with some seriously sick and disabled individuals where he, and no doubt his team could lay into them with more threats and intimidation.
Lets not forget that these injury award recipients have already fully complied with the Regulations.
CC. Morgan had the opportunity to discuss this with the lawyers acting on behalf of those summoned to his HQ, but he refused to meet with them, spouting some hogwash about not wanting it to be an adversarial meeting.
Give me a break, did he really think that if those pensioners had attended his meeting that they would have taken it lying down. I jolly well doubt it.
No he didn’t want a face to face with skilled legal representatives who know the Police Injury Benefit Regulations inside out and would no doubt explained his position in ways that he does not care to admit.
Stick to the regulations Mr Morgan, there is no mention in those regulations at all in having to provide you with highly sensitive medical records.
To not let a legal representative to attend when for the IOD to attend could be detrimental to there health is an absolute disgrace. I trust a written copy of the meeting will be made available for those not able to attend. An abysmal decision. Not his first but let’s hope it may be his last. Chief Constable get it right. It is not difficult.
A Chief Constable wishes to discuss how he intends to interpret legislation to punish injured pensioners, who don’t comply with his request for disclosure of sensitive medical information, even though there is no legal power to enforce his request.
It is not surprising that he doesn’t want specialist solicitors in attendance or to put his plan in writing, he is desperately trying to find a way to bully vulnerable former officers so that he can be seen as the CC who saved money by tricking money out of those injured serving the public.
My crystal ball says he will lose this battle, he’ll cost the police budget a small fortune but the Home Office and College of Policing will probably applaud his attempt and start planning their next assault on those that morally they should be protecting.
We can expect more from the bunch of thugs who bully their way into the top jobs.
That’s the problem with Morgan and all of the others involved in this review process, it is not up to them to interpret the law only to implement it. If there is a question of interpretation then it should be put before a court and a judge who has the authority to interpret the law. This man is the head of the organisation charged with upholding the law and his behaviour is a disgrace to his office.
As one of those affected by this process, I have reviewed two items of correspondence sent to me. The first, dated 27th February 2018, was sent by Staffs Police Occ Health manager, who says, “After liaison with our Joint Legal Services, HR Support section (etc)..”. The second, dated 19th July 2018, was sent by DCC Baker, who says, “Our retention of this documentation has been subject to legal advice, upon which this reply to you is based”. Amazing, isn’t it, when Staffs Police can use the benefit of their Joint Legal Services to facilitate responses but when IODs want similar support they are denied it at a face-to-face meeting. Remember, neither Morgan nor his staff has to pay for that legal advice, unlike IODs. Double standards, or what?
The fact that Morgan uses the word ‘adversarial’ speaks volumes!
Adversarial definition: a person, group, or force that opposes or attacks; opponent; enemy; foe.
Both Ron Thompson and Mark Botham are Solicitors well versed and well experienced in the Police IOD Pension Regulations 2006, and this has been proven so many times. How and why is Morgan seeing them as ‘opposition or ‘attackers’ if they attend this meeting? They are simply representing their clients, who have learned not to trust the words that Morgan utters! They (the Solicitors) would just be checking that every word to leave Morgan’s lips was correct and lawful!
Unfortunately there have always been a few puffed up, self important, pompous individuals who have somehow made it to the top of the slippery pole. Thankfully they were always in the minority. This man absolutely takes the biscuit, and other more honourable Chief Officers must be quietly shaking their heads in despair at his antics. Either he has a personal issue with Police injury Pensions and the associated regulations and case law, or he has been primed by the Home Office to try and circumvent them. The way he is heading he will end up being the fall guy but it will be on his own head.
A Chief Constable who is a complete joke! How can he refuse IODs legal representation! He says he doesn’t want the meeting to be adversarial but it’s him that’s threatening the pensioners! It’s unbelievable! Is this bloke really a copper?!!
‘How are the preparations going for your tea party son?’ ‘Well mum, not too bad, I’ve got a few bags of Twiglets and a sponge; although being old pensioners I’m not sure if the Twiglets will be too hard for them; hope they are anyway; serves them right coming to my place and being adversarial.’ ‘That’s thoughtful of you Captain. How many have you got coming?’ Well, so far NARPO and the Fed’s are coming.’ ‘That’s nice, how about actual IOD’s?’ ‘Well, not many so far and that isn’t my fault, it’s that Thomson bloke, he says he acts for them and he doesn’t want them to come and he wants to come instead and bring his sidekick with him. Well, I’m not having that.’ ‘But surely son that’s what legal representatives do, they represent people and give them legal advice and remember you did invite their legal representatives.’ ‘That was Andy’s idea to make us seem credible; to lull them into a false sense of security; he thought if we could get them here then we could have them over. He said they won’t know what regulation 33 is all about, they’re only a load of old age pensioners.’ ‘Son, when has anything he told you ever been right. You know what I think of him and his bright ideas, he’s just getting you into more and more trouble and at the end of the day it’s you will be left with egg on your face while he just skulks off back to the Home Office. I’ve told you to stay away from him he’s nothing but trouble that boy.
‘So Captain how are you going to stop that Mr Thompson coming, surely he’s entitled to be there?’ ‘Well mum, I’ve just told him it’s not that sort of meeting, that it’s just a few friends round for tea and a chat and a slice of sponge; nothing legal like; talk about the old days when we used to catch crooks and be seen out on the streets; you know when we used to look after the public. I said if he came it would be adversarial, which is a good word, and it might frighten the pensioners and besides I’ve only got one sponge. I expect he can understand that.’
‘Oh Captain, it seems to me that you’ve dug yourself another hole, quite a big one this time. What are you going to do if no one turns up, apart from eat all the sponge and Twiglets yourself?’ ‘Well, me and Andy will tell the Fed’s and NARPO that we have every right to take the pensions away unless they give us all their medical records etc; then they’ll tell their members and then they’ll hand them over and we can take their pensions away.’ ‘I don’t think they’ll fall for that one son, Merseyside tried it and it cost them a lot of money and a lot of embarrassment. Do you think in your heart of hearts that you can really get away with this? You know that Mr Thompson he’s frightfully good at Judicial Reviews.’
‘Well if that doesn’t work I’ll tell the SMP to interrogate them when they come for their 5th or 6th review; not allow them anyone with them and not let them record the interrogation; then instruct them to say that they are all better and take their pension away.’ ‘You tried that before and it didn’t work and now the SMP’s are looking to be a bit independent, you know doing their job properly. This whole thing is making you quite unpopular you know son, why don’t you give it up as a bad job, like all the others have done and go back to proper police work. Worth a try surely?’ have another slice of sponge and think about it. You know it makes sense.’
Let’s get this clear! These pensioners have already attended a meeting with the Selected (not senior) Medical Practitioner and have produced a statement of no substantial change, plus handed over a letter from their GP stating the same. This is accepted by Government departments re other types of benefits, as well as the DVLA, as the medical convention states that a Doctor should accept another Doctor’s word as truthful
Strangely this is also the case for those injured officers in the lowest bands, (they can only go up!)
With these documents, the SMP could easily make the decision ‘No Change’ and the review is finished. However, at £750 a time, often for a few minutes work, these SMP’s see the force as a money making machine, so return a ‘no decision’ & then another SMP repeats the exercise!
Why does he need a meeting? These pensioners have complied with the law, he just needs to close the reviews as no change, but of course a bully never likes to lose. He hasn’t, he’s done his duty and can now move on, but he won’t!
It’s costing the force and the public purse a great deal of money and it’s about time that the Police & Crime Commissioner, Ellis, who brought Morgan to Staffordshire, took control and brought this waste of cash to a halt.
The aim was to save cash by targeting the most vulnerable, but its failing and if it gets to the Courts, it’s going to cost Staffordshire rate payers a great deal of money.
It would appear that IOD’s do not attract the same benefits as suspects arrested everyday by the police and that would be legal advice and free legal advice for that matter. Why are IOD’s thought of in such a derisory manner. I am struggling to see why the legal representatives for IOD’s have been denied an audience with the Chief Constable. Maybe one of the following.
Mr Morgan is a coward and doesn’t want to meet two legal reps that understand the regs.
Mr Morgan won’t be able to browbeat them and scare them into handing over sensitive documents that they don’t have to.
Mr Morgan will be embarrassed by them as he has little or no understanding of the regs.
Mr Morgan wants to feel important and being made to look stupid by Legal brains will only make him look stupid.
However my favoured reason is that he has ordered a ton of Turnocks Wafer Biscuits and doesn’t want to share them with anyone.
Good luck with the meeting which would have had restrictions such as no phones or recording devices, why not write a letter saying what you are going to do? I guess it is hard to deny a letter!
It seems that Captain Morgan likes to throw his weight around, but doesn’t like to be challenged. He’ll happily attempt to brow beat these poor pensioners into submission, but is not willing to lock horns with legal advisors who know what they are talking about.
A little bird tells me that many of the senior management in the force are very unhappy with his bully boy tactics and are talking about him behind his back. Of course Morgan loves to be surrounded with sycophants and therefore it is unlikely that anyone will dare say anything to his face, but the rank and file are also having a good gossip about him too. Probably because they realise each and every one of them could unwittingly end up in this position one day!
I would have thought it most appropriate for Mr Thompson to attend this meeting on behalf of the pensioners he was representing, ,obviously Mr Morgan has something to hide.
So what is the problem with Mr Thompson and Mr Botham attending this meeting? I can’t think of two better people to attend seeing as this is a chat about the Regulations. It should be discussed by legal representatives rather than vulnerable pensioners who probably don’t have any idea what its about. i am truly disgusted that any Chief Constable could think this a good idea. Who the hell is advising him as they should be sacked?
Why on earth can’t vulnerable people, who are constantly being harassed & bullied, have a legal representative to attend? At the end of the day, this isn’t going to look good for CC Morgan…I would love to hear a judges reaction in court, for his refusal…and that’s where this is heading by the sounds of it…
Is this a new sitcom because it certainly can’t be anything else.So far as I recall even an arrested suspect has the right to speak to a solicitor.Youre P R exercise has fallen flat and a lot of people are publicly exposing you for what you are.A Bully.A Liar and worst of all a COWARD.You have passed up the opportunity to learn all about the correct version of The Police I O D Regs.You thought you were setting up retired officers so you could Bully and talk down to them.Lambs to the slaughter you thought.You have no legal right to deny IODs representation.I really did not believe that you could sink any lower,but you’ve managed it.May God forgive you,.Hundreds won’t.The tide has turned and it is you who feel the full might of the law.Remember the sit com I mentioned.It was the one that started Norman Stanley Fletcher.Just change the name,yours fits nicely.
Mr Morgan did not intend the meeting to be adversarial.
That just about sums it up. He wanted to sit there and browbeat disabled people, telling then what HE was going to do.
What makes him think that Mr Thompson would be adversarial? Or does he believe that anyone who might disagree with him is adversarial?
He has missed a great opportunity to reach out and actually listen to IOD pensioners and their representatives. He would get some very good advice, for free.
Mr Morgan, please stop…you are an embarrassment to the uniform. You seriously didn’t think you could intimidate your former pensioners and think you could get away with it did you? Other Chief Constables must be laughing their heads off at what you are trying to do. Did you want to make a name for yourself in IOD reviews and show that you are the man for the job? That you could sort this lot out and show them who is boss?
You had the chance to stop, but no, you choose to carry on and make yourself look like a fool.
Oh well, all villages have one….
“Bullies don’t like to fight, son. They like to win. Being afraid is normal. The only fight you really have to win is the one against the fear.”
I’m presuming that this letter from CC Morgan to Ron Thompson is a reply to several previous letters the two men wrote. Did Ron Thomson say that the IOD pensioners he represents would not be attending the meeting, after Morgan had rejected his initial request to represent them at said venue? It is unclear in the blog whether CC Morgan refuses to meet Ron and Mark because their clients will not be present or he would have met them if they had agreed to attend the meeting?
The injury pension regulations are not intended to create adversarial process. However, when certain chief constables adopt methods for which there is no legal authority, they themselves create the adversarial approach. Would this situation exist if individual chief constables were personally liable for the legal costs incurred in defending legal actions against their policies, rather than the public purse?
I do hope that CC Morgan will not be put off by IOD pensioners not wanting to attend his meeting.
He wants to explain the process.
Well he can still do that – and it would be most interesting to see his explanation in writing.
The fact that this 22 carat buffoon was ever allowed to become a police officer, never mind a ”Chief Constable’ speaks volumes for the dire state of Britain’s police force. He does not understand written law, he cannot interpret regulations and he is (or attempts to be) an out and out bully.He clearly sees his campaign to destroy the lives and welfare and health of damaged former officers as a stepping stone to higher office for himself. The miniscule, low wattage brain power of this loathsome little man is evidenced by the fact that he cannot see his own downfall approaching and will not be able to understand that it will have been brought about through his own antics. As for Reg 33 for not providing medical records… bring it on!
Well well well. Is anyone actually surprised with this response from Gareth Morgan. The same Gareth Morgan who issued an open letter in December 2017 which showed that he wasn’t aware of the Regulations and even incorrectly referred to the SMP as a SENIOR Medical Practitioner.
A letter which openly tried to threaten IOD’s to comply with his bully boy demands to supply full medical records and complete an intrusive questionnaire even though there is no basis for these demands in the Regulations,. Now he wants to explain how he is going to illegally use Regulation 33 of the Regulations to try and reduce the pensions of those who have not produced their medical records.
He knows that this is a fools errand but being the bully that he seems to be from the evidence of his correspondence so far he just can’t or won’t back down.
Now ask your self this question. Why wouldn’t he want to engage with the legal representatives of those who he invited to attend his meeting.?
Well the answer is quite apparent. He knows that those who actually know the law would put him firmly in his place.
Such a shame that he didn’t accept the offer. How much money would it have saved his budget having some free legal advice that would save him going into more expensive court action which he has no prospect of winning. As a Staffordshire council taxpayer I am astounded by the fact that Gareth Morgan is allowed to continue wasting mine and other tax payers money on a fight hebjust can’t win Your time is up Gareth. Time you stopped digging.
Oh I’m sure CC Morgan had no intention of this meeting being adversarial, no not at all. He simply intends to lay down his twisted interpretation of the law, (Police Injury Benefit Regulations 2006)
Staffs Police got it wrong before, remember when ACC Baker demanded completion of an infamous unlawful Questionnaire ?
Here we go again, you have no power to demand Medical Records CC Morgan.
A meeting with Ron Thompson and Mark Botham would simply be educational for you and save you from potentially making a serious and expensive error in law.
Oh Dear oh Dear Poor Mr Morgan. i can just imagine the conversation,
Staff officer brown nose,
“ Chief we have had a reply about your ambush sorry I mean meeting with vulnerable IOD’s who don’t really fully understand the regulations”
“ what is it officer Brown nose and get up off your knees”
Officer Brown Nose’
“ a learned solicitor who is well versed in the regulations and particularly Reg 33 wants to attend with another learned colleague and represent the vulnerable victims, sorry i mean IOD;s”
“ Oh B@@@ocks that’s not fair how can I intimidate and bully them?”
Officer Brown Nose,
“Don’t worry your royal highness, I mean sir I will make up some pathetic excuse and put a big word in the letter and put them off”
“ Well done Brown Nose now bring me my tea and another Turnocks biscuit. I need time to prepare for my meeting with the vulnerable IOD’s” Waaaaaahaaaaaahaaaaa
Seriuosly why would a CC NOT want to meet with solicitors who actually know what they are talking about ? The problem isn’t the IOD’s it is the lack of desicions coming from the SMP’s who have carried out face to face reviews and the lies they have told afterwards.
Thought of the day for Morgan-Have a meeting with your SMP’s and ask them why they haven’t made a decision when the IOD’s have attended as per regulations and kept their side of the bargain.
This kind of meeting can only end in tears and as seen from a layman’s point of view a career suicide mission by Morgan but we can only hope.
It’s an invitation to a party which no one wants to attend because, let’s face it, the party games are going to be weighted towards him, the sweets will leave a bitter taste in the mouth and the drinks will be served in a poison chalice.
What has this man got to hide! If MORGAN wants to give an explanation then do so, but is he worried that his next planned abuse of the of the pensions regulations will again show that he is an arrogant bully and having to answer a few questions is beneath him; the meeting would only be as adversarial as he makes it. Morgan’s stance over this matter has made him look even more suspicious and cowardly regarding what his ulterior motives no doubt are.
He doesn’t want the meeting to be adversarial?? What did he expect writing such a letter in the first place, that we would all simply comply and hand over our medical records…..wrong!! You can’t bully, or threaten vulnerable pensioners Mr Morgan and expect us to roll over and play dead. Justice and the law are on our side. I wonder how long it will take to make this into a court case by your threats and bullying tactics? It will get very messy I suspect. It always does when you try to manipulate the law in your favour. If it’s not in the regulations, don’t do it.
Haha the great big bully feels threatened that shock horror there may be some other people in the room whom he may not be able to bully, harass, intimidate and discriminate against like he does against injured, vulnerable and disabled Staffordshire pensioners.
Morgan is the gift that keeps on giving when you want to see fully just how morally bankrupt and pathetic senior Police leadership is in the UK. To think that he still continues to try and persuade the public and his officers that he isn’t just simply trying to screw these human beings out of the only thing they have left to in their lives to support themselves just so that he can save a paltry sum of money.
Morgan and a number if his ilk are going to get a big surprise later this year when a number of matters happening in the background will come nicely to fruition.
Keep calm and carry on big lad, you’re comedy gold!!
Keep digging your hole Mr Morgan. The real law is fast catching up with you. Why is it so difficult for you to be honest and open and treat IODs with the respect and decency they deserve?
Some people just don’t know when to quit do they. Just like Hitler issuing pointless edicts from his Fuhrer bunker, ordering around troops which do not exist. Give it up Morgan, if you don’t know the rules have a look, or consult those who do. If you don’t want to be confrontational or adversarial start thinking hard about what you are doing to people and how you are going to look at the end of the day. The next stage of the process (as you call it) just might be your nemesis.
Isn’t Mr Morgan’s unlawful mass review od IOD Pensioners adversarial? How are we to construe a denial of legal representation of a group of vulnerable pensioners who are under threat specifically from Mr Morgan who knows, from experience why he really should not be practising these bully boy tactics. Shame on you Mr Morgan.
What is it with this particular Chief Constable? There is an old saying that,”if you are in a hole, stop digging”!
Whether the individual concerned, attends the meeting or not, he/she is being represented by these Solicitors and as any decision made by this Chief will affect them, then they have a right to be represented, whether there, or not.
It’s got nothing to do with the meeting possibly becoming ‘adversarial’, it’s all to do with him not being able to use bully boy tactics and intimidation on vulnerable people. He has to bully these people into giving permission for their life’s medical records to be shared, as he has to get himself out of the hole he has dug. He cannot ‘steal’ IOD pensions on dubious grounds and therefore save money for his political masters, if knowledgeable professionals are present!
He’s failing and it’s about time the Staffs PCC, recognised he has a schlepper in charge of the force, cut his losses, before it gets very expensive!
Yet another abuse of power. To discuss what is basically a legal process with huge financial ramifications for those involved and refuse solicitors to attend is a breach of human rights?!
Mr Morgan is just a bully and doesn’t like it when someone is prepared to stand up to him. What have you got to hide Mr Morgan? Are you hoping to keep your IOD pensioners in the dark and frighten them into submission. Sorry but that won’t work with us. All we want is the reviews to be conducted as per the regulations. Not how you think they should be done. See you in court.
This sort of bullying techniques are a disgrace. How can a Chief Constable believe that it is acceptable to treat retired injured police officers with such contempt. The man is a bully, always has been and always will be and should not hold any position of trust.
Comments are closed.