CC Morgan cancelled today’s IOD meeting at Staffordshire Headquarters

We recently reported that Chief Constable Gareth Morgan had invited vulnerable pensioners to Staffordshire Police Headquarters to discuss the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006 and in particular Regulation 33.

He also rejected the offer for the pensioners legal representatives to attend in order to represent their clients.

We understand that the meeting scheduled for today was cancelled. We can only assume that there were no takers to his invitation?



If you didn’t see them, here are the original blogs –



CC Morgan cancelled today’s IOD meeting at Staffordshire Headquarters
Tagged on:     

35 thoughts on “CC Morgan cancelled today’s IOD meeting at Staffordshire Headquarters

  • 2018-08-01 at 7:50 am

    Morgan is a police officer, he wears the uniform. Where is his sense of natural justice, his fairness, his integrity? Just the simple act of denying legal representation at this meeting contradicts the principles of fair play. How can anyone trust such a venal and poisonous character to run a constabulary?

  • 2018-08-01 at 7:15 am

    Tadpole and frog syndrome, he has clearly forgotten that he too was once a frontline police officer and all that that entailed. Now, well, it’s clear to see he’s of a different mindset. Shame !

  • 2018-07-27 at 2:58 pm

    Trust – the obligation or responsibility imposed on a person in whom confidence or authority is placed.

    College of Policing – competency and values framework and Code of Ethics, google them as they make for very interesting reading.

    The code of Ethics applies to ALL officers, including Mr Morgan and his Staff and contractors..

    The PCC may or may not adopt the code!

    Staffs Narpo – meeting with CC 25.8.17-

    5. We asked him about the extent of his knowledge about the suspended process that had taken place in the Avon and Somerset Constabulary, where he had previously been DCC. He confirmed that he did not have in depth knowledge of the process in his previous Force, as it was not his remit as DCC. We did ask him about his knowledge of the wider aspect of the IOD system and he made it known to us that he had been on a working party a couple of years ago looking into whether the IOD process needed revamping to make it simpler and more consistent. This work had been completed some time ago and as far as he was aware was still sitting with the Police Chiefs Council awaiting to be actioned

    A&S officers tell me that Morgan was involved in the process for some time and that his involvement will come to light, I do not know if this is true?

    Anything to say Sir?

  • 2018-07-27 at 2:29 pm

    It’s not only the IOD pensioners who should be worried, every serving police officer should follow this situation with Morgan, others like him and the attempts to reduce lawfully awarded pensions because if they get injured on duty and retired as a result, then they could find themselves fighting to keep their pension.

    • 2018-07-28 at 4:25 pm

      Agree entirely with this, serving officers need to be more aware of all what’s been going on, join and support IODPA, it may not be YOU that’s affected, but it could be one of your colleagues, the ones who had your back and went into extremely dangerous situations with you, the ones you knew if the sh1t hit the fan, they’d be there standing right beside you, you owe it to each other because it will happen to one of them, and I’m sure if/when it does, you want them to get what they are rightly entitled to, yet there are many forces trying to wriggle out of it, it’s not right and it’s not fair.

  • 2018-07-27 at 9:43 am

    ‘Well son, how did your tea party go, did they all turn up?’ ‘No they didn’t mum, that Thompson bloke stuck his oar in and said he wanted to come and I couldn’t allow that so none of them turned up.’ Oh son, what a disappointment for you, I know you were looking forward to telling them all about regulation 33 and how you can use it to take their pensions away. One thing bothers me about that Mr Thompson, I mean why wouldn’t you want him there surely he knows a bit about the law and could probably have given you some advice on what you can and can’t legally do. It would have saved a lot of time and money for the force and to be frank neither your legal services or NAMF seem to have much of a clue.’ ‘NAMF do mum, I get nearly all my advice from them, their principle solicitor really knows his stuff; he knows it much better than the judges do; he’s been to more JR’s than more or less anyone.’ ‘’From what I hear he’s lost more JR’s than more or less anyone. So what are you going to do now, give it up as a bad job?’ ‘I can’t mum, I can’t lose face now and I’ve spent so much money on Senior Medical Practitioners and everything, I just can’t. All I need is to get those bloody pensioners away from that Thompson bloke and tell them straight. They won’t know about Merseyside and their stupid JR, you wait and see.’ ‘Come on captain even if you get to see them without Mr Thompson what about IODPA? They seem to know what they’re talking about too. What have I said now? Why are you throwing Twiglets about? You really must learn to control your temper.’
    ‘I suppose there’s one good thing at least the press haven’t got hold of it yet, I mean nobody really knows what’s going on do they?’ ‘Well, there was a stupid article in the local paper but I don’t think anyone’s seen it and they can’t do anything on Twitter because I’ve blocked them and I don’t let them use our website for comments so it’s all under control at the moment. Although that IODPA shower have got their own website and they allow comments; some of them haven’t been very nice about me and yesterday I noticed that people at work were reading it and chuckling. I’m going to see if I can block it. I mean mum it wasn’t even my idea in the first place, it was that human remains assistant that suggested it, he said we could save a shed load of cash and ok a few old people would lose their homes and starve to death but overall the public would be so much better off and everyone would think I was wonderful.’ ‘But son didn’t you learn anything from your time in Avon and Somerset? You tried the same thing there and instead of saving money it cost a fortune; didn’t I hear that the SMP there brought himself a yacht on the strength of it?’ ‘That’s just rumour mum and overall it only cost a million or two, well so far anyway.’
    ‘What I want to know is this son, why are you accepting that the band one’s are being honest when they say their injury hasn’t changed, but not the other bands. And what about those over 72, you’re not doing anything with them either? It all sounds a bit discriminatory to me. Don’t you realise that all this could end up in court and you could be the one having to answer some very difficult questions, particularly as you denied those pensioners legal representation at your tea party.’
    ‘Anyway, I have some good news, I’ve managed to book us an all inclusive week in Benidorm at the Solana, I know you like it there and it will take your mind off things for a bit. We can eat the rest of the Twiglets on the plane going over.’

  • 2018-07-27 at 9:22 am

    It is a pity the meeting was cancelled. Mr Morgan’s explanation of ‘the next stage in the process’ would have been interesting to hear.

    Perhaps it would have gone like this:

    Morgan: Right, all you lot who have refused to allow access to your medical records force me to have to make a decision on your degree of disablement.

    Audience: How are you going to do that then?

    Morgan: Under regulation 33 I can make a decision on such evidence and medical advice as I in my discretion think necessary.

    Audience: Hang on a minute – you have to show that we either wilfully or negligently failed to submit ourselves to a medical examination and/or a medical interview. We didn’t refuse. We attended.

    Morgan: Refusing to allow access to your medical records is a deliberate failure to submit to a necessary step in the process.

    Audience: (Falls about laughing) Sorry, Mr Morgan but please show us where in the Regulations it says that.

    Morgan: We shall see, we shall see, just you wait. I’m a busy man and I can’t get bogged down in nit picking details.

    Audience: So, as you are not medically qualified you are going to have to seek medical opinion, aren’t you?

    Morgan: Yes, the SMP will give their opinion and I will act on that.

    Audience: What? The SMP has told you he could not make a decision, and can’t see our medical records, so how will he now be able to form an opinion on degree of disablement to give to you?

    M: He’ll do what I bloody tell him!

    Audience. (Packs sandwiches away and stands up) OK, Chief. See you in court.

  • 2018-07-27 at 8:44 am

    Hello, Gareth? Are you listening?

    It’s your conscience here. I know currently you are ignoring me, because that Devil Coley has your ear, but you really should be listening to me!

    Those pensioners are right and you know it. They have attended the appointments with the Doctor and their GP’s letters of ‘no change’, stop any prospect of a Reg 33 being successful.

    You know this too, as other forces, including your old one tried this and then gave up after they received Barrister’s opinion. You know in your heart of hearts, that there is no chance of success. So why do you continue?

    Whatever promises have been made are false and you should know by now that anything the Devil promises, comes with strings attached.

    Close these reviews now, make a statement of apology to those you have victimised. Promise you will be more considerate in the future, kick Coley back to the Home Office where he belongs and then lets get back to our real job of fighting crime.

    You know this is the right thing to do, you’ve seen the crime figures. Focus on that now, not these retired pensioners and maybe, just maybe, we can get you back to a point where the people of Staffordshire remember you with affection.

    Gareth! Hello! Hello? Are you listening?……………Damm!

  • 2018-07-27 at 8:26 am

    It is outrageous that this man continues to flout the regulations in an attempt to bully and intimidate pensioners in order to save money. These individuals have fully complied with the regulations by attending the required interview with the selected medical practitioner and stated that there has been no change. That’s it, review done. The SMP should be told make the decision, that’s what you’re paid for. How dare Mr Morgan the invite these individuals to a meeting, refuse the request for their legal reps to attend and then cancel the meeting? Does he really know what he’s doing? Surely he is guilty of maladministration and should be removed from office. This is tax payers money he is wasting , the people of Staffordshire deserve better than this. Indeed, those former police officers who lost their careers due to mental or physical injury deserve better. They spent years upholding the law, protecting the public and have paid a high price where is their protection now?

  • 2018-07-27 at 1:28 am

    Mr Morgan is heading down a path similar to the one the then Chief Constable of Cambridgeshire Constabulary trod. Julie Spence claimed that Home Office guidance on injury pensions was ‘mandatory.’ She said she had to review, and had to reduce all pensioners at age 65 or over down to band one. She repeated her view that the HO guidance was mandatory in public, and even told the Police Authority it was mandatory. It was not mandatory. Julie Spence has a law degree, so could be expected to know full well it was not mandatory. NARPO told her it was not mandatory, as did her DCC, but she stuck to her claim.

    Just for good measure she also told the Police Authority that the HO guidance contained a schedule for reviews – a schedule which she detailed to the PA. No such schedule was in the guidance.

    She tried to brazen things out, but the wheel fell off when the Home Office got cold feet and advised all forces to suspend reviews. The HO had realised that its guidance was unlawful. (Some might say the HO knew that all along)

    Shortly after the HO pulled the plug Julie Spence unexpectedly announced her retirement.

    So, the lesson for Mr Morgan is that whatever the HO has promised you in exchange for pushing on with unlawful reviews, they will abandon you now that you have become a liability.

  • 2018-07-26 at 11:30 pm

    Can’t get his own way, which was intimidate vulnerable people so he throws his toys out of the pram and cancels the meeting…if we, as officers had acted in this way within the job, we would have found ourselves on the dole,
    rules and regulations are there for a reason, to be stuck to , not to be twisted and manipulated to bully People to do what he wants ..He hasn’t got the guts to meet with the legal representatives of the IOD’s Mr Morgan need a to get a grip on reality, and grow a back bone

  • 2018-07-26 at 11:29 pm

    Big A is spot on with his post.

  • 2018-07-26 at 10:32 pm

    I’m sure the sycophants surrounding this Chief Constable read this and other IODPA blogs. Well I hope they do, as they can pass on a message to him!

    As an IOD affected by these reviews, I want to tell him that both my family and I, have had enough of him & his staff’s intimidation, bullying and discrimination. It is badly affecting our lives & our health and he needs to stop and stop now, as shortly there will be a price to pay when he finally appears in the Courts to atone for his actions.

    Please tell him that we have complied with both Reg 37 & 33. We have attended a SMP appointment, supplied a statement of no substantial change and letters from our GP’s, stating the same. The SMP could & should have then reached the logical conclusion, ‘No Change’ and closed these files, but under pressure from Staffs Police staff, they have returned ‘no decisions’, which is wrong, as they still collect their £750 a time fee.

    Other Government dept’s accept our statements, especially if backed up by the GP’s letters, including the DVLA. It’s also accepted by Staffs Police, but only if you are a Band 1, obviously as they don’t want your pension to increase, do they!

    He needs to know that there will be a price to pay shortly, particularly if he thinks he can continue on his present course. He willingly spends public money chasing injured & retired honest officers in a vain attempt to save money, but neglects his core duty of protecting the public through this wastage.

    We don’t want to go to Court, but if he persists in this opinion that the Regs imply a requirement to release our medical records, (they don’t), or we are required to complete a very invasive questionnaire, (it doesn’t & the Merseyside decision confirms that), then funded by the Police Federation of England & Wales, we will have no choice.

    You have a discretionary power to review (and it is noted that only 2 other forces are doing so), you have done that, you have done your duty. We IOD’s have complied, there is no evidence of substantial change, so why continue with this expensive witch hunt?

    Only the lawyers will benefit financially, the public purse and policing in Staffs will be worse off, especially as it is likely that an order will also be made to pay the Police Federation costs!

    It’s not too late, Chief Constable! For the IOD’s and their families sake, your own reputation, (well, whatever remains), the public and policing in Staffs, stop now, stop whilst you still can.

  • 2018-07-26 at 10:14 pm

    If anyone was in any doubt what it’s like to have your own pet cobra, step forward Gareth Morgan. Are you getting the message yet Gareth (No one believes a thing you say and can’t trust a thing you do). You have the title of Chief Constable of Staffordshire which you have brought into disrepute. When the people of Staffordshire learn of your disgraceful behaviour towards police officers injured in the line of their duties, I rather suspect your time is up. To deny officers the right of legal representation, is both unlawful and reprehensible. Be in no doubt Gareth, you and your advisers will pay a very heavy price for your actions. Perhaps you could all pop down to Cannock Chase for a jolly. It’s full of adders so you should all feel totally at home.

  • 2018-07-26 at 9:53 pm

    How many times do we have to put up with people like Morgan, in public office, wasting thousands of pounds without being held accountable. The evidence against him is mounting week by week, month by month and there must come a time when he and all his associates, involved in the unlawful acts surrounding the handling of these reviews, are brought to book. We must not give up on this for the sake of all of the unnecessary stress that he and his compatriots have caused some of the IOD pensioners by not adhering to the regulation and employing bullying tactics to illicit information from the pensioners which they have no legal obligation to provide. The simple facts are;
    Has there been any substantial change since the last review -most cases the answer is no.
    A judge has already stated that it is a comparative exercise and if they have no details of the last review then they have nothing to compare a pensioner’s current situation with and that’s the end of the matter.
    Morgan and his menials have no right to bully pensioner’s into providing medical evidence in order to reduce their pensions.

  • 2018-07-26 at 9:41 pm

    Its difficult to put into words constructively what I really feel and believe. This whole process and the devious and aggressive actions by Mr Morgan are unbelievable. The arrogance the man has to believe that he is able to hoodwink intelligent ex officers of a variety of ranks who have been trained ‘by the same school’ as himself is beyond belief. There are far too many unanswered questions hidden in his last communications regarding the meeting, and to refuse solicitors attendance only adds fuel to the fire, it begs the question ‘Why’ ? what is there to fear or hide. The whole issue Stinks.

  • 2018-07-26 at 9:19 pm

    Having been in the ‘Police Family’ for some years I have just read the recent blogs and posts , not sure what to say but I do know that after talking to a few people, it appears that Staffordshire Police, The Federation and Narpo had a meeting a few years back to iron out a few problems regarding the injury regs and how they were to be applied.

    It appears that a letter was sent out to individuals in 2008 telling those individuals that they had been reviewed and that no more would take place.

    So why are other meetings and reviews needed now,?

    No doubt it may be a little more complicated but I would have thought that a promise made to those individuals in 2008, and which has stood until 2016, must mean something?

    After all, this is a Police Force we are talking about, its not Del Trotter or Johny from down the road, its a signed and freely entered into legal document from a police force, it must stand for something?

    Perhaps I am missing the point, but if Mr Morgan has cast this document aside in order to start reviews and save money, if he is, as people appear to be saying, playing dirty, and if he did appoint a certain Mr Coley (home office) to assist him and, he did play a part in the Avon and Somerset review process which appear to have ended very badly, how can his own officers trust him? how can pensioners , The Federation and Narpo trust him? and most importantly, how can the public trust him?

    Perhaps its just me, but if Mr Morgan cant be trusted to look after his own, what chance do the rest of us have!

  • 2018-07-26 at 9:17 pm

    Disgraceful., but completely in accord with what can be seen in many aspects of today’s policing. If Mr Morgan cannot administer pensions properly, what hope is there for his other responsibilities? So pleased not to live in his ‘patch.’ Even more pleased not to be employed in his organisation.

  • 2018-07-26 at 9:11 pm

    Has Gareth Morgan and Roy ‘Chubby’ Brown ever been seen in the same room together? Just asking?

  • 2018-07-26 at 9:05 pm

    MORGAN and his cronies really should adhere to the Regulations and their interpretations, what may end with his dishonest, oppressive, and deliberate use of Reg 33 to purportedly save money, would indicate that he was reckless not just to the legality of his behaviour, but also to its consequences. I believe Misconduct in Public Office would do nicely as would a meagre prison diet!

  • 2018-07-26 at 8:56 pm

    Is this Chief Constable for real? Is he really head of the Staffordshire Force? He is ignorant and arrogant, neither a good attribute!

    Fancy inviting the IODs and their representatives to a meeting, in which he would threaten them with Reg.33, and then cancel the meeting when he realises that they won’t attend but their solicitors will. This is unbelievable!

    This isn’t the first time Morgan has made a ridiculous judgement call. He made similar moves when he was part of Avon & Somerset Police. That ended in disaster with the Force wasting thousands of pounds of tax payers money.

    There are none so blind as those that will not see!

  • 2018-07-26 at 8:38 pm

    Just goes to show that Morgan’s bully boy intentions were an attempt to intimidate vulnerable IODPs
    The minute solicitors are mentioned he cancels the meeting showing his true colours
    He’s a joke ! And has been found out yet again

  • 2018-07-26 at 8:37 pm

    I’m sorry, but I can’t take anyone who wears a Weetabix on their head seriously. There must be more important things to do in Staffs than chasing IOD’s around, STOP IT Morgan and start thinking about your future, if you’ve got one.

  • 2018-07-26 at 7:39 pm

    Lets have a closer look at the double standards employed by Mr Morgan.
    1. In the penultimate paragraph of his letter to the 7 IOD pensioners dated 10th July he said he had invited representatives from Staffs Police Federation and NARPO to attend. Would one assume those representatives should be allowed to be at the meeting? Compare that now with the entry of Mark Judson at the Staffs NARPO IOD news blog when Mark says the representatives of the two organisations had been invited TO BE ON STAND-BY should any of the IOD recipients require support. Why would Mr Morgan not include that detail in his letter to the IOD recipients? I’ll leave you to make your own assumptions.
    2. In the same letter of 10th July Mr Morgan said the IOD recipients could be accompanied by a “representative”. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a ‘representative’ includes, “a person chosen or appointed to act or speak for another or others”. Let’s think of examples – how about a solicitor?
    3. Mr Morgan, if you did not intend to comply with the suggestions as they appeared in your letter of 10th July, how can you expect anyone to trust you?
    4. One wonders, Mr Morgan, if it had been your intention to create such obstacles so IOD recipients would not appear and therefore support your argument of those unfortunate people ‘failing to engage’?

  • 2018-07-26 at 4:56 pm

    Is this man playing mind games with vulnerable people. What he is putting injured retired officers is nothing short of a disgrace. It is like being assaulted over and over again. Hope he sleeps well because I for one can’t. Thanks for nothing….

  • 2018-07-25 at 11:42 pm

    My guess is that he will have consulted with the Joint Legal Team representing Staffordshire and West Midlands Forces. They will have advised him appropriately re. REG 33.There is now a decision to be made, either the he abandons the process or, he will invoke Reg 33. If the latter is the outcome then it’s down to a JR.

  • 2018-07-25 at 11:08 pm

    Well well well, Mr Morgan’s grand master plan has backfired. He hasn’t got the authority over his retired pensioners as he thought he had. Thank god, these people had the courage to stand up to him and refuse to attend any such meeting.
    CCMorgan is fast becoming a fool. He seems to have nobody properly advising him. Are all his subordinates so frightened of him that they couldn’t tell him what a terrible idea he had.

    A query….when a band one doesn’t hand over their medical records, you accept this and state that the review is over. Any other band does the same, and you are looking at using Regulation 33 as a punishment (which actually is wrong). Fair? Discriminatory? You know the solicitors are watching and waiting, circling like vultures, waiting for the off.

    Mr Morgan, it’s over to you.

    • 2018-08-01 at 10:25 am

      Dear Mr Morgan

      The Oxford English Dictionary definition of a “BULLY” is (quote) ” a person who habitually seeks to harm or intimidate those whom they perceive as vulnerable” …

      … let’s examine that definition against your recent conduct. You target only those people who are on a higher injury award, which indicates they have a higher degree of disablement, and are therefore likely more vulnerable than perhaps those with a lower degree of disablement or no disablement. You call them to a meeting in an attempt to coerce them into doing something that is actually illegal. Despite your promise, you then deny them the chance to be legally represented, then when they refuse to comply with your unlawful demands, you throw a tantrum and cancel the meeting. That is. of course, after you had already threatened them with harm by removing their livelihoods!

      That behaviour certainly meets the definition – you are therefore a BULLY !

      Have you been asleep on duty for the last 20 years? Perhaps too preoccupied with self advancement in your quest for power? Or perhaps too busy eating to keep abreast of changing legislation?
      You certainly haven’t been paying attention, because if you had, you would know that discrimination against disability became illegal under UK statute law in 1998.
      You decided to undertake reviews of injury pensions – that’s fine provided you conduct them both fairly and in accordance with laid down regulations.
      The regulations are quite clear in that the degree of disablement can improve or worsen, and the injury award must be adjusted up or down in accordance. However, you leave those on Band 1 alone, and target only those disabled people on band 2 or higher. It really doesn’t take a mathematician to recognise this as a money saving exercise when the one group whose pensions you cannot ever claw back are the ones you have left alone – and that fact alone illustrates that your recent endeavours are a provable illustration of wholesale disability discrimination against the most vulnerable disabled former officers.
      And not only do you exercise this discrimination in the way you are conducting those reviews, but you now resort to bullying tactics to try and coerce those most vulnerable disabled officers into something unlawful.

      So now – not only do you meet the definition of a bully, but your actions show you as a discriminator as well.

      Being both a common bully and a discriminator against the most vulnerable makes you a vile specimen of humanity – and an absolute abomination to UK Policing!
      I thought the Police Service has eradicated people like you a long time ago !

  • 2018-07-25 at 10:43 pm

    Perhaps Mr Morgan has come to his senses??? I doubt it…he’s just prolonging the agony for vulnerable people..shame on you Mr Morgan for not having the ba**s to meet with their legal representative…what are you afraid of??

  • 2018-07-25 at 10:40 pm

    Well who is surprised that he cancelled it.
    No one in their right mind would attend such a gathering without their legal representatives to only be bullied and browbeatean into providing their medical records and complete the intrusive questionnaire whilst being unlawfully threatened with a Regulation 33.
    He knows full well or should do that there is no basis for a Regulation 33. What should happen is that as in the case of Band 1 IOD’s who have refused to provide medical records where the SMP has been unable to make a determination, the PPA also known as the Chief Constable Gareth Morgan should say no evidence of a substantial alteration in the degree of disablement therefore no change.
    Perhaps this is what he was going to say but I don’t think that was very likely.

  • 2018-07-25 at 10:38 pm

    What did you Mum & Dad teach you as a child?

    “Always stand up to a bully and then you will see them back down & become weak”.

    What did the character Sarah Williams say to Jareth in the film ‘Labyrinth’?

    “You have no power over me!”

    Both these sayings should have been in the mind of CC Morgan when he was planning this disgraceful intimidation, roughly dressed up as a ‘Meeting’, because basically, they are both true in relation to his recent activities!

    So I suppose it will be back to ‘NAMF’ and maybe that idiot who ‘advises’ them, or maybe to the Home Office for Plan B, as obviously Plan A has failed.

    CC Morgan, the pensioners saw through this charade very quickly & it is noted that you still haven’t found a way to circumvent the regs have you, bully boy!

  • 2018-07-25 at 10:34 pm

    Well well well, the power of the media has shone through and by that I mean main stream Media and social media. It will be interesting to see what “Turnocks wafer biscuits” main sponsor CC Morgan will do next. Regulation 33? Maybe that is the next move .I am sure the Stoke Sentinel is waiting with baited breath to inform their readers of what CC Morgan has done.
    I personally think CC Morgan that if you use Reg 33 you will be committing a grave errror of judgement and it will cost your force a considerable amount of money. But don’t listen to me I am just a poor old IOD that has suffered enough from the like of you.
    Hold the front page because this story isn’t finished yet and I am sure there is someone only to willing to alert the Stoke Sentinel to the next episode.
    Maybe a break down of the money wasted so far on these reviews will feature in the next episode, wait while I get my calculator!!

  • 2018-07-25 at 10:08 pm

    A disgrace to his uniform. For supposedly intelligent people these Chief Officers, of whom Morgan appears to be one of the worst, display quite remarkable levels of stupidity and arrogance.

    • 2018-07-27 at 2:34 pm

      It also must be asked how stupid were the people who appointed him and continue to support him.

  • 2018-07-25 at 10:06 pm

    Seems common sense prevailed in your thoughts Mr Morgan. Now see some more sense and resign. Your a disgrace to the uniform.

Comments are closed.