Gareth Morgan Invokes Regulation 33 On Seventeen Disabled Pensioners


Gareth Morgan (pictured) has sent out letters to seventeen Staffordshire police pensioners informing them he is dropping their injury pensions based on his interpretation of Regulation 33 of The Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006. He is also intending to back date his decision.

We cannot comment on this any further for legal reasons, but here is what Staffordshire Police have posted on their website –


Gareth Morgan Invokes Regulation 33 On Seventeen Disabled Pensioners
Tagged on:     

129 thoughts on “Gareth Morgan Invokes Regulation 33 On Seventeen Disabled Pensioners

  • 2018-12-05 at 4:52 pm

    “To me, the thing that is worse than death is betrayal. You see, I could conceive death, but I could not conceive betrayal by the men and women who stood alongside me when i wore that uniform.

    Mr Morgan you are the betrayal – wearing the uniform you wear purporting to be what you are, you are not worthy to stand alongside us and we will not be judged, intimidated or put in fear by you.

  • 2018-12-05 at 2:06 pm

    Is it me, or is Gareth Morgan currently in the “I’m a Celebrity” jungle as his alter ego Anne Hegerty?

  • 2018-12-04 at 7:21 pm

    In reply to “Not on a medical pension”

    I have trouble understanding what on earth could cause a person to write such an uninformed comment and openly display such prejudice. Essentially spouting some uninformed notion which I for one find deeply offensive.

    Not to explain myself to you but for those with more open minds;

    To be awarded an Injury Pension one has to have a permanent injury that prevents them from performing the duties of a police officer. It isn’t a case of seeing the Force Doc’ and complaining of some bogus injury.
    The Force Doc will seek Specialist reports and if you think you can pull the wool over the eyes of Specialists in an attempt to swing an Injury Pension you are very misguided indeed.

    In my particular case I saw four different specialists, all in an effort to seek a way to recover from my injuries and return to a career I loved.
    I never sought retirement, I did all that I could to return to work. Retirement due to injury came as bitter blow. A blow that still hurts to this day.

    It took me a long long time to come to terms with both a serious debilitating injury and the feeling of shame that somehow I’d let my family friends and colleagues down by no longer being able to pull my weight. To tell the truth I don’t think I really ever will get over it. It’s something you just have to learn to live with although reading comments like that does feel like salt being rubbed in an open wound.

    You know what really gets to me is those few, like this commenter who maybe sees you once or twice, through cynical eyes, managing without apparent difficulty.
    They are without any care or comprehension of how you really are and the pain and difficulty you are doing you level best to hide, They hold such deep seated prejudice, because they really don’t give a darn, wouldn’t even care to enquire how you really are and most importantly are not informed or even qualified to hold such an opinion.

    I’m eager to know what job it is that someone can do that do after leaving the police having being retired on medical grounds that I could do that carries the same mental demands, risks and physical requirements that I frequently encountered during my career.

    I’d love to have been able to have my injury cured and be able to return to the job I loved and not have to live with the severe pain and many limitations that I have to cope with every single day.
    Also, being able to return to work I’d be able to contribute to my ordinary Police Pension and later retire on a full pension.

    The most important point that you, “Not on a medical pension” clearly fail to grasp is that Chief Constable Morgan has Regulations that by law he is required to follow and abide by, and which he is not doing.
    It would appear from your uninformed comment that you have no problem with that.

    I for one have no objection to any fair and proper lawful consideration as to whether my injury has substantially altered from when I was last reviewed.

  • 2018-12-04 at 4:21 pm

    As a citizen of Staffordshire I have to ask whether or not it is acceptable to ask our Police Officers to put themselves in harms way when they have a Chief Constable like Morgan who would be swift to try to reduce their pension should they receive an injury which resulted in their retirement, especially from someone who is extremely unlikely to be in harms way whilst on duty himself.
    Should any future court case find that he has acted unlawfully then I feel that it our duty to bring him to book. He should not be allowed to hide behind the phrase that he was acting on legal advice, he would have been the one seeking this advice and ultimately as U.S. President Harry S. Truman said” the buck stops here”
    In his questions and answers page on the Staffordshire Police website when asked;
    What inspired you to join policing?
    As part of his answer he states ” I had no close family links to the service but felt a strong affinity to protection of the vulnerable”. He really applied this quality when implementing a reduction in pensioners benefits, which in some cases he is looking to back date, just a few weeks before Christmas.
    Once again as a citizen of Staffordshire I ask do we want a man like this in charge of our Police Force, does anyone think that he inspires confidence in the officers below him to go out there to protect the public?

  • 2018-12-04 at 8:38 am

    I have followed this issue with considerable interest. I have read the IODPA blogs and it causes me significant concern, as a tax payer, that CC Morgan has been and continues to be allowed to waste tax payers money with these mass reviews. His process is flawed from the onset when he chose which bands to review, demanded medical records and sent out highly intrusive questionnaires.

    I find it abhorrent that these retired officers are being treated with such blatant contempt. These officers have been injured in the line of duty and as such they are entitled to be compensated in a way commensurate to their injuries either physical or mental. I support the fact that each award should be paid at the correct rate but the manner in which this Chief Constable has gone about these reviews is nothing short of vindictiveness.

    To now take the decision to reduce certain officers pensions simply because they refused to roll over and allow him to unlawfully apply the regulations is surely a criminal act? As a lay person, if these individuals attended the required appointments with the Doctors then I’m of the opinion that they’ve done what is legally required of them.

    I’ve read the injury regulations and this Regulation 33 is quite specific as it refers to failing to attend to such appointments or interviews as the medical authority thinks necessary. I’m assuming that it is the Doctors who decided that the retired officers needed to attend for interview? I’m also assuming that it must be the same doctors who have decided the relevant reduction in each individuals pension having found an substantial alteration? Surely this is not a decision that CC Morgan can take as he does not have the necessary qualifications to determine who should sit where on the banding system. Furthermore, where does it say that the reduction can be back dated?

    Clearly I’m not an expert but given everything I have read, I am of the opinion that this Chief Constable has got this very very wrong. I think he has acted outside of the spirit of the regulations and possibly unlawfully.

    I am a retired Army Officer having served 38 years and I have to say that if the MOD treated injured soldiers in such a deplorable manner, I would be out there raising merry hell. I worked within the welfare sphere for many years and the treatment of these retired Police Officers is tantamount to victimisation. This Chief Constable must be stopped and he should be challenged in a public forum to explain his grossly negligent actions in wasting tax payers money throughout this process.

  • 2018-12-03 at 10:57 pm

    Fact. We all know officers who have managed to go out on medical and then make an amazing recovery when starting a new job a few weeks later. Yes, there are some that seriously deserve a medical after what they have endured but there are also some that have played the system and are now working full time in an equally demanding role whilst receiving a full police medical pension. Why should they receive such an enhanced medical pension ?I hope it’s the latter the C C is targeting. If it is, then he should be thanked for doing the right thing. Every CC should be looking at those entitled to police pensions and if a miraculous recovery has been made, give them an option of returning to operational duties or reduce the pension accordingly, the pot is not endless !

    • 2018-12-04 at 12:19 am

      Are you Gareth Morgan?

    • 2018-12-04 at 10:22 am

      In reply to ‘Not on a medical pension’ –

      Whenever anyone claims to be stating a ‘fact’ and then follows it with, ‘we all know someone’ their argument fails immediately. The writer has used something known as the ‘bandwaggon fallacy’ – a fault in logic whereby something is claimed to be true merely because a large number of people accept it as true. ‘The Earth is flat – we all know that!’

      I am a retired officer and I don’t know of anyone who retired due to injury on duty who has made ‘an amazing recovery’. Thus, ‘we all know’ is false.

      A fact we do know is there is a suspicion in some people’s minds that some former officers have secured an unfair advantage in receiving a level of injury pension payment which is not a appropriate reflection of the extent of their disabilities.

      Such suspicions will have arrived not from facts, but from rumours, from tales told over a pint after work, from casual observation of someone who appears to be fit and well yet is on an injury pension, and so on.

      So, let me appeal to anyone tempted to spread unsupported suspicions. What you are doing is no better than the actions of the bigot who says that all people from Nigeria are scammers, or that all State benefit claimants are work-shy, or that all landlords are grasping tyrants, or that all Labour voters are motivated by jealousy, or that all Tories are upper-class twits.

      What needs to be borne in mind is that an injury pension is paid in one or other of four bands. They are ‘slight disablement’, ‘minor disablement’, ‘major disablement’ and ‘very severe disablement.’ The Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations anticipate that many, possibly most who are forced to retire due to injury on duty will go on to find paid employment. The injury pension itself is described in the Regulations as a ‘minimum income guarantee’. In other words, the pension is there as a back-stop, an amount of income which the former officer can rely on, whether they find work or not. It is also a form of compensation for the injury, and by inference, for the loss of the police wage and the career, and the opportunity to earn a full term police retirement pension.

      The review provision is there to allow an injury pension to be adjusted should circumstances change.

      So, when next you see a former officer who retired with an injury pension please stop for a moment before you label him or her as having made an amazing recovery. They might well be making the best out of a bad situation. They may be in constant pain yet be soldiering on. They may have invisible mental injury which leaves them looking fit and well but with inner demons eating away them day after day.

      My disagreement with the comment posted is that it is a wild generalisation not supported by provable evidence. However, I can only agree with the sentiment that nobody who has indeed made a substantial recovery is entitled to continue to receive an injury pension paid at a rate which no longer reflects the degree of disablement.

      What I can not agree with is that a police pension authority should think it can conduct reviews of all who are in receipt of an injury pension merely to try to discover the few who might be on too high a level of injury pension. Police pension authorities need to find a better way to handle reviews – a way which is not motivated by unfounded rumours and suspicions.

      We do have some facts which justify my use of the word ‘few’ in relation to this, for such data as we have shows that of the reviews held in all forces in England and Wales in the five year period 2011 – 2015 there were 83 reviews which resulted in a decision that degree of disablement had lessened. That amounted to just 10% of the total number of reviews held. Sadly, that figure is not entirely accurate, for 25 of the 83 were decisions made, not by a doctor, but unlawfully by a civilian employee in a certain northern force. When the 25 unlawful reviews are discounted, the figure for reductions becomes 7% – and that figure will have been further reduced by successful appeals. (We know there have been appeals, but we do not have the collated results.)

      The data also shows that in the same period 6.82% of reviews resulted in a decision to increase the amount of injury pension paid, which means a doctor had determined there had been a substantial worsening of the disablement, sufficient to move the individual into a different category, as set out above.

      The view put forward by ‘not on a medical pension’ is therefore not only short on factual support, but is biased as it does not beat a drum for the plight of those former colleagues who are being underpaid their injury pensions.

    • 2018-12-04 at 11:23 am

      ‘Not on a medical pension’.

      You like many others peddling this myth, often get confused by police pensions. Let me try to enlighten your knowledge, so maybe, just maybe, you’ll stop being one who does!

      It’s a fact of life that many police officers never reach the end of the planned service and retire early on medical grounds. Most of these are due to the ‘hand that life deals them’, maybe suffering from cancer, other illnesses and accidents that do not occur as part of the job. These are ill health retirements, and may include people ‘malingering’, like you are referring too. These pensions once granted, are for life and cannot, unless fraud is found, be considered for review. So maybe, just maybe, a person forced to leave due to cancer, thankfully goes into remission and is able to recover some of their life? Just a thought.

      However, there is a separate type of pension, an ‘Injury On Duty’ pension. This is only awarded after a detailed and necessarily intense medical investigation. They are not easy to obtain.

      The person involved has been adjudged (in 4 bands, from 1, slight to 4, extreme disability), by a Doctor, to be injured doing the job and maybe therefore be forced to retire as a result. It is these pensions, which under the regs, can be reviewed, as injury conditions can change, that are being attacked here. All those I’ve meet in this category, in my book, are genuine Injury on duty conditions.

      The regs were written to ensure that officers injured this way protecting the public, were properly cared for, but in these money conscious times, the regs are being viewed & manipulated by some Chief Constables, as a way of saving cash.

      So Yes, the rumours of possible former officers going out on a ‘medical’ to which they did not deserve, maybe true, although without evidence on an individual basis, like most myths, it’s just a rumour. However, like me, classed as PTD…Permanently Totally Disabled, (I’ll gladly show you my scars from the countless operations, I’ve had), I’m yet to meet an IOD who is a fake!

      Perhaps you’ll pass this on to any others who seek your opinion.

      Ps if you are Chief Constable Gareth Morgan, or one of his lackeys, you already know this and your post was just another piece of propaganda being peddled to make him look good!

    • 2018-12-04 at 12:03 pm

      There are some who retire on ill-health (non-injury) grounds who whilst not medically fit (and the bar is high) to perform the duties of a police officer are perfectly capable of starting another career which does not demand such a level of fitness.
      Likewise, some retire with an injury award and can take on a job where their injury does not prevent them doing it well. Bear in mind that these are people whose career has been cut short, in many cases, uninjured they could have carried on in the service for ten years or more, achieving higher rank and a better pension.
      I would be interested to see actual, rather than anecdotal examples of people on ill-health/injury pension making a miracle recovery. Speaking for myself I only wish I could and go out and get a job with decent pay, my health has put paid to that for ever.

    • 2018-12-04 at 12:46 pm

      You should be very thankful you are ‘Not on a medical pension’! You may, possibly, know of someone who has retired on a Police IOD pension who, thankfully, is able to follow some sort of employment. This will depend on what Band of IOD pension he/she is receiving.

      Then there are cases, like my own, who are not paid on the CORRECT Banding,.(for over 30 years, due to an error on my retirement certificate!). I was retired on Band 1(minor injury). Following a review I am now paid Band 4 (very severe injury) and it has been backdated! I certainly hope CC Morgan uncovers a few of similar circumstances from any Band 1 Staffordshire IOD pensioners who may not yet know they can ask for an increase in Banding if their condition has worsened..

      Thanks to many more are becoming aware of their rights and are now standing up for those rights.

    • 2018-12-04 at 6:29 pm

      Now let me get this right,”not on a medical pension,” you feel,that all these officers,who have put their lives on the line and got injured through no fault of their own,but doing their job,then have had to face months of medical,tests and so forth only to be told by various office managers and higher ranking officers that they are unfit to do their job and then are discharged. No matter what they said,or maybe if a job was available for them to do,they still had no choice and they were pensioned off? So you’re now saying they are not unfit,but could do a job….really……well maybe all these office managers and senior officers are unfit to do their jobs,as if they’ve decided the officer has had to go,why are you saying they are still fit to work?
      These IOD officers didn’t make the rules,but it seems now,that they are now malingerers and layabouts. Oh how times change,from when many at the time were hero’s. You’ think you know the rules” not on a medical pension” yet you obviously have your head in the sand and have no idea about the rules and regulations.You should be thankful you are not an IOD and have the hardships they have to go through every single hour of every single day,as you obviously have no care or feelings about these officers,so it strikes me,you are a senior officer(of the Olympic torch variety) or you are senior HR or OH. Don’t worry about you’re pension or health will you,not like the poor iod.’s. If you had been one of my officers when I was in the forces,you would have been destroyed for your lack of care,before we’d even got to you lack of ability,knowledge,leadership.
      You are a disgrace” not on a medical pension” and I hope it comes back to haunt you.

    • 2018-12-04 at 9:41 pm

      It speaks volumes to me, personally, when you have an ex serving, high ranking officer, say, ‘this is bizarre ‘, after reading what Morgan has done. I do not know of any IOD pensioners who are trying to ‘screw the system’ as you seem to be implying…what I see, are men and women, who have had to leave the job they once loved. Bearing the mental and physical scars, that are with them, day in and day out, and are now being tortured even more by this tyrant of a CC.
      I am an IOD, and let me tell you, I would love to have been able to work again, but my injury prevents me from doing so.
      Mr Morgan needs to get his head round the regulations and stop tryouts my to manipulate them,. He CANNOT cherry pick who should be on what banding, but I am confident that the matter will be resolved eventually for all concerned, and the likes of Andrew Coley and Gareth Morgan will have a lot of explaining to do to a man in a red robe….and no, it won’t be a Father Christmas!!

    • 2018-12-05 at 11:43 am

      In reply to ‘Not on a medical pension’ you are extremely fortunate.

      I’m guessing you are now sitting on a pension that far exceeds our own. You probably received a large lump sum and a monthly pension, for staying out of the way of harm. How lucky, how fortunate, I do hope you have good health to enjoy it……. we also paid into the pot! I suspect like Mr Morgan it’s fine to make unlawful decisions but like him would you personally want to take a cut? After all, as you say the pot is not endless………..

  • 2018-12-03 at 1:58 pm

    What is becoming very noticeable in the last few years is how much is being/ has been done to reduce IOD pensions no matter how unlawful or what the £ cost involved. The other noticeable thing has been how FEW IOD pensioners were aware of what was going on with other IOD pensioners. It was as if every case was a secret to the others. This is because each case was treated as individual. The HO 46/2004, reduced EVERY IOD pensioner to Band 1, the lowest IOD pension, once the pensioner reached 65 years of age. A blog group called PIPIN was started and that HO 46/2004 was fought and won, when it was legally declared unlawful and had to be put right. This will have been a VERY expensive cost to the Government.

    In 2006 it was decided that the IOD part of the police pensions would now be paid from LOCAL government. So local annual budgets were hit. Was this done to enable each force to ‘do their own thing’ as far as reducing the IOD pensions was concerned? One has to wonder!

    For so many years IOD pensioners have TRUSTED that their IOD pensions were for life, and a few were aware that, if their condition worsened, it could be increased, and, most of all, believed their pensions were correct!
    It eventually was discovered that MASS ‘reviews’ were being called for by some forces. This is not what the Pension Regulations are about! A new blog group was started and eventually became, a registered charity for IOD pensioners. Now more and more IOD pensioners are discovering what is going on and what to do about it.

    Morgan will learn that forewarned is forearmed! His now famous letter of 26/11/18 has almost doubled the number of IOD pensioners watching and learning and most of all supporting the victims of Morgans latest debacle. As each day passes more and more IOD pensioners (AND serving officers) are becoming aware of the mistakes that have been made and what the regulations TRULY say. So, many former police officers, a lot of who are still able to investigate, now asking the right questions and taking steps to have corrections made for any errors made in calculations of their IOD pension, no matter what year it happened in. They also have the ability to research and discover how just where all this corruption has come from!


  • 2018-12-03 at 10:04 am

    You are correct to say that some Officers retired on medical retirement have improved and here is the issue – if they left with an I’ll health retirement (medical) the decision cannot be challenged or overturned, it is set in stone, forever, even if they miraculously recover. They did not have to have been injured, purely to be Ill. Yes, there have been some malingerers who have successfully benefited from that process, I acknowledge that.
    That is not the issue here. These are former Officers who were injured whilst on duty, as a result of being on duty. It may be a gunshot, a stabbing, being thrown down a staircase by an offender, as the result of a collision or many other reasons. The decision relating to their injury can be reviewed. Many of them cannot recover, cannot do the role they previously did and often cannot work at all. They are totally, permanently disabled. That was the decision of the doctors appointed by the Police Service bosses. On this occasion those are the people who have been targeted by the Chief Constable. It is entirely nonsensical.
    As the daughter of and wife of retired police officers I know the dangerous situations they are sent into on behalf of the community they serve and I believe that if they are severely injured in the line of duty, that community has a responsibility towards them. Do unto others as you would have them do to you!

  • 2018-12-02 at 8:51 pm

    As I see it there are three possibilities here.
    1. Mr. Morgan is far more intelligent than anyone is giving him credit for.
    2. He knows something that others don’t.
    3. The pressure has got to him and he has completely lost the plot.
    I have to admit that I am not acquainted with all the intricacies of this subject, but it seems to me that this is an absolutely insane act by Mr. Morgan, in fact suicidal.
    I get the impression that this is the last throw of the dice by a desperate man. What do you think?

    • 2018-12-03 at 3:07 pm

      Having read through the comments, this seems to be Mr Morgan’s ‘baby’? Not forgetting of course other well know persons from a handful of other Forces, waiting in the wings. I never ever though I would say it but thank goodness some Forces have common sense and decency. Is this because they have had officers killed recently? There is no other job like the Police Service, increased threats of terrorism, knife crimes, armed robberies and now armed house burglaries and they expect officers after taking an oath to plough in and not worry about any consequences.

      All he has done is reinforce the exceptionally low morale of serving officers! Not very bright, considering several have lost their lives in the line of duty, no doubt at some point, he’ll turn his unwanted attention to the widows/widowers and children of those officers killed.

      He thinks he deserves his annual salary (and all those extra little add on’s) I don’t……..

  • 2018-12-02 at 8:44 pm

    Far from all, but we all now a percentage of officers medically retired and then miraculously make an excellent recovery only previously recorded in the bible… or other religious scriptures if you prefer.
    I’m sure due process and proper legal advice and appeals will sort the matter out in which ever way is right.

    • 2018-12-03 at 4:35 pm

      “Far from all, but we all now a percentage of officers medically retired and then miraculously make an excellent recovery only previously recorded in the bible… or other religious scriptures if you prefer.”

      No I personally don’t, and if anything, the “percentage” I know actually play down any worsening of their conditions just to avoid any more anxiety to the process, what some have managed though is to develop better coping strategies and mechanisms over time, in my opinion, that isn’t something they should be financially penalised for.

    • 2018-12-04 at 2:52 pm

      McHammer, I would like to answer you eloquently and state the facts of CC Morgans unlawful behaviour to you but I have lost all patience with you ignorant people who do not know your arse from your elbow! Please do not comment and make allegations against seriously injured officers when you have never faced an angry man or men in your sheltered little life. These Officers are on the street for little pay protecting the likes of you!

  • 2018-12-02 at 9:35 am

    Hang your head in shame you lookalike Police Officer I doubt if you have ever done a hard days work in your life, be ashamed, very ashamed you should be a politician you would be good at that but as a police officers you are a disgrace to the uniform

  • 2018-12-01 at 10:13 pm

    It is beyond belief that this man continues to flout the regulations and has resorted to such underhand and bullying tactics in his effort to save money and appease the PCC. The IOD’s involved have all attended the SMP appointment and have complied with the legal requirements of the PIBR 2006. The SMP has a duty to reach a decision and has failed in that that duty. I’d like to know when Mr Morgan attended medical school and gained the qualifications to override the opinions of hard working GP’s and in some cases specialist consultants who have submitted letters on behalf of some IOD’s stating that there has been no change in their patients condition. Mr Morgan is a disgrace and should be ashamed to wear the uniform of Staffordshire Police. His arrogance is unbelievable. He has discriminated against people and his maladministration is overwhelming. How on earth does he think he will get away with acting in such a malicious and vindictive manner?

  • 2018-12-01 at 9:42 pm

    Please take time to consider if Morgan had any involvement in the actual instigation of this round of Staffordshire Police Injury Award Reviews even before he officially took office on 19th June 2017.

    1. The previous Chief Constable, Jane Sawyers, announced her planned retirement on 14th October 2016. Her announcement was recorded in the local Express and Star newspaper on that date and on BBC news the following day. She said she would work with Matthew Ellis (Staffs PCC) to find a replacement. It was reported that Mr Ellis wrote to every senior place officer in the Country, inviting applications.

    2. In a letter of 18th April 2017 the Deputy CC, Mr Baker, stated the Chief Constable (viz Jane Sawyers) had decided that injury pensions would be reviewed. Please consider Ms Sawyers was leaving the Force in a matter of weeks time. Why would she instigate the reviews when she had such a short period of time left in post?

    3. Morgan’s position as Chief Constable ratified by Staffordshire Police and Crime Panel on 7th May 2017 having been “provisionally picked by Matthew Ellis”. So, Morgan’s appointment was confirmed only 3 weeks after the letters to injury award recipients from Mr Baker.

    4. Morgan became Chief Constable on 19th June 2017.

    All I ask you to consider is the question, “Could Morgan and Ellis have colluded in starting the Injury Award Reviews when considering Morgan’s history with this very subject?’ I wonder when Ellis actually “picked” Morgan for the role.

  • 2018-12-01 at 5:54 pm

    For what it’s worth, I’m a serving officer in Staffordshire Police and myself and the rest of my team think Mr Morgan is a narcissistic bully. No one has a good word to say about him. Being front line we recognise the fact that every day we’re on duty, we too could up end up being injured and have to leave. We hope the pensioners get their money back and we can rid of Mr Morgan. Please don’t print my name.

    • 2018-12-03 at 3:24 pm

      Pensioners are rebelling for all serving officers. If the worst does happen to you, you will be looked after by those who have gone before you, clearly you can’t count on this CC. The current system allows CC’s to bend regulations like banana’s, frantically trying to find loopholes to get out of their legal obligations.

  • 2018-12-01 at 3:28 pm

    Mr Morgan writes,

    ‘This is a fair and transparent process which ensures that recipients continue to receive the appropriate level of Injury Benefit – which is paid in addition to the police pension entitlement – and that public money is used most effectively.’

    In that single sentence is revealed the dual motivations for Mr Morgan’s astounding misuse of the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006, and his abuse of the General Data Protection Regulation 2018/Data Protection Act 2018 and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

    What is it then, which motivates this man?

    Mr Morgan redundantly mentions the police pension entitlement. For non-police readers of this thread, all police officers can join a contributory pension scheme. There have been several schemes over the years – they keep evolving. The common factor is that officers pay in a hefty percentage of their salaries (currently around 14.5%) and draw a pension on completion of service, or earlier if retired on grounds of permanent ill health or disabling injury, whether incurred on duty or not. The costs of the schemes, are, since 2006, paid out of the police pension fund, into which officers’ contributions and an employer’s contribution are paid. This arrangement ensures that the cost of pensions in payment is kept separate from the cost of running a police force.

    As the various police pension schemes have no impact on the force budget and are a statutory requirement, part of the conditions of service, why does Mr Morgan see fit to mention them? It can only be inferred that he wishes to have us believe that the injury pension is somehow an extra source of income in retirement which is denied former officers who have retired uninjured. His sentence implies injured officers are better off.

    This is a gross distortion. Mr Morgan conveniently forgets that officers who retire without injury pensions can, if they so wish, take up other employment. They can embark on a whole new career, with a whole new additional level of income over an above their police retirement pension. Mr Morgan fails to acknowledge that even a slight level of disability can, and often is, a substantial barrier to employment and resultant remuneration.

    As disabling injury can occur at any stage of service, all injury on duty pensioners will have had their police careers cut short. Once they leave the force they of course cease contributing to their normal police retirement pension scheme – and consequently receive a lesser police pension.

    Mr Morgan is hinting that injury pensioners are overpaid, which is simply not so. From that hint, he is seeking to make us feel that injury pensioners are greedy. From that characterisation it is a small step to claim not just the duty, but the moral obligation and justification to vigorously and vigilantly ensure that injury pensions are not being overpaid.

    Let’s rewrite Mr Morgan’s sentence. ‘This is a fair and transparent process which ensures that recipients continue to receive the appropriate level of Injury Benefit – and that public money is used most effectively.’

    Now the double-benefit inference has been removed, we have also removed one of Mr Morgan’s motivations, and in so doing have revealed it in all its green-eyed and manipulative ugliness. Mr Morgan is full of wrong-headed righteous jealousy. He fails to understand the plain fact that disabled former officers are generally no better off than their retired uninjured colleagues.

    The disadvantages, both financial and social of being a disabled former officer are many and varied. Whilst uninjured retirees will have contributed cash to build up their pensions, disabled former officers have contributed something against which cash cannot be weighed. They have given up their health, their mobility, in many cases their minds, their sense of self-worth. They have lost the companionship of colleagues, their purpose for being, their pride in a job worth doing and well done. No easy transition to a fulfilled life after police service for them. They all face a lifetime of disadvantage, pain and pills.

    What then of Mr Morgan’s other motivation? This one hides in plain sight. He writes of ensuring that public money is used effectively.

    Injury benefit provisions were in 2006 removed from the contributory pension schemes and became a stand-alone scheme. Unlike the retirement pension scheme, the police injury benefit scheme is now funded entirely out of each force’s budget.

    No wonder then that the likes of Mr Morgan, and a few other Chief Constables and Police and Crime Commissioners, view injury pensions as a drain on dwindling resources.

    That is a very misguided way of looking at things. Firstly, reviews do not save money. This hard truth has been demonstrated, not only by the experiences of other forces, but also personally to Mr Morgan when he was DCC in Avon and Somerset. Briefly, injury pension payments can be increased as a result of a review, as well as be reduced. About as many get increased as get decreased. However, when a pension is decreased there may well result a challenge to that decision, which increases costs to the force. There are other on-costs, adding to the total sum, which calculations I believe have been well worked though by the majority of forces. They have concluded that if a long-term view is taken and if financial models take into account all variables, the bottom line is certain – any hope that savings will be made by conducting reviews is illusory.

    Unlawful decisions attract expensive challenges. They also teach the doctors who get appointed to conduct medical examinations, assessments and interviews under the injury on duty Regulations that they have been handed a poisoned chalice. Their reputations, even their registrations to practice are on the line. When matters go to judicial review, it is the doctor who is named as co-respondent alongside the police pension authority. Forces are finding it hard to recruit and retain suitable doctors – and by suitable I mean doctors who are happy to put their medical ethics and large chunks of law to one side so as to better please their paymasters.

    That is why the vast majority of forces are shy of holding reviews. Those forces can do adding up and taking away – a task which appears to be beyond Mr Morgan.

    Secondly, it is fundamentally wrong that an injury pension scheme manager, which Mr Morgan is, in his office as Police Pension Authority, should approach his duties from a standpoint of seeking to manipulate the Regulations so as achieve savings. Or, as he euphemistically puts it, to use public money effectively.

    It is a rock solid certainty Parliament intended that injury benefits should be paid, as laid out in the rules of the scheme, with a disinterested stance taken towards the cost of paying the benefits when applying the scheme and when making decisions required by the scheme.

    There should be a completely unassailable chasm between any concerns by Chief Constables over the cost of providing injury pensions and the duties of a Police Pension Authority. It can be argued, as Mr Morgan seems to propose, that a Chief Constable would be remiss if he did not carefully manage his police budget. However if thoughts turn to the cost of injury pensions, then a proper, the only proper, approach is to take the issue up with the Government. A Chief Constable has no business in casting about within the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations for ways to trim the outgoings from his police budget. Mr Morgan would do well to remember he has two hats, and he should keep them on different pegs.

    Now, by all accounts Mr Morgan is not a stupid man. If he knows, as I suspect he does, that savings are illusory, that most other forces are not holding reviews, that he is acting beyond his regulatory powers, then his stated concern for the public purse must be another display of smoke and mirrors. Nothing about Mr Morgan’s actions is fair nor transparent, and his justifications are a sham.

    Mr Morgan’s true motivation must therefore be something hidden, dark and very dodgy.

  • 2018-12-01 at 12:57 pm

    Morgan considers himself above the law and twists regulations to his own ends…What he wants to believe OR how he thinks the regs are written in his favour….He obviously considers himself an expert……but we all know what an expert is….An Ex is a has been and a spert is a drip under pressure…..

  • 2018-12-01 at 11:01 am

    It’s actually hilarious how he’s tried to make it sound like he/they are the victims in all this, jog on Porky !

  • 2018-12-01 at 11:00 am

    C.C. Morgan has been working overtime on this and clearly building to a biased result in his/S.P’s favour. This is a clear manipulation of his position and the law. He has tried to pressurise retired officers to attend unnecessary meetings, to take away their right to be supported at such meetings, to force people into giving their full medical records, when all this has failed he acts like a giant bulldozer and chooses to apply regulations as he decides to interpret them. I’m sure it is no coincidence that this is on the build up to Christmas, to rock pensioners very foundations not only with the sudden and dramatic drop in their band but also with the added worry of threatened back payments! C.C Morgan should be ashamed of himself and his actions as a Senior Police Officer, he is not ‘The Law’, he is not the ‘Law Maker’ but he is clearly a ‘Law Breaker’ and a very forceful, unfair, bully of a man and head of force!

    • 2018-12-01 at 9:55 pm

      It’s not just the IODP’s he’s penalising many spouse had to give up their careers/jobs to care for us, they don’t take that into account, I suppose it would have been easier for them, if they had put DNR on our files when we joined up!!

  • 2018-12-01 at 10:00 am

    CC Gareth Morgan the modern day equivalent of the Sherriff of Nottingham, take from the disabled whilst feathering his own nest at the expense of others.

  • 2018-12-01 at 9:57 am

    ‘You’re looking very pleased with yourself today son. What have you been up to?’
    ‘I’ve only gone and done it; I’ve shown them that they can’t mess with me; I’ve invoked Regulation 33. Now they know who the boss is.’
    ‘Oh dear I thought you might do something like this and as usual your timing is impeccable, I mean here we are at the beginning of December, just a couple of weeks until Christmas and you’ve dropped Injured on Duty Pensioners.’
    ‘Yes mum, but here’s the best bit, I’m backdating it to when they saw Charlie Vivian last year. In some cases I’m going to get a whole year’s pension back. That’ll teach them.’
    ‘Oh yes son that will teach them. They’re all going to have a lovely Christmas, probably down at the Salvation Army if they can get in.’
    ‘Tell me more about how you’ve worked this out?’
    ‘Well, you know Andy used to give a bit of guidance to SMP’s and instructions to the pensioners, you know to only contact him etc. well Charlie did a few reviews and dropped everyone like he should and I’m just invoking what he decided. So none of it is even my decision.’
    ‘Ah yes I remember Dr Vivian, I seem to remember her withdrew from the process citing stress even though he specialises in stress management. I’m not sure you can rely on him to support you. If you were happy with his decisions why didn’t you invoke them at the time; why did you put them through the process again and why did you leave it for a year in some cases before implementing? Was that for the Christmas impact?’
    ‘Well, we stuck them back in front of another SMP so we could firm it all up, you know confirm the decisions Charlie made.’
    ‘And we all know how that went son, don’t we; both your new SMP’s didn’t go along with what you wanted – they both left and now you can’t find anyone to do the job. They don’t want to know, it’s too contentious for them; one of them even said he wanted to retire before he was struck off. That should have told you something.’
    ‘I know mum that’s why I’ve had to become the new SMP. What I’ve done is drop all the physicals to band 1 and the rest by a band. It’s dead easy really.’
    ‘So, you’ve made medical decisions on your own? Oh dear it’s even worse than I thought.’
    ‘I had to mum, they called my bluff, I’m sure it will be ok.’
    ‘You’re sure are you? Well I’m sure that their solicitors will have a different opinion on that. You do remember that Merseyside tried this and backed out of it soon enough. And it cost them. Who is going to pick up the tab for yours? No, don’t tell me it’s the taxpayer.’
    ‘There won’t be a cost to the Force because with not paying the pensions I’m saving loads of cash. The public will be so pleased.’ Let’s have some tea and cake to celebrate shall we?’
    ‘I’m just thinking about your ex colleagues and the sort of Christmas they’ve got to look forward to, so no if you want cake you can buy it yourself and if you’re here for Christmas it will be the same story then.’

  • 2018-12-01 at 7:43 am

    It is very clear that these reviews are being done for one purpose only,Too save money. It is also very clear that when the officers concerned attended the reviews that Staffordshire Police had already instructed the SMPs how to conduct the review. The SMP is supposed to be independent,not working to an agenda supplied by the force.
    If the reviews were conducted lawfully then officers would cooperate but as they are being conducted outside of the regulations then what do you expect.
    This will now go to a judicial review and will undoubtedly find that Morgan is wrong. I wonder if this is the case will he be then subject to either criminal charges or internal discipline procedures.
    Brace yourself Morgan the fight is now at your door.

  • 2018-12-01 at 7:28 am

    Morgan aka Chief Wigam may as well be living in Springfield, his knowledge of the law is similiar to the Simpsons only he is not in any way funny, His unlawful focus on IOD pensioners is vindictive pathetic and deluded. I may be old fashioned but maybe he needs to focus his attention on the needs of the Staffs public , on cutting crime and the welfare of his force.

  • 2018-12-01 at 6:52 am

    Quote from Mr Morgan 29/12/17
    “The review is to ensure we are ethical and proportionate in the way we use public money and to ensure there is a fair and consistent approach to all. The review will ensure that the pensioners continue to receive the appropriate level of award.”
    So you pay doctors thousands of pounds to review injured officers and then you make the decision to reduce their banding, please explain how you are qualified too make that decision. Does this mean police forces no longer need medically qualified people to review pensioners, have I missed something.
    You also stated that the review were not a money saving exercise, what are they then?
    Are you admitting you wasted thousands of pounds of public money?

  • 2018-12-01 at 1:01 am

    So will the public get to see how much of the tax payers money he will spend throughout this whole process? I’m sure the public will be overjoyed to see it being spent so wisely.

  • 2018-12-01 at 12:39 am

    Following this as an injured former officer from a force which, to the best of my knowledge, has never held reviews.

    How come Mr Morgan says he has a duty to do reviews, when clearly my force has not been in any trouble for not holding reviews? In fact, I have discovered that only a tiny handful of forces are holding reviews – and they include the mighty Metropolitan Police. I’m pretty sure the Met has better lawyers than does Staffordshire – so if the Met are not reviewing, that must be lawful.

    I thought that if there was a statutory duty, then it HAS to be performed. The answer must be that the so-called duty to review is governed by a power of discretion.

    I’ve read the Regulations, and regulation 37 says that a police pension authority SHALL ‘consider’ whether the degree of an individual’s disablement has altered. That’s all – just consider it, not issue questionnaires, demand the individual give access to medical records, make appointments for a lackey doctor to examine and interview – just consider.

    That’s one level of discretion. There is a second one. Any considerations must be, ‘at such intervals as are suitable.’ For many disabled officers there will be no suitable interval, for their injuries will be stable and not likely to alter.

    I would also like to question how Mr Morgan reconciles his role as the holder of the office of Police Pension Authority, with his appointment and role as Chief Constable? Surely the two are in conflict? A CC needs to be concerned about the budget, but has NO role in reviewing injury pensions. A PPA is required to ensure the Regulations are applied lawfully, and must therefor be blind to the consequent financial implications to the Chief Constable’s budget of any decisions he makes.

    I don’t know Mr Morgan, but I am heartily glad that he is not looking after my injury pension. He is either a monster or a fool – perhaps both.

  • 2018-11-30 at 10:56 pm

    I would imagine this has boosted the moral no end for all those officers presently serving. They have no need to be concerned when they are facing the dangers that Policing brings. They can be confident in the knowledge that their courageous leader Mr. Morgan has their backs if things should go wrong.

  • 2018-11-30 at 10:46 pm

    Mr. Morgan, If your legal team has given the advice leading to this course of action, they are either incompetent or they are stitching you up. With friends like that who needs so many enemies? Perhaps if you have so much confidence in them you could instruct them for your defence when your time comes to face justice.

    • 2018-12-01 at 8:53 am

      Advice and legal challenge = £££££££ signs for their profession, which ultimately the taxpayer will pay for! 😡

  • 2018-11-30 at 9:26 pm

    What’s in a title ? How about ,,Medical practitioner Morgan ? To be qualified in assessing disabled pensioners level of injury ,then deciding what banding they should be on will probably end up being more lucrative than incompetent policeman .

  • 2018-11-30 at 8:43 pm

    Mr MORGAN really ought to consider his position as regards Misfeasance in Public Office: The tort of misfeasance in a public office has its origin in the premise that public powers are to be exercised for the public good. The tort is committed where a public officer abuses his or her office and causes damage to another person. The plaintiff must prove the following four elements: first, that the defendant is a “public officer”; second, that the defendant acted in the exercise or purported exercise of his or her office; third, that the defendant acted with malice towards the plaintiff, or with knowledge that he or she was acting invalidly and that damage to the plaintiff would result; and fourth, that the plaintiff suffered damage as a result of the defendant’s conduct. Let hope that the 17 pensioners and their legal advisors consider this little gem!

    • 2018-11-30 at 10:16 pm

      Fred. I forgot about that legal concept. You are absolutely right. I hope that the legal team involved have or are considering this action.

  • 2018-11-30 at 7:55 pm

    The Devil whispered in my ear “you’re not strong enough to withstand the storm”.

    Today I whispered in the Devil’s ear “I am the storm”.

  • 2018-11-30 at 4:58 pm

    His namesake, Arthur Morgan would turn in his grave at this decision

  • 2018-11-30 at 4:11 pm

    This Chief Constable is arrogant and ignorant. He hasn’t got a clue what the regulations say or he chooses to maliciously ignore them. In fact, he is so stupid that I believe the Home Office are using him to bully injured officers and unlawfully reduce injury pensions.

    I believe that when the solicitors acting for IOD officers completely demolish this lunatic then I expect that Chief Constable Morgan should resign or preferably be sacked for unlawful conduct in a public office.

    I am an ordinary member of the public but am absolutely shocked by this course of events!

  • 2018-11-30 at 3:03 pm

    Why do the police and DWP always send out letters to arrive on a Saturday morning, so there is nothing you can do about it over the weekend ? Or is there another reason which I have not thought of ?
    Same with this rubbish, except this time it is just before Christmas. HO HO HO is not correct, NO NO NO is the message being sent out to some ex officers who have put their life on the line, EVERYDAY, to make sure other people (yes YOU) and their children, and rest of the family are kept safe. Anyone who has not HAD to work on Christmas day, AND new years every year, think yourself lucky. Police officers, paramedics etc have NO choice but to go to work, night and day, sometimes very long hours. They do not have a choice. If they did, can you imagine what would happen ? No police for 24 hours so they can, like most people, be able to stay at home with their children and eat Xmas dinner with all the family. 100% respect for police officers, past and present, and the ones who have been injured at work, just so YOU can have all day with your family.

    London falls apart when the tube drivers (paid much more money than a PC) are allowed to go on strike, imagine if police officers could go on strike ! Would they have the support of the public ? I had an idea about the tube drivers going on strike, put Police Officers on a course to be able to drive a tube, then if the drivers go on strike, call up police officers and “ask” them if they would drive a tube for a few days at tube drivers money ! That would work !

    ANYONE who thinks the police are overpaid (including those that have been injured on duty) Please spend a few hours in the back of a police car, or typing up their report, or booking someone into custody, or attending any crime, then attending a “cot death” etc etc. Would you go home happy and will never think about it again. The officers, and injured officers have to do the above ALL YEAR, EVERY YEAR !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Just think as YOU are sitting down, with all your family eating Xmas dinner. There are some people who MUST go to work to make sure YOU can enjoy it. Also the officers who have received life changing injuries and are unable to have another “normal” Xmas again.
    Sad thing is, YOU will not think about is, as YOU are having a great time, and most prob have all Xmas and New Year at home.

    Happy Christmas ????

  • 2018-11-30 at 2:51 pm

    This is a discusting unlawful act using the regulations out of all context to get his own way on people that have served their country for majority of their life and through it received injuries to warrant ani jury/ill health pension.most are elderly pensioners at the twilight of their life being faced with this action at this time of year will cause them trauma which could effect their health and mind sufficient enough to tip them over the edge God help them.
    I hope the lawyers and Courts show this man for what he is and cause him untold regret for what he has done on behalf of the Home Office.

    • 2018-12-01 at 8:36 am

      Spot on! However it’s not just the officers that suffer, it’s also the families, wives, husbands, parents, grandparents and children. Haven’t they ALL suffered enough? Suddenly (no warning) ALL their lives change. It’s not a slow degenerative illness (usually) it’s just another day for ALL, waking up, going to work, school and then someone decides they want to harm you and/or kill you, your world ENDS in seconds/minutes simply for trying to stop them harming or killing others. Family life for ALL within and without the Police Service is changed for ever. That day is always etched in the memory, endless trips to hospitals, reviews at a time you can’t even function as a human being struggling with all aspects of a normal life. The life you once had, reminders constantly that you can’t do the things you once did without thinking. Not huge things, things that are taken for granted, being unable to lift your child or grandchild, run, put your clothes on without sitting down to do so, join friends on skiiing, walking or drinking weekends.

      Spouse and children usually don’t claim benefits, often have given up work to look after their dependants or take over care, even so far as helping out before and after school. Most marriages (in my circle) haven’t survived the years of pressure caring for IOD’s. Personalities change, financial circumstances change, spouse can’t cope with the trauma or the physical disabilities and in the financial pressures of Iod’s its a strong person that stands by. The button counters have obviously never been through an iod or go through the overwhelming guilty for having survived, when other have not. Statistics show a high number try to end their lives (some are successful) directly attributed to seeing the pain that they are putting others through, being a burden, financially not able to support their loved ones, to the same degree as before THAT day.

      There is a long list of officers not able to be awarded their injury on duty pensions, or have had them for a very short time.

      Keep up the good work IODPA, hopefully ALL Forces will start to abide by the regulations………..

  • 2018-11-30 at 1:15 pm

    I am appalled that this Chief Constable seems intent on inflicting considerable distress and anguish, as well as financial hardship, on those that served his force so well, and who through no fault of their own became disabled through their service.
    It is clear there has been a money saving agenda driving his aggressive actions toward these disabled officers, and that when the regulations thwarted his plan he was willing to breach them in order to pursue his goal.
    I have no doubt the courts will unravel this mess and the disabled officers will have their pensions re instated, but the stress those elderly and injured former officers are going to have to endure will no doubt be long lasting and detrimental to their long term health.
    What an uncaring, thoughtless compassionless character this Chief Constable is..

  • 2018-11-30 at 12:57 pm

    My husband of 45 years was once a proud officer of Staffordshire Police. Many times he would come home carrying the injuries of being on duty but it never deterred him.

    Then the worst happened. His injuries were severe. So severe that for the past 30 years he has been unable to work at all. He has spent this past 30 years going to and fro from hospitals having numerous operations and procedures but his injuries have never improved. This is dispite the excellent work of the NHS.

    His health generally has deteriorated because of his injuries and this week was told by a consultant that he is a very poorly man. Not only that but this week he also had a letter from Staffordshire Police that a decision has been made, under Reg 33, that his injury pension is to be reduced from Band 4 to the lowest Band 1.

    My husband attended the review with the SMP, produced a report from his doctor saying there was no change in his condition, answered all the questions asked of him but did not produce his medical records or complete the intrusive questionnaire. There is no legal requirement for either of these.

    What I want to know Mr Morgan is what did my husband do wrong. He complied fully with the law. That is the law passed by Parliament not the law as made up by you.

    Explain yourself. I don’t think you can.

    • 2018-11-30 at 10:47 pm

      well said it is not easy to lay the facts on the line when by doing so it.leaves you open to further abuse. I applaud you Barry

    • 2018-12-01 at 8:43 am

      Stay strong. The CC in question has absolutely no idea what the families sacrifice to look after their IOD’s.

    • 2018-12-01 at 10:20 am

      That’s an absolute disgrace Arts wife, there can be no reason other than to save money to move him from band 4 to band 1, especially given there was supporting medical evidence.
      I truly wish you all the best in this fight and I hope Morgan and his cronies don’t just get a bloody nose as a result, I hope they get a bloody good hiding.

  • 2018-11-30 at 12:54 pm

    Hey Morgan listen up you big idiot, if this wasn’t so serious it would be a big joke!! What the hell are you playing at unlawfully taking money from disabled former officers, this is their money, not your money and they have every right to be receiving it in accordance with the law of this land. Unlike you they HAVE complied with the law and are being properly compensated for becoming disabled whilst protecting people like you!! I can’t tell you how angry I am, even though I’m not one of those poor victims of yours who are affected by your cruel and reckless act. But your time will come Mr big guy, make no mistake about it, we have a name for people like you who pick on soft targets and nobody likes a bully. The public are not behind you, the public will back the brave disabled officer every time, yes those brave men and women of ours who run towards danger when everyone else in running away. Keep that thought in your mind this Christmas Morgan and reflect on what you have just done. Just one final point, are you actually proud of yourself, if so I think you need help !!

  • 2018-11-30 at 12:39 pm

    Good Morning Gareth.What a lovely bright sunny day it is.Whats that you say,”You’re being buried in sh”Sorry it’s a bad line.Sheets of paper did you say.People are picking on you.Well that was some what inevitable after those codged together letters you sent out.What’s that.It wasn’t your idea to commit Fraud,or Malfeasance in public office.Well I can only suggest you lock your door.Oh.You already have done.Stop worrying,I’m sure the people trying to get in are not from The Serious Crime Squad.YET.Even if they are don’t worry.I’m sure they will show you equally as much respect,decency and understanding as you have shown your own injured officers.A hyperthetical conversation OR IS IT.Oh,I’m forgetting my mannersJust in case we don’t talk again.Do have a Good Christmas.Unfortunately there will be 17 IODs from Staffs and their extended families who won’t .To them I extend greetings and 100% Support.

  • 2018-11-30 at 12:35 pm

    “What’s the problem?”. In reply to your comment, what you describe as reasonable is more or less what the regulations provide including reviews of incapacity when appropriate – no problem with that – that is not what we’re fighting. We were retired under the regulations and we FULLY accept them. The problem is that, since 2004 we have been fighting UNLAWFUL attacks on our injury pensions. After 14 years we are STILL having to fight 14 years of unlawful actions by various authorities. Find out a little more about what the problem IS and maybe you won’t feel the need to ask that question.

  • 2018-11-30 at 12:06 pm

    Don’t Morgan’s actions not meet all the elements to prove “theft”?

  • 2018-11-30 at 11:54 am

    Given the history of Mr Morgan’s involvement it seems that it is not just his present actions that are unlawful and bullying – he has been intimately involved in the process for several years and must be fully aware that his actions are unlawful. It is clear that he has been “placed” in his current position with the specific intention that priority be given, over and above the management of his force, to continuing the sustained and systematic attack on police Injury On Duty pensioners in clear contravention of regulations – as demonstrated by consistent defeats in the courts. There must come a point when a criminal court must consider charges of maladministration and conspiracy against him. When that happens I do hope that he loses his entire pension.

  • 2018-11-30 at 11:51 am

    Clearly this despicable person and his mates consider themselves above the law. Manufacturing of false evidence seems commonplace as does the use of false instruments to deceive the disabled ex officers. Surely it is about time he was suspended and investigated for his actions. I bet those involved with him will show little spine and “grass” him up to save their own skins!
    I can hear his cries as his collar is felt, “Infamy infamy, they all have it in infamy!”

  • 2018-11-30 at 11:47 am

    This action is outrageous and despicable. I believe this man has acted beyond his remit and outside of the regulations. He must be stopped and held accountable for his disgusting tactics. IODP’s deserve to treated fairly and justly. Shame on you Mr Morgan, I do not believe you’ve heard the last of this.

  • 2018-11-30 at 11:31 am

    It is a very sad day when you see a senior officer turn on his own. His foremost DUTY should be to look after the welfare of those injured on duty. To pick on these vulnerable retired officers and cause them so much distress is disgraceful. Todays officers are poorly paid, poorly treated and pawns in politics. One thing they can be assured of is a total lack of support should they be disabled serving the people of this country.

  • 2018-11-30 at 9:32 am

    This site was brought to my attention some time ago and I regularly read with interest. The Staffordshire Chief Constable’s action is the most appalling event seen. He is clearly not fit for purpose. I was at one time employed in an organisation with a toxic leader bearing similar traits and witnessed the carnage caused. In the context of “protection of the emergency service workers,” the message he sends to his current employees is loud and clear and his action will no doubt give rise to further implications for recruitment and retention, perhaps at a national level. For those people now affected and their families, I send my best wishes and hopes for a speedy conclusion to this debacle.

  • 2018-11-29 at 11:03 pm

    Dear ‘What is the problem’. Thank you for being sufficiently brave to ask the question, against the majority who are angry at this decision.
    With respect, each of the pensioners concerned has not only submitted themselves for medical review by the Selected Medical Practitioner appointed by Chief Constable Morgan, acting in his capacity as the Police Pensions Authority, they have provided letters from their GP and in some cases from specialists in the field of their injury. They have answered questions posed by the SMP, the only thing they have not done is to provide their full medical records from birth, which they were not required to provide when they joined up and they have decided not to answer the most invasive questionnaire I have ever seen. The relevant regulations do not say that they are required to do either.
    Due to the results of the reviews not always meeting CC Morgan’s narrow requirements, the pensioners have been sent to another SMP to go through the process again, not 3 months after the first appointment (yes, 3 months, not 3 years). They have been bullied, harassed and threatened. They are all for lawful reviews, but an unlawful approach to reviews is the issue here and is the reason for the stance taken. The pensioners are not in the wrong here, CC Morgan is.
    As an aside, no, I’m not an injury on duty pensioner or iodpa member either, but I am capable or reading what the regulations state and, unlike Mr Morgan, I don’t interpret them as I would have wished them to be written.

    • 2018-11-30 at 12:20 pm

      Well said! ‘What is the problem’ is obviously very fortunate having a very caring employer who abides by regulations and current laws.

      I hear some even have fantastic private health scheme with 32 days annual leave thrown, can strike if conditions become so unbearable.
      Nothing worse than a keyboard warrior, spouting off about a subject and situation they know nothing about. In short Staffs Police are breaking the law……. but don’t let that spoil your good story.

  • 2018-11-29 at 9:05 pm

    Having Morgan in charge of a police force is akin to putting Charlie Drake in charge, for anyone who doesn’t know him he was a 1950/60’s comedian short fat with scruffy ginger hair! I think this time Morgan has surpassed himself and doesn’t realise that these injured officers of the past are also representative of those serving Staffordshire officers who at any time could find themselves injured and retired.

    So what kind of message are you putting out to your serving officers Morgan? We will look after you if you are injured or watch out you will be shafted and we will do your legs if you are injured. I fear the latter. Was it that Morgan didn’t get a Hornby double O model railway as a kid or wasn’t allowed and action man because they are dolls and boys don’t play with dolls, were you bullied?

    These pensioners are vulnerable in their age and disabilities some mental and some physical and to send letters at this time of year really how low can you go?

    There will be repercussions and bad press so I hope you have a thick skin Morgan although by looking at your decisions your skin must match your general demeanour.

    Lastly we are all in support of those who are being reduced and for those serving we wish you the best and you can only hope that one day Charlie Drake takes over as CC.

  • 2018-11-29 at 8:07 pm

    “In November 2013 the College of Policing Professional Committee approved a commission to review the management of injury on duty awards, ill health retirements and subsequent appeals to Police Medical Appeal Boards.

    Assistant Chief Constable Gareth Morgan of Warwickshire Police and West Mercia Police agreed to act as Senior Responsible Officer, reporting the
    progress of the review through the Workforce Development Business Area and ultimately the College of Policing Professional Committee.

    It seems that Morgan has had a keen interest in IOD pensions for some 5 years now. He must consider himself to be somewhat of an expert in the subject? One would think he would have known better than to do what he has just done to the 17 poor IOD pensioners!

    I have been an member for about 18 months now and have obviously learned a lot more than he did because I know that what he has done is not only unlawful but likely to be criminal too. Let him worry about his own pension when this matter gets to the higher quarter where it is going!

Comments are closed.