Staffordshire – The Story To Date

All the things I really like to do are either illegal, immoral, or fattening.

Alexander Woollcott (1887-1943)


Elsewhere on our web site are numerous comments concerning the action taken by Staffordshire Police in reducing the pension payments due to a group of disabled former officers. The comments make clear the feelings engendered in reaction to this dramatic turn of events.

IODPA has refrained from making comment as the issue is undoubtedly going to be subject to prompt legal challenge.

However, we can give an account of what has happened so far.

Officers who are injured on duty to such an extent they can no longer perform the ordinary duties of a constable can be required to retire. They can be awarded a one-off gratuity payment plus a pension, payable for life, as compensation for no-fault injury.

The compensation scheme is governed by The Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006, which is secondary legislation made by a Minister of State under provision of The Police Pensions Act 1976.

The Regulations, specifically regulation 37, allow the question of degree of disablement to be considered from time to time, as appropriate, for it is recognised that the disabling effects of duty injuries may worsen or lessen. If there has been a substantial alteration, then the amount of pension paid can be revised accordingly.

On 26th April 2017 Staffordshire Police commenced a programme intended to review the degrees of disablement of the over 300 former officers who are in receipt of an injury pension.

The programme quickly ran into difficulties as pensioners raised issues questioning the legality of the programme, both in concept and in detail.

A major issue was the insistence of Staffordshire Police that it be allowed full unrestricted access to individual’s medical records, from birth, and to personal financial information.

A number of pensioners refused to give permission, on the grounds that their personal data enjoyed detailed protection under data protection law and that there is nothing in the 2006 Regulations to require a former officer to submit any medical records made by any other doctor to the force or to any doctor employed by the force.

A further concern expressed by some pensioners was that they had no confidence Staffordshire Police was capable of conducting the review process lawfully. The content of various policy and process documents created by Staffordshire Police concerning the review programme arguably contained misinformation and misrepresentation of law.

A number of reviews were held, and the doctor tasked by Staffordshire Police to decide whether there had been any alteration in degree of disablement reported that, in some instances, due to the absence of permission to access medical records, he could not make a decision. The doctor later withdrew himself from any further involvement in the review process.

In December 2017 Staffordshire Police published a letter which sought to apportion all blame on the difficulties being experienced to, ‘a small number of individuals’.

It emerged that in the majority of instances where pensioners had refused unrestricted access to their medical records no decision was made on alteration of degree of disablement, despite it being a requirement of the relevant regulation (regulation 30) that the appointed doctor is referred the question ‘for decision’.

Each of the individuals concerned had attended an appointment arranged by the force with the force’s doctor. They answered all questions which were put to them, and allowed themselves to be medically examined where this was requested. Some provided medical evidence showing there had been no alteration in their degree of disablement. in some cases, the pensioners were recalled within months to attend a second medical examination. Again, they fully complied.

On 26th November 2018, we reported that seventeen pensioners had had their pensions reduced.

This is the letter that was sent out to those who had refused permission for unrestricted access to their medical records. We reproduce a redacted copy of one of those letters here.


The letters announce that Staffordshire Police has turned to regulation 33, which it relies on as giving authority to reduce the injury pensions of those who had refused permission for unrestricted access to their medical and access to financial records.

It is worth reproducing regulation 33 here:

Refusal to be medically examined

  1. If a question is referred to a medical authority under regulation 30, 31 or 32 and the person concerned wilfully or negligently fails to submit himself to such medical examination or to attend such interviews as the medical authority may consider necessary in order to enable him to make his decision, then—

(a) if the question arises otherwise than on an appeal to a board of medical referees, the police authority may make their determination on such evidence and medical advice as they in their discretion think necessary;

(b) if the question arises on an appeal to a board of medical referees, the appeal shall be deemed to be withdrawn.


The letter indicates that Staffordshire Police has taken the view that it was not enough for the individuals concerned to have submitted themselves to such medical examination as had been arranged for them with the force’s doctor, and to have allowed themselves to be interviewed by the doctor.  Staffordshire Police appears to believe regulation 30 covers access to personal medical and financial information. Staffordshire Police thus claims there has been either a wilful or negligent refusal.

Consequently, a decision has been made by the force to reduce the pensions of the individuals concerned.

Moreover, the reductions are to be back-dated to the time when they saw the force’s doctor.

The letter is essentially identical to each individual. Each letter fails to give any reason or insight into how the decision to reduce the pensions was taken, or on what evidence.

IODPA understands that solicitors have been instructed in challenging this extraordinary action by Staffordshire Police.

We will provide updates as the situation evolves.

Staffordshire – The Story To Date
Tagged on:     

40 thoughts on “Staffordshire – The Story To Date

  • 2018-12-26 at 9:10 am

    So Staffs want to save money. I have some ideas.

    1) Cut Cheifs pay and don’t renew Morgan’s contact. No CC should be paid more than the PM. The Met Commisoner reduced her pay.

    2) The PCC to investigate how much suffering, reputations damage and money Morgan wasted whilst DCC at A and S. Money was spent on SMPs as well as legal costs.

    3) Cut HR staff by 30-50%, they don’t lock.up villains, keep the public safe or contribute to that processes.

    4) Get rid of Colley

    5) Don’t pay for any SMPs.

    6) If you don’t maladminister the pension you won’t need to pay Barristers to defend ET claims, JR claims etc.

    Finally if anyone with authority is reading if there have been preliminary hearings in the JR or ET claims take heed of what the learned Judges have said including any criticism.

    I’ve just saved Staffs police millions.. …it’s Not rocket science.

  • 2018-12-18 at 1:54 pm

    This is not a case of I’m worse off than you are but I was a Constable with the Royal Ulster Constabulary for thirty years I was exposed to landmines on three occasions as well as shootings and other bombings and assaults. I lost 12 close friends and colleagues from amongst 30 murdered officers that I worked at sometime with, I am now unemployable full stop. I have gone through the IoD procedure and been refused on the grounds that. A. I can drive and B. this is normal here. The IMR states that I am now suffering the effects of a poor marriage choice.( that marriage ended ten years ago) rather than a PTSD and even if I do have symptoms they cannot be directly attributed to the incidents.

    As I say just to let folk know this crap is happening all over so stay strong and stay together.

  • 2018-12-18 at 1:27 pm

    When people apply to join a police service they are subject to a medical examination which clearly judges them to be fit if they are subsequently employed in that role.
    If at a later date they are judged by a suitably qualified person to be unfit for that role then they are required to leave the service with a pension that is either medical or medical and injury.
    Their state of health from birth is not the business of anyone involved in that enquiry that justifies their retirement.
    If their examination at the time of applying was correctly conducted it shouldn’t ever be necessary to consider it again.
    This must be considered for what it is ‘wriggle space’. And an attempt to penalise an unfortunate officer. Shame on you your ilk. You are no former colleague of mine.

  • 2018-12-18 at 10:52 am

    this will be one court case I would love to sit in on…….just to watch the CC squirm under cross examination. Good luck guys and yet again thank you IODPA

  • 2018-12-11 at 8:11 am

    The former officers who have had their banding reduced will no doubt win their cases. Morgan et al will shuffle away, and nothing will change. We will wait for the next force to do the same, then the same processes will happen again.

    Thankfully the IODPA has their backs.

  • 2018-12-11 at 7:01 am

    How much longer can the likes of Morgan and a few others get away with this despicable conduct?! Most, if not all of the 17 disabled officers affected by this have not only complied with their lawful obligations to attend one of these ‘unlawful mass reviews’ but have also provided a medical report from a doctor or consultant setting out their current health condition compared to the date of their retirement, or their previous review. So can anyone please explain how Morgan and his public funded so-called selected medical practitioner are routinely allowed to ignore and dismiss this independent medical evidence? Can anyone think of any other organisation, public body or Government department who would either act in this way, or ever be allowed to try and do so? Does Morgan think any treating doctor would always just be happy enough to write a load of lies in a medical report? I only know of a few myself, but then they are not treating doctors! Maybe all the various health professional who have provided accurate reports should now be told they are effectively being accused of lying?! I can’t imagine they would feel best pleased about being falsely accused, particularly in the context of this corrupt process.
    However, we all know the real reason Morgan dismisses this independent and accurate evidence, it’s because it simply does not fit in with his own agenda, which is to attempt to reduce the compensation paid to disabled former officers at any cost and without any shame or conscience. Why does Morgan think anyone would ever think otherwise? Why would he ever think his behaviour will ever attract public support? You know the truth Morgan and so do we.
    But this really has to stop now, it is a disgraceful abuse of power, it is unlawful, it is grossly unfair, it is dishonest and it is insulting both to the retired officer and their independent doctors. It is also further damaging the health of former disabled officers who were permanently harmed whilst protecting people like Morgan and those who have sold their soul trying to help him.
    As stated above I would suggest everyone affected now notifies their treating doctor what is routinely happening here. It is time this is exposed and added to the long list of evidence already submitted to and currently being processed by the GMC.
    Finally to Morgan I say your days are numbered. Soon you will be facing many legal and other challenges where you will have to try and explain your unlawful conduct. Maybe you will have retired yourself by then, let’s hope your own health holds up throughout all the stress, as I suspect you would never want to find yourself hounded like this would you?!

  • 2018-12-10 at 6:50 pm

    I could quite easily embark on being unpleasant to Mr Morgan for his disgraceful behaviour and disregard for the rules and in this particular case the law. For any officer to embark on illegal activity is reprehensible but when the Chief Constable shows such blatant disregard for law then we are in serious trouble. Not as individuals in terms of the Pension Reviews but as a society.

    The head of a Police Service, I cannot bring myself to describe him as the ‘Leader’ is involved in conduct which goes way beyond the ‘Maladministration’ of the ‘Regulations’ which often happens through lack of knowledge or misinterpretation. I believe Mr Morgan wrote a report for the College of Policing on the Injury Award and Review process so what will be his excuse, “I was given poor advice” When you are called to account for your actions Mr Morgan I don’t think that will hold water. You see what you need to do is read Section 4 of the Fraud Act 2006 its most informative and describes the formula for what constitutes Fraud then compare it to what your Staff have been engaged in and which you have supported. After all it is your signature on the letter so we must assume you approve of the action taken in fact I believe under the Regulations and ‘Statutory Duty’ it is your sole responsibility so quite difficult to blame someone else really.

    There is also another side to your actions which a blind man on a galloping Horse could see but to which you are oblivious. You expect your current serving officers (you know the one’s, the brave lads and ladies on the front line who take risks each and every day to protect the public) to do their duty, but why should they place themselves at risk when they see former injured officers being treated as if they are just a burden on the Police budget. Anyone with an ounce of common sense or intelligence is going to say, “Bugger that for a game of Soldiers better to be a coward with a good pension than a poor IOD” The trouble is the front line officer doesn’t have the option of locking the car door in the face of danger advocated by some Senior Officers because to do so will probably result in a discipline hearing for ‘Neglect of Duty’.

    If you do read these comments just look those words up in the dictionary, “Common Sense” and “Intelligence” They appear sadly lacking in the modern make up of the Police Service and as rare as hens teeth amongst Senior Officers. Perhaps you have been influenced by that ever growing crowd of ‘Empire Builders called Human Resources and Occupational Health Workers who have never faced anything more dangerous than the risk of pricking their fingers on a paper clip or perhaps experiencing the coffee being too hot to drink.

    OH can travel round in their ‘Wellbeing Bus’ pontificating and lecturing the troops on how they should be healthy and HR can attend their NAMF meetings plotting and scheming on how to impose their policies but none of them will ever detect a crime, arrest a criminal or protect any member of the public. The Police Service is completely at odds with the public, failing in its duty to protect them and wastes a vast amount of money on Civilian Staff who don’t contribute anything to public safety. They just cost the taxpayer lots of money not only through their existence but by pedalling policies designed to perpetuate that existence. The unlawful Review process being one such example.

    I respectfully suggest that you should put an immediate stop to this debacle, take a deep breath, admit you got this completely wrong and resign but that won’t happen because only good leaders recognise when they have made a major mistake and have the integrity to accept the consequences. You will no doubt press on wasting taxpayers money until a Judge orders you to comply with the law and that day will come. If the stories are true then your own Staff are not that fond of you so why not just retire like most Senior Officers do when they find themselves in difficulty, take that great fat pension you have earned by stepping on others. Now that’s where Pension costs could really be cut. Perhaps you will be kind enough to disclose the costs involved to bring you to Staffordshire in the first place and then the lump sum and yearly pension you will receive on retirement?

    Personally I prefer the option where the Judge finds you in breach of the law and guilty of ‘Misfeasance in Public Office’ and you lose that lump sum and pension. Something to consider.

    • 2018-12-11 at 4:24 pm


      ‘Confidential support’.


  • 2018-12-10 at 3:04 pm

    I have no useful comments regarding the foul individuals Morgan and Coley.
    The positive side to all of this is the continuing increase in IODPA membership numbers and a further strengthening in our resolve to ensure that the regulations are properly adhered to. I think 2019 will be a defining year.
    Best wishes to all affected

  • 2018-12-10 at 12:44 pm

    I am shocked by the way these pensioners have been treated by Staffordshire police.. Reading the comments some have been seen by two doctors but for Mr Morgan that is not enough, why is that? Then the icing on the cake is that Mr Morgan ignores the doctors and makes the decision himself to reduce their pension and to backdate it.
    Take a step back, what exactly do you want from these injured people? They are not criminals, they are men and women that were injured whilst serving as police officers.
    Reading the comments I can feel the stress they are suffering because of what you are doing to them, how are you going to feel if you push one of these people over the edge,?
    Mr Morgan you do not deserve to wear that uniform.

  • 2018-12-09 at 6:40 pm

    Perhaps Mr Morgan should look up the definition of Karma.

  • 2018-12-09 at 5:45 pm

    This Chief Constables salary is MORE per annum than the PM of the U.K.

    His MONTHLY salary is more than the ANNUAL pension received by the majority of Injured on Duty Officers.

    No wonderJavid told him to go forth…………..

  • 2018-12-09 at 5:33 pm

    I will keep this simple….I am one of the 17… Mr Morgan, you, and your SMP’s ( yes, I saw 2), have ruined me ….I am now on medication for ‘severe anxiety’…I didn’ have mental health issues before.
    But rest assured, I will have my day, and it won’t stop with you Morgan. I hold your 2 SMP’s that I saw accountable too…it is their job to make a decision…they have not been capable of doing that, and they have failed in their duty.
    I will let my legal team do their excellent work, and I will see you in court.
    I will not back down to a bully !!

    • 2018-12-10 at 9:23 am

      Like you Foxy, I am one of those ’17’ suffering from this man and his cronies hate of injured police officers. Like you, I didn’t have any mental health issues before, but due to the constant stress and strain of this nasty business, now going back over the past year and three-quarters, I find that I am now visiting my GP more and more, as I slowly weaken under the intimidation and bullying. His latest letter with the unlawful back dating threat is a classic example. I do tell him and his cronies about the affect on my health, but it’s just ignored!

      People only hear a fraction of what is really going on and it is often forgotten that this all started back in April 2017! Like you, I’ve seen 2 seperate SMP’s, have produced 2 GP’s letters stating no change, have answered any questions asked from both SMP’s and offered permission to be examined. Despite all that and having in writing from SP, that I do not have to produce my medical records, somehow its not enough. How can all that add up to me refusing to be medically examined?

      Like you Foxy, I’ve now had enough! Between us we have a very good legal team and a QC who is an expert in this field. I will let them fight my case now, whilst I fight my own to recover my health.

      One thing is certain, again like you, I will not back down, as we need to stop this from happening ever again. There are people involved in this, other members of the ’17’, who as a result of their duty injuries, find coping with day to day life difficult enough. For me, given time, I think I’ll recover, but they will never be afforded that luxury. This unlawful activity, this abuse of power, of the regulations, needs stopping for them and for any others so affected in the future. Only a legal decision will give us that peace of mind!

  • 2018-12-09 at 4:57 pm

    Don’t be in any doubt,Gareth Morgan knows exactly what he is trying to do.He is being eagerly urged onward by The Home Office and their overseer Andrew Coley.What I find totally baffling is,Where are the press and Media?.Why aren’t they all over this disgraceful sequence of events like a rash.Also.We have A supposed independent IPCC.His name is Mathew Ellis.Why no comment from him regarding the outrageous and probably unlawful behaviour going on right under his nose.You can’t win Gareth.What you are doing and have done is unlawful and and quite probably criminal.When serving officers realise what the reality of getting hurt on duty could lead to you will have a mutiny on your hands.Who you going to call then”Ghostbusters”

    • 2018-12-10 at 10:35 pm

      Don’t worry Kendo It will be released by the media, the lift off will be any Injunction served on Mr Morgan prior to perhaps a Judicial Review..
      The whole thing could eventually make up a good TV episode of ‘ ‘ ‘Law and Order UK’ starring Bradley Walsh.

  • 2018-12-09 at 1:06 pm

    It is obvious Mr Morgan has overstepped his position not getting his own way ,Obviously bullying the smp .Its a good job the group have been formed to fight his decisions backed by the charity IODPA .Lets see what 5he new year brings we apologise to the public for Morgans behaviour which will cost a huge amount of funding .

  • 2018-12-09 at 7:54 am

    I send my very best wishes to all those involved, stay strong, you have IODPA and all of us behind you, common sense, and common decency, will prevail, I’m certain of that

  • 2018-12-09 at 5:57 am

    Chief Constable Morgan clearly doesn’t give a darn about the welfare or well being of any of the injured former officers of Staffordshire Police are, he only wishes to ruthlessly make cost savings on his budget.

    He is not about to let the Police Injury Benefit Regulations 2006 get in his way, hook or by crook he applies his own twisted interpretation of the regulations, even makes up his own rules and demands that are not even mentioned in them, all to of find a way to reduce as many injured former officers as he can.

    I trust that he will eventually be held personally accountable for his deplorable conduct and handling as the Pension Authority for Staffordshire Police.

  • 2018-12-08 at 9:53 pm

    The requirements for recruitment of Police Officers was that they were honest, law abiding, moral and reliable people. Morgan obviously hasn’t any of those qualities judging by his treatment of the IOD pensioners at Staffordshire. It would seem that by doing a mass review of over 300 people at one time he was looking to see his name in lights. Well it is now! It’s also going to go down in flames!

  • 2018-12-08 at 8:47 pm

    I would just like to explain that IOD pensioners may be refusing access to their full medical details since birth. However, they have, whilst attending the examination, handed over letters from their GPs and Hospital Consultants detailing their current medical condition and how it relates to their previous injury on duty. Even though IODs have provided these medical reports at least one well known SMP has let it be known that they do not believe letters from Hospital Consultants as they consider them biased towards the IOD!

    This arrogant and unjustifiable comment is at odds with the fact that the SMPs do not consider themselves biased even though they are being paid an enormous amount of money through private companies for each individual examination! Do you think there could be bias there?

    Also, most if not all SMPs show no knowledge of the effects of the complicated and serious physical and mental injuries suffered by IODs.

    The Police Forces that are reviewing have brought this problem on themselves by acting unlawfully. This particular case will probably be sorted out again by Judicial review. I bet that the Police Forces will lose again and be castigated, yet again, in Court. These Court costs will, of course, be paid by you the taxpayer!

  • 2018-12-08 at 8:15 pm

    To be honest, a concept that Gareth Morgan seems to struggle with, there is not a lot more to say about what he has done. It’s illegal from start to finish. None medical staff viewing medical records, the PPA making medical decisions when he has no authority, the SNP reaching no decision when all of the evidence points to no substantial alteration and therefore under Regulations 37 no alteration to the injury pension. The list of wrong doings just go on.
    Yes us rate payers in Staffordshire will pick up the bill for the legal action that will inevitably follow but this could all be avoided. Gareth Morgan just report back to your Home Office masters and tell them that you all have it wrong. There is no scope to reduce injury pensions unless you abide by the Regulations. I know it is an anathema to you and your paymasters but that’s why we live in a democracy where the rule of law is sacrosanct and above the meddling of self appointed judge and jury that is you Gareth Morgan.

  • 2018-12-08 at 7:46 pm

    You couldn’t make this up! Who the hell does this Morgan think he is? Not content with obviously having no idea of the legal regulations,he’s decided to throw his dummy and employ his own personal regulations to suit his Walter Mitty style megalomania. Come across these types so many times,problem is they all get moved to wherever they want or sadly promoted,as they are so bad at the job,nobody wants them,so to get them moved they get promoted.
    Morgan obviously one of the worst,no idea,no aptitude,no ability so he just bullies his way through life. A disgrace to the uniform and the brave and courageous men and women who wear it,an embarrassment to the country.
    I hope the legal team reveal him as to what he is,and a court reveals his inadequacies and inabilities.

  • 2018-12-08 at 7:15 pm

    I am one of the 17. I have little more to say as Morgan’s actions speak louder than words themselves. The only thing I will say is that in my service I was assaulted numerous times but NEVER was I kicked when I was down. Only you Morgan have done that. You are worse than the people who assaulted me in the execution of my duty. What excuse do you have??

    • 2018-12-09 at 10:36 am

      On Staffs Police website Morgan states on what brought him into policing:

      “…… a strong affinity to public service, protection of the vulnerable and bringing offenders to justice…..”

      What about the vulnerable amongst his own pensioners? Some of those seventeen will have mental health issues, considerably exacerbated by Morgan’s bullying and intransigence. For them and their families this nightmare has now been going on for over eighteen months.

      Let us hope that the ‘vulnerable’ will have their ‘justice’, and sooner rather than later.

  • 2018-12-08 at 7:02 pm

    I am a retired former police officer but not Staffordshire, thank goodness!
    Does CC Morgan have some form of agenda or maybe even a vendetta against former Staffordshire retired police officers who were injured on duty? He appears to have historically also adopted a similar position at his former Force! Is there a track record? What must current serving officers think of him?
    What is happening in Staffordshire impacts substantially upon ALL serving officers just as much as those that have retired. I was a police officer for more than 20 years and always on the front line where you could virtually guarantee being injured every year by being assaulted by criminals. Today’s officers are now even more susceptible to be assaulted, stabbed or shot at and even more vulnerable to being seriously injured. It is no rarity for miscreants to be armed today. The Staffordshire officers must feel even more vulnerable by virtue of working for a Force that is likely to let them down badly in their hour of need. This lack of support by Staffordshire is only the start because if they are allowed to breach the regulations (as they are doing) then where does it all end?
    I guarantee absolutely that CC Morgan will end up with egg on his face once again as any rational person realises that Staffordshire are breaching the regulations, which is plain for everyone to see. Staffordshire has though currently nothing to lose because the legal costs are not borne by them, but moreover by the poor rate payers of Staffordshire! We know historically that the legal costs in these cases massively outweighs the financial savings, which have been negligible because banding were predominantly been lowered to try and save money but ultimately shown to have illegal application. THESE MATTERS REQUIRE PUBLIC SCRUTINY. STAFFORDSHIRE TAXPAYERS NEED TO KNOW WHO IS WASTING THEIR MONEY! WHAT A DISGRACE THIS IS AND EVIDENTLY BEEN PROMOTED BY THE HOME OFFICE.

  • 2018-12-08 at 6:55 pm

    Those of us who are retired police officers will recognise the reference above, especially as Staffordshire Police seems to treat the truth like so many other things in this fiasco, that of being a ‘moveable feast’ to suit their own ends.

    We all know of ‘old lags’, those professional criminals we came across, who would keep changing their story to suit, trying each and anything to avoid the truth, to admit their wrongdoing! Staffordshire Police unsurprisingly, do the same.

    Those former officers involved in this battle are not radicals, they are not malcontents, they are just ordinary people, who after police careers were destroyed, tried to get on with their lives, believed in fair play and are now the target for underhand activity, by those they thought they could trust.

    It is forgotten in all the propaganda being given out, that Staffordshire Police once had all, or most of the information demanded, but here is where the slippery tongue starts to wag.

    “It was destroyed 7 years after you left” they say, but hang on what’s this ‘Pension file’ you are keeping till I’m 100? “Hah, that’s for management of your pension or tax”, but it contains information no longer relevant. Stuff from the 90’s and no longer useable, especially as at the point of decision, that is then binding and cannot be revisited.

    “We need it so the Selected Medical Practitioner, has a full understanding”, but the review is supposed to be a comparison exercise since the last review, or date of decision, not a re-run of the process and besides, you have my GP’s letter saying nothing has changed! Why do you need all this again?

    Like the lags of old, what they don’t tell you is what they are really doing, or were doing, which is a sneaky way of trying to manipulate the information.

    So, they cannot revisit the original decision, however, if they can look back through your full records, something that was not required when you joined, they might see that for example, at age 3, you fell off your trike, or that later in life you had say a vasectomy.

    Ha, they will cry, that ‘acceleration’ of an existing condition, or possibly they will try to ‘apportion’ that the trike fall was an underlying condition, meaning that the injury has significantly changed and they can reduce the payment accordingly, anything to save money, as like the old lags of the past, that’s the real motive here.

    Luckily for us, we have IODPA here to help us. It’s like having a dog handler turn up and track the ‘lag’ from the scene. To have a good Soco man find fingerprints, or these days DNA. To have good prosecuting Solicitor, before the days of the CPS.

    In other words, people in support who will see through their lies, reveal the truth and deliver justice to those concerned. Unfortunately, the old lags in today’s story, will not get a prison sentence, they will doubt be let off with a warning and move on to try their luck elsewhere. Trouble is, IODPA is everywhere no, so no matter where they wash up, we will be ready for them!

  • 2018-12-08 at 6:31 pm

    17 Injured On Duty Police Officers fortunate enough to have questioned the illegal activities of Staffordshire Police and my best wishes to them in their fight for justice and honesty. Of the 300 reviewed how many were illegally reduced and bullied through the process? Hopefully with all the publicity this gets, they too will question their treatment and appeal. Please contact the IODPA

  • 2018-12-08 at 5:59 pm

    Without fear or favour…💪🏼
    If these people break the law, consequences must be met

  • 2018-12-08 at 5:36 pm

    This CC in particular and PPA’s still do not appear to realise that IODPA has brought about 4 abilities, which individually previously we lacked and made us all vulnerable, reg. education, unity, support and strength. Thanks to our inspirational trustees we are not the push-over we used to be and I believe our patience will be rewarded in 2019 with a substantial win over this remarkable cavalier approach to justice and rights before it descends even further beyond the realms of the ridiculous!
    In the meanwhile shame on you Morgan and gang for your dealings and continuance of this fiasco and utter disgrace!

  • 2018-12-08 at 5:32 pm

    Having been asked by my Force (2017) to pick up my Subject Access Request (SAR) file (and save them storage costs)
    you would be amazed at the c**p that Forces have written and recorded about you (tried to keep secret), bear in mind until Data Protection GDPR 2018 you could not challenge. Open, honest and transparency is a joke! If you haven’t requested your SAR I would recommend requesting it. Take a deep breath as you start reading it!

    Forces have been breaching Regulations right left and centre, sharing highly confidential medical information with all and sundry, untrained, none medical persons have been trawling through our files, sharing their unevidenced reports and I know I am not alone.

    I wish all my best to the Staffs 17! If IODPA can keep us updated it would be appreciated.

    • 2018-12-08 at 7:32 pm

      To the person that disagrees, I suggest you Freedom of Information (FOI) the Information Commisioners Office (ICO). I’l give you a hand. How many complaints of breach of sensitive information have been reported to the ICO re Police Forces in 2017 & 2018 (oops you may get all the victims/defendants/IODP’s as well)! You could narrow it down to:- , how many recommendations of ‘improving their process’ have been issued to UK Forces by the Information Commissioners Office in 2017 & 2018. #clueless

  • 2018-12-08 at 5:25 pm

    Words, truly fail me… Sheer bullying tactics. I was satisfied with my IOD, pension, & quite frankly still am, as I truly wish I could have completed my 30yrs. My disablement has worsened, since 2004. I have saved Staffordshire Police a lot of money. That said dear God, as a fledgling Detective, I was a FLO, on 3 separate Murder enquiries, running consecutively.. ” Janice, you are a victim of your own success”, said one Det. Chief Superintendent…. That success, has resulted, in PTSD.. Something, that I’ve dealt with, alongside, my disablement.. Some may say, that’s part & parcel of ” The Job”… Chief Constable Morgan, is a disgrace, in his treatment of IODPA’S…..via The Home Office, no doubt. I am truly, truly saddened.

  • 2018-12-08 at 5:00 pm

    I have said it before and I will say it again. The only ones who profit from this situation are the Barristers paid for by taxpayers and the Drs paid for by the taxpayers.

    I was taught to avoid verification bias and look at all facts objectively when I was a cop, not with Staffs may I hasten to add. The key is to keep an open mind, examine all facts dispassionately and allow all concerned an opportunity to have their say. Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.

    From what I have gathered by the information openly available on the web , this review has been approached in a unfair manner. Indeed, forces like Nottinghamshire have given presentations where the SMP has explained how money has been saved, how would a fair minded independent observer view the decision maker as fair, especially when they are paid 6 figures by forces. The infamous DR Broome has been cited in Judicial Reviews which Northumbria could not defend as well as an ET claim which they lost. Which other sector would allow such an individual to continue in post unless he was a decision maker whom they could influence in return he is retained on a 6 figure sum.

    Google the cases of Crudace, Howarth, Simpson, Fisher all in the High Court against Northumbria as well as the Curry decision in the Employment Tribunal. Northumbria’s victory in Clemistime and Doyle was short-lived because the claimant was eventually retired and the High Court decision in Sharp V CC West Yorkshire put end to Broomes dubious opinions.

    Chief Constable Morgan I bet you have used the term ” Lessons Learnt” many times, you have learnt nowt. If you want to waste Taxpayers money and loose Imnhappy to oblige when I qualify as a Lawyer. I’ll even give you a Police discount being ex job and that.

    • 2018-12-08 at 5:52 pm

      Northumbria ‘forgot’ to invite Gill Forth to the Force memorial for her husband! William Forth (RIP Bill), Northumbria’s treatment of IOD’s, widowers, widows and dependant children is well documented 😡

  • 2018-12-08 at 4:53 pm

    They have to right to full medical records and what the hell are financial issues to do with them.
    Maybe actions against the force & the SMP may make them more weary for next time.

    The general consensus here seems to be “ if we don’t have any rules that cover a reduction of your Iod we will just make something up”

    Hope both the force and SMP get taken to task.

  • 2018-12-08 at 4:50 pm

    Refusal to be medically examined:

    Regulation 33 says: If a question is referred to a medical authority under regulation 30, 31 or 32 and the person concerned wilfully or negligently fails to submit himself to such medical examination.
    The use of the word “Himself” means a person, singular, no mention of his written medical records, or his financial records, and as I keep saying if it isn’t in the Regulations “Don’t Do It”
    The perverted translation of this Regulation, which by the way is titled “REFUSAL TO BE MEDICALLY EXAMINED” by Morgan speaks volumes. He wishes it said what he says it does, but he needs to make another wish coz this one isn’t going to happen. Stick to the Regulations, and in particular this one entitled “REFUSAL TO BE MEDICALLY EXAMINED” – Not Oh and refusing to hand over your medical records and financial information as well Regulation. If the production of medical and financial records was a requirement it would have been in the Regulations, it isn’t, so why does Morgan think it is. The only reason they want full medical records is to assist their “process”. But if the process requires something which is unlawful, such as full medical records, then the process is wrong, not the former officers refusing to obey the process. Change the process, If it’s not in the Regulations – DON’T DO IT, and don’t make it up.

  • 2018-12-08 at 4:43 pm

    Yet again SP not complying with the regulations. It is good to know that the legal team are all over this latest tactic and will undoubtedly win on behalf of the Injured on Duty pensioners who are willing to cooperate to a lawful review. I look forward to the day when IODPA and its members are proved right.

  • 2018-12-08 at 4:20 pm

    WOW!!! And it’s public money that will now be used as the force will now have to appoint councel to fight their corner, a corner that will not win and they know this and are just hoping the batter these poor individuals mentally into submission and destroy their financial position in the interim.

    What a disgusting, shamefulpiece of shit. No other word can be to describe Morgan.

    Everybody knows these officers will win their cases. These are police Officer too thick to understand their own regulations then why the hell are they police officers to start with if they don’t understand the law??


    • 2018-12-08 at 6:48 pm

      They just hope that those on iod pensions can’t afford legal advice. They try to make savings from those disabled isolated pensioners that don’t know their rights. Morgan the police services equivalent of ‘Mobility’…….. take from those less fortunate than themselves

Comments are closed.