If you find yourself in a hole, the first thing you do is stop digging
— William Penn Adair Rogers (1879–1935) was an American stage and film actor, vaudeville performer, cowboy, humorist, newspaper columnist, and social commentator.
You have to wonder, don’t you, what went through the mind of whoever recently decided to send out a letter to a disabled former officer which seeks consent to access their medical records?
Staffordshire Police Pension Authority (‘PPA’)(The Chief Constable in a different role) is currently awaiting a decision in a judicial review, a central issue of which is access to injury-on-duty pensioners’ medical records.
We can’t comment on the case, but we can comment on the letter, so let’s do just that.
It does have one thing to commend it – it is reasonably polite in tone, but that is about all that can be said in its favour. Any politeness is lost in the dark undertones of the message.
The letter advises the recipient that a review of his degree of disablement, which was commenced nearly two years ago, is being proceeded with. There is no reason given for the long delay, nor any apology for any inconvenience or distress caused.
Also absent is any reference to what is actually meant by a ‘review’. We have pointed out before that the word ‘review’ does not appear anywhere in the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006. This is the legislation which govern the administration of the police injury award scheme.
For new readers – the scheme is a non-contributory compensation arrangement akin to an insurance plan. Should an officer be injured on duty to the extent they can not longer perform the full ordinary duties of a constable, then their Chief Constable has the option of requiring them to retire. In which case the disabled individual can be considered for grant of an injury award, which consists of a one-off gratuity and a pension payable for life.
The Regulations allow for the scheme manager to,
. . . consider at such intervals as may be suitable whether the degree of the pensioner’s disablement has altered, and if after such consideration the police [pension] authority find that the degree of the pensioner’s disablement has substantially altered, the pension shall be revised accordingly.
Such provision is sensible, as in some instances, a pensioner may find their disablement has worsened. In which case they may be due an increase in the injury pension. The opposite is also there, in that if a pensioner experiences a substantial improvement in their degree of disablement then the amount of pension paid can be reduced, on the basis that the individual is now better able to work and thus earn.
The Regulations do not tell police pension authorities exactly when it may be permissible to make the ‘consideration’ – to do so would place a fetter on the wide power of discretion police pension authorities have. However, whenever a power of discretion is exercised, it must be done so properly and with regard only to relevant factors. In the experiences of our members, it is rarely the case that police pension authorities manage to conduct these ‘considerations’ lawfully.
Faced with intransigent police pension authorities, who appear universally to have a complete lack of willingness to accept they have done anything wrong, it is not surprising that we have seen a steady flow of successful judicial review cases brought by pensioners.
Back to the letter. It commences with an inaccuracy, which does not bode well for the quality of the rest of its content. The letter says.
I am writing to inform you that your Injury Award . . . is due for review.
In fact, only the degree of disablement itself is liable for consideration. Not the ‘Injury Award’ which, as we know, consists of a pension and a gratuity. Other forces have made this mistake and have thus caused much distress to disabled former officers, many of whom are vulnerable and in poor health, for it gives the false impression that the gratuity may be under threat as well as the pension.
Staffordshire’s letter does redeem itself slightly, as it states, in bold, that, for this pensioner, the injury pension will not be reduced as a result of the ‘review.’
Now, this is where we see a bizarre aspect of the letter. The pensioner concerned is on the lowest level possible of injury pension. So, of course it can’t be reduced. Why then, we ask, is Staffordshire wanting to hold a ‘review’? Can it be they have reason to believe that the pensioner’s degree of disablement has worsened, and are anxious to provide a higher level of pension payment?
We think not. Staffordshire clearly have no idea whether that is the case or not, for they have ‘respectfully’ asked the pensioner to provide a raft of sensitive personal information, the purpose of which is to,
. . . enable the review to be undertaken . . .
Here is a copy of the questionnaire,
However, having asked for the information (of which more below) Staffordshire helpfully provide some ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ with the letter. The response to one question tells us that pensioners on the lowest band of injury pension will not have their pension reviewed.
We will repeat that, as it is noteworthy. Pensioners on the lowest band of injury pension will not see a ‘review’.
Yet, Staffordshire clearly tell this pensioner that his ‘injury award’ is due for ‘review’. They know the pensioner is on the lowest pension payment, so, according to their stated policy, the pensioner should not be subject to a review.
Very confusing.
Then there is the ‘Injury Award Pension Reassessment Questionnaire’ which also accompanies the letter. This asks the pensioner,
Do you consider that there has been a substantial alteration in your disablement since you were last assessed or reviewed for an injury award?
Any pensioner who had to work out what Staffordshire intends with this letter and accompanying material would come to the conclusion that whoever had a hand in putting the package together had no more than a feeble grasp of how to administer the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006.
We don’t mean to be unkind, and won’t critique much more of what was sent to this one pensioner any further other than to say it hardly helps foster any feelings of confidence that the Regulations will be followed fairly.
However, above all its other faults, one aspect stands out. We mentioned above that the letter came with a request for the pensioner to provide detailed sensitive personal information, including medical information, financial information and details of training, qualifications gained, employment, salary, other earned income, voluntary work and state benefits.
Thus, in the light of the ongoing judicial review, which will examine whether a police pension authority has any right to access a former offer’s medical records, we can only say that it is inflammatory and ill-advised for Staffordshire to seek the pensioner’s consent to approach the pensioner’s ‘Doctor/Consultant’, requesting ‘. . . a Medical Report or Medical Records . . .’.
Staffordshire should know that such information is classified under the General Data Protection Regulations as ‘special category’ data, which is robustly protected by means of detailed provisions within that legislation. If Staffordshire police pension authority thinks it has a right to such data, then there would be no need to ask for permission to access it. Asking for permission is about as clear an admission as can be that the police pension authority knows it has no regulatory or statutory right to such information.
The consent form is a cynical attempt at bamboozling a disabled former officer into signing away all rights which protect his special category information.
Whist the judicial review remains open, and pending any appeals, any decent, humane and sensible police pension authority surely would not be continuing with ‘reviews’ .
We will leave the last word on the matter to Will Rogers, who wrote, ‘There are three kinds of men. The ones that learn by reading’. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.’
Many, many deserved comments about Staffordshire Police BUT enough is enough. IODPA is bigger than this but anyone reading here may think it is a one horse pony. Time to let the court case take place and report on that. There must be other Constabularies and other causes to fight as well. OK I was from the Met. and as far as I know we are now being treated fairly. Hopefully an official complaint has been made to Staffordshire Police about the actions of some of their employees but no mention of that can I see. How about an official report about the progress or otherwise of that? Even if it was to say one has been made and we await the result. This continued harping although justified does our case no good whatsoever so lets get a little more professional.
One can understand your sentiments Chris Gibbings but there are certain matters which opinion suggests could and should be brought into the public domain and, therefore, the subject of serious debate.
1. Consider the reported quote of Acting Chief Constable Nick Baker in the Minutes of Staffs Police Pension Board Meeting of September 2019 when he is alleged to have said he wants these ‘Reviews’ to become a regular process in the future. Cast your mind back to when you were forcibly retired as an IOD pensioner. If, at that time, you had been provided with a full explanation of the legal process with an understanding of a future date for reassessment, would that have been best practice? Did your Force provide you with that knowledge?
2. Staffordshire PCC has recently announced the employment of Sarum Occupational Health as its latest Selected Medical Practitioner. Dr Philip Johnson appears to be the only Medical Practitioner with that Company (he is one of the two directors). It has been reported that several years ago the same Company (Dr Johnson) was employed by Avon and Somerset when he earned over £150,000 for less that 50 billable days work. Chief Constable Morgan had been an Executive Officer with A & S at that time. Is it likely Sarum OCC Health (Dr Johnson) may now be unwilling to bite the hand that feeds it?
“When you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing – When you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors – When you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you – When you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice – You may know that your society is doomed.”
Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
Excellent quote which sums things up perfectly – thanks for sharing that
One very important question should be asked in court so it is quite clear the recent motive for reviewing band1 iod recipient’s… When did staffs police start reviewing band 1 during the last 37 months??? I’ll bet its with the last 3 or 4 months and no band1 reviews prior to this… Staffs police must think people involved in quite rightly opposing them are stupid beyond belief not to see through this “sudden welfare gesture” to make sure we are all correctly paid the right banding… And seen to be fair across the board, that horse bolted about 37 months ago
Like many I was horrified by the violence directed towards Police Officers at Whitehall.
Whilst the Met have issued a statement un respect of the mounted officer not being critical I cannot wonder if she has sustained life changing injuries ?
It is split second moments that end careers. Lifelong daily mental and physical pain follow, as well as loss of career and opportunities. Then follows the financial impact, how do you pay the bills, support the family. Financial commitments like mortgages are life long commitments.
NAMF, NWEF and the likes of Colley, Wirtz and CC Morgan would have the world believe that injury awards are being exploited. Read how some of those who have battled in the courts have been injured, be it Laws in the Met ( Court of Appeal), Fisher – Northumbria ( High Court) assault and dig attack, Curry – Northumbria (Employment Tribunal) attacked and hit in the back of the head causing lifelong seizures, he fitted in the box.
Northumbria Police have lost lots of cases and show the disdain they attach to former injured officers. Their SMP Dr Broomenrwdice in excess of 70 injured pensioners one afternoon. It is impossible to read that number of files, yet case law shows he acted under the instructions of HR. How is he impartial ?
CC Morgan is seeking to take Northumbria’s place as the force which shows the greatest disdain of its former injured officers despite it being a lot smaller.
PS I’ve never worked for Northumbria or Staffordshire. However, in the digital.age it has become impossible to hide the facts.
I would love to say I am surprised but sadly I can’t. The bottom line is that they do not care about their former colleagues in any way whatsoever and will do whatever it takes to reduce their pensions regardless of the consequences. Everything is about money unfortunately. But it stinks!!!
The whole process around injury awards and how they are dealt with is unfair, the police employs a SMP to work for them so they are not independent and will always have a preference to the force as if they awarded too many band 3/4 I’m sure the force would find an alternative SMP due to the cost implications. This should be a fully independent process, SMP’s should have knowledge of the condition ie sending a person with PTSD to a dr who is a specialist in PTST or spinal injury to neurosurgeon etc. I agree that some reviews should take place but it needs to be set out as regulations, so they can’t target higher bands to try and reduce the burden of those with a higher cost.
Medical records then wouldn’t be as much as an issue going to a independent specialist who can look at the injury only and not go on a fishing expedition for other things, the medical records should never be in the hands of the force anyway.
I’ve said all along the system is not functioning properly, every force is doing its own interpretation some review some don’t (probably because they’re hiding maladministration and reviews would expose how they’ve fiddled IOD out of correct pensions).
Time for a national review and a properly independent fair system for all.
Mr Coley, you have certainly picked your time to continue with these ‘REVIEWS’. A time of national emergency through the Coronavirus epidemic and you decide to pick up the mantle yet again now a new Selected Medical Practitioner has been appointed. Let us consider the recipient of the above printed letter believes his/her condition has substantially altered. What facilities will Staffordshire Police have in place to allow for a face to face consultation with the SMP? Please don’t say they can use Skype. Not everyone has that facility and what if the former officer insists on a personal consultation? Perhaps, Mr Coley, you should have detailed your intentions within the above letter.
Mr Coley, will you please post a response to my query?
Alternatively, you can always ‘dislike’ it!!
For me, the most telling part of this letter is found on page 5 of the questionnaire where the pensioner is warned about S2 and S3 of the Fraud Act.
Just who do they think they are addressing? They are dealing with former Police Officers who have been retired due to injury sustained on duty – not due to any suggestion of dishonesty. It just shows the mindset of these faceless individuals who are paid to administer our pensions. They start from a position that infers that the injury pensions are somehow undeserved and have been falsely claimed, even though every single one has been medically assessed. The only inference that can be drawn from this is that even if a pensioner’s level of disablement has genuinely substantially worsened they will be deterred from requesting an increase in banding. How is anyone supposed to have any faith in a system which is so obviously biased against them?
If I had a letter like that from, say, my insurance company, I would switch insurers immediately.
There is so much that is wrong with it and which sets off alarm bells.
Too much to comment on in full, so I’ll do a bit at a time.
When someone writes, ‘You are respectfully reminded . . . ‘ you can be sure that are not being respectful. Quite the opposite. This is a phrase used by someone whose mindset is that of a dictator who has been told that he ought to tone things down a bit when he is telling the rebellious plebs what he wants them to do, and should chuck in the word ‘respectfully’ to help keep them quiet a bit longer.
Coley seems to think that IOD pensioners are there to be ordered around. This is someone who thinks he can fool all of the people all of the time.
And, don’t you just love the way he divests himself, and thus the police pension authority, of all responsibility for ensuring that pensioners are informed of their rights, and of the regulations governing their pensions. Oh, no, that’s not his job, that’s up to the Federation.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. The police pension authority, just like an insurance company, has an obligation to fully inform pensioners of the fine detail of any process involving the administration of their pension scheme. There has to be full transparency. Coley prefers smoke and mirrors.
The hard fact may well be that he fails to inform because he hasn’t a clue about how to administer the scheme properly.
Can anyone from Staffordshire Police, for example the PPA, explain why because I refused them access to my medical records, but did provide a medical report from my doctor they have taken action against me stating that I refused them access to my medical records. The request from them for access to my medical history clearly states that they wanted either a medical report or medical records.
It states quite clearly that they would like either ( as can be seen in the blog above). Obviously they didnt want either. Only my medical records. They can’t have it both ways. They either wanted one or the other and I decided a comprehensive medical report from my doctor would suffice. Obviously not.
Dont penalise those that complied with your request because it doesn’t suit you. A report or records…..which is it to be…Or could it be you dont believe the doctors medical report. Now that could be another story!!!!!
You just couldn’t make this up. The former Home Office’s Andrew Coley (or is he former, and not on secondment to try and drive through the unlawful “review” process ?) writes to a disabled pensioner to inform them that contrary to what that pensioner has already been told won’t happen, that they are going to be “reviewed”. In the same envelope is a FAQ document that tells the pensioner that they will not be “reviewed” unless they ask for one. How bizarre.
An administrative error you ask. I don’t think so. This is yet another cynical attempt to try and show that the whole process is NOT driven by a desire to save money. Andrew Coley and Staffordshire Police, you fool no one. As someone once said, if their brains were dynamite, they wouldn’t have enough to blow their hats off. 😡
Funny old thing this… 20 comments on this and not one thumbs down yet… Strange that
Why bother with band ones? Or is this just a ploy to say that “ Staffs have been fair and reviewed all bands”. They should give the power in law under which they can request the sensitive information which will prove difficult as there isn’t any power.
Bully boy tactic from Staffs again attacking the vulnerable. Be careful if you get any of these letters.
Even with a judicial review into these matters just around the corner SP still ask the same old questions. They also give contradicting information in relation to Band 1 Injury pensioners.
Does anyone at SP understand this process correctly and furthermore does anyone at SP know what they are sending out as it is clear they do not by the contradictions to Band 1 pensioners.
It appears yet again SP trying to bully pensioners and obtain information for reviews in order to reduce bandings regardless of its validity to the question that is being posed has the pensioners injury changed since last review.
They don’t need to understand.
CC Morgan et al just employ Barristers from the usual police sets Essex Court, Sergeants Inn etc.
The Barrister at great cost to the public purse will advance a cogent argument as to the veracity of police decison and the statutory duty blah, blah, blah. That is the nature of our adversarial system, there are always two competing views.
Really interesting and helpful piece. Does make you wonder their motivations.
You couldn’t make it up could you. Why are band 1’s being reviewed, what’s the point, they can’t be reduced. Unless of course a panic has gone around Staffordshire Police HQ and this is an effort to show it’s not a cost cutting exercise, and is but a sincere effort to make sure everyone is ok and on the band they should be (I think not!!)
You got to hand it to them, they are nothing if not persistent, you would think they would at least wait for the outcome of the pending court case, or it could well be that they are confident they are going to win, if they are I have a beach front property in Wiltshire for sale, wonder if they would be interested?
No thumbs down yet!…………… Hello fatso, are you still asleep.
I think its a sham………Morgan in his old force targeted Band 4’s and got himself in bother. The review of the Band 1’s in my humble opinion is to create the illusion that all are being treated fairly in pursuance of a statutory obligation.
Well CC Morgan good policing encourages the use if time lines, ABC as well as good investigation skills.
The position re Band 1’s is now a set action which can be viewed through the time line lenses.
I find it incredible that, given the ongoing proceedings, SP are still trying to intimidate pensioners into giving permission for data that is neither needed nor appropriate to the process in hand.
Staffs are an absolute disgrace as are Northumbria police. They persecute vulnerable injured on duty pensioners at a time when they should be looked after.
The Police should have a minimum 5 year review date as per the fire brigade that way pensioners can actually plan finances ie purchase items on finance over a 3-5 year period as without this we cannot go ahead and incur any finance or loans not knowing if we are going to have our pension reduced.
Time to really start thinking about an National Police Force. Scotland has one, Northern Ireland has one. Police and Crime Commissioners would be a thing of the past and all sections of the Police would have to sing off the same song sheet. We were getting there with the Serious Crime Squad which became the Serious Organised Crime Agency like the FBI. That would get rid of small provincial dictators and their over zealous staff. We do not however want to get to the state of having federal, state, local and city departments, all with their own rules as in America, much too disjointed for a small country and leads to local corruption and exactly the the little dictators we want rid of. Maybe a National Commission on the Police led by a high ranking judge on the way forward for Policing in this country. Push for it.
If a police officer made such a deliberate misrepresentation of legislation to a member of the public they’d before for the high jump, so why does Andrew Coley think that this is acceptable behaviour?
Furthermore, why so much bold type? At best it’s unprofessional and patronising of someone who was clearly intelligent enough to get themselves employed as a police officer in the first place. At worst it detracts from the flow of the letter and actually makes it less likely that the entire message will be properly read and understood…which may perhaps be their actual intent!
Unethical and amateurish, Staffordshire Police should yet again be ashamed of themselves.
Well, well, well, Staffordshire: who’d have guessed. Don’t learn do they?
I would compare their slimy “tactics” to the old style “voluntary searches”. These were outlawed too – too open to abuse, intimidation and misuse.
Well, well, well. Police Forces of the United Kingdom – stop wasting £loads of taxpayers on bent FME’s & SMP’s, useless multiple HR “consultants”. Concentrate on looking after your Police Officers. The clue is in the title: – “POLICE”, not numerous useless sly and underhand unnecessary fools. You could save yourself a fortune by doing what you say on the tin.
While you’re at it, get rid of the Federation who only represent a select few. Get a proper organisation which is fit to fight for its members when they need them instead of batting for the other side.
Obviously, I would like to point out not all. There are some decent honest ones too, just saying 🙂
The Federation does the best it can with what it has for serving officers. It backed my case against the Met. nearly thirty years ago to the extent that the Met Police Federation needed national funds to continue taking my case to court and they were granted them. The Met strung it out for nine years upping and upping the legal bill hoping and hoping the Federation finances would collapse under the strain. We finally had an out of court settlement offered and accepted 1 hour before the deadline of the case finally going to the High Court the next day. No previous offers had been received. All costs were paid and the Federation breathed a big sigh of relief. The senior officers involved, in “loosing” original reports ( I luckily had photocopies of the originals) and wanting to fight me, had all retired and a slightly different culture had started in the Met. They granted a number of us with the same problems they caused, injury award pensions and that was that, they have never been reviewed. I don’t know the set up of the modern Federation but there is a culture in the Police that when you are out you are out and they never speak to you again. Even the retired officers welfare officer that used to be at each station is no more because they have no funds to use. The Met CID are slightly different, we still look after our own and there is still a “Metropolitan & City Police Orphans Fund” (google them). Thankfully we now have the IOPDA fighting for retired officers.
I appreciate the ethos of your reply. However, the attitude and culture of my Federation changed 360′ in my service – from being respected and willing to strand up to the Force & bosses for what was right and for the Individual, to including a boss who was clearly batting for the force and against the Individual. I know that that Individual has rung retired officers at home trying to get them to make a statement and attend court against one of their members. How can that be right? How can that be ethical? That same Individual treated me terribly in my own home at a time when I was vulnerable and they were supposed to be helping me. How can that be right? Why put yourself into that position if you are not genuinely interested in helping your member but rather prefer to help the Force? Own career perhaps? Keep the staff down (even if they have a genuine complaint) and we will look after YOU? I basically paid £360 a year for a diary and to be let down when I called on them, so forgive me for my lack of love for them.
The official side here at Staffs are ignorant, arrogant and vindictive!
I know that after the way Police Injury awards have treated some pensioners it may be difficult to understand BUT is it just possible that someone has said this officer is much worse and needs his award reconsidering? As the letter states he can’t receive less so are they really asking him if he considers maybe he should get more without putting themselves in an impossible position? NO I am not naïve but think someone should contact the letter writer on behalf of the recipient and ask just what is in mind as he is on the lowest possible award? Maybe, with advice, reply to the letter filling out the questionnaire but stating that the medical records may possibly be available if circumstances justify it. I was a Citizens Advice volunteer and believe me there are so many different ways of filling out this form and still be totally truthful. One old lady answered a disability claim form question “How long does it take you to get up in the morning” Ans “10 mins.” Luckily she hadn’t sent it in because she did not understand some of the questions. When asked about the “getting up” she told me that some mornings she couldn’t do it at all and others took an hour or so before she was dressed but on a good day it was 10 mins. Hardly the same is it?
Maladministration is similar to other forms of police misconduct.
Corruption is described as intrinsic or extrinsic. The former being driven for purported selfless reasons and often called “noble cause corruption.” The later being being the opposite of purported altruism and is based on factors such as greed.
For malpractice to occur there must be a condusive mechanisms. Be it misinformation, lack of regulation, ulterior motives contrary to law to name a few.
Therefore, personally I do not regard the practice around pensions as maladministration but more sinister. Maladministration is predicated on poor practice, lack of understanding and mistakes. This is far from that.
Any competent researcher or investigator can trace back the history.
Derbyshire Constabulary HR personnel decided that they would set up the National Attendance Management Forum (NAMF). This unregulated body became the driver for the attack on injury pensions. Fortunately, 50% of forces didnt buy into baloney that flowed from NAMF.
Some embraced it with vigour in the age of accountancy driven policing. If you want to save money streamline HR, overpaid and often the conduit for multimillion pound mistakes.
You can’t just target injured officers pensions there has to be the illusion of legitimacy. Enter Home Office guidance 46/2004. The stage was set. Now the forces that did the right thing questioned the morality of this guidance as well as its legitimacy. Guidance cannot replace the regulations and unlike statutory guidance eg the Codes of Practice Accompanying PACE.
The guidance was challenged by former officers from Derbyshire and Northumbria. Northumbria had taken on the role of NAMF head honcho with greater zeal than Derbyshire.
The cases of Crudace, Simpson, Howard and Slater resulted in the demise of the guidance. A document written by a civil servant with no legal mandate or standing.
Northumbria Police took over NAMF and in the intervening years renamed it The National Well Being & Attendance Forum (NWEF). The Met probably has the largest number of former injured officers. It lost the Laws case in the Court of Appeal and learnt lessons.
Northumbria given its size ie a lot smaller than the Met set about targeting injured officer Crudace, Howarth, Simpson, Fisher are all High Court cases. Curry v CC Northumbria is an Employment Tribunal judgement.
Despite losing so many cases Northumbria have continued with zeal in targeting former injured officers. They have caused much pain and suffering to those who lost their careers and endure physical and mental pain as do their families.
What is even more frightening is that the previous Northumbria PCC is Veira Baird QC. She likes using that suffix denoting her legal qualifications. She failed to hold Northumbria to account. She is now the victims Commissioner. How did she stand up for the victims in Northumbria, former police officers injured on duty often through assaults.
The imaginary cost savings do not exist, Barristers become richer as do SMP’s, administration costs increase. However, cost should not be a factor. Injury awards are part of the police covenant. Any effective leader will realise that the mistreatment of injured on duty awards will cause harm as serving officers will be reticent to put themselves in harm’s way.
This was a quick whistle stop as to the origins of bad practice in some and not all forces.
Well CC Morgan good policing encourages the use if time lines, ABC as well as good investigation skills.
The position re Band 1’s is now a set action which can be viewed through the time line lenses.
An immediate observation is that Mr Coley does not provide a landline number, but instead a mobile to which queries can be made. When such sensitive and life-changing information is being discussed surely, even if Mr Coley is working from home, his office landline number should be given and it should transfer the call to his mobile. That way the call could and should be recorded in order that there is a record of any discussion and the fact that factual information is shared and there is no coercion of a probably shocked and confused individual by SP personnel. It’s just another way of running under the radar and there being no come back on SP for potentially underhand behaviour, “no evidence, no case to answer.” Once again another case of shocking behaviour which must contravene disability discrimination law, but as usual SP believe that they’re above trifling things like that – shame on them!
😂😂😂😂😂…Mr Coley strikes again. How very very polite he is trying to be.
Unfortunately at this time of year, snakes appear in Staffordshire after coming out of hibernation…..seems like he has woken up too, sending out his letters….he makes it sound like he will be doing the pensioner a favour! What a loff!! SP are so corrupt it’s frightening…
Thank goodness for IODPA, as I’m sure this pensioner will have been given excellent advice….give em nowt! They are not entitled to it. End of!
Best thing to do with these untrustworthy individuals is to record every word oneself – for evidence and in the unlikely event it is not required for evidence, then for prosperity. Invest in a Dictaphone/iPhone or whatever to ensure one will never be caught out by their tricks. Just saying.
As Shakespeare himself said “What, would thou have a serpent sting thee twice?”
Well, well, Staffordshire caught with its pants down again!
Yet another example (and how many more do we need to highlight, before either CC Morgan or PCC Ellis finally acts to end these disgraceful activities. No wait, we already know the answer to that! They won’t because its being done with their knowledge and approval).
I’m sure any decent person reading this blog and comments will be asking why, as Tonto used to say in the Lone Ranger TV service…” he speaks with forked tongue”!
Staffs Police pensioners with a Band 1 IOD award were told by DCC Baker back in 2017, that they would not be ‘reviewed’ unless they requested lt. Even the FAQ section of the latest unsolicited letters states that, so why ask for this information from former employees that cannot be changed?
Are Staffs Police so nosy that they need to know the very personal and detailed circumstances of a former, often long-retired officer?
If you are also a retired person, then as you read this, can you see your former employer asking for medical records from birth, including details of non-police injuries, or 3rd party info. Why if you are female, would Staffs want to know any detailed info regarding any gynecologic problems? What has it got to do with them?
This, as stated, is why a number of former officers are seeking a clear & legally binding decision in regard to these matters, as in Staff’s Police view, we have no right to a private life, even after many years out of the job.
This is also not a mistake, as the ‘thumb downer’ might imply. They know what they are doing as if the Band 1 replies indicating that they have spoken to IODPA & are obviously up to speed with this, then SP immediately drop their demands and that’s why it’s so important that every Staffs Band 1 gets to here of this and IODPA before answering and releasing unnecessary confidential data.
Well done IODPA for exposing this abuse by Staffs Police too.
Uncanny how your post also alludes to the behaviour of a slimy serpent snake! What a coincidence – slithering slimily in the gutter! Makes you proud to be part of the human race, not.