Learn From The Mistakes Of Others

Learn from the mistakes of others. You can’t live long enough to make them all yourself.

— Eleanor Roosevelt (1884 – 1962)

 

Here’s a question for you –

Would you ask a plumber to service your car?

Although the initial response might well be a resounding, ‘No’ a few moments thought could lead us to contemplate that there might, just possibly, be a few plumbers out there who are also qualified experienced car mechanics who have access to all the rights tools and equipment needed to service a car.

Let’s apply this thought to members of the medical profession. How many doctors are there who are experts in police pension law? By expert we mean hold a qualification in law – a law degree, and who fully understand all the police pension regulations and case law. Or, in reverse, how many legal professionals are there, such as solicitors or barristers, who are also registered with the General Medical Council as fit to practice medicine?

There must be a few, but so far as we are aware none of the doctors employed in the role of ‘selected medical practitioner’ (SMP)  by police pension authorities in England and Wales have any sort of legal qualification or experience.

Yet doctors are being required to make decisions on matters of law in respect of police pension entitlement – matters which they are surely not competent to decide.

The Regulations which govern police pensions state that certain decisions must be made by a medical practitioner selected by the police pension authority.

For new readers – a SMP is a doctor who is required by a police pension authority to decide certain regulatory questions in respect of police ill health and injury pensions. A SMP also provides medical assessments within that context.

It is possible the drafters of the pension Regulations never envisaged just how many errors in law otherwise worthy doctors could make. It is also possible that some police pension authorities have wrongfully tried to ‘assist’ the supposedly independent decision making of their SMPs by inserting themselves into the process.

This has never resulted in good decisions, for the staff involved are frequently as poorly equipped to decide matters of law as are their SMPs.

Home Office guidance issued in 2004 was that any doctor who is to act as a SMP should, ideally, be a Member or Fellow of the Faculty of Occupational Medicine (MFOM or FFOM), or EEA equivalent. The minimum requirement should be that he or she is an Associate of the Faculty of Occupational Medicine (AFOM) or EEA equivalent.

The guidance also says that, before appointment as SMP, the police authority must provide the medical practitioner concerned with an induction programme and other training so that he or she has an understanding of what police service entails.

No mention there of legal training or qualifications.

We are aware that some SMPs attended a training event arranged by the College of Policing in January 2014. It was presented by one Nicholas Wirz, who is a solicitor employed by Northumbria Police, and in our opinion, hardly best placed to be trusted to deliver unbiased  training. We have commented earlier here on the doubtful content and appropriateness of this training, so don’t need to say any more other than it was, at best, biased and dubious and very likely to lead SMPs astray when dealing with the legal aspects of their role.

One SMP who attended the training became so disorientated that she consequently claimed she had all the powers of a high court judge, and could order individuals to do her bidding.

Certainly, there has been no lessening of the number and frequency of mistakes made by SMPs since the training event.

So far as we are aware, apart from the single College of Policing event, it is left entirely up to individual forces to ensure their SMPs are competent in both medical and legal expertise.

A SMP’s opinion on a medical matter can be appealed, and thus considered by a panel of other doctors, including at least one specialist in the relevant field of medicine. However, a SMP’s decision on a legal aspect, if challenged, will almost inevitably have to be settled in a court of law.

This is so because there seems to be little point in taking a questionable legal decision by a SMP to more doctors – to a police medical medical appeal board composed of only doctors. Increasing the number of doctors, who have no law qualifications, involved in the decision making process is no guarantee of them being any better able to understand the law. All that happens is that the appeal board covers its shortcomings by appointing its own solicitor or barrister to attend the hearing, thus putting the appellant at a huge disadvantage unless they can afford to be represented by their own solicitor or barrister.

Unfortunately, far too many disabled former, and serving officers, continue to have to suffer the stress, inconvenience and cost of dealing with mistakes made by SMPs and by appeal boards.

So, are forces well enough equipped to provide legal training for SMPs and thus help prevent mistakes? Even assuming they have the will to do so?

Staffordshire’s Chief Constable Morgan, who is currently engaged in a legal process resulting from questionable actions taken by a SMP and by himself,  not long ago researched and produced a paper on the ‘Force Management of Ill Health Retirements, Injury on Duty Awards and Police Medical Appeal Boards.’

He reports:

‘Many forces are struggling due to the lack of expertise within their organisations. Both forces and staff associations report difficulties managing these issues due to key personal leaving the organisation or being absent for short periods due to sickness or prolonged periods of leave.’

And:

‘The structure of some force HR facilities do not support the management of the process. When managed by shared service pools rather than through specific dedicated individuals, personnel are unable to build up experience in dealing with these cases. This is acutely felt by small forces that do not have the workload to enable individual staff members to build up their experience of this work.’

And:

‘The above issues are compounded by a lack of dedicated subject matter experts across the service and training opportunities.’

He concludes:

‘In light of the above, force personnel lack the confidence and expertise to successfully manage these processes. This is compounded by a perception that senior management in the service do not understand the complexity of the role, do not provide adequate support and that the regulations which govern these processes are not fit for purpose.’

And comments:

‘There is variance in the level of engagement of legal professionals and forces are not only obtaining legal advice from a number of sources, including individual force legal teams and contracted external legal advisors, but in some instances forces are without the support of any recognised legal professional. Due to the range of legal areas force solicitors cover, and in some instances the relatively low number of occasions when their services are engaged, legal services have been unable to develop expertise in these areas.’

From this, and from our members’ reports of continuing maladministration arising from lack of legal knowledge exhibited by SMPs, we are disturbed to know that SMPs are no more clued up now on legal matters now than they were back in 2009 when Dr Broome, (a co-worker of Nicholas Wirz and undoubtedly advised by him) erroneously thought it entirely lawful to reduce, in the course of one day, with no medical examinations, the pensions of no less than 70 elderly disabled former police officers merely because they had reached a certain age.

There are far too many current examples of legal knowledge being woefully inadequate in SMPs for us to discuss them all here. However, we can present one recent example which perhaps illustrates the situation rather well.

An individual applied to be awarded an injury on duty pension. The SMP decided that the person did not qualify, as he had received the disabling duty injury whilst employed in another force. The officer had transferred from one force to another during his career. The SMP’s view was that the officer’s current force was therefore not liable to pay him an injury pension.

This was entirely an instance of a SMP failing completely to understand the relevant law. It seems the SMP was not even capable of reading the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006 to check what the law said. Had he done so he would have seen this:

Authorities responsible for payment of awards

41, – (1) An award which is payable to or in respect of a person by reason of his having served as a regular police officer shall be payable by the police authority of the force in which he last served as such.

Not difficult to understand. Even a layperson should be able to get to grips with this straightforward piece of law. But, we hear of SMPs, and HR managers complaining that the various police pension Regulations are hard to understand, or are poorly written. Chief Constable Morgan has even gone so far as to suggest the pension Regulations are, ‘not fit for purpose.

We don’t agree. Any difficulty SMPs face is down to lack of basic understanding of the law, and lack of adequate unbiased training. They make mistakes because they are out of their depth, and because HR managers, and others, insert themselves into the decision making, which by law, should be the sole disinterested responsibility of the SMP.

An oversight, a mistake, such as the one above is hugely distressing to the individual involved. The blame lays not only with the SMP but with the people who hired him and who are available to him for legal advice. In this instance we don’t know whether some hidden agenda influenced the SMPs decision. If that was the case, then the maladministration moves into the area of malice.

It was Chief Constable Morgan’s considered opinion that the best way to deal with the many deficiencies he encountered in his research would be to centralise SMP services. He thought that regional centres, controlled and staffed with doctors selected and presumably trained by the Home Office would be a solution.

Not so. It is our view that such an arrangement would make matters worse, not better. We suspect the Home Office realises this, and is content to let individual chief constables continue to carry the cost of litigation whenever their SMPs make mistakes.

We rarely express any sympathy for SMPs, but we do acknowledge that they are not all hopelessly inadequately trained. There are some excellent SMPs who consistently make sound medical judgements and who apply the police pension regulations fairly and accurately.

Unfortunately, for every SMP who can’t be bothered to read the Regulations, there are a host of HR and Occupational Health workers, plus senior officers, who simply don’t have a clue and who either fail to recognise their SMPs shortcomings, or who are content to allow them to occur.

Between them, these persons in positions of responsibility do their forces no good at all. Mistakes cost money. They also destroy confidence. Few forces still cling to the fool’s gold belief that conducting reviews of the degree of disablement of former officers will result in savings. The mistakes that SMPs and HR staff help to ensure that savings are illusory. Importantly, even if reviews were all held perfectly, the data indicates strongly that as many or more pensions stand to be increased than decreased, with the vast majority remaining unaltered.

Despite this, some forces, for reasons unknown, continue to employ plumbers to do their car servicing.

Good luck with that.

 

 

Learn From The Mistakes Of Others

29 thoughts on “Learn From The Mistakes Of Others

  • 2021-04-03 at 12:57 pm
    Permalink

    These reviews are clearly a home office inspired money saving exercise and a truly independent SMP is a very rare beast indeed . This is an informative blog but I fear we have a long way to go. Everlasting thanks to IODPA

    Reply
  • 2021-04-02 at 12:56 pm
    Permalink

    This process began many years ago at the behest of the home office. They now say it is nothing to do with them. Their intentions . along with the PPAs are, to me very clear. To save as much money as possible. I believe an impartial SMP is a rare beast indeed. How does this process align with the so called police covenant? Can you believe anything said by them. Without IODPA we would all be on minimum pension by now. However we must all ‘keep going’. I do not think SMPs training will improve.

    Reply
  • 2021-04-01 at 2:27 pm
    Permalink

    Very informative blog….Nice to be updated….Thank you very much.

    Reply
  • 2021-03-31 at 2:39 pm
    Permalink

    I find that reading the information about the lack of qualification or training and experience concerning appointment and thereafter practices by SMP’s frightening. The first SMP I saw said She had no reason to refer me for medical retirement. After a very caring Police boss fought my corner for me I was retired at level 4 disablement by a different SMP. It’s now a terrible fear for us to know that review is inevitable and to be so afraid of when that letter will arrive, I find this especially shocking when former officers are literally living with suicidal thoughts at the idea of being reviewed. There is definitely much need for overhaul of this system

    Reply
  • 2021-03-27 at 6:24 pm
    Permalink

    Personal experience of reviews has confirmed to me that SMPs are not acting independently.
    How and why would a qualified, experienced doctor become a SMP? Usually because they could not make the grade in mainstream medicine, perhaps by having been sanctioned for some wrong doing, or just not having the necessary work ethic to survive.
    It is not unheard of for some of them not to have been registered with the GMC and even a case where the individual had been struck off. At one time they may have established a nursing home, but nowadays that’s neither easy nor very lucrative.
    The ease with which a doctor can become an SMP is startling. A two week course with a few forms completed and they can become an associate member of the Faculty of Occupational Medicine. The FoM then validates their continuing membership to the GMC at five yearly intervals. Easy.
    According to the regulations SMPs are appointed to answer MEDICAL QUESTIONS for the PPA.
    They are supposed to be independent, but again my experience shows that to be far from the case. In the aftermath of both of my reviews, which were completely shambolic, the head of the force HR commented on trying to get the SMP to change his report. Apparently the advice/direction given had not been fully followed.
    Can you imagine the consequences of presenting your views about a case to a judge or jury outside the bounds of evidence?
    The current system is not fit for purpose.

    Reply
  • 2021-03-27 at 5:47 pm
    Permalink

    Personal experience of reviews has confirmed to me that SMPs are not acting independently.
    How and why would a qualified, experienced doctor become a SMP? Usually because they could not make the grade in mainstream medicine, either by having been sanctioned for some wrong doing, or just not having the necessary work ethic to survive.
    It is not unheard of for some of them not to have been registered with the GMC and even a case where the individual had been struck off. At one time they may have established a nursing home, but nowadays that’s neither easy nor very lucrative.
    The ease with which a doctor can become an SMP is startling. A two week course with a few forms completed and they can become an associate member of the Faculty of Occupational Medicine. The FoM then validates their continuing membership to the GMC at five yearly intervals. Easy.
    According to the regulations SMPs are appointed to answer MEDICAL QUESTIONS for the PPA.
    They are supposed to be independent, but again my experience shows that to be far from the case. In the aftermath of both of my reviews, which were completely shambolic, the head of the force HR commented on trying to get the SMP to change his report. Apparently the advice.had not been followed.
    Can you imagine the consequences of presenting your views about a case to the judge or jury before a trial?
    The current system is not fit for purpose.

    Reply
  • 2021-03-27 at 4:38 pm
    Permalink

    Very good article outlining much of what some of us already are at least partially aware of but its nice to see it all put together. I wish there was a simple answer to who should do the review but as the article says the job entails two different trades. I can’t see many ways around the problems however removing the SMP from the process and having the medical side done by NHS family doctor/ specialist would at least remove the possible corruption element of people making money out of force requirements and bias. Any payment for medical should be fixed and go to the practice not the individual doctor. This way its not worth the practice getting so involved for the money as they may only have a few police officers on their books so might not even see 1 review medical in a year.
    As for the legal side of the decision from the medical report – well that is indeed another question. Ask the Plumber to phone the mechanic.

    Reply
  • 2021-03-26 at 6:58 pm
    Permalink

    The Fire Service have an almost identical injury award system in place whose members are not under financial attack. Why because their Union is strong and willing to fight for their members and pensioners.
    We have had no choice but to band together and fight this injustice ourselves because those who should be fighting for us have openly turned their backs on their injured former colleagues.

    Reply
  • 2021-03-26 at 2:32 pm
    Permalink

    A SMP should be completely transparent about his/her role when performing ill health retirement assessments or reports and the role of the SMP requires communicated independence from both the applicant and the employer. As ed to be when Home Office Referees were used.

    The primary duty of the SMP is to provide objective and unbiased advice to the PPA. Clearly this cannot properly be performed if there is pressure or coercion from either party involved.

    The SMP has to attain levels of qualification in order to practise as such as per the FOM however, medical degrees are unclassified unlike other degrees so where does the competence of such a clinician truly lie.

    Many of the problems that are seen are due to the issue of consent to assess or consent for a reports disclosure and the interpretation of this consent and by whom. The issue of consent is clear for all doctors as illustrated by GMC and FOM guidelines however such guidelines do not suit the PPA or the SMP’s . Many of the problems IOD pensioner encounter could be mitigated if said guidance were to be adhered to after all the GMC and FOM are the SMP’s governing bodies which enable them to “practise”.

    The onus of compliance must be placed upon the SMP in accordance with the aforementioned guidelines should the PPA not follow the pension regulations or try to override issues of consent the SMP should decline making the assessment and offering opinion. Likewise if the SMP fails to follow the aforementioned regs and guidelines then equally the SMP opinion should fail. This is easy to understand and follow as are the pension regulations themselves but as far as I am aware has never happened, this raises the real question as to why not?

    Reply
  • 2021-03-26 at 12:00 pm
    Permalink

    I thought that doctors took an oath to cause no harm. How can these people look at themselves in the mirror each day?

    Reply
  • 2021-03-26 at 11:05 am
    Permalink

    Great article now all we need are the SMPs trained to do it correctly and someunderstanding from the forces.

    Reply
  • 2021-03-25 at 6:20 pm
    Permalink

    I have a distrust anyway of SMP’s and their impartiality when it comes to making the decision to make an IOD Award. I sat, with my wife who was also a retired Police Officer, whilst I was ‘quizzed’ by the SMP for a considerable length of time. He did what I considered to be a thorough examination of my medical notes and of my description of what had happened to me. At the conclusion he told me that, yes, I was entitled to an IOD award.

    I had a solicitor acting for me at that time and when I returned home I sent him an email outlining what had taken place.

    3 Months later I got a letter from the SMP outlining the reasons, from stated case law, that I was NOT entitled to receive an IOD Award.

    That was 2007 – seems things are no different these days!!

    Reply
  • 2021-03-25 at 3:51 pm
    Permalink

    Excellent blog. It’s a shame that the system has been corrupted by the likes of Wirz and Morgan and as a result we all suffer tremendously.
    There is no justice in the system and the way it has been abused.
    Do SMPs have annual meetings that IODPA could stand up and give them the other side of how vulnerable ex officers should be treated . We only ask to be treated with a little compassion and fairly.

    Reply
  • 2021-03-25 at 2:38 pm
    Permalink

    Most SMPs, but not all, do not have a clue about medical matters let alone the law! There are some well known SMPs who reject the medical advice from Consultants and Professors with specialist knowledge in their field. And why is that you ask? It’s because it costs the Forces money to pension off severely injured Police Officers. They much prefer if they can force the injured officer to resign or to sack them for unsatisfactory performance.!! Shameful.

    The Regulations which are enshrined in law should be adhered to by the Police Senior Management teams, their Human Resource teams and the employed SMPs. They have a duty of care!!

    Reply
  • 2021-03-25 at 11:45 am
    Permalink

    It seems to me, that the first question one should ask is why would someone who trained as a doctor become involved in occupational health work? Does it attract the best clinical brains or those blessed with empathy, I ask?
    When they began their medical degree, was it within their contemplation that they would end up tugging their forelock, selling their soul to Chief Officers and following the misguided advice of a vertically challenged North East lawyer? The cynics amongst us might suggest that the role attracts a particular type of individual purely motivated by financial reward rather than a wish to minister to the sick. I used to believe that Doctors sign up to the maxim “Do No Harm” but SMP’s seem amnesic about this. A test of a person’s true character is how they behave when given a position of power. What character these SMP’s ?. A plague on all their houses for the misery and harm they have collectively caused.

    Reply
  • 2021-03-25 at 11:27 am
    Permalink

    In my view, it is not just a lack of comprehension or understanding of the Regulations.

    It is a deliberate attempt to change the legal process through habitual maladministration and malevolence. This in order that it will be accepted as normal.

    People in positions of responsibility must stop and consider what ‘injury on duty’ means, to the individual, those close to them and wider society. If we continue to treat people badly they leave. Those thinking about putting their health on the line choose not to.

    This is a responsible, just and appropriate approach from the Metropolitan Police Service:

    From their spokesman: ‘The Met has an enduring responsibility to our officers who must retire on ill-health grounds linked to an injury sustained in the course of their duty serving the public.
    ‘We are confident in our process to award an injury payment in such circumstances, so would only review in cases where a former colleague asks us to, due to a significant change in their circumstances.’

    If Chief Constables don’t have the integrity or intelligence to adopt a similar approach, it is incumbent on them to ensure that all parties act fairly, within the law and with compassion.

    Remember, it is ‘an injury on duty.’

    Reply
  • 2021-03-25 at 11:18 am
    Permalink

    Well written blog with excellent points highlighted regarding SMPs and in so many cases their apparent lack of knowledge of the regulations and bias. As I’ve commented in the past the untold stress and anxiety caused to so many IOD’s by the tactics used by certain SMPs and PPA’s lacks any compassion and is unjust, as supported by the amount of successful Case law. It is obvious in so many cases past and present that the object is nothing less than a cost saving exercise with no or very little consideration to the Officers who have lost so much. As has often been stated, ‘How can the PPA be totally unbiased in their decision making, as Chief Constable there has to be a divided loyalty between paying out an IOD and saving the respective Force budget’.

    Reply
  • 2021-03-25 at 10:48 am
    Permalink

    When I was retired (in 1997) the SMP was a local GP (with the relevant qualifications) who made a full, acurate and professional assessment, with no reference to budgets or bonuses – he was on a yearly retainer to serve the function. He had no axe to grind and was completely non-partisan in that he did not serve the Police Authority, he took pride in giing his honest professional opinion and was not under pressure from any party. Then the Home Office “guidelines” together with the new breed of SMP who were paid in accordance with their results in reducing the force pensions budget, thereby corrupting their professional integrity. Now that the Home Office and various Police Authorities have been demonstrated in the courts to be behaving unlawfully, dishonestly and morally corruptly, isn’t it time we went back to a system were doctors could be trusted to simply give an opinion that they are qualified to give?

    Reply
  • 2021-03-25 at 10:41 am
    Permalink

    Under the police injury pension scheme regulations a SMP is supposed to make certain medical decisions.

    But SMPs are, to the best of my knowledge, rarely if ever left to make those decisions without some input from people who have a vested financial interest in the outcome of the decision.

    That is so very wrong. Current practices where HR and others trawl through the personal medical and financial data of people who are just ordinary citizens who used to be police officers are, at best, highly questionable. It is equally wrong for HR and others to be requesting medical and financial information.

    Even worse is the practice where some unqualified pleb in HR draws up a list of jobs they claim an individual could do and wages they could earn, , and from that, set about calculating degree of disablement, which they then hand over to the SMP.

    If that isn’t influencing and directing what should be an independent decision, then I don’t know what is.

    Once a SMP has been asked by the police pension authority to make a decision, then it should be for the SMP to contact the individual concerned and to request whatever information the SMP thinks is necessary to help inform his decision. In doing that, the SMP should (must) comply with all relevant aspects of data protection law and with GMC guidelines. HR and others should keep their biased noses out of it.

    Reply
  • 2021-03-25 at 9:10 am
    Permalink

    Just about typical. What Police forces don’t know they make up to suit the situation. Wirz will always quote the regulations as he would like them to be, not how they actually are. Wake up people, you are dealing with others lives here.

    Reply
  • 2021-03-25 at 8:51 am
    Permalink

    A well composed blog as usual. I fully agree that SMP’s are the ones to make medical, not legal, decisions, and Chief Constables (PPA’s) to make legal decisions regarding Injuries on duty.

    In my case the Chief Constable decided to make a medical decision, of which he has no qualifications, and reduced my injury pension as he decided that an illness which I have, not the injury from which I was medically discharged from the force over, and which I was rightfully in receipt of an injury pension, was enough reason for him to reduce my injury pension.

    The fact that the illness had no effect on my general well being at that time, but will in the near future have a very profound effect on me, was irrelevant to him. As a consequence of this perverse decision my injury pension was reduced from about £1200 per month to zero.

    This I am afraid is what we are up against. People in authority who have little knowledge of the law, making unlawful and wrong decisions which have a devastating effect on individuals and there families. True the police budget may look healthier without these pension payments coming out of it but at the expense of elderly retired officers who were injured carrying out there lawful duty and are now being penalised again by, dare I say it, a corrupt system.

    Reply
  • 2021-03-25 at 8:26 am
    Permalink

    In my personal experience HR personnel have zero knowledge of or training in the relevant regulations either.

    I’m not a solicitor but managed to read and understand the regulations, and it’s a good thing I did otherwise I’d still be an injured copper being harassed and pestered for being nothing more than a victim ofmviolent crime while on duty.

    None of it is difficult, and I’ve come up with a simple plan for all personnel involved in the process to adhere to, which will solve the problem at a stroke.

    1. Read the regulations. They are actually quite straightforward, so don’t make it difficult for yourself – read the actual words, and not the spaces between the lines.

    2. Stop making it up as you go along – if it’s not in the regs you simply cannot do it. No if’s, not but’s, if it’s not in black and white you DO NOT have the authority.

    And that’s it. It really is incredibly simple. A scary thought – the College of Policing reckon that modern policing is so complex that new entrants to the job need a degree. This being the case, why do so many HR and medical “professionals”, not to mention senior officers, have such difficulty with the concept of 1. and 2. above? These are people who managenofficers involved in complex and serious criminal investigations, yet they themselves seem institutionally incapable of uneerstanding the most simple of legal concepts – if it ain’t written in law, you son’t have the power to do it.

    Fortunately, when my case landed on the desk of the straight talking and extremely pragmatic Nick Adderley – a genuinely nice guy and decent, honourable man – he did the right thing, but it pains me to think how many of my Brothers and Sisters suffer pain, anxiety, upset and distress because people in positions of authority cannot be bothered to read a few simple lages of pertinent legislation. Shame on them all.

    Reply
  • 2021-03-25 at 6:06 am
    Permalink

    This makes very interesting reading and shows how the SMP’s are not given the right tools and information to do their job correctly.Also as we have seen in Staffs the Chief constable and his HR staff are not clued up on the legislation and the total system is mismanaged from start to finish.As is in Staffs the whole procedure is nothing but a money saving exercise giving no thought of stress and anguish caused to the injured officers concerned.

    Reply
  • 2021-03-24 at 9:44 pm
    Permalink

    An excellent article. Such a pity there are so many poorly trained SMP’s

    Reply
  • 2021-03-23 at 10:54 pm
    Permalink

    As one who has suffered from one of these SMP’s, who thought, following such ‘training’, that he was a Quasi Coroner, I totally agree with this latest blog.

    Unfortunately, until SMP’s are totally independent & not reliant on contracts with forces, to ‘do their bidding, or are property trained, then giving both sides, equal consideration, then this will continue.

    Currently, SMP’s can be FMA’s (Force Medical Advisors), in one contract & yet contracted as an SMP in another force.

    In addition, often as part of a ‘company’, SMP’s are providing services to a number of forces, so they are under commercial pressure to ensure the contract is maintained.

    With Chief Constable’s unable to manage the conflict of interest between being the Police Pension Authority, charged with the protection of police pensioners; they are also as a Chief Constable, expected to run a force to a budget dictated, by the political animal, that is a Police & Crime Commisioner…..

    We then add in an economically dependency on the SMP needing to survive, on the contracts provided by the forces, into the mix.

    It’s a receipe for abuse and that is clearly whats happening, with……..as the police have no power to strike……. compared to the same situation in the Fire Service, that seems untouchable.

    A Union preventing ‘Bosses’ excessives maybe?

    It will only be when the SMP process & that of the Appeals board, are completely independent of forces & their influence, will police pensioners, actually get fairness & justice.

    It’s a good job, currently, that serving police officers, are generally unaware of this situation, as if the truth were known, one might ask, how many would be prepared to stand there and risk injury, when in reality, the supposed support, is no more real, than fairy dust!

    Reply
  • 2021-03-23 at 7:05 pm
    Permalink

    Did you ever find out who the Staffs ‘down arrow’ vandal was?

    Reply
    • 2021-03-27 at 4:17 pm
      Permalink

      I’m sure that they know exactly who it is but are keeping that close to their chest .

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *