Federation

When SMPs ATTACK !!

When SMPs ATTACK !!
collusion
noun
secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy in order to deceive others.
“the armed forces were working in collusion with drug traffickers”
synonyms: conspiracy, connivance, complicity, intrigue, plotting, secret understanding, collaboration, scheming

“there has been collusion between the security forces and paramilitary groups”

The regulations state the police pension authority shall refer for decision on the degree of the person’s disablement to a duly qualified medical practitioner (a selected medical practitioner or SMP).

You’d have thought that the SMP should be independent and blind to the process and only interested in answering the sole question put to them – the only duty on such a review, is to decide whether since then there has been a substantial change.

Here, not only is he referring to former officers injured in the execution of their duty as experts in process, legislation and points of law, he wants to revisit causation:they know the score.  Just because the federation exists (and we know how helpful they’ve been) there is no excuse to be ‘direct’ and not treat disabled individuals with respect and dignity.

It isn’t very good to discover that the SMP has been in contact with the force all throughout the process and has actually advised the HR department of the force how the former officers should be treated. It is also unnerving to find out that the same SMP has been working for the force before they have been actually contracted to perform their function.  SMP started in May but the force said he didn’t start his duties until late July !  https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/contractual_terms_of_reference_f#outgoing-409280

Q2. Please tell me the date he commenced his duties.

Dr Johnson commenced his duties on 24^th July 2014.

Why does the SMP think that refusal for full disclosure of medical records since birth is a manipulation of the process:  GP reports arent good enough.

gp-reports-arent-good-enough

When the sole question is substantial change since the last review then surely seeking to revisit causation and apportionment prejudices the decision making process

When the same SMP declares that the former officers ‘know the score’ and can seek legal assistance if they don’t like it – you know that this SMP isn’t actually independent and has an agenda.

What have the Romans (Federation ) ever done for us?

What have the Romans (Federation ) ever done for us?

What have the Federation ever done for us?

Made matters worse.  How dare we rock the establishment.  How dare we challenge the unlawful administration of Injury on Duty Awards !  Just know your place, show your under-belly and engage !  (If they ‘do you over’ you can always appeal they said).

We have asked the Federation to take the force to task, for them to make it clear that any review of a injury on duty award is under the discretion of the force, pertinent to the circumstances of the individual and the exercise to be undertaken, and the reviewing body’s duty and only duty on such a review, is to decide whether since then there has been a substantial change.  On-mass reviews, Bulk reviews, Blanket review, Fishing Expeditions, fresh assessments of earning capacity are all against the regulations.

What a surprise it was when it was discovered that the local branch who should be there to help are the ones that put together the guidance that the force is using to justify the bulk/blanket/fishing expeditions.

You can imagine the shock to hear that the local Federation welfare officer told the force that to have no earning capacity due to the degree of disability, the person has to be in a wheelchair.  What about those with mental illness Mr ‘local Federation welfare officer’ or those with PTSD ?  Do they have to be in a wheelchair to be unemployable ?

FOI 1231 Magic being helpful

FOI 1231 Magic at work

FOI 1231 Magics masterpiece

Mr Magic, the review is not a repeat of the earning capacity part of the process.  That has been decided when the award was first ‘awarded’ on the original decision and is final.  A review is consideration of substantial change since the last final decision – not a fresh assessment.