Whilst there are various policies, procedures and agencies that exist to encourage the reporting of wrongdoing, in reality your disclosures will not be welcomed. ​ It is important for a police officer or member of police staff to be aware of what they might expect in the worst scenario. ​ It is a worthwhile exercise when thinking about police reforms to ask why police forces respond in the specific non-accountable ways that they do. One could roughly arrange these by the degree of defensiveness to which a police force feels driven.   Hot Air The force will appear at first to share your concern. Many fine words will be generated, insubstantial memoranda may fly about, a meeting may be convened, and promises will be made. No action will be taken, except perhaps the most trivial. At a later date any conversation not recorded on paper may be strenuously denied.   Send to Coventry A change of mood comes over certain managers and colleagues. Initially this is quite subtle. Greetings, smiles and friendly banter are less frequent. At first you brush it off. Then it becomes more pronounced. Eyebrows are raised, you are avoided and left out of events and decisions, sarcastic comments are made. If you mention it you may find that your mental health is questioned.   Close Ranks It is clear that what you said to one colleague or manager has been passed on, and possibly distorted, to his or her peers. When you approach a manager further up the line it is clear that they have been forewarned. Your concern has somehow created an anti-you group. You are identified as a ‘trouble-maker’ by most people with any authority, and any attempt to raise your concern is now pre-empted and prejudged. Some of your colleagues feel that your complaint demeans them by implication.   Stonewall When you raise your concerns formally you find that your letters are unanswered, the manager is never available, promises to ‘get back to you’ are broken, you are passed on to someone who eventually sends you a letter thanking you for raising the concerns and the matter has been investigated. You may be told directly not to send any more reports or letters.   Biomedical Diagnosis It is suggested that you have been under a ‘lot of stress lately’ and that you ought to visit the occupational health department, seek counselling or visit your GP. You are asked if you are ‘coping’. It emerges, unknown to you, that you have been informally diagnosed as anxious, depressed, paranoid, having a personality disorder, or as being ‘neurotic’.   Spying A colleague is passing on information about you (and has, perhaps, been asked to do so). You are the object of close observation, fault-finding, and perhaps your e-mail and telephone conversations are being monitored. Some of your work goes wrong or astray and you wonder about sabotage. If you mention this it is taken as further evidence that you are unable to cope or are ‘paranoid’. ​ Grind Down Work becomes more difficult. Your workload increases, you get the unpopular cases or incidents. Your attempts at promotion are made difficult and your appraisals are unfairly written and do not accurately reflect your performance. You may be transferred to another station or department and your request for leave and time off are refused without valid reasons   Sticks and Carrots An intermediary, usually a non-independent person is chosen to act as a facilitator and will call you aside for ‘a chat’ and you may feel that at last you are getting somewhere. Your career prospects may be discussed, the suggestion being that you drop your complaints. Alternatively, or if you refuse to accept the carrot, veiled threats will be made such as ‘Are you sure you wouldn’t be happier working elsewhere?’ These become overt threats such as ‘You are jeopardizing your future’ and ‘you won’t be working here much longer’. If you raised concerns about colleagues, you may find that you become a victim of harassment.   Character Assassination Aspersions will be cast on your character, your personal conduct, your personal past, your political views, your class or ethnic origin, or your sexual orientation. These may progress to accusations of your own misconduct including criminal matters, theft of documents, lying, disloyalty, breach of confidentiality, Dta protection Act offences etc. First Strike Official counter-complaints may be formulated against you in a disciplinary hearing before your own concerns are addressed or instead of addressing them. You may be made a scapegoat. Disciplinary or grievance procedures may be used and abused as a pre-emptive or retaliatory measure. The force will attempt to get their revenge in first.   Second Strike If you manage to get through the first strike, your force may abuse their powers and decide to maliciously investigate you on suspicion of a criminal offence, your home may be searched and you will be interviewed in a custody suite to cause you the maximum amount of distress. ​ You may be charged and relevant evidence is witheld from the crown prosecution service. ​ You may be wrongly convicted and spend many years trying to clear your name and searching for evidence some of which has been destroyed. If you are found not guilty it is likely you will then be subject of a Gross Misconduct hearing where you will be dismissed. If you are able against the odds to be successful at a Gros Misconduct hearing you will most likely as part of the re-vetting process lose your job in any event.   Dismissed If against all the odds you remain in the force; your presence is no longer tolerable. It may take months or years but the force will dispense with your services one way or another. ​ Cosmetic Reshuffle If your concerns were of a serious nature, especially if an inquiry took place, then there will be some changes at your workplace of a cosmetic nature. Some posts may be reshuffled, but it is unlikely that policies will be revised or that managerial heads will roll. Certainly no acknowledgement will be made that there is any connection between your raising a concern and the changes which followed.

Situations that often cause problems for officers within the police are allegations of domestic abuse between officers within a force or a partner outside of the force. Investigating officers can be manipulated and forces may take the easy option of trying to get rid of one of the parties and conduct little or no investigation. There are numerous concerns highighted in the press where victims of domestic abuse whether serving police officers or members of the public are joining forces and fighting back following on from what is known as a super complaint from the Centre for Women's Justice (CWJ). PFEW backs law change to give greater rights to police officer victims of domestic abuse The Police Federation jumped on the bandwagon stating "Legislative change recommended by Centre for Women’s Justice would enable police officers and staff to make a complaint of domestic abuse against a member of their force as do members of the public" They go on to say the CWJ report stated: “Section 29(4)(a) of the Police Reform Act 2002 should be amended to ensure police officers and members of police staff have the same right to make a complaint of domestic abuse against a member of their force as do members of the public." The PFEW are again trying to pull the wool over the eyes of police domestic abuse victims whether male or female and jumping on a bandwagon. If the PFEW are not aware that crimes can also be reported by police officers it is no wonder that Federation Representatives ae not giving the appropriate advice in much the same way that they often advise that an officer cannot claim unfair dismissal as they are considered a holder of an office and not an employee. The CWJ report states " Almost half (45 per cent) of the women who came forward are themselves police officers or staff and frequently report victimisation if they dare to report a fellow officer." The PFEW response to the report can be found in more detail in the above link however: I have selected some of the comments: Responding to the report, Ian Saunders, PFEW equality lead, said: “Police officers who commit this behaviour have no place in policing and we condemn them. “It is deeply distressing to see almost half of the women who came forward to share their harrowing ordeal are themselves police officers or staff and it is disgraceful to hear of how they often suffer significant detriment to their careers when they seek to report their abuse. “For too long, police officers who are subject to domestic abuse have been failed and radical measures must be put into place if the service is to prevent these failings and regain trust. As the report rightly highlights, victim/survivor trust and confidence is paramount in order to tackle the numerous shortfalls. “PFEW believes greater independence in investigations is crucial, incorporating strict confidentially and avoiding conflicts of interest, therefore we fully support the view there needs to be a bespoke Independent Domestic Violence Advocate service for police victim/survivors, that is wholly independent of the victim/survivor’s force. “In addition to this, PFEW backs the proposed legislative change, amending s.29(4) of the Police Reform Act 2002 to ensure police officers and members of police staff have the same right to make a formal police complaint as do members of the public. “As a Federation, we endeavour to support any victims who come forward with any type of allegation. If this is against a partner or another officer, we now have ethical walls built into our reporting processes and are continually training our Federation representatives on new toolkits so they can support our members in the unfortunate event they may need this assistance. “This entails developing understanding of an ‘ethical wall’ designed to maintain confidentiality between those representing an individual accused of wrongdoing and those representing the individual who has made the accusation or has been the victim of the alleged wrongdoing. This is to ensure all members have confidence in their local branch and its ability to represent everyone fairly and effectively. "PFEW is fully committed to continuously improving its processes to support members and will play its part driving change to help the 43 forces to standardise vetting and take action on the recommendations the report has identified based on its conclusions. “We encourage our members to report any behaviour that is cause for concern and to link in with their local Federation branch for support and advice.” Sue Honeywill, PFEW women’s lead, said: “We are grateful for the honest and candid feedback provided to the CWJ. “PFEW strives to improve its support services for members, not just through the ethical wall, but a completely different way of approaching these types of cases, more training for reps, better understanding of what legal support is available and, where necessary, supporting our members through legal action against the force. “We are listening, and we are doing everything in our power to work with forces, to make the changes needed to ensure perpetrators are held to account. Our support to our members and commitment to this is unwavering. “We fully support the recommendations put forward by CWJ and we remain committed to listening and working with them to help see these brought into tangible outcomes.” There is very little publicity concerning domestic abuse against male officers however; there has been some publicity concerning domestic abuse and coercive control against male victims who are members of the public. The video clip below I think is an eye opener for some people however, we have come across similar cases where male police officers have been victims and have been thrown to the wolves due to a lack of investigation and other influences where well known phrase of acting without fear or favour is ignored. The victim covertly recorded the abuse, had he not done so he may have been struggling to prove the matter to the police. The suspect received a 4 year sentence. At the time of writing this post there has been a worrying trend of using allegations of domestic abuse including false allegations to get rid of officers. With the recent focus on officers being re-vetted, forces are using allegations from many years ago which have not been investigated or NFAd to get rid of officers. In the same way that parties in a family court cases seek to score points by creating records of allegations by calling 101 or submitting a report online, anonymous reports can be made to the police which may be taken into consideration. There is also an incentive to make false allegations in the family court system because if there is an allegation of domestic abuse, legal aid is provided to the "abused" party or "victim". It is usually only given to one party and solicitors encourage their client to get in first. A primary perpetrator of abuse may claim to have been assaulted by the other party and have injuries apparently supporting their account. They may in fact have been caused in self-defence by the primary victim. A manipulative perpetrator may be trying to draw an officer into colluding with their coercive control of the victim. Police officers should avoid playing into the primary perpetrator’s hands and take account of all available evidence when making a decision to arrest. Identifying the primary perpetrator can mean looking beyond the current incident to the wider context, for example is this a case where a long-term victim’s self-restraint has snapped as a result of protracted abuse? Is this a case of coercive and controlling behaviour? Are you prosecuting the right Person? The wrong party may have been prosecuted and aquitted at the Magistrates Court however; the officer will still face a disciplinary hearing and may be dismissed. An officer may subsequently face a disciplinary hearing as a second bite of the cherry but then still fail vetting and be got rid of as a third bite of the cherry. If the police are not investigating your case fairly, you need to start a criminal defence investigation as soon as possible, it may be that your workplace representative has advised you to iust wait to see what the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) will decide. We believe in being proactive in these circumstances because it is much easier to prevent a wrongful prosecution than to try and overturn a conviction and miscarriage of justice. The law regarding domestic abuse has also been amended recently which now means that victims can make allegations of common assault or battery that may have taken place up to 2 years earlier from what had been a 6 month statutory time limit. We have dealt with a domestic abuse unit recently where an OIC was not aware of the amendment and as a result a suspect was NFAd. If those on a domestic abuse unit are unaware of relevant legislation this is of concern. Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 ( legislation.gov.uk ) Whilst the amendment is welcome and helpful for genuine victims, it can also be misused. Another issue that crops up regularly is where officers have being unlawfully arrested for common assault when the "necessity" element was not made out and custody sergeants have accepted persons into custody rather than refusing to authorise detention. In one case, where this was raised, a sergeant gave a reason for the arrest being necessary because they wanted to seize a mobile phone which is not a reason to arrest someone. Regardless of the outcome, arrest itself can have a significant, negative impact on those subjected to it. As well as potentially affecting your reputation and your job it can be a traumatic experience with consequences for officers mental health. Is there a necessity to arrest? Where an offence has been committed in a domestic abuse case, arrest will normally be ‘necessary’ to protect a child or vulnerable person, prevent the suspect causing injury or criminal damage and/or allow for the prompt and effective investigation of the offence. According to PACE, even in these cases police must consider other practical alternatives to arrest. Only in the absence of such alternatives is arrest justifiable. We would encourage custody officers to ask questions before authorising detention and also listen to the arrested person, sometimes they have useful information which may help in deciding whether to authorise detention or not. For officers who believe they may have been unlawfully arrested, start preparing for your criminal defence investigation, if you have a solicitor ask them to note any complaint on the custody record including a request that the custody video is preserved and secureds. If not requested at at the time ensure a GDPR subject access request (SAR) is submitted within 30 days otherwise you may not be able to get a copy of the video. If you are under investigation, you will not be able to get a copy however; by making the request the video should be saved and you will get a copy when you are no longer under investigation or via disclosure if charged. When a detainee leaves police detention or is taken before a court they, their legal representative or appropriate adult shall be given, on request, a copy of the custody record as soon as practicable. This entitlement lasts for 12 months after release. Make sure you get a copy of the custody record before you leave the police station as you will have difficulty in obtaining a copy once you have left, Usually a duty solicitor is only given the front page of a custody record however; there has been revised and updated statutaory guidance for PACE. A detainee’s solicitor and appropriate adult must be permitted to inspect the whole of the detainee’s custody record as soon as practicable after their arrival at the station and at any other time on request, whilst the person is detained. PACE Code C 2019 (accessible) - GOV.UK ( www.gov.uk ) Make sure your police station representative or solicitor asks to inspect the whole of the custody record, there may be information contained within the document to help you. Keep on top of your case whether you are a victim or suspect, don't rely on solicitors or fed reps who may not be able to keep on top of their workloads. If you are subject to a malicious investigation and believe that the OIC is not conducting the investigation fairly or acting corruptly, report the matter or contact us and we will report the matter on your behalf.

This post concerns an Employment Tribunal case where we had been asked to assist at very short notice. The former officer is believed to be the first Polish officer recruited as a full time Constable. Scotland's outgoing Chief Constable Sir Iain Livingstone said that Police Scotland is institutionally racist and discriminatory. The Claimant and his former solicitor had parted ways, the preparation had been poor, not one witness staement had been taken on behalf of the claimant. The claim was for disability discrimination/victimisation however[ there was evidence of race discrimination/harassment and an element of whistleblowing. The Claimant had paid the solicitor privately to begin with and later utilised legal aid which is available in Scotland, this facility is not available in England and Wales for employment tribunal cases. The Claimant was unwell with MH issues due to the stress he had been placed under regarding the failures in case preparation, being unrepresented and we felt that the claimant was being railroaded into an employment tribunal hearing. The claimant had sought a postponement of the hearing which had been refused. There have been various articles concerning cases of bullying and sexism concerning female officers but little published concerning male officers. Women describe Police Scotland 'boys club' culture - BBC News As this is an employment tribunal case we have looked for any issues concerning Employment Tribunal Judges as there has been some controversy recent;y with some Employment Judges in England. We have found an article in te Scottish press concerning an Emplotyment Judge Whitcombe and reproduced soe extracts below, the same judge has been allocated to our case. Bully claim officer accuses tribunal judge over expert's trauma testimony ( sundaypost.com ) Relevant extracts from the article include: “ A judge is to be investigated after being accused of aggressively grilling an expert witness explaining how a former police officer had been traumatised by her bosses. Former officer Karen Harper had called for employment tribunal judge Mark Whitcombe to stand down from her case over the way he spoke to the witness. A clinical psychologist, and to her lawyer, claiming he was overly combative and dismissive” “ She has now made a new complaint about the judge’s continued involvement in the case and his treatment of her witnesses and lawyer. President of the Employment Tribunal service Judge Susan Walker has refused to consider Harper’s original 2020 complaint but said she will investigate new concerns after Harper’s case has concluded.” In the aforementioned case of Karen Harper, the employment judge was asked to stand down. In the present case we also requested a postponement on behalf of the claimant which was also refused however; we informed the judge that the claimant and ourselves had felt that there was a perception of bias and that we certainly would not be recommending that the Claimant attends the Tribunal alone in his present fragile state against medical advice and without any support. We also informed the judge that we would be seeking a witness order for the forner Chief Constable Iian Livingstone and would be applying to amend the claim to include whistleblowing and race discrimination/harassment. These applications are not easy easy to make at this stage and the respondent has indicated that it will oppose the application to amend the claim. The case has now been adjourned and various actions are being carried out or facilitated by us to help the claimant and put them on a more equal footing with an opportunity to present their claims. The Tribunal informed us that the previous solicitor had not made any reference to reasonable adjustments, conequently the timetable for the hearing did not take this into account which would put the Claimant under additional pressuure in a case where there was already no equality of arms and the claimant was at a significant disadvantage without representation and with disabilities. Neurodiversity is not just a buzz word and needs to be taken seriously when a claimant is having to deal with an employment tribunal case. Even if legally represented we would recommend you contact us for our peace of mind to reciew and keep an eye on your case. When you are unwell it is natural to assume that your legal representatives are looking after your best interests rather their own. Unfortunately sometimes this is not the case and people are wrongfully convicted at criminal courts or lose their cases at the emplolyment tribunal. Don't take that risk, it is too late after the event to complain that certain actions were not undertaken by your legal team. We will post new dates for a final hearing in due course. In the interim as usual we will continue to investigate and help with case preparation.

. Myself and IPSG Volunteer Neil Humphries attend the memorial service in St James Square. It was a moving occasion and Neil Humphries laid a wreath on behalf of 2 Unit Special Patrol Group (SPG), the forerunner of the TSG, we also met former colleagues we had not seen for a few years. John Murray a former PC has been campaigning for justice for many years as the Metropolitan Police and the Government have let our colleagues down. Yvonne’s killing is the only case in British history of an on-duty police officer whose murderer has not been prosecuted. We have to ask the question why the Metropolitan police are not seeking justice for one of our own murdered officers resulting in one of our own officers having to do it hen he should be spending the majority of their life fighting for justice when he should be enjoying his retirement. I have reproduced John Murray's wording from his go fund me page to continue his legal fight for justice for Yvonne Best wishes and stay safe Julian Who Am I? My name is John Murray, and I am a former Metropolitan Police officer.  For forty years, I have been fighting for justice for my murdered friend and colleague, WPC Yvonne Fletcher. Yvonne was just 25 years old when, on the 17th of April 1984, she was shot in the back by a bullet fired from an automatic weapon by a gunman from the first-floor window of the Libyan Embassy in London.  I was standing next to Yvonne when she was shot and cradled her as she died.   My promise to Yvonne as she was dying was that I would bring those responsible to justice. Why Do I Need Your Help? Yvonne’s killing is the only case in British history of an on-duty police officer whose murderer has not been prosecuted. This is a national disgrace and an embarrassment to our justice system.  Worse, successive British governments appear to have interfered with the investigation and prosecution of the suspects, especially Saleh Ibrahim Mabrouk. In 2011, Libya descended into civil war, and Gaddafi was deposed.  Despite being the chief suspect in Yvonne’s murder, Mabrouk chose to flee to Britain, confident he would not be prosecuted.  Indeed, the British government granted him asylum to settle here. But the Met never gave up their hunt to catch Yvonne’s killers and, in 2015, Mabrouk was arrested on charges of conspiracy to commit Yvonne’s murder  and thankfully in 2021 my High Court case was able to proceed, and in 2021, a Judge ruled that Mabrouk was responsible for Yvonne’s death.    Why Do I Need You Now? But Mabrouk is still living freely in Libya. For Yvonne’s sake, and for  justice's, Mabrouk must face a criminal trial and, if convicted, be given a custodial sentence. That is why I am mounting a private criminal prosecution of Mabrouk, independent of the authorities. I have instructed a specialist legal team of private prosecution specialists, Edmonds Marshall McMahon, Barnaby Jameson KC, and McCue Jury & Partners (who represented me in the civil action). Given the importance of this matter, all these legal experts have agreed to act on a not-for-profit basis.  Yvonne’s murder was one of the worst crimes ever committed on British soil, and the fact that no one has ever been prosecuted is a stain on Britain’s reputation and, worse, that our own Government has protected him is a scandal.  With your help, we can right these wrongs. Thank you for your support.  Please visit John's page and help if you can. TRIAL FOR THE MURDERER OF WPC YVONNE FLETCHER ( crowdjustice.com )