In some ways, you’ve got to hand it to Thames Valley Police (TVP) for its almost heroic refusal to learn lessons.
Last August, the force was found guilty of racial discrimination at an employment tribunal for not allowing three white officers to stand for a promotion reserved for a minority candidate. It then commissioned an independent report into the case which was published in February and backed the tribunal’s ruling, taking an equally damning line on TVP’s equality, diversity and inclusivity (EDI) policies more generally. Meanwhile in September, the force introduced “equity training” for all officers, alerting them to the dangers of “white privilege” and the need to be “anti-racist”.
The August tribunal came about when Detective Inspector Phillip Turner-Robson, Inspector Graham Horton, and Custody Inspector Kirsteen Bishop filed claims against TVP, alleging they were discriminated against for being “white British”.
The tribunal heard that, in an effort to increase diversity among senior staff, Superintendent Emma Baillie was instructed by the Deputy Chief Constable Jason Hogg to “make it happen” by promoting an “Asian” sergeant to the rank of Detective Inspector. This directive was given in spite of warnings about the legal risks of bypassing a competitive selection process.
At the time, the three officers had each served with Thames Valley Police for between 19 and 26 years but were barred from applying for the promotion.
Instead the job went to Sergeant Sidhu (whose first name was not disclosed), even though that she’d not yet been promoted to the rank of Inspector. Mr Hogg and Ms Baillie had “jumped the gun” by giving her the senior role, the tribunal found: “Superintendent Baillie… in her eagerness took the decision without thinking it through. She then tried to retrospectively justify it by saying lateral moves were part of the BAME Progression Program which clearly did not exist at the time… The decision also went against Thames Valley Police’s own procedures in that all internal posts should be advertised.”
Not only that, but “Superintendent Baillie and likely the Deputy Chief Constable were warned about the risks of implementing such a policy”. This referred to an internal memo, issued before the appointment, which noted that the decision to promote Sergeant Sidhu “might be ambiguously legal” and “would not land well”. In the event, both of these predictions turned out to be understatements.
Indeed, as far as the first one is concerned, the tribunal ruled that the decision was unambiguously illegal. Employment Judge Robin Postle concluded that the three white officers were directly discriminated against based on their race:
The Superintendent’s decision to appoint Police Sergeant Sidhu to the Detective Inspector role without any competitive assessment process went beyond mere encouragement, disadvantaging officers who did not share Sergeant Sidhu’s protected characteristic of race, and denying them the opportunity to apply.
This was not a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Superintendent Baillie was clearly more focused on ‘making it work’ than on conducting a fair and balanced process.
Superintendent Baillie’s decision clearly constituted positive discrimination.
As for not landing well, that was made alarmingly clear in the independent report commissioned by Police and Crime Commissioner Matthew Barber and led by former Assistant Chief Constable Kerrin Wilson. Ms Wilson confirmed that the case had sown division across TVP, with both white and ethnic minority members of the force expressing resentment, disillusionment and loss of trust.
Some white officers described feeling “disadvantaged” and “overlooked”, as the tribunal’s verdict provoked a backlash that was “very strong, at times bordering on aggressive”. Minority officers said the case had undermined their credibility, with some refusing to pursue promotion out of fear that their success would be seen as illegitimate.
Yet, despite this pretty conclusive evidence that EDI polices ultimately benefit nobody, while damaging the morale of everybody, TVP have pressed ahead with the new ‘equity training’ – to which Ms Wilson also gave a solid kicking.
The force’s EDI strategy had created a divided, distrustful and sometimes “hostile” internal culture, she reported, adding that terms such as “white privilege” can “often be seen as demonising white people and therefore build barriers to the learning… If this is not addressed, this may well lead to even greater divides within the force as cultural attitudes become more hostile.”
The FSU has long argued that attempting to enforce ideological conformity in the workplace is not merely repressive and contrary to the law; it also tends to backfire spectacularly. By sticking with such doggedness to its discredited policies, Thames Valley Police has kindly proved our case all over again.
More here.
