West Midlands Police Chief is allowed to retire, NOT sacked

[HappyFace2025]

As thread title - he keeps his full pension.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/01/16/maccabi-tel-aviv-israeli-fan-ban-craig-guildford-foster/

Fortunately, we aren't the barbaric ones who do hangings as punishment.

I was being metaphorical

That was quite obvious.

But he won't lose those opportunities long term. If we meet back here in 5 years he will be on some swanky well paid contract, perhaps not in the uk, but gained as a direct result of his career in the uk. I'm not even sure a poor reference would stop that.

Humiliation - you and other pp are taking the piss. This man, and many others, not just men, have been failing in their duties as highly paid public servants. There are codes of conduct - suggests to me they are not strong enough, as enforced. Or rather not enforced.

Tbf neither of us know what his future holds but social media ensures that any future employer will be well appraised of this particular episode. I don’t honestly think references poor or otherwise will have any relevance. I am not for one second defending him for what has happened but have no evidence that he has failed over the years. I found the calls to remove his pension quite ridiculous.

Even if sacked he should keep the pension that he has paid a huge amount into. You can’t just take someone’s pension that they have contributed to.

To suggest he should lose his pension is ridiculous overkill.

He allowed the police to become the henchmen of those threatening religiously-motivated violence against Jews on the streets of Birmingham.

He'll be fine. He'll have a generous pension and some gravy train boardroom and consulting positions lined up.

So many people with so much experience in police misconduct proceedings and home office pension forfeiture rules...

Armchair judge and juries.

The whole thing is a sorry tale which says a lot about society today,and some of the opinions here exemplify that point.

Yes, he'll fail upwards. There are also people who clearly approved of his actions over the football match who may see him as an asset.

The issue of his pension has been raised because he should have been sacked, not been allowed to jump.

Even if sacked he is highly unlikely to have lost his pension. Perchance you want him hung, drawn and quartered while you are at it?

Not really. I would just like a senior copper to grow some balls as well as integrity.

I’m not sure the point you’re trying to make is very clear. But the most likely understanding of it - that Guildford didn’t deserve disciplinary action against him - would be a bit weird. He was a Chief Constable who misled a parliamentary committee about a serious, high profile policing matter.

I do think the optics of this are really atrocious, tho. The guy didn’t check a mistake in a report and then misled Parliament about a matter which is incredibly sensitive, esp given anti semitism in the U.K. recently. He’s the boss and his fat pay packet reflects rage, so the buck stops with him. Then he whinges in the press about being “unfairly treated” and refuses to resign.

FINALLY he gets to retire. I haven’t looked into the employment law position and what other options there might have been, but I do think many of the public think “sacked” or “resigned” should have been in the next headline about him.

Now he just looks like an entitled white middle aged man and fuck knows we have enough of those.

Check the report properly, cretin. Or arrange for someone else to check it for you. Then don’t lie to parliament.

His smug face doesn’t help either.

The bar for forfeiture of pensions is set very high and quite, quite rightly. If it were easy, imagine what a threat it would be for unscrupulous politicians/ employers to wield against their staff. For the police( I don’t know about others) you can lose upto 67% ( to reflect the fact that the employee also pays into their pension) and it can be forfeited for a certain amount of time or forever.

The point I am making it about the politicisation of policing. Whilst everyone has an opinion on this case, surely it would be appropriate for a proper process to determine his misconduct if there is any. (And I am not saying there isnt, just we dont properly know). It is a sad day when politicians force public servants out via the medium of the media. Im sure if it was your employment and decision making in question you would like to be given a fair hearing.

Police officers, even senior ones, are humans, much as it suits the prevailing narrative to suggest otherwise.

He constantly lied. That is not 'politicisation'. He should have been sacked for bringing WMP into disrepute, whether he kept his pension or not is not the issue.

We know that he said things that were not true, it’s a jump then to conclude he ‘constantly lied’ . Maybe he was fully aware - that would have to be established in a long, expensive process. I think resignation makes most sense and then any further channels of investigation can still take place. I’m reminded of the Amber Rudd case ( although I know she was a politician) when she resigned after ‘lying’ to parliament - in fact she’d been given false information from her staff but she took responsibility.

We know that he said things that were not true = constantly lying in my book. Stop making excuses for him.

i’m not making excuses - I’m making an important distinction between saying something that was not true with the ott judgement of ‘constantly’ lying

This.

OK. But that’s not what happens, nor should it in this case.

If Guildford believed he’d done nothing wrong he’d have stood his ground. Then there’d be disciplinary proceedings. Then an outcome.

In the meantime everybody, including politicians, has a right - for politicians and some others, like the PCC, a responsibility - to say what they think of the Chief Constable’s conduct and whether they have confidence in him. His conduct has been on public display.

If he resigns because of the heat, that’s a problem he made himself.

I think you’re diverting what could be an interesting discussion into sound bites because it’s exposing a lack of knowledge and calm assessment. You’re the the one who expressed shock his pension wasn’t removed. Now you’re saying it’s not the issue.

Starting again with a clearer discussion could be really beneficial but you are presenting as someone who doesn’t give a shit.

Agreed..

I must admit I thought under UK about the only time a pension is vulnerable is if someone is dismissed for very serious financially related offences such as fraud.

As you say if that wasn't the case it would give employers a hell of a lever over employees.