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/

That may or may not be a reasonable opinion about the pp.

But what I find obvious is that people defending Guildford are doing so because they support the dodgy decision his force came to, on political grounds (and possibly in some cases on more obnoxious grounds), and so excuse the indefensible actions of cooking up false facts and then misleading a parliamentary committee.

There’s also an underlying broader question about how far the WM police has been captured by sectional interests. And the behaviour of the PCC. But those are longer term issues.

I think we should all agree that there’s no basis for removing pension rights. Beyond that, though, there’s no reason not to condemn the WM police’s actions and Guildford’s actions as the most senior police officer concerned, in the strongest terms.

Presenting as someone who doesn't give a shit? Bit like those making excuses every time there's a whiff of antisemitism.

In my head, there are demarked issues:

using fake or misleading intelligence to ban Jewish supporters from Birmingham. This exposes a systemic bias and lack of care over the decision. I am grateful this got as far as a parliamentary committee to expose it to be honest, as I am certain less high profile examples of this as endemic in policing.

Guildford- a human being, flawed like all of us and a distraction to the first issue.

I definitely 'give a shit'. I changed my perspective about the pension issue when PP wrote that legally it cannot be withdrawn. Do you 'give a shit' when posters admit they got it wrong?

Thank you.

I love how people have jumped on the suggestion of pension removal. Great tactic for diverting the attention from the massive central problem in this case. It's a problem that's not going to be going away with the exiting officer. It's a hell of a lot more important that the incompetent oaf retaining his pension.

I don’t think you “give a shit” about a useful rich learning discussion that benefits all participants in what’s an important matter

I think you (unconsciously probably) want lash out angry sound bites because it’s quite easy, really.

I do believe you care about the anti semitism though.

I think you (unconsciously probably) want lash out angry sound bites because it’s quite easy, really.

What angry soundbites? Aren't you angry that he obfuscated and probably only 'resigned' because there was no place for him to go? The most senior serving office of WMP has brought the police into disrepute. I'msorry you aren't angry too.

I do believe you care about the anti semitism though.

WTF do you mean by this sentence? Are you just being patronising or do you also 'care about antisemitism' which, incidentally is what this whole saga boils down to.

Yes I noticed the patronising tone, familiar with a few posts on the thread.

I think it’s interesting you’ve obviously pigeon holed me into a political box even if you haven’t said it.

I am passionately defensive of the Jewish people and believe they need the might of all of us to protect them. I have little interest in spending time thinking of anyone else right now.

to me, that aligns perfectly with not overly focusing on ONE man in the midst of exposing bias and error in a whole police force. I think the focus on his retirement or pension is futile.

I know that isn’t what you want to hear, so will expect some sound bites in response

The police should NEVER lie. Never. They wield considerable power in society and so should tell the truth. Always.

That maxim should be applied tenfold for a police leader, which this chump was.

It can lead for forfeit of pension, if that is allowed in the distraction. It would have happened to Shipman, he knew it, so he topped himself so his wife got a spouse's pension.

Lying is a deliberate act - stating something that you know is not true. However, you can state something that you believe to be true in good faith which later turns out not be true. This isn’t lying but begs the question as to how far you should have checked what you had been told.Given all the sensibilities with this particular context, i absolutely believe he failed in his duty to check. This does not mean i believe he lied or that he should have lost his pension. I think it was right he resigned.

This as I understand it is commonplace in the police force, where police retire when an allegation of misconduct hangs over them. For any rank.

I think it should be changed, the only caveat being there should be a time limit under which a disciplinary can be held. Whether it applies for the Chief Constable concerned is another matter.

There have been recent changes to make it less likely that officers can resign whilst there is a charge of misconduct pending and even after resignation, charges can still be investigated. So CG isn’t off the hook at all - and nor should he be. However, that doesn’t mean that atm enough is known to say he lied or that he should lose his pension.

Who would take on senior jobs if you could lose pensions if they go a bit wrong?

'go a bit wrong'? Seriously that has to be the understatement of the week.

Quicker and cheaper - with no chance of a lengthy court battle where he could win compensation on top at the end - to let him retire immediately.

True.

I don’t blame him I would have done the same - protected my pension

@zipperzapperI would have obviated the need to “protect my pension” by doing the job with which I had been entrusted competently.

But that’s just me.

And me.

What exactly did he lie about to the public and MPs?

Well usually suspended on full pay for years and years till they eventually retire - it’s a fuckin travesty!

“Guildford admitted AI was used in a report that led to the Israeli fans' ban - pressed by MPs on two previous occasions, he denied that AI was involved”.

He lied. You can bet after the first time he was asked, he’ll have checked (or arranged for it to be checked) and found out AI WAS used - and yet he lied about it on the second asking.

Might even have known on the first asking that AI had been used.