Yet more police idiocy.

[Imnobody4]

https://twitter.com/moveincircles/status/1689341024290607106?t=PlSPnePhEVLMVBfRD89aRA&s=19

This shows the arrest of a teenage autistic girl by about 5 police officers. From what I can make out it is for a 'hate' crime. She apparently said a police officer was a Lesbian. Her Nan is a lesbian - that police officer is like my Nan.

I cannot comprehend the mindset of these officers.

Clearly some officers are misogynistic reality deniers without being trained in it then.

Goodness. Is this it?

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/648c474b103ca6001303a0a8/Mr_L_Broadbent___Others_-v-Police_Federation_of_England_and_Wales-3207780_2020___Others-_Judgment.pdf

@LoobiJee it went to Tribunal as it was a discrimination claim, age is is protected characteristic. Not one that the Fed seems to favour it would seem.

@borntobequiet yes that's the correct link to the decision.

@IcakethereforeIam My own view is that the then National Officers didn't give a shit. They and their pals were comfy on the old pension scheme, and various benefits. One of their claims was that a challenge would exhaust the Federation's entire legal budget. Leigh Day took on the challenge on a no win no fee basis. The outcome is that the officers they represented paid Leigh Day's fees from their compensation which was, mostly, a four figure sum to each officer.
In this present case, which I understand the Fed will not challenge, Leigh Day is taking the union on for age discrimination.

The Fire Brigades Union and even the Judges union at the time managed to speak up for their members who had similar pension challenges. Appalling.

Things got very nasty from the Fed nationally, for certain rank and file police officers who initially launched the Pension challenge.

I've met some excellent local Fed reps, quite a few of them resigned, as they took the flack locally for the dodgy leadership decision.

(Apologies for any typos and poor punctuation, due to disability difficulties)

Leigh Day's Summary of the Tribunal Outcome from a lengthy email to members.

"The Federation actively sought to deter and obstruct the Claimants from pursuing the police pensions challenge

The Federation created division and ill-feeling towards the Claimants for pursuing the police pensions challenge

The Federation campaigned, communicated and presented a distorted, misleading and inaccurate assessment of the Claimants’ legal claims, the costs and financial consequences of those claims, and group litigation in general, as well as the impact on other members

The Federation refused to provide any financial support (whether in whole, part or conditional) for any equality challenge to the transitional provisions by its members and/or the police pensions challenge by the Claimants from 2015; refused to consider provision of any financial support (whether in whole, part or conditional) for any equality challenge to the transitional provisions by its members and/or the police pensions challenge by the Claimants from 2015; Refused to reconsider and/or overturn its initial policy (as alleged by the Claimants) or decision (as alleged by the Respondent) not to provide financial support for the Claimant

The Federation refused to recognise the role of the Claimants in pursuing the police pensions challenge in bringing positive benefit to the wider membership from 2015 on an ongoing and continuing basis manifested through the communications and the ongoing refusal to provide financial support

The conduct amounted to detrimental treatment of the Claimants (the ‘alleged detrimental treatment’)"

NB. I'm not a police officer, nor do I identify as one.

Thanks for replying @LarkLane it's early (for a Sunday 😁) so perhaps I'm misunderstanding but it seems the repercussions for the Fed, so far, have been minimal. A little reputational damage that they seem set to try to ride out. It seems the people literally bearing the costs are the complainants.

@IcakethereforeIam you are welcome and I agee with your comments there.
I'm trying to just put here what is in the public domain already, but here's a piece from the Independent about one of the former national officers.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/police-federation-fraud-will-riches-1-million-misconduct-proceedings-charges-iopc-a8426636.html

Extra points to anyone who can spot a mention of Surrey.
Pure coincidence I'm sure.

'Will Riches', it probably coincidence but so many of the names that pop up across the myriad tributaries of this GI delta could have been coined by Dickens. Sometimes they're a little on the nose.

I hope the rank and file are not just using WhatsApp to commit career suicide. They should be organising for a representation that serves them, not just themselves.

What I take from all of this is the question. If you are a decent cop and want to whistleblow, who is there to look after your back and your family?
No one, it would seem.

Thanks for linking to the judgement.

The Police Federation isn’t a trade union, as police officers are not allowed to join a trade union. To protect their interests, the Police Federation was established, in legislation, as a statutory body. Interesting.

“The Respondent is a statutory body, created and regulated by Part III of the Police Act 1996 and the Police Federation (England & Wales) Regulations 2017. The constitution and functions of the various bodies which comprise the Respondent are now set out in the Police Federation Rules, made pursuant to reg 22 of the 2017 Regulations, and which came into force on 18 January 2018.

33. The principal function of the Respondent is to represent the interests of serving police officers in England and Wales in accordance with s.59 Police Act 1996. It is not a trade union (and so is not affiliated to the TUC); police officers are not permitted to join a trade union pursuant to s.64 Police Act
1996. Superintendents and chief superintendents are represented by a separate staff association, the Police Superintendents’ Association of England and Wales; the most senior officers are members of the Chief Police Officers Staff Association.

34. The Respondent is a trade organisation for the purposes of s.57 Equality Act 2010 (‘EqA’).”

Crikey.

“On 23 May 2008, Mr Ian Rennie became General Secretary of the Respondent. He also held the position of Secretary of the Staff Side of the PNB. He had no training in equalities law. For most of the material period there was no individual within the Respondent who was responsible for equalities issues at its head offices in Leatherhead. Although an equalities sub-committee existed within the JBB/INB, there is nothing to suggest it was ever tasked with examining issues relating to pensions or the PPC.”

“The independent review into the Respondent conducted by Sir David Normington (‘the Normington Review’, see below at para 138) concluded in early 2014 that inadequate consideration was being given to all protected characteristics identified in Equality Act 2010, and observed that no one within the Respondent had an explicit mandate for ensuring the needs of a diverse membership were met. It said that the Respondent had ‘an enormous distance to travel if it is to promote equality internally’, recommended that there be a new drive to improve the position and proposed that this should be led by a professional Director of Equality and Diversity who would be a member of the Leatherhead HQ staff. There is no record of the Respondent making that appointment.”

Also

“The Respondent did not conduct an annual tally of its members, nor did it have a database of members. “

Here's another former National Officer.
The former national chairman of the Police Federation of England and Wales is to face gross misconduct proceedings following an investigation into two allegations of sexual assault.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-64730884

Innocent till proven guilty and all that.
Interesting that the CPS never has enough for charges against these men.

EA2010 Section 57 also covers Trade Unions, so this is a useful judgement for Trade Union members whose Trade Unions discriminate against them on the basis of a Protected Characteristic, such as their holding of a "Philosophical Belief", eg. Gender Critical beliefs.

Mr L Broadbent and Others v Police Federation of England and Wales: 3207780/2020 and Others
https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/mr-l-broadbent-and-others-v-police-federation-of-england-and-wales-3207780-slash-2020-and-others

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/648c474b103ca6001303a0a8/Mr_L_Broadbent___Others_-v-Police_Federation_of_England_and_Wales-3207780_2020___Others-_Judgment.pdf

Police Federation of England & Wales victimised and discriminated against officers involved in police pension claims, tribunal finds
Article by Leigh Day Solicitors, 7 June 2023

https://www.leighday.co.uk/news/news/2023-news/police-federation-of-england-wales-victimised-and-discriminated-against-officers-involved-in-police-pension-claims-tribunal-finds/

I contacted my TU Regional Legal Officer to ask what training Reps/Shop Stewards, Branch Officers and Full Time Officers were being given on the implications of Forstater for Trade Union services to and trestment of members who hold Gender Critical Beliefs, ie. in terms of EA2010.

He sent me a long, convoluted reply explaining his rationale for believing that EA2010 did not apply to Trade Unions treatment of and services to members - citing the wrong Section of EA2010.

So I wrote back explaining that he needed to look at Section 57, which specifically mentions Trade Unions.

I don't recall that he replied to me.

Extremely concerning that a Trade Union Regional Legal Officer, who has a Law Degree and is supposedly expert in Employment Law, was not even aware that the EA2010 covers Trade Unions in terms of equal treatment of members and avoidance of discrimination on the basis of EA2010 protected characteristics.

This case might wake him out of his complacency about the need for Union officers, elected and employed, to receive training on EA2010 Section 57.

Bosky I'm itching to know who the Regional Officer was, and the TU, but I realise that's not possible to share. Disquieting to read your story.

I'm so glad that you made it clear to him that his bullshit does not baffle your difficult bloody woman's brain.

It doesn’t specifically mention “trade unions” that I can see. But, as I understand it, your point is that the wording of Section 57 is intended to cover both trade unions and organisations with a similar purpose which aren’t legally trade unions? Hence why it says trade organisations rather than trade unions?

“7)A trade organisation is—
^^
(a)an organisation of workers,
^^
(b)an organisation of employers, or
^^
(c)any other organisation whose members carry on a particular trade or profession for the purposes of which the organisation exists.”

I’ve now found the explanatory note which specifically mentions trade unions.

191.This section makes it unlawful for a trade organisation to discriminate against, harass or victimise a person who is, or is applying to be, a member. It also requires trade organisations to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people.

192.A trade organisation is an organisation of workers (such as a trade union) or employers (such as the Chambers of Commerce); or an organisation whose members carry out a particular trade or profession (such as the British Medical Association, the Institute of Civil Engineers and the Law Society).

Background193.This section is designed to replicate the effect of similar provisions in previous legislation. It also extends the protection to cover discrimination in the arrangements made for determining to whom membership should be offered.

• ExamplesA trade union restricts its membership to men. This would be direct discrimination.
• An organisation of employers varies membership subscriptions or access to conferences because of a person’s race. This would be direct discrimination.

Yep! That is where the EA20210 specifically mentions that Section 57 covers trade unions.

This is just a small part of the misguided reply I received from the TU Legal Officer (my bolding):

"Section 57 applies to Trade Organisations, which is defined as “an organisation of workers”, “an organisation of employers” or “any other organisation whose members carry on a particular trade or profession for the purposes of which the organisation exists”. Given that union membership is open to those who are unemployed or retired as well as those in work, I don’t think the union would fall within the scope of s.57 as it is not, in my opinion, a Trade Organisation.

However, I think Part 7 of the Equality Act 2010 would apply to the union.

Section 101 prohibits discrimination by associations in relation to a number of ways in which they organise themselves, including: admitting people into membership; and affording access to benefit, facilities or services for members or associates."

Part 7 relates to "Associations".

Explanatory Notes for Part 7, Section 107: "Interpretation and exceptions" include the following (so much more like a Trade Union than Section 57! - I am being sarcastic BTW)

348. The substance of the definition of an association remains unchanged from that which was used in the Race Relations Act 1976.

Examples
Associations include: private members’ golf clubs and gentlemen’s clubs where applicants for membership are required to make a personal application, be sponsored by other members and go through some kind of selection process.

Membership would cover full membership, associate membership, temporary membership and day membership.

Casinos, nightclubs and gyms, where payment of the requisite “membership” fee is all that is required to secure admittance are not associations for the purposes of this Part. These are covered instead by the provisions in Part 3 concerning services provided to the public.

A book club run by a group of friends which has no formal rules governing admittance or whose membership is less than 25 is not an association for the purposes of this Part.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/7

PART 7 is very important for reasons not to do with Trade Unions.

Every person who holds GC beliefs should familiarise themselves with the definition of an "Association" in EA2010:

345. This section explains what is meant by terms used in Part 7 of the Act. It defines an association as a body with 25 or more members where access to membership is controlled by rules and involves a genuine selection process based on personal criteria. It gives a Minister of the Crown power to amend this definition so as to change the number of members required by the definition.

and the PART 7 Single Characteristic" Exceptions in Schedule 16:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/16/33

904. Schedule 16 contains exceptions from the association provisions in Part 7 of the Act.

Single characteristic associations: paragraph 1

Effect

905. This paragraph allows an association whose main purpose is to bring together people who share a particular characteristic (such as a particular nationality, sexual orientation or a particular disability) to continue to restrict membership to such people, and impose similar restrictions on those who can exercise the rights of an associate, or who can be invited as guests.

906. It is however unlawful for an association to restrict its membership to people of a particular colour.

That is a bit of a diversion from Trade Unions but I hope a helpful reminder that:

- we can exclude whoever we effin' like from a group that has less than 25 members - EA2010 does NOT require groups of under 25 members to be "inclusive"

If there are over 25 members, there are provisions in Schedule 16 to legally exclude those who do not share a specific protected characteristic, eg. female sex; holding of GC beliefs.

Back to TUs.

I checked my old correspondence with the TU Regional Legal Officer and I was wrong, he did reply.

In my reply I had given him further information, quotes and links wrt to EA2010 Section 57 and the Explanatory Notes. I had also provided a even an even more detailed explanation of the issues around Forstater, information about unions that had passed conference resolutions mandating those TUs to discriminate unlawfully against members who hold GC beliefs, and I made this request for information:

Me:

"Is the Union planning to issue any Research Briefing or provide any training for Reps, FTOs and Elected Officials to bring them up to date with the implications of the Forstater ruling for the union? If not, why not?"

TU Regional Legal Officer replied:

"Thanks for the clarification re trade organisations. . . .

As to whether the union is planning any briefings or training on these matters, again I cannot comment as I am not privy to those discussions."

I replied, including this request:

"Could you advise how those decisions are taken and who is responsible for making them?

Or, if you do not know, who I need to contact to find that out?"

TU Regional Legal Officer replied:

"I’m sorry but I have no idea who would make such a decision."
-----

What I would have expected was something along the lines, "This is obviously an important issue and we should ensure that the Union does not break the law by discriminating against members who hold GC beliefs, I will find out more and get back to you".

But no, I got a polite "Am I bovvered?!" brush off.

WRT the PFEW case, the PFEW is not intending to appeal but I will hold off contacting the TU Legal Officer again until the court has pronounced on remedy and awarded compensation to the claimants, that might, should, provide more of a wake-up call!

"This judgment determines the liability claims of the eight claimants who gave evidence in the five-week trial; the claims will return to the employment tribunal later this year to determine the position in respect of the 9,981 claims sitting behind those eight claimants, and for remedy."

https://www.cloisters.com/insights/cloisterscounsel/complex/grouplitigationclaims

So is the Regional Legal Officer a qualified lawyer, bosky? Or just a trade union rep who’s holding the “legal rep” brief for that area? If he’s a qualified lawyer him not knowing to check the Explanatory Note is a bit worrying, to put it mildly. It took me less than five minutes after pressing “post” to think ‘hang on, I wonder if it’s covered in the Explanatory Note?’, look it up, and type a follow up post.

On the other hand, if he’s a qualified lawyer rather than a rep, him being unclear about whose job it is to put on member training sessions is a bit more understandable perhaps. His reply is still a bit wet though.

Does your union have an Equality Officer, a ‘Union Learning’ rep, or an ‘Organising’ lead who you could ask about arranging a training session?

Did you spot the the Cloisters team on the winning side were all female, whilst the losing side were both men? I have to confess, that gave me a smile!

This judgment determines the liability claims of the eight claimants who gave evidence in the five-week trial; the claims will return to the employment tribunal later this year to determine the position in respect of the 9,981 claims sitting behind those eight claimants, and for remedy."
^^
^www.cloisters.com/insights/cloisterscounsel/complex/grouplitigationclaims^

@Bosky Did you see this other article on the Cloisters website about guidance in manifestation of belief?

https://www.cloisters.com/insights/a-hrefhttpswwwcloisterscombarristerssarah-fraser-butlinsarah-fraser-butlina-successfully-intervenes-on-behalf-of-the-archbishops-council-in-case-of-manifestation-of-belief

The EAT laid down guidelines, in light of the Intervenor’s submissions, underpinning the approach to be taken to the proportionality assessment:

1. The foundational nature of the rights must be recognised: the freedom to manifest belief (religious or otherwise) and to express views relating to that belief are essential rights in any democracy, whether or not the belief in question is popular or mainstream and even if its expression may offend.
2. Those rights are, however, qualified. The manifestation of belief, and free expression, will be protected but not where the law permits the limitation or restriction of such manifestation or expression to the extent necessary for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. Where such limitation or restriction is objectively justified given the manner of the manifestation or expression, that is not, properly understood, action taken because of, or relating to, the exercise of the rights in question but is by reason of the objectionable manner of the manifestation or expression.
3. Whether a limitation or restriction is objectively justified will always be context specific. The fact that the issue arises within a relationship of employment will be relevant, but different considerations will inevitably arise, depending on the nature of that employment.
4. It will always be necessary to ask (per Bank Mellat): (i) whether the objective the employer seeks to achieve is sufficiently important to justify the limitation of the right in question; (ii) whether the limitation is rationally connected to that objective; (iii) whether a less intrusive limitation might be imposed without undermining the achievement of the objective in question; and (iv) whether, balancing the severity of the limitation on the rights of the worker concerned against the importance of the objective, the former outweighs the latter.
5. In answering those questions, within the context of a relationship of employment, regard should be had to: (i) the content of the manifestation; (ii) the tone used; (iii) the extent of the manifestation; (iv) the worker’s understanding of the likely audience; (v) the extent and nature of the intrusion on the rights of others, and any consequential impact on the employer’s ability to run its business; (vi) whether the worker has made clear that the views expressed are personal, or whether they might be seen as representing the views of the employer, and whether that might present a reputational risk; (vii) whether there is a potential power imbalance given the nature of the worker’s position or role and that of those whose rights are intruded upon; (viii) the nature of the employer’s business, in particular where there is a potential impact on vulnerable

LoobiJee - "Did you see this other article on the Cloisters website about guidance in manifestation of belief?"

No, I didn't! Thank you. Very interesting!

WRT your questions about the Regional Legal Officer. This is someone who I knew and respected for many years, through his progress from workplace rep and Branch Officer, during which time he also studied and took a Law Degree, through being employed as a Regional Learning Rep, then as a TU FTO and now as TU Regional Legal Officer.

I was therefore very surprised that he:

a) was unaware that EA2010 applied to Trade Unions relations with members

b) made the rookie mistake of failing to check the Explanations for Section 57

c) bizarrely concluded and argued that a TU would be considered an "Association" under EA2010

d) was unaware of, and seemingly uninterested in, any plans for Union Research Briefings or training on Forstater for FTOs and Reps, ie. as a workplace issue for members (Research Briefings and training are, or at least were, a routine and timely response to significant Employment Tribunal rulings)

e) apparently unaware of and uninterested in how decisions about new Research Briefings and training would be made

f) apparently unconcerned about the need for Union Reps, Branch Officers and FTOs to be aware of the implications of Forstater for members in terms of both employment rights and the Union's need to avoid discriminating against members who hold GC beliefs.

Knowing me over many years, my record of successfully representing members who were subject to discrimination and my previous Regional and National roles in the Union, he has every reason to respect my judgement and opinion on matters of this nature.

However, I am a Retired Member now and we have not crossed paths for over a decade. His response makes me wonder how much he and/or the union might have changed over that time. I find his response quite baffling TBH.

I am going to do a bit of background research on the individuals who would be involved depending on who I might contact next. You obviously know about how unions work so you will be aware that, whatever the subject, there will be politics of one sort or another involved that can stymie progress.

I chose to contact the Regional Legal Officer not only because I know, or knew, him but also because I thought that tackling the issue from a strictly legal angle might avoid falling into the morass of normal "union politics", complicated by Conference Resolutions that have embedded gender identity ideology in the Rule Book.

(Apologies to everyone following this thread for our diversion away from "Police Idiocy"!)

Bosky The Regional Legal Officer of a TUC affiiate union absolutely would know about Union Education courses. Either union specific, or via the TUC Regional Office. It's even online. https://www.tuc.org.uk/TUCcourses#lese

Perhaps the TUC National Education Officer, Carl Roper, can tell you the course content and if Forstater is in or out of it? He may refer you back to your own union, as these things tend to go?

Given the conflict in certain unions between Women's and LGBTQI+ sections, education around the implications of Forstater for union members potentially poses an internal political hot potato from a national perspective.

From your update, he was either incredibly out of touch with law updates, or trying to give you a body swerve politely. He knows that you had influence within the union. Nationally, for sure, the union external legal advisors would be aware of the implications of Forstater. Who they share that with, beyond elected General Secretary/ President /National Legal Officer and so on, depends on those elected officers and often volatile internal politics

Retired members, no matter how highly regarded previously, are no longer in the inner sanctum. Bluntly, they don't bring in the votes, they once did.

I'll leave it there. Perhaps a discussion for a different thread.?

Update on lesbian nan in the DM

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13117093/West-Yorkshire-Police-apologise-autistic-girl-lesbian-nana.html

A slap on the wrist.

I've updated the AIBU thread. Now I'm going to hide in a cupboard (not in Yorkshire, thank heavens).

It's better than nothing I suppose. I do think they'd be wise to keep her on desk duty for a good while though.

There's an update on this story:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13287145/mother-autistic-girl-lesbian-police-row-apology-sue-pstd-arrest.html

The mother of an autistic girl arrested after saying a police officer looked like her 'lesbian nana' has been given an apology by the force - but rejected it as 'poxy'. The 39-year-old has told MailOnline she is considering legal action against West Yorkshire Police - while describing how her daughter now suffers PTSD and panic attacks following her ordeal.

Not sure what reflective practice training will achieve if the officer can't even summon the decency to apologise.