Police Oracle

The contenders

Che Donald has been National Vice Chair for four years and a Sussex Sergeant. He’s been a Fed rep for more than 14 years.

Why go for it?

CD: The difference for me is that I’ve still got 10 years to go. This isn’t something which I’m looking to retire on. It’s my intention to spend my final years on the frontline.

Tell us about your ideas. What’s the one thing you want people to think about?

CD: I want to use a web survey of frontline officers to ask what the issues are that matter to them. I’m reversing it. I’m saying to members ‘what are your priorities?’

Why? We might not get it right. What are the issues? Pensions; definitely. Pay; definitely. Equality; definitely. There are other big things in policing that are important to members. But when have we ever flipped it the other way? How do they resonate with you? Let’s give them a platform. If you have 100,000 cops doing that you end up with a set of priorities. I don’t have all the answers. I’m engaging with a handful of members at any one time. That’s only part of the picture.

Demanding the right to strike is a live issue. What’s your take?

CD: There’s no easy way around this; the government implements public sector pay policy. That’s fine but we cannot be grouped into the same bracket as the public sector because we don’t have employment rights. If they’re not prepared to do that well then they’ve got to give something back. We’re Crown servants, not the public sector. I’ve talked to Police Scotland’s Federation – I’m 100% supportive of what they’re doing.

What’s your take on the reputational issues?

CD: The issues are diversity and misogyny. We’re going to have to address them. It’s not an elephant in the room; it’s out there, people are talking about it. Culture is an issue. We need to instill moral courage in the workplace where people are comfortable in raising concerns. At the moment, if you come out as a potential whistleblower you get marginalised. You’re almost seen as a grass.

But if you want to change a culture, deal with it by learning initially. People would know the sanctions. You just don’t come down with a big stick. That way you just drive it under ground.

And searching people’s phones?

CD: It’s draconian. End of. How many rights do you want to take from police officers? Why don’t you start with MPs' phones and see how it works then see about the police. I’ve fallen foul of this. I accepted that. What it’s done to me is it’s made me wiser about chat groups.

Where do you see the Fed in three years’ time?

CD: It has to have the support of its membership. That’s where its strength is. If it wants to be the undisputed voice of policing, it’s going to need it. But that’s not going to come without tenacity and confidence and action. We need to get results; on pay, on pensions. That will go some way. Most cops view the Fed as an insurance policy. We are far, far more than that. We need to win and to be more ‘activist’.

Brian Booth is the Fed Chair for West Yorkshire. He is a Sergeant with 27 years’ service.

Why go for it?

BB: I want members to vote for change. I come with a fresh perspective.

Tell us about your ideas. What’s the one thing you want people to think about?

BB: I want us to hear what members are saying. Our members deserve to be listened to. We need to stop kicking things into the long grass.

We also need to fight for more. Look at the Pensions Challenge. They’ve got the same desire to help colleagues. They’ve managed to keep in contact and are looking after each other. PFEW have far more resources than these individuals. It should be much quicker than anybody else. I don’t understand why we are so behind the times.

We also need to stick up for officers more in the media. We’ve got to have very robust media – I’m not sure we’ve got it right.

I want to give power back to the national board. Region reps are not being briefed. The national body should be the decision-making body. It should be holding the executive to account.

Demanding the right to strike is a live issue. What’s your take?

BB: We should be talking about balloting for industrial action. That is a member’s decision. I personally wouldn’t want it but our members should have their say. There are also different demographics here. The new members are doing degrees and see it as something like a 10-year stint. For others, if we were to talk about voluntary severance, you’d get some very interesting responses. It sends a clear message to the government that they’ve had 10 years of riding roughshod over officers. And we need to say something for officers who are deeply unhappy.

What’s your take on the reputational issues?

BB: On diversity, the Fed has a problem. We are lacking Federation reps across the board for a start. I notice the national Fed hasn’t sent out the information we need to make things better. But I genuinely think officers are that run into the ground that they don’t have the emotional energy left to help their fellow officers. Outside the Fed, these are issues for Chief Constables and we are there to check they are doing the right thing.

In terms of misogyny, that is an issue for the Police Service as a whole. We’d like to think that the vast majority of our officers are law-abiding, good-hearted officers. I’m not convinced that misogyny is as prolific as it is made out to be.

And searching people’s phones?

BB: A work phone, I have no problem with and in work time you shouldn’t be using your private phone. But otherwise, absolutely not. There is no element of privacy here. We all have family members or friends who are not in policing who will send something improper. Are we expected to report that individual for summons? We’ll end up with more officers being isolated. We don’t live around people who live by the same standards as us. It’s a very dangerous infringement of people’s liberty.

Where do you see the Fed in three years’ time?

BB: We have to be really careful. There are two major cases going on: the 11,000 people suing the Fed [over the pensions challenge] and the data breach challenge. Each are huge financial risks for the organisation.

We will be in a different place, for sure. We’ve become apolitical and that has to change. We talk to ex-MPs but we won’t talk to our own members. That infuriates me. We’ve got to get legitimacy back. We’ve got to get members behind us otherwise we’ll end up as a threadbare organisation.”

Steve Hartshorn is a National Board member and the Fed’s firearms lead. A Metropolitan Police officer since 1995, he was an early supporter of the Pension Challenge.

Why go for it?

SH: I’ve been thinking about it for two years. I want members to vote for me because I’m the future. I genuinely think I can use my skills and experience to help people. This is a really good challenge – and I like a challenge.

Tell us about your ideas. What’s the one thing you want people to think about?

SH: The biggest thing is to provide a communication that’s two way. We must listen to the members. But we also have to be realistic with them too. It’s about what we can do. It’s also telling them what we can’t do.

There’s a disconnect between the members, the National Board and the Chair’s office. That’s got to end.

I also want better physical and mental health support for members. Forces actually have to give them the time and the space to get better. I think we could do more.

And I want proper binding arbitration that actually means something in pay bargaining.

Demanding the right to strike is a live issue. What’s your take?

SH: Be careful what you wish for. I guarantee if the government gives us employment rights, they’ll take something away. The government can change things quite easily with a pen stroke. It’s something we need to think very carefully about – with members.

What’s your take on the reputational issues?

SH: For the Fed, there’s an ideal opportunity to stand for the national board. I would like to see 50% proportionality. There’s lots we can do.I didn’t understand the reality of the menopause until I spoke to colleagues. Once we know about it, we can be useful.

Sadly, as an organisation, there’s a problem around reporting inappropriate behavior. As a Fed, we have got to look to ourselves and start calling out unwanted behaviours more. We’ve got to recognise there’s an issue and try to fix it.

We need to think about how we encourage more colleagues who are victims of those behaviours to come forward. Often, they just want something to be stopped. And if you’re in a smaller force, your options are fewer because you’re easier to identify. But those people causing the issues need to be confronted much earlier.

Is there a third party way to report? Can we do more random dip sampling of emails? More open meetings where people revert to type so you can identify issues. But ultimately, it’s about what the victim wants first.

And searching people’s phones?

SH: It’s breaking the law. Clearly, if an officer is breaking the law, the law should be applied to them. Human rights apply to everyone. Just because you’re a police officer, you shouldn’t have your human rights violated. Should everyone be punished for the sins of the few? Does it apply to Police and Crime Commissioners? To the government? Where does it stop?

Where do you see the Fed in three years’ time?

SH: I’d hope that we’d have made better steps on representation. I’d like to be able to say to members ‘here’s what we’ve done for you’ and for it to be a long list. I’d like to think we’d rebuilt confidence in the Fed so that people can come to us with a legitimate concern and be treated properly. That’s our reason for existing; to support officers through the ranks. If we can just help in a better way then that’s enough.