Other church or 'religious' police forces

[Fedster + 1,307]

World-first conference tells chiefs: Today we are where women were in policing 30 years ago.

World first: Dr Rob Gurney addresses the Enable not Disable conference in Hatfield

Date - 5th June 2019
By - Nick Hudson - Police Oracle

 

Disabled police personnel challenged national chiefs to “start listening” in demanding an independent review on discrimination and adopting a “step change in attitudes” for a truly representative service in a world-first setting today.

Policing risks losing the trust of the wider community if its own disabled officers, staff and volunteers lack confidence in its leaders, an inaugural conference heard.

The Disabled Police Association threw down the gauntlet over the service’s “lack of engagement” and a perceived failure to secure the confidence of a “badly let down” workforce.

Association founder and president Rob Gurney’s spelled out a blunt personal message of a public service with very high percentages of people with a disability at risk of redundancy and redeployment or pay reduction – resulting in a fear of officers and staff being open about their “difference”.

Dr Gurney warned: “We are where women were in policing 30 years ago.

“And that is clearly not a good position for the employer or the employee.”

The Hertfordshire officer pointed to nearly half – 44 per cent – of all employment tribunals brought against UK policing being based on disability discrimination.

The 30-year career officer added: “These are appalling statistics that evidence the need for an independent review of disability discrimination within the police service.”

Speaking to delegates at the first global disability-in-policing gathering at the Fielder Centre in Hatfield Business Park, Hertfordshire, the association president asked: “A lack of engagement with the disabled community is placing the service at a serious disadvantage and if the internal disabled community is lacking confidence in the Police how can the wider community have trust that the service will support them?”

He told the Enable not Disable conference: “In terms of disability, we simply don’t see any evidence of compliance or of these objectives having been set.

“On behalf of the Disabled Police Association I issue a challenge to the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing to start listening to the views of people with disabilities, to consider them when making decisions about matters that affect people with disabilities or carer responsibilities.

“I urge you to reconsider your preconceptions about disability in policing and consider what might be done to secure the confidence of a community that feels overlooked and badly let down.

“There needs to be a step change in attitudes towards disability if the police service is to become truly representative of and gain the respect of the disabled communities that it serves.”

He invited the chiefs and the College to find the answer to the question, ‘Where does disability belong in the police service.’

The conference heard there are numerous ‘reasonable adjustment’ policies and ‘disability passport’ initiatives that have the same aim in mind but often say different things.

The result is disparity in the treatment of people with a disability doing the same job but in different forces, added Dr Gurney.

The DPA and the College are now working together to produce standardised practice and guidance to forces and a small working party has been set up to gain a service user perspective.

He went on: “I will just be clear about this, the DPA does not recommend or promote one specific policy or disability passport but we are doing all we can to support the NPCC and the College to formulate nationally agreed documentation that eliminates the current disparity between forces.”

The conference was asked why is it that the only protected characteristic that has to be proved in the police service is disability.

Dr Gurney added: “I am not required to prove my faith, my gender, my sexual orientation or my race but if I ask for reasonable adjustments for a disability I am required to prove that I am a disabled person.

“And that’s where it can get really challenging because for the sake of a minor reasonable adjustment a person may be required to undertake medical review, psychological or psychometric assessment

“In one force we have got some student officers who have been waiting so long for assessment to ‘prove’ that they are dyslexic that they are reaching the end of their training.

“The main point is that while middle managers prevaricate over many months, a disabled person is denied some very simple reasonable adjustments that would enable them to do their job.”

The association president continued to paint a stark picture for disabled personnel within the service with no state funding for the association and, unlike other police bodies, receives no financial or developmental support from any statutory body in policing.

The DPA has been working proactively to try and secure funding for research into disability in support of policing – so far without success.

Forces hold very little data on disability unlike other disciplines such as gender and ethnicity.

Dr Gurney added: “This is a key issue for us, an organisation that doesn’t know the demographics of its workforce.

“And worse still, the public sector equality duty requires the police to maintain such data.”

He told the conference he hoped 2018 would herald a change of priorities towards disability in the police service following the publication of the government paper ‘Improving Lives, The Future of Work, Health and Disability’. 

But he said 2019 dawned with the key issues still being the same as the previous year, in terms of equality of opportunity for people with disabilities; overcoming physical and hidden barriers; strategic engagement required from the NPCC and College of Policing; disability awareness training required for all; career progression; sickness management; and provision of reasonable adjustments.

He stressed that the Public Sector Equality Duty, which came into force in April 2011, by now should be providing good decision-making by ensuring public bodies consider how different people will be affected by their activities, helping them to deliver policies and services which are efficient and effective; accessible to all; and which meet different people’s needs.

But the fact the association is still concerned eight years on for the three main features of the regulations’ – eliminating discrimination, advancing equality of opportunity, and fostering good relations between different people when carrying out their activities – ought to be ringing some alarm bells for senior leaders in policing.

Policing’s top civil servant – Home Office Permanent Secretary Sir Philip Rutnam – told the audience: “Disability is an opportunity not a problem.

“It’s mission critical that we are reflective of the communities we serve.”

At the start of the inaugural event, Dr Gurney said its aim was to promote the ability of people with a disability and carers within the service before offering a “massive” thank you to conference sponsors Police Care UK and Police Mutual.

He added: “Today marks the first or what we hope will be an annual event in UK policing, an opportunity to celebrate the achievements of people with disabilities and to reflect on areas where life is challenging for them.”

Due to that lack of funding from any quarter, he went on: “That’s why our independent private sponsorship is so incredibly important to us and why we are immensely grateful to them.”

He also praised the work of the new leaders of the Police Federation for “embracing diversity and listening to the challenges affecting diverse groups within the service”.

“The federation is to be heartily congratulated for providing an opportunity for a regular meeting of the national leads for all of the networks representing minority groups within policing,” said Dr Gurney.

The association, now six years old, acts as an umbrella organisation for all disability networks, with expert representation drawn from across its UK membership.

It recognises the benefits of a consolidated approach with one main group having subject matter experts to speak out at a national level – a position welcomed by both the NPCC and the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners who have highlighted the difficulties of engaging with large numbers of diversity support networks.

View On Police Oracle

 

[SD + 701]

““I am not required to prove my faith, my gender, my sexual orientation or my race but if I ask for reasonable adjustments for a disability I am required to prove that I am a disabled person.“

True, but then you don’t get to dodge frontline policing, get flexible shifts and get extra time off just because you’re black, gay or female.

[Beaker 817]

56 minutes ago, SD said:

““I am not required to prove my faith, my gender, my sexual orientation or my race but if I ask for reasonable adjustments for a disability I am required to prove that I am a disabled person.“

True, but then you don’t get to dodge frontline policing, get flexible shifts and get extra time off just because you’re black, gay or female. 

 

Certain conditions could be helpful though.  How about someone who can look at the most twisted depraved content there it, and not be effected by it?  Or someone who can turn up to an RTC where there are bit of people spread about, and actually not take the mental images home with them?

[SD + 701]

Agree fully, however the issue I had was being black or gay doesn’t excuse you from frontline work. Being ‘disabled’ can. Let’s not forget it’s not mandatory to disclose a disability either, only if it prevents or affects you doing the job you’re paid to do. 

[Beaker 817]

I've no idea why they don't disclosed it other than fear they'll miss out on personal development opportunities.

The last figures they have are 5 years old, and say that 1.9% of officers of inspector and under have some kind of disability, and 1.4% of chief officer rank.  That is against 19% of the population.  There is no way the figures are actually that low. 

Edited June 7, 2019 by Beaker

[stewie_griffin + 484]

As soon as 'disability' becomes a protected characteristic along the lines of race & gender, I fully expect the % of disabled officers to increase. I won't make any sense not to claim some kind of disability, especially if you don't have to prove it.

[Beaker 817]

2 minutes ago, stewie_griffin said:

As soon as 'disability' becomes a protected characteristic along the lines of race & gender, I fully expect the % of disabled officers to increase. I won't make any sense not to claim some kind of disability, especially if you don't have to prove it.

 

It is a protected characteristic, but does have some caveats attached.  If something would make you manifestly unsuitable then they can say you're not capable.  A wheelchair user couldn't work as a PC for obvious reasons, but they could work in a variety of civvy staff roles. Someone with Aspies could be a PC, but they're going to be a poor FLO, so arguably they wouldn't be able to do the role.  It all comes down to reasonable adjustments and the like. 

[SD + 701]

It’s also the only characteristic you can positively discriminate for.

[Zulu 22 + 4,633]

On ‎07‎/‎06‎/‎2019 at 13:44, Beaker said:

I've no idea why they don't disclosed it other than fear they'll miss out on personal development opportunities.

The last figures they have are 5 years old, and say that 1.9% of officers of inspector and under have some kind of disability, and 1.4% of chief officer rank.  That is against 19% of the population.  There is no way the figures are actually that low. 

1. If you were not fit enough to pass assessments then you should never have been appointed.

2. The figures of 1.9% and 1.4% relate to officers who have become disabled whilst serving. They should be supported in every way. It is just a sad fact of life that sometimes an officer with disability from health or  Injury reasons are often better off taking a Medical or an Injury On duty pension. If they are still interested they could take on a civilian post whereby their experience could be utilised, to their benefit and the Job.

[Beaker 817]

41 minutes ago, Zulu 22 said:

1. If you were not fit enough to pass assessments then you should never have been appointed.

2. The figures of 1.9% and 1.4% relate to officers who have become disabled whilst serving. They should be supported in every way. It is just a sad fact of life that sometimes an officer with disability from health or  Injury reasons are often better off taking a Medical or an Injury On duty pension. If they are still interested they could take on a civilian post whereby their experience could be utilised, to their benefit and the Job.

1) It isn't about purely physical fitness. 

2) You're assuming everyone disabled is in a wheelchair, or is physically/mentally incapable.  Dyslexics are considered disabled, they aren't going to have developed that due to an injury are they?  Should they be fired?  Someone with Aspergers will normally be extremely analytical.  They'll be able to sift through the rubbish and they're likely to be someone who can rhyme off laws, and apply them in an exacting way.  Should their difficulty with displayeling empathy bar them from service? 

 

 

Edited June 10, 2019 by Beaker

[Zulu 22 + 4,633]

Physical fitness does have a huge role to play.  Nobody in their right mind would even claim that you have to be in a wheelchair to be disabled.  There comes a time when you have to say, that standards have been reduced too much already.

[Beaker 817]

Again.  It isn't about PURELY physical disablement.  There are a range of conditions that are classed as disabled, yet can function perfectly well with a little bit of adjustment.  Indeed some of them involve qualities that could be very useful.  Nor is it about falling standards, but you'll not change your mind on that.

[gallifrey + 588]

I read this with interest technically I now have a disability having had cancer which causes me neuropathy in my lower arms where I had the chemotherapy IVs. I can still fully function though and can now put up with the pain of it which is not constant.

I was told whilst in the Met if I wanted to I could have an office job but refused and went straight back to the frontline. I’ve  now transferred to a non home office force and am still frontline with no issues. As others have said the word disabled is a catch all term which doesn’t take into account people’s individual abilities and needs.

Officers being disabled though has nothing to do with falling standards, that’s part of wider cultural move towards unhealthy lifestyles. 

 

 

Edited June 24, 2019 by gallifrey
Missed out comment

[obsidian_eclipse + 1,202]

I have a disability as described within the Disability Discrimination Act which I wont go into too much detail here. It is something which you might not be able to actually notice about me whilst I'm at work for the most part. However it does have a significant impact on my life and is likely to lead to the point where I may not be able to do the job I love in the future. It does mean that at times I do need to have some adjustments made, albeit small, but that can mean having to be refered to occupational health over trivial matters and in order to tick unnecessary boxes. As someone who is disabled it is a hurdle and can be embarrassing as things are blown out of proportion and become more noticeable than they need to be, you don't need a song and a dance being made about everything when you want to just get on with the job. I can still do my role and meet the requirements to do so, so this shouldnt be a problem.

One thing to consider is this. Would people make up a condition that would fall within the definitions of a the DDA in order to effect some sort of advantage? The answer is yes, some people would, but what would actually stop them from doing so now even if they do need a referral to occupational health? If that is the case, that it would be an inconvenience to go through the whole process then we are admitting that it does make it more difficult for disabled officers to get the support they need and are entitled for.

Another point to make is this. Should someone make up a condition which is false then they would be acting in an entirely dishonest way which would fall short of the standards to be a police officer. We have had officers dismissed or facing misconduct for lying about whether or not they have submitted their health questionnaire for the fitness test, something which was incredibly stupid on their part when they could have just said they'd forgotten. Would officers put their careers in jeapody over what isn't a spur of the moment decision but a pre meditated lie? Especially if it's to gain some slight advantage. A periodic review or random check would be an adequate deterrent.

People with disabilities aren't gaining any advantages by being given support they are levelling the playing field, not by making rediculous requests but by having small changes made which enable them to be as productive as any other member of staff.