(37) Danger to the Organisation

Police officers are not allowed to make complaints, therefore the only recourse they have when things go wrong, is through the grievance procedure and so you would hope it is fit for purpose ensuring that people are confident in using it. Any police officers out there feeling confident, having read this? No, no, I didn’t think so!! Well, you’ve read what Superintendent Kevin Purcell said to me and Fed Rep 1 in my Grievance appeal meeting. Like I said, not a man to mince his words. I knew he would be mortified to find out that, having said in, what I thought were the strongest possible terms, that DI TAYLOR was a ‘danger’ to the organisation, that absolutely nothing happened to him. He would have serious concerns about this, wouldn’t he? I thought I would write and ask him………….On 31st August 2017 I wrote………

Superintendent Purcell, In respect of the attached email from Superintendent Thomas on 06/07/17, she states that she does not assess there is a performance matter or any misconduct issues in respect of DI Taylor.
He has told Superintendent Thomas and CI Francis that in the same circumstances he would do the same thing again.
My understanding is that ‘Misconduct’ is a breach of the standards of Professional behaviour and ‘Unsatisfactory Performance’ is an inability or failure of a police officer to perform the duties of the role or rank he or she is currently undertaking to a satisfactory standard or level.
That being the case, I fail to see how Superintendent Thomas has come to this conclusion based on the findings of your letter of 09/05/17.
Are you able to say whether or not you agree with Superintendent Thomas, as I fear that lessons have not been learned?
Richard Barradale-Smith.

On the following day, Supt Purcell wrote back………

Subject:Re: Grievance

I hope you are well.
I dealt with the grievance and made all parties aware of my findings.
There seems to be some misunderstanding in the difference between a grievance and misconduct.
A grievance seeks to consider whether the person grieving has in effect given the circumstances dealt with in a manner that wasn’t appropriate.
In my opinion or that of the force it doesn’t follow that a discipline must follow.
It is a matter for Supt Thomas as to whether she considers any further action is appropriate.
For my part Richard I hoped that your focus was on you not Martin Taylor. I am saddened that you are clearing feeling as you were and cannot move forward.
Best Regards

Ah, I see. It’s MY fault that I cannot move forward. Yes, as you can see, it would appear that Superintendent Purcell had obviously drunk from the fountain of fantasy on the top floor and washed down a corporate bullshit pill before making a complete u turn! No longer did he think DI TAYLOR was a danger to the organisation. Shame on him. I wrote back…….

Subject:Re:  Grievance

Superintendent Purcell, Thank you for your response. The Grievance Resolution Policy and Procedure is intended to repair working relations when they have been damaged in some way.
I concur that it does not follow that a discipline must follow a grievance being upheld, but surely that is dependant upon whether the Fact-Finder is satisfied in ‘3.1.5 Delivering the outcome – showing how the individual and the organisation may learn from the issue to stop the same thing happening again’. ‘Mistakes are always forgivable, if one has the courage to admit them’.
DI Taylor has made it clear to two senior officers that he would do the same thing again!I therefore cannot see how the working relations have been repaired or that anyone has learned from the issue to stop the same thing happening again.
It is in these very circumstances that it would appear appropriate for disciplinary action to take place. In my meeting with Superintendent Thomas on 05/07/17 she told me that it would have been for you to decide whether disciplinary action should have been taken and in your email below you state it is a matter for her!
As stated in my grievance, all I wanted is an apology, (which you kindly gave on behalf of West Mercia), and for lessons to be learned. Unfortunately the latter has not happened.
As for moving forward, this is what I am trying to do. In our meeting, in respect of DI Taylor, you said, “He’s a danger to me. He’s a danger to the organisation”. These are strong words and you will appreciate words that make moving on, in the knowledge that DI Martin could and would do the same/ similar thing again to me or any of my colleagues, very uncomfortable.
Indeed, Sect4.11 in the Policy Guidance states, ‘Managers should not assume that individuals will just ‘get on with it, or get over it’.
Respectfully submitted for your consideration.

And…………I never heard from him again. He was apparently promoted to Chief Superintendent and has since retired!

Anyway, moving on…… On 14th September, 2017 I sent an email to DS Husbands in Professional Standards, as I hadn’t had an update for a while…

He replied on the same day.

On 15th September 2017 I further wrote…..

And his response on the same day…..

So…….what do you think they did next?

Post Navigation:

4 thoughts on “(37) Danger to the Organisation

  1. Oh what a tangled web they weaved when first they practiced to deceive. Why is this story not being covered by the mainstream news media?

    Liked by 1 person

  2. This harrowing story in unbelievable and I and many other applaud you and your wife for standing up to challenge the many wrong doing that have taken place. Once again let us remember the KEY element here, YOU ARE THE INNOCENT PARTIES. In a previous post you indicated that Superintendent Purcell smelt wrong-doing on the part of DI Taylor but then in this post he has not stood by that, passed the buck and then done a bunk with his well earned pension pot.
    In an earlier post I made a comment that it was not unusual for officers to get promotion as they neared their retirement and hey ho my crystal ball was right.

    Just take a glance at the numbers below. I have based these figures on 2018 Pay Scales.
    The figures below for a Superintendent indicate calculations based on an officer at the top of their tier of this rank.
    The figures below for a Chief Superintendent indicate calculations based on an officer at the lowest tier of this rank.

    The calculations are both based on the maximum tax free allowance of 25% and are also based on final salaries.

    The calculations are not 100% accurate to anyone individual as people have different circumstances but they will give you a “guesstimate” of the nest egg.

    Not knowing a persons retirement age is important any can have a huge bearing on the final sum.

    A Superintendent retiring after 30 years service on a final salary scheme
    £52000 per year if they DO NOT commute

    If they commute the Maximum and retire at

    Aged 48. Lump Sum Aged 55. Lump Sum Aged 60 Lump Sum
    £321000. £288600. £258700

    The 3 sets of figures above also attract an Annual Taxable Pension of £39000 per year

    Then be a good boy or girl and don’t ruffle anyone’s feathers, get promotion in your twilight years and hey presto the money tree bears more riches.

    A Chief Superintendent retiring after 30 years service on a final salary scheme
    £55333 per year if they DO NOT commute

    If they commute the Maximum and retire at

    Aged 48 Lump Sum. Aged 55 Lump Sum. Aged 60 Lump Sum
    £341681. £307092. £268360

    The 3 sets of figures above also attract an Annual Taxable Pension of £41500 per year.

    The whole story reminds me of 2 happenings in the Bible

    Pontius Pilate who washed his hands of any wrong doing…… ring any bells???

    And don’t forget that old mate of Jesus …. yep you got him …. that scallywag Judas who sold out Jesus for 30 pieces of silver…… there you go, my Grannies old Westminster clock has just chimed and the poor old Cock didn’t even get a chance to crow.

    Continue to be strong Richard & Jane 👏👏👏👏


  3. Richard I know of at least 3 occasions where senior officers have been promoted within 12 months of their retirement in order for them to receive an enhanced pension. It would appear that Mr Purcell would be a fourth. I was present at a drinks evening where it was discussed by a number of officers of rank of Insp and above that this occurred when a senior officer was deemed to have done good by the job, as a reward. Corruption at highest levels. Of course I could not prove that this discussion ever took place.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Why isn’t this being covered by the mainstream media? If anything is in the public interest, it is this level of corruption and/or incompetence to be found at the heart of the organisations that are supposed to protect the public. Left unchecked, it appears to have resulted in a decent, conscientious police constable being forced out of his job.
    From the evidence provide, this is an honest, moral man who called out members of the hunting community for a vile act of racism and, likewise, for cruelty to animals, following the revelation that they were throwing live fox cubs to packs of dogs at hunt kennels. By no coincidence, he then found himself subject to a concerted campaign to discredit him professionally and remove him from the investigation into the fox cub cruelty, conducted by what seems to be some sort of sinister network of individuals, operating in secret at every level of the legal profession, bound by a common unhealthy obsession for hunting wild animals with packs of dogs and for repeal of the Hunting Act, which quite rightly banned the sadistic practice. In the absence of repeal, the aim of these individuals appears to be protection of the hunting community from prosecution, by thwarting any attempts to do so…
    Those individuals ought to be burning with shame right now, but it appears, thus far, they have got off scot free, without being disciplined, punished, struck off or being subject to legal action.
    Shame on West Mercia Police for allowing this to happen and the Crown Prosecution Service for allowing a self-professed sport shooter/hunter to take up the role of ‘wildlife crime lead’ where his judgement would be required to instigate or terminate proceedings against a range of individuals, including hunters and shooters accused of killing foxes, deer and hares in breach of the Hunting Act; raptor persecution, which is rife on and around shooting estates; and in this case, feeding live fox cubs to hounds as part of the hunt’s training exercise for illegal foxhunting…


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: