As with all of the Executive Committee members of the DPA, much of our work is carried out in our own time, with a little duty time provided by Forces.

This presents us with several challenges which has led to a few failings on our part, which I would like to apologise for upfront.

With an executive team of nine for the whole country and very limited time with busy day jobs, we often forget to do the most important thing of all – update you on the things which matter to you the most.

It’s easier to find the time to do something than it is to write about it!

I have no doubt that the things that matter the most to disabled officers right now are covered below (because this is all I get asked about):

1. Fitness testing
2. Limited Duties
3. Capability Dismissal

Numbers 2 and 3 are my portfolio areas, so it is about time I let you know what has been going on and answer some high level burning questions.

I promise you, it is not the case that I haven’t been doing anything, but rather, I work so hard representing our members, that I struggle to find enough time to tell you about it! That’s a development area for my PDR!

So, here are some common questions I get asked and the best answers I can give you to hopefully provide some reassurance:

Question: Has anyone had a pay reduction yet using the ‘X’ factor calculation?

No. To the very best of my knowledge, no one in the Country in any police force has yet sustained a pay reduction using Limited Duties Regulations.

The two leading forces on the implementation timeline, TVP and the Met, have both declared they will not be making pay reductions at the end of year 1 (12 month management review).

Both forces have reached, or are close to reaching the 12 month review, but will NOT be making pay reductions at this time.

Question: Why are pay reductions not yet being made?

In simplest terms, before any pay reduction can be applied, the force must first prove that the officer (who is not fully ‘deployable’) is having an affect on ‘overall force resilience’ (a requirement strongly championed by PFEW – well done guys!). However, forces are struggling to find a way to evidence this and so NPCC are asking for this requirement to be removed or at the very least relaxed.

This has been met with STRONG opposition from the DPA, supported by PFEW and is still currently being discussed.

Question: Are pay reductions even legal?

Not sure.

Early Home Office and PFEW legal advice seemed to suggest that pay reductions are legitimate.

I am not so sure now. Check out the EAT decision in G4S Cash Solutions (UK) Ltd v Powell (UKEAT/0243/15) – the ruling in this case suggests to me that pay reductions for disabled officers will not be legitimate.

I am aware of several disability lawyers queuing up to take on the pay reductions head on, and I will be meeting some of them in the coming weeks, so watch this space.

Question: What can I do to prevent a pay reduction in the first place?

I can’t guarantee you won’t get a pay reduction, but I can give you my advice on how to reduce the chances and how to prepare yourself with evidence of discrimination where necessary.

The reason I look at this from an evidence gathering point of view is because I, like many of you, have seen too often the opportunities denied to disabled officers and the pure ignorance some people have of the Equality Act, so I know there will be times when you have to fight your corner. So it is best to stock up the arsenal!

When trying to negate a pay reduction the most important thing you need to remember is this: PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

Having a disability doesn’t mean that we are owed something, it merely means we must be supported when we are disadvantaged over others.

NO-ONE else at work will care whether or not you will sustain a pay reduction. Therefore, this is all about YOU and what YOU CAN DO to prevent it from happening to YOU. Do this by using that lever of support you are entitled to (reasonable adjustments).

Here are some important things to note and act upon:

1. Deployability – pay reductions are all about how ‘deployable’ you are. Do everything you can to make yourself more deployable. Seek an alternative role, seek more skills, more qualifications – anything that makes you a more valuable resource to the Force and the public. (This may even improve your job satisfaction!)

A really important thing the DPA managed to get into the Limited Duties guidance is the importance of retraining and up-skilling – because these are legitimate reasonable adjustments. If your force hasn’t offered additional training and up-skilling that could make you more deployable, then it will be hard to legitimately justify a pay reduction, as they will have failed to make reasonable adjustment.

But remember – the chances are your Force won’t just offer you an opportunity out of the blue – YOU will have to seek it! Maybe even put yourself out a little.

2. Use your PDR – these are perfect records to evidence your skills and your development needs. Write all over them about the skills you want to obtain and how you can increase your deployability. Is your line manager, second line manager or even your Command team really going to turn you away when you are telling them you can do more for them, the force and the public???

Well, possibly yes. I am a realist. But more fool them if they do – because now you are starting to gather…

3. Evidence, evidence, evidence!

Put all requests in writing (or email) keep a copy. Get all replies in writing – keep a copy.

After a while it all adds up to create a big picture about whether or not you are being treated fairly and whether adjustments are being made to accommodate you.

4. Seek help – if you are unsure on any of the above speak to your DPA rep (local Force disability support networks may go under a different name), Fed rep or just someone who knows how to help. There are plenty of people out there to support you.

5. DON’T GIVE UP – Anyone with a disability knows that almost anything is possible if you want it hard enough.

Question: Can I be sacked from the Force because of Limited Duties?

No… Not yet anyway.

Capability Dismissal is the second instalment of Limited Duties, but it isn’t here yet.

This is currently sitting with Home Office Lawyers to draft the regulations to be taken to the Police Advisory Board for sign off.

However, this is not likely to happen until the new year.

Question:- How can I be capability dismissed?

Capability dismissal is being implemented to give forces a tool to cease the employment of officers who are so severely limited in terms of their ‘deployability’ that there are no roles in the force that can accommodate that individual.

It is expected by the Home Office and NPCC that this will only apply to a very limited number of individuals.

I am sceptical and this is why:

Capability dismissal can only occur 12 months after an ‘X’-Factor pay reduction.

Before dismissal, all reasonable alternatives must have been exhausted (adjustments, redeployment, retraining etc) which includes consideration for ill health retirement. You CANNOT be dismissed if you have not yet been considered for ill health retirement.

My concern comes with the inconsistency in which IHR is applied across the country. I can foresee many officers who should be retired under ill health, receiving a poor decision and not being retired, but then being dismissed under Capability Dismissal instead.

(I want to assure you at this point that I take every opportunity available to lobby officials and Chief Officers that Winsor’s report actually stated that the imbalance of ill health retirement and ‘restricted duties’ should be addressed. However, the only thing that appears to have been addressed so far is too many ‘restricted’ officers. Winsor’s observations that too few officers are being ill health retired haven’t yet been addressed. We MUST continue to raise this point until IHR is given due consideration for review).

Question: Is capability dismissal lawful?

I don’t know. No one does yet.

On an individual basis, depending on how the rest of Limited Duties regulations are applied – it could possibly be unlawful if you have been discriminated against throughout the rest of the process.

On the whole, is capability dismissal discrimination in itself? I am not sure. Parallels have been drawn by officials with other professions and even police support staff who can be dismissed in similar circumstances – so, it is possible that it is legitimate… unless it is discriminatory due to disability…

When regulations are drawn up, we will seek legal opinion, but I suspect this will need to be determined at tribunal.

Conclusion: If there are any further questions which you feel are not addressed by the above article, please email your questions using the contact form and I will do my best to answer them. Follow us on Twitter for the latest updates.

Jamie Mills
DPA General Secretary

The above article represents personal opinion and not necessarily the opinion of the DPA in its entirety. All information provided above is with the intention of providing individuals with a greater understanding of Limited Duties and Capability Dismissal and provides advice based on the author’s personal opinion and knowledge. The above information is correct to the best knowledge of the author, but complete accuracy of the content cannot be guaranteed.

Are there missing links in policing when investigating cybercrime?

Daniel Cuthbert, Chief Operating Officer of Sensepost, a Cyber security consultancy, seems to think so.

I met with Daniel this week after I disappointingly missed a presentation he gave at the Home Office a few weeks ago, however this presented me a great opportunity to catch up with him on a one to one level to discuss the ever evolving world of cybercrime.

Daniel sports an impressive list of world law enforcement agencies he has worked with in tackle cybercrime, and is no doubt an expert in his field, seemingly only being one step short of the main role in a Hollywood blockbuster.

However, UK policing seems to have a long, long way to go to even reach the horizon of his personal accolade.

So why is policing so far behind?

There appears to be several reasons, with the most significant appearing to be a failure to leave the starting blocks.

Daniel tells of a life time of hacking, from the dawn of the internet, but it is only now in 2016 that ‘Cybercrime’ appears to have become a buzz word in policing.

Secondly, but not by far, the next biggest issue appears to be that policing is ill equipped to handle the challenges of what is even regarded as ‘low level’ cybercrime.

Daniel relayed a story about a start up company who were recently victims of a £50,000 cyber theft – a value too low for the radar of the NCA, but too great for frontline officers to know how to effectively investigate it. After failing on several attempts to provide the ‘digital’ evidence to the police (as police systems were not sufficiently equipped to receive the files) the evidence was eventually printed and handed over…….in paper copy!

I was also told about the police officer who, when investigating a cyber theft Daniel had brought to the attention of the police, had first attempted to seize CCTV evidence of the crime – despite it being reported as a ‘Cybercrime’ (an offence which occurred on-line).

So other than unpreparedness, where else are the missing links?

It would appear to me from Daniel’s description, that in very simple terms, there are 3 key links in the chain to investigating and detecting cybercrime:

1. Reporting – policing needs to be better equipped to receive reports of cybercrime and understand that the report is indeed an offence of cybercrime and should be investigated as such.

2. ‘Hacking’ (building a way to do something) skills. To catch a criminal, you have to think (or ‘hack’) like one.

3. Old fashioned police work (locate, arrest, interview, further investigate and prosecute offender)

We already know from the beginning of this article that we are missing large parts of link number 1.

However, we are and always will be good at the ‘old fashioned’ police work – the ‘bread and butter’ stuff if you like, so we have the final link covered.

What is desperately missing though, is link number 2 – the ability to ‘hack’. The ability to see through the eyes of the offender to work out how they ‘hacked’ their way to a £50k payout.

But, this is something that can be learned says Daniel. If you have an interest in the field, Daniel truly believes he can teach you to hack and therefore better investigate and most importantly understand what it is you are investigating.

So how does this all relate to disability?

Well, I believe that disabled and neuro-diverse officers and police staff are one of the key components of these links. The malleable substance needed to mould and hold the links together. This is why:

• Daniel states that anyone willing, with a genuine interest can be taught to ‘hack’.
• Policing is in desperate need of frontline officers.
• Policing is also in desperate need of officers and staff to investigate cybercrime, the largest growing crime trend of modern time.
• Disabled officers (due to Limited Duties Regulations and the need to increase force resilience) are desperate for meaningful policing roles, where their skills are put to best use, they can develop new skills, they are valued and they aren’t required to walk around the High Street on a Friday night.

Now, connect the dots using the sentences above. Surely the answer is obvious?

This is a simplistic answer I know, but a perfectly feasible one. Hacking can be taught and so to can investigation skills. After all, all officers have a basic level of investigative skills anyway.

So why don’t we start putting round pegs in round holes?

I also wanted to ask Daniel about his experience working with people with conditions such as Autism and Aspergers and the benefits they can potentially bring to this field. (I distinctly remembered seeing news reports about people with Aspergers hacking the US Government and desperately trying to avoid extradition).

He told me that he had met and worked with many talented people with varying degrees of both conditions over the years and distinctly recalls them being good at data linking, finding patterns in a wealth of data.

Daniel also said that being ‘task focussed’, often a trait of neuro-diverse thinkers, is another distinct benefit that can be brought to a team when chasing cyber criminals.

During our conversation about Autism and Aspergers, he also highlighted further benefits of diverse thinkers, the mindset of ‘not giving up’ until the task is complete. This struck me as a key strength not only of neuro-diverse thinkers, but of disabled people in policing, a subject I have blogged about previously.

It is clear to me that, although the components of the chain aren’t all linked in together yet, we do know what those links should be.

However, my question for policing is: “who will connect the dots?”

Jamie Mills
DPA General Secretary

 

All content within this article is the personal opinion of the author and is not necessarily representative of the views of the Disabled Police Association or a statement of policy intent. This article may be freely redistributed but must not be changed in any way.
The content of this article remains the intellectual property of the Disabled Police Association.

I was overjoyed when I was informed that I had been successful at the paper sift stage of the promotion process. I spent hours and hours on my application and so was glad that my investment had paid off. I attended my interview and gave it my best. The result wasn’t what I had hoped it would be, but as a disabled person I am used to barriers. I am used to giving my heart and soul with little recognition in return. That’s what I have come to know of life in policing.

However, what I was and still am happy about, is that my request for reasonable adjustment was agreed and accommodated. It wasn’t your typical reasonable adjustment either. I was able to evidence (using a rather lengthy report packed full of documentary evidence) that a particular element of the assessment criteria put me at a disadvantage.

I was prepared to have to argue my point….but it just wasn’t necessary. The request was made and the very next day it was accepted, much to my surprise! It couldn’t have been easier.

But I have come to question, even with the adjustment, was I still at a disadvantage?

The answer is, I honestly don’t know. At the time I was just pleased that a disadvantage had been acknowledged. I think ultimately, I was just grateful to have had an opportunity.

But should I be ‘grateful’ though?

What is important to note though is that if you don’t ask – you don’t get. If you don’t try – you will never succeed.

I know that many disabled officers feel that which ever way you cut it, the police promotion process just isn’t fair towards those with a disability.

Some feel disadvantaged when gaining the evidence to apply in the first place. Some feel lacking in opportunity, often over looked by Senior officers in favour of those who are ‘fully able’. Others feel that competency based interviews disadvantage them due to their condition, such as those with Autism, Dyslexia or Dyspraxia.

So are they right? Are police promotion and recruitment processes fair? More importantly, are they fair for disabled people?

I won’t give an opinion as I will likely be accused of being ‘bitter’ or ‘sucking up’ in preparation for the next process, depending on which way my opinion leans.

However, if you were to ask the College of Policing for a view, I’m sure the answer would be “yes” it is a fair process.

But, if you asked disabled people in policing, I bet the overwhelming majority would answer “no”.

I don’t feel I have grounds to complain. I requested reasonable adjustment and was granted it. This is more than I had ever imagined I would get.

But then I wonder, am I content because I was given more than I was expecting I would? I had prepared myself to stand up for my entitlement to adjustment and was frankly relieved when it wasn’t necessary.

But was the adjustment actually enough?

I read a great article this week by @Alice_Kirby where she had the opportunity to interview Jeremy Corbyn about disability in politics.

Miss Kirby writes that only 2 of 650 MPs self declare as having a disability, yet if politics were to be truly representative of the people of the UK – 1 in 5 would have a disability.

By the very same logic surely 20% of policing should therefore be made up of disabled people? The numbers currently stand at no more than around 5%. Wasn’t it once said that “the police are the public and the public are the police…”?

Shouldn’t the police be representative of the communities they serve?

There has been a concerted drive from the top by the Prime Minister, (formerly as Home Secretary) to increase BME representation in policing and at every rank. So why too is this not being driven for disability in policing when disabled people are so clearly underrepresented? Why is this not driven in politics also?

Addressing Under representation

So how can this issue of under representation be addressed (assuming someone has the desire to address it)? Or should it even be addressed at all?

I personally believe it should. Disabled people in policing are being left behind without the opportunity to keep up with everyone else. The only commitment we have seen so far on this issue is actually the complete reverse – the desire to reduce the numbers of disabled officers through measures such as Limited duties and Capability Dismissal.

It may sound a contradiction, but my belief is that most disabled people are generally no less able than non disabled people (except in extreme cases). We are merely less able at what are considered to be ‘conventional’ activities, but in fact we are often more able at ‘non conventional’ activities.

An example to illustrate my point – look at the fantastic GB Paralympic team. Are they less able than their able bodied team mates? Or are they just more able at ‘other things’? Could Andy Murray win a Wimbledon title if he had to move around the court in a wheelchair (a less ‘conventional’ way to play tennis)?

So where does the problem lie in police promotion and recruitment?

Well it seems to be in that point I have illustrated – disabled people are ‘able’ at different things in different ways, meaning that conventional promotion and recruitment criteria and formats can put disabled people at a disadvantage when competing against their non disabled colleagues. This is because policing often tests the things that we (disabled officers) are less able to do (than non disabled officers).

This naturally results in disabled people not qualifying for recruitment or promotion processes.

The problem of ‘qualifying‘ for a promotion or recruitment process is sometimes overcome in other sectors, not so far removed from policing, by the use of ‘Guaranteed interview schemes’ (GIS) as run by many places such as the Home Office and even MI5! If a candidate states they are disabled and wish to be considered as part of the GIS, they will at the very least be guaranteed an interview….if they meet the minimum criteria.

Fair enough. Introduce it to policing and then you have one barrier firmly kicked down.

But, the GIS only gets you as far as the interview or assessment process, where you are then expected to compete against non disabled colleagues on your ability to do ‘conventional’ activities.

The interview or assessment itself is usually competency based, requiring the candidate to provide structured answers set against a list of criteria.

I have recently heard this process described in another way;

“…...(the interview) requires the applicant to answer complex ‘low-baller’ questions and mold one’s evidence to fit on the turn of a dime…..which can present a challenge to those with a number of conditions”, says John Nelson, the Chair of the National Police Autism Association.

So how can we overcome this problem?

Interestingly, Miss Kirby’s article talks about ‘disabled only shortlisting’, an opportunity for disabled people to compete against other disabled people only, something Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn said he was not adverse to in politics and that apparently the Lib Dems have committed to introducing by 2020 (but why wait so long?).

I can visualise this working in policing like so:-

A promotion process is looking for 5 candidates. Therefore, 1 position (20% representation) could be competed for in a ‘disabled only’ promotion process, whilst all non disabled candidates compete for the other 4 positions in a separate process. The ‘disabled only’ process could then be tailored appropriately to fit individual needs of those shortlisted.

Could it work? There is only one way to find out!

I do like this idea but I can’t ever see it getting of the blocks in policing. What better way to guarantee representation from disabled people and in a process which makes the chance of success much more achievable, virtually eliminating the possibility of discrimination.

Personally, I’m torn between whether or not this would be a good thing.

Some may argue that this type of idea is demeaning to disabled people as it indicates they could not possibly be successful against non disabled candidates. I can guarantee others will firmly ask “why disabled people should be given such an advantage”?

The counter question to that however is; “Why are disabled people still put at such a disadvantage?”

Isn’t it about time we stop worrying about offending people and start doing what is right for the good of everyone in society, the public we serve?

Would disabled people, (who account for about 20% of our population don’t forget) rather be represented by disabled or non disabled politicians? People who actually understand them.

Would the welfare reforms have so badly affected disabled people if the decisions were made by disabled politicians? I very much doubt it!

Likewise, would victims of disability hate crime, or any crime for that matter, rather be helped by an officer who can empathise with them because they too are disabled, or an officer who has never known what it is to be disabled?

We can fix representation in policing, but it won’t be achieved through treating people “fairly”, it will be achieved through treating people according to their needs.