Life certainly has a knack for surprising us, often hurling unexpected challenges our way. This rings particularly true regarding my journey into whistleblowing, a role I never anticipated assuming.
Though the term “whistleblower” wasn’t alien to me, often echoed in workplace discussions or through media channels, actually stepping into that role feels almost surreal now. I used to think that instances requiring whistleblowing were rare, a perception that changed drastically with my experiences at the Met Police, which unveiled a more extensive and troubling reality than I had imagined.
Maybe it was a touch of naivety on my part, constantly striving to see the best in people, even when it seemed counter-intuitive. I’ve come to realise that not everyone harbours good intentions or acts with integrity.
However, it’s not all bleak. During my time in the Met, I’ve met some truly wonderful officers – individuals who stood as pillars of support, integrity, and guidance, encouraging growth and fostering a nurturing environment. I encountered Sergeants eager to share their knowledge and Inspectors who genuinely cared about the growth of others.
This experience reaffirms the time-honoured belief that both good and evil co-exist everywhere.
As I continue on this path, I’ve learned the importance of choosing battles wisely, understanding that not every conflict warrants engagement. Maturity and experience have taught me that diplomacy, coupled with a deep understanding of the influence of internal and external factors, is key to making sound decisions in any workplace.
At times, we don’t choose our battles; they choose us. That’s precisely my current sentiment.
So, what exactly is a whistleblower?
Without delving too deep into legal jargon, a whistleblower is someone who, in the public interest, reports misconduct or illegal activities within their organisation. This “qualifying disclosure” can involve highlighting criminal offences, legal breaches, safety hazards, environmental damages, or the concealment of such issues.
Admittedly, even though I had some understanding of whistleblowing, I didn’t identify as a whistleblower initially. When I first raised concerns within the Met, it was to safeguard myself from the unfair consequences which followed post-discrimination. I clung to the hope that my grievances regarding discrimination and other issues within the TDC Scheme were being handled in accordance with internal policies and government guidelines. Unfortunately, that was not the case.
My complaint remained unacknowledged for eight months, despite an attempt to reach out to the grievance team via ACAS. The indifference of the Met’s grievance team and relevant line managers worsened my professional predicament while others seemed blissfully unaffected by their harmful actions towards my career.
However, the toxicity wasn’t confined to me. Our entire TDC team faced daily bullying, including verbal abuse and psychological threats from our Sergeant – actions condoned by the silence of senior officers. Even though many witnessed these actions, a pervasive fear of being singled out stifled objections.
Individually, this grim scenario escalated to a point where I had no choice but to resign following a mental breakdown. Collectively, the TDC Scheme was suffering a retention crisis with morale below zero. When an individual’s misconduct has a direct impact on retention numbers in a department of such public importance, the matter moves on to become a public interest issue.
Nevertheless, I soon realised the inadequate protections for whistleblowers within the UK’s public sector framework, a system that too often silences victims and witnesses due to fear of retaliation. This silence breeds an environment where crimes and wrongdoings can thrive, evidenced by cases like Carrick and Couzens, and the most recent NHS Letby scandal.
Whistleblowing is a high-stakes gamble, risking mental well-being, financial stability, and career prospects without the necessary safety nets. As I built my case, I discovered the daunting power imbalance favouring employers in securing witness statements, discouraging potential allies from speaking out due to the potential personal and professional costs.
Luckily for me, I have done what I do best: kept everything in writing. However, reaching out to potential witnesses met with hesitance, as they feared the repercussions. They stated they “absolutely believed we were bullied and that the Met dealt with the complainants rather than the bully; the he was subjected to a horrible experience as revenge for challenging the bullying and reporting the individual, but that he could not jeopardise his career any further.
I do not blame them at all and I let them know this to be the case. The system is designed in such a way that coerces people into silence for fear of retaliation. This fear is magnified if you’ve already gone through a cycle of negative repercussions and professional setbacks as was both our cases. After all, everybody’s got bills to pay and that need becomes greater in the UK’s current economical context. We need to be realistic: Police Officers are also human beings.
However:
How can the system be restructured to prevent potential injustices against whistleblowers and their witnesses?
The Metropolitan Police Service places high expectations on officers to embody values such as honesty, respect, fairness, and impartiality as outlined in the Code of Ethics – both on and off duty. However, it seems that the significance of this Code drastically diminishes when the organisation’s reputation is at risk.
Current internal complaints and grievance procedures seem to inadvertently force officers to compromise their professional standards to safeguard their careers. Given the substantial public interest in ensuring accountability from public organisations, it might be time to implement a mandatory requirement for police officers and other public servants to provide statements in whistleblowing cases if they are named and evidenced as witnesses of significance.
This mandate could act as a safeguard for whistleblowers, offering them better protection, and in turn, serving the greater interests of the general public, whilst diminishing the likelihood of witness victimisation.
Considering the Met’s tarnished historical reputation, further substantiated by findings from reports such as the McPherson’s report and more recently Baroness Casey’s, it’s vital that the MPS acknowledges its own flaws and amplifies its efforts to safeguard whistleblowers and potential witnesses for the benefit of the greater good.
Share your thoughts below and let’s foster a thoughtful and insightful discussion.
