‘Since we lost Andrew, we have considered the Thin Blue Line image to be a universal memorial to the loss of these officers, it concerns me that there are those who want to take it away.’

Perhaps if they personally understood what it actually represents-they wouldn’t be so eager to remove it-Bryn Hughes.

A demoralising double whammy for the Met’s front line.

Former Met Police officer Chris Hobbs today writes in the Havering Daily on the controversial issue of the removal of the ‘Thin Blue Line’ image.

If those doing their best for London’s public, 24 hours a day 7 days a week despite constant vilification, thought that their morale couldn’t plunge any further, they were to be proved hopelessly wrong.

It began as part of briefing for officers performing duty at the popular annual Pride event. It stated that “No thin, blue line badges/patches are to be worn whilst policing this event.” It went on confusingly to say that ‘these’ had been linked to far right and anti-trans groups in the USA. 

Of course, ‘these’ referred to the American stars and stripes rather than that of the Union flag, but whilst the instruction was resented and controversial, it appeared that this order was for this 2023 Pride event only. 

There was hope that the Met, as the controversy grew, would issue a statement clarifying the situation, explaining why the TBL patch was not to be displayed for this event, but clarifying the rationale behind the patch, i.e., fallen colleagues and funding for a police charity.  This would ensure that the patch could continue to be worn, perhaps paving the way for it to be displayed by officers at future Pride events. 

Speaking as someone who observed the day’s events, which were hugely successful and involved much successful engagement between police and participants, I doubt whether 99.99% would even have noticed the patch. I also doubt whether the tiny percentage who did notice it would have been offended or raised it as an issue. 

Press Bureau, when contacted, issued a typically bland statement.

‘The Met’s Dress Code Policy sets out the official uniform police officers must adhere to whilst serving the public without fear or favour. The policy has not changed. The policy makes exception for the work of the National Police Memorial Day Trust, Help for Heroes and the Royal British Legion
charities and permits officers to wear their insignia whilst on duty.’

The Chief Constable of Essex made his views on the issue perfectly clear even before the Pride event, signalling a notable rift amongst the police hierarchy.

The day after Pride, the issue found its way to the front page of the Mail on Sunday. Given the Mail’s contemptuous attitude to policing, there was little celebration amongst the police community that the issue was now fully in the public domain. Mark White, the respected journalist, was also less than complementary when articulating his views on GB News.

The Commissioner speaks.

Late last year, a question was asked by a Greater London Assembly member in respect of the TBL patch. The response, from the Mayor’s office, was as follows.

However, the Commissioner, when questioned shortly after Pride by a member of the Greater London Authority in respect of the ‘ban,’ reiterated the policy as stated by Press Bureau. He again linked the issue to the USA and referred to the three badges/patches & insignia which were permitted. His rationale seemed to be that there was a danger that all sorts of other badges and badges would be attached to officer’s uniforms and kits if the TBL patch were permitted. Raising animplication that patches featuring the local hedgehog charity, as worthy that might be, could find itself on public view courtesy of a uniform Met officer surely misses the point;namely what the patch stands for. 

Far right issues

Comparisons by the Commissioner and others with the situation that existed in the USA draws the inevitable retort, simply that this isn’t the USA. If there was any support from the USA’s far-right for police post George Floyd, that seems to have evaporated as those on that side of the political spectrum were arrested. This was followed by the storming of Capitol Hill and the brutal attacks by so called patriots upon police officers. 

Comments featuring the phrase, ‘without fear or favour,’ havealso been subject to scrutiny. The use of the pride logo on vehicles and uniforms has come under criticism in previous years, not from me I hasten to add; The ‘without fear or favour’ mantra begs the question as to why, after the recent ban was imposed for Pride 2023, some officers albeit whether tasked with engagement or not, were wearing police issue rainbow- coloured epaulettes!! 

Sir Mark stated that that officers were permitted to wear Help for Heroes insignia. Help for Heroes is a worthy charity set up to support forces personal due to government neglect. The Commissioner probably would not have seen the following:

In 2018, I was coincidentally in the central London shopping area at the same time as a Tommy Robinson protest. I watched as protesters swarmed down from Trafalgar Square and attacked the half a dozen police officers who were standing in front of the Downing Street gates. There then followed further outbreaks of violence after their rally. Since that Saturday I’ve observed further far-right rallies including those by the DFLA and that which involved the infamous statues protest.

The simple truth is that a number of these ‘patriots,’ who attacked police officers and who attempted to confront those who opposed them were wearing Help for Heroes wristbands and t-shirts. 

Certainly, in my experience, over the past few years, the far-right’s antipathy towards the police greatly exceeds that shown by the hard-left yet, quite rightly, the Commissioner isn’t (presumably) considering a ban on Help for Heroes insignia as worn by those who attack his officers.

Even the Poppy is controversial according to sections of the ‘stop the war,’ left and Irish republican groups yet, quite rightly, the banning of the Poppy is not on any police force’s radar.

However, it can surely be argued that the ‘TBL’ insignia which features the UK’s national flag is worthy of now being added to the ‘permitted’ list. The use of a national flag by ‘patriotic,’ far right groups is not an unusual world-wide event yet it can surely be argued that this should not be an excuse to ‘surrender,’ that same national flag to those extremists. 

The Supreme Court delivers.

The second ‘double whammy,’ involved the Supreme Court and whilst the Met hierarchy have infuriated the rank and file over ‘patchgate,’ their resistance to police officer W80 facing a gross-misconduct hearing in respect of the fatal shooting of Jermain Baker received much positive comment. Despite the CPS saying there was no case to answer and a public enquiry stating the killing was lawful, IOPC has now won a supreme court ruling which would appear to force a reluctant Met to hold a gross misconduct hearing. 

This would appear to be based on the premise which concluded that, “W80’s belief of imminent danger was honestly held but unreasonable.” Thus, W80 had a case to answer for gross misconduct on the basis of the civil law test that any mistake of fact could only be relied on if it was a reasonable mistake to make.”

Hickman Rose Solicitors when discussing the case on their website concluded the following which would appear to have ramifications beyond those officers authorised to carry firearms:

‘The Supreme Court disagreed and ruled that in the future all decisions on whether to discipline police officers who use force on members of the public are to be made using the civil law test, which
includes an assessment of whether a mistaken belief is objectively reasonable.’

The BBC’s Danny Shaw when commenting on the verdict summed up the verdict succinctly when he said, “But how do you assess what’s unreasonable?”

The one plus for individual officers was an apparent acknowledgement by the Supreme Court judges, namely that the law surrounding police use of force leaves much to be desired. 

The reaction of officers in the event of a ‘guilty’ misconduct finding against officer W80, will be interesting. 

Both the issues referred to above in terms of the patch and the Supreme Court may well adversely affect still further the morale of the Met’s front line. The Commissioner also informed the above- mentioned Police and Crime committee that he was worried about retention. Response Policing Week merely highlighted the desperate plight of its Response teams. 

The issue of morale.

In addition, an announcement to the committee that he was moving detectives from specialist units back to ‘borough,’ has also caused resentment. It is acknowledged that local detectives are overwhelmed but specialist units too are under pressure. The loss of detectives will unquestionably have a negative impact on their effectiveness. 

Officers in those units will have worked hard at a local level and will have deserved their postings to these under-pressure specialisms. These units will already have been depleted by Sir Mark’s moving experienced detectives to those units investigating past and present cases of misconduct.

Rumours already abound that some of these detectives are looking to transfer to other forces who would doubtless welcome their expertise. 

It would take little for Sir Mark to, initially, make more than a passing reference to the concerns and feelings of his officers in respect of the TBL patch. A number of social media comments refer to the names of the officers who have died in the line of duty. During past few months, the Commissioner has frequently referred to the hundreds of officers he wishes to get rid of. Occasionally, very occasionally, there is a reference to the ‘thousands’ of good officers.

The result of this and the generally appalling ‘Comms,’ can only frequently result in members of the public, when encountering an officer, assuming the worst. Police approval ratings drop and the criminal elements are provided with justification for abusing and attacking officers. 

Social media is awash with discontent from serving officers which has now been exacerbated thanks to a decision that generates, quite rightly, huge emotion. Many serving and retired officers can remember exactly what they were doing when the news of a police officer dying in the line of duty, reached them.

And it’s not just the line of duty deaths and their memories which are deeply distressing. Police officer suicides are a real issue with the accompanying concern that much more needs to be done to deal with the inevitable mental health issues suffered by officers. 

Just who are being listened to?

Yet, instead, it seems that those voices who habitually criticise police are the ones being listened to and that certainly appears to be the case here. 

Not only should the views of officers be taken into consideration in relation to the TBL patch, but so should the views of the relatives of officers who have died. 

The father of PC. Nicola Hughes who, with colleague PC Fiona Bone, were victims of a deadly gun and grenade attack by Dale Cregan, made this comment on twitter.

The mother of PC Andrew Harper, brutally murdered in 2019,is quoted in the Evening Standard as follows. 

“Since we lost Andrew, we have considered the Thin Blue Line image to be a universal memorial to the loss of these officers,” she said.

She added: “It concerns me that there are those who want to take (the badge) away.

There has been some dispute as to whether a ban has actually been imposed or whether this is just a re-affirmation of existing policy. That, surely, is a question of semantics. This was an issue in 2015 and seemed to have been resolved. The reply by the Mayor’s office to a question from a member of the GLA stated the wearing of the patch was NOT prohibited. If the decision by the Met’s leadership was to move from ‘not prohibited’ to ‘prohibited,’ that surely is a ban in most people’s language.

The bottom line is that even before this controversial patch issue, morale was plummeting despite the fact that the Met hierarchy indicated that it was prepared to listen to its rank and file and, in fairness, there is some evidence of that. Pay is an issue and the Commissioner has duly expressed his concern, however, as stated above, constant reference to ‘hundreds’ is taking its toll as is constant media denigration.

The fact that the Commissioner and some other police chiefs wish to set themselves up as judge, jury and high executioner in misconduct matters will only damage what’s left of morale still further. 

There needs to be an urgent rethink starting, perhaps, with ‘that patch.’ The final word should perhaps be that from a police chief of a force where morale is high and officers feel supported.

Support Local Journalism
We at The Havering Daily appreciate your support of quality journalism. Your generous donation, no matter the size, allows us to continue bringing unbiased and informative news to the community. Your contribution helps us maintain our independence and allows us to continue providing high-quality journalism. Thank you for valuing the work we do and for supporting our mission

Thank you

Stay up to date with all of our latest updates and content by following us on our social media accounts!

We have created community pages where we will share our up-to-date stories happening in the area. Add the area closest to where you live.