E-mail this to a friend
Print this
Police must stamp out sexism
The Argus
02 December 2007
Barbara Lynford, 38, a former firearms officer for Sussex Police, has had her complaint of sexual discrimination upheld by a Brighton employment tribunal.
She was forced out of her job at Gatwick by male colleagues whose treatment of her was sexist and demeaning.
She stands to be awarded significant compensation.
Ms Lynford said working conditions became impossible because colleagues made lewd comments about her body, littered the office with men's magazines containing female nudity and treated her in a humiliating fashion.
She has been off duty with workrelated stress since August 2005.
Ms Lynford joined Sussex Police in 1993 and worked for nine years in Haywards Heath, Hove and Brighton.
In August 2002, she transferred to the Gatwick firearms division, where she was the only permanent female officer in a staff of 14 constables, three sergeants and an inspector.
She said in evidence: "In all my life I have never been treated as badly as I have been at Gatwick.
"I survived backpacking around India at the age of 19 for a few months, where I was even kidnapped and held against my will for a few days in Bombay.
"Nothing, however, prepared me for the people at Gatwick."
After the tribunal found in her favour Ms Lynford said: "I hope now Sussex Police will learn from this case and take such complaints seriously in the future so other female officers are not subjected to this kind of treatment.
"I have been fortunate that the Police Federation has supported me from the outset."
Ray Coster, general secretary of the Police Federation Constables Central Committee, said: "It is very sad that Miss Lynford has had to tolerate such treatment from her colleagues within the workplace and that the issues were not addressed by the force at an early stage."
Mohini Bharania, Ms Lynford's solicitor, said: "It is regrettable that this experienced officer has had to tolerate this sort of behaviour in the workplace from her male colleagues and supervisors.
"It has taken enormous courage and strength for my client to raise these issues with her supervisors, let alone bring them to the employment tribunal."
Ms Lynford's experience was obviously appalling and it is to the credit of at least some of her male colleagues that they corroborated her account of events.
However, the most worrying aspect of this case is not the suffering of an individual employee but the light that it appears to shine on police practice and attitudes, not just at Gatwick but in Sussex Police as a whole.
In their ruling, the tribunal panel said it was "troubled" by her treatment and the lack of support shown to her after she went on sick leave.
It added that these issues would "benefit from further consideration" by the force.
However, Sussex Police has given no indication it will heed this advice.
There have been no expressions of regret or concern for Ms Lynford, nor any reassurance that wider issues raised during the hearing have been investigated and dealt with.
Sussex Police's somewhat peevish statement of response to the tribunal finding was: "It is very regrettable when such cases come before a tribunal.
"It should be noted that the majority of the claims in this case were not upheld by the tribunal and those that were will be subject of an appeal."
Given the seriousness of the allegations made in this case, this is very disappointing.
The claims about police practice at Gatwick included statements by Ms Lynford and former officer PC Toby Gough that armed officers had routinely faked anti-terrorism patrol reports, took sick days when they were well and left guns unattended.
The tribunal heard that leaving weapons lying around was a "doughnut offence", only punishable by having to buy cakes for the rest of the team.
Miss Lynford told the tribunal that officers in her team, all charged with a duty to protect the public, went to sleep in their police van while on duty at nights and, during patrols, used their radios to send messages to each other about female holidaymakers they found sexually attractive.
It was claimed that they used derogatory terms such as "Milf"
and "Gilf" to describe female visitors to the airport.
In evidence, one of Miss Lynford's senior officers, Sergeant Alastair Cleland, corroborated this, saying he had heard an officer on duty using his radio to point out a "Milf" to a colleague.
This officer was reprimanded for his actions, which Sgt Cleland described as "unacceptable". Sgt Cleland confirmed that officers referred to an area of the airport where air stewardesses were dropped off and picked up as the "snatch patch" - a reference to how many attractive women could be seen there.
"Snatch" is, of course, a crude slang term for female genitalia.
Ms Lynford alleged that officers watched a late-night X-rated television channel in the police station's gym and TV room, which showed people simulating sex. PC Gough corroborated this.
Magazines, such as FHM, Maxim and Nuts, showing topless women, were left scattered around the police station.
Sgt Cleland said that on three occasions he had thrown away copies of magazines he did not think were appropriate for the work environment.
In evidence, PC Gough said officers left guns unattended, faked patrol reports and slept while on duty.
He alleged some officers spent more time in the canteen than on patrol. Asked why he did not report this at the time, he replied: "I had a mortgage to pay."
Sussex Police will not confirm whether an investigation has been, or will be, carried out into these additional allegations.
The situation is extraordinary.
Gatwick must be assumed to be a prime target for terrorist attack.
It is also known to be a key route for sex trafficking.
Traffickers are known to have auctioned women to pimps - in one notorious instance outside a Gatwick coffee shop.
Unaccompanied girls arrive at the airport regularly and are taken into care by local authorities.
It is known that in Sussex, in the past 20 years, dozens have disappeared from care, almost certainly into the hands of sex traffickers who have moved them to European brothels. It is vital that Gatwick's police officers are alert to the possibilities of sexual exploitation.
Yet it seems rampant sexism may render many of them incapable of understanding the issues or dealing sympathetically with victims.
In March 2007, a team led by the Metropolitan Police was set up to combat sex trafficking - a form of exploitation that Commander Sue Wilkinson, of the Metropolitan Police, described as "modern day slavery".
For this initiative to succeed it needs effective support from committed, competent police officers in British airports.
Yet, judging by the alleged attitudes and activities of the Gatwick firearms team, it would seem they are far from equipped to deliver it.
There is no doubt that police attitudes affect the service received by female crime victims.
This week the Government announced legal changes in the way rape cases are handled.
Professor Liz Kelly, a national expert on violence against women and children, welcomed the legislation but sounded a note of caution, saying many cases founder because police officers fail to gather evidence as they should.
Sometimes this is due to lack of resources but it can also be due to police attitudes.
A Sussex Police spokesperson would not comment when I asked what steps the force has taken to counter institutional sexism within the force and protect women officers and members of the public from sexual harassment or sexist insults.
Instead I was directed to Sussex Police's diversity strategy, called Protect And Respect.
It states: "We will actively build a culture in our force which is overtly hostile to those who discriminate on the grounds of race, religion, skin colour, sexual orientation, disability, gender, social class or any other inappropriate factor."
Fine words but they ring rather hollow in the context of events at Gatwick.