A former firearms officer has told how she was left “devastated” and in “dire straits” after being victimised by Police Scotland for complaining about a sexist culture within her unit.
Rhona Malone raised an employment tribunal against the force alleging sex discrimination and victimisation, with the tribunal finding that the unit was an “absolute boys’ club”.
The tribunal heard that Ms Malone’s superior, Inspector Keith Warhurst, sent an email in January 2018 stating that two female firearms officers should not be deployed together because it affected the “balance of testosterone”.
He also made comments that another colleague was going to “end up f*****g that”, in reference to a female officer, and sent topless images of women to a work WhatsApp group.
READ MORE: Tribunal finds 'sexist, boys club' culture in firearms unit
A chief firearms instructor also told a colleague of Ms Malone that women should not be firearms officers “because they menstruated and that affected their temperament”.
The tribunal found that when Ms Malone went on to raise a grievance, the force victimised her by threatening to withdraw her firearms authority and suggesting that she could be transferred to a different unit.
The 45-year-old, who lost her claim for sex discrimination, has since retired from the force on health grounds after suffering from work-related stress.
Following publication of the judgment, Police Scotland issued an apology to Ms Malone, saying their response to her concerns was “nowhere near good enough”.
Ms Malone told The Herald she will never forgive bosses for what happened.
She said: “I never wanted any of this to happen. I was a dedicated, committed police officer and I did nothing wrong apart from say ‘please stop this and just let me do my job’.
“That was all I wanted to do. I would never have left the police, it was my life. The whole thing has been devastating.
“I went through a long period of grief because I had something that I loved taken away from me.
“If this hadn’t happened, if this culture hadn’t existed, I would’ve still been a police officer.”
She added: “I’m pleased with the tribunal’s decision, I feel vindicated. But it’s cost me a lot to get here, financially, emotionally and mentally.
“When I think back, it was awful, I was in such a dark place, I was in dire straits. I never had any mental health issues before this and now I have to deal with it every day and they did that to me. I will never forgive them for what has happened.”
READ MORE: Bigger armed police presence to be deployed in Glasgow during COP26
Ms Malone, from West Lothian, had worked as a police officer for seven years before becoming an authorised firearms officer (AFO) in Police Scotland’s Armed Response Vehicle (ARV) team in 2016.
She was based in Edinburgh, in Fettes Team 1, in October 2016, where she was one of two women in a team of 12 AFOs. Of 60 AFOs in Edinburgh’s ARV division, four were women.
Her solicitor, Margaret Gribbon, described the employment tribunal’s judgment as “damning”.
“The findings lay bare the misogynistic attitudes and culture within armed policing and the hostile treatment police officers face when they try to call it out,” she said.
“Of equal concern is the employment tribunal’s findings that it did not consider credible much of the evidence it heard from Police Scotland’s witnesses. The serious issues this judgment brings to light need to be urgently addressed by Police Scotland”.
Assistant Chief Constable Mark Williams said: “It is clear the culture in armed policing in 2017 and 2018 was unacceptable. Since then, we have worked hard to improve standards but we know there is much still to do.
“As an organisation, our response when a dedicated female officer raised legitimate concerns was nowhere near good enough. I apologise unreservedly to Ms Malone for those failings and for the significant impact they had on her.
“This judgment highlights serious issues and we will set out action to address them as a matter of urgency.”
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel