PHILIP Hunt tells me about his mum. Her life was never the same after it happened, he says. She was broken. Philip struggled too. He was 22 at the time, which means 40 years of trying to get recognition for his father. The message from the UK Government has always been the same: no.
Philip’s dad was a policeman: Detective Sergeant Ross Hunt. You may have heard of the case. On June 5th 1983, in Larkhall, DS Hunt was stabbed to death while investigating an assault. He was supposed to be going off duty but thought his colleagues might need help. He was 56 and a few months away from retiring.
There’s another case we should talk about. PC George Taylor. Bit earlier: November 30th 1976 but it was a big deal at the time because it involved an escape by two men from the State Hospital at Carstairs. PC Taylor came across the men, became involved in a violent struggle with them, and was hacked to death with an axe. In the words of his chief constable, he displayed exceptional courage in attempting to overpower two armed and dangerous men. But, again, as with Ross Hunt, there has been no official recognition.
The UK Government says there’s nothing it can do. Civilian gallantry honours, they say, can only be awarded if the incident took place in the last five years. This is what campaigner George Barnsley, who’s taken up the cases of the two policemen, was told when he had a meeting the other day with the Cabinet Office minister Johnny Mercer. It’s the law. Five years. That’s that. No award. No recognition.
Except that Mr Barnsley, who’s a former policeman himself, and the families aren’t accepting it. The five-year law, they say, is nothing of the sort: it’s a rule that was first applied to soldiers after the Second World War but does not specifically apply to civilian workers. Mr Barnsley also told the minister there’s nothing to stop the government ordering a full review of the rules. All it needs is the will to do it.
There is (possibly) some hope that action will be taken. I spoke to the Cabinet Office about the whole affair and they pointed out that Mr Mercer has said he wants to get the situation on awards sorted out this year, which sounds good and I hope he does. But it’s fair to say Mr Barnsley and the families are frustrated by the lack of action.
So there are several things that need to happen now, the first of which is a review of the rules. Mr Barnsley quite rightly makes the point that if we can look back at the miners’ strike or the Troubles in Northern Ireland and review or quash convictions, surely a similar review could be applied to the bravery of police officers killed while doing their job.
As part of the review, the Government should also consider the introduction of a civilian version of the Elizabeth Cross, which is awarded to the next of kin of armed forces personnel killed on operations. It is a mark of national recognition of the service and loss but remarkably there is no equivalent for police officers. It is something that could be fixed pretty quickly.
The introduction of such an honour, combined with a review of the rules to permit historical awards for exceptional bravery, would ensure that the families of every police officer who dies on duty knows their service was valued. But it would also allow DS Hunt and PC Taylor to finally get the posthumous recognition they deserve.
It may be that Mr Mercer and the UK Government will do what they said they would and get the situation sorted this year, although it would seem they’re standing firm for now on the specific issue of awards for DS Hunt and PC Taylor. Perhaps they think it’ll be too complicated, or too expensive, but it shouldn’t be. This isn’t ancient history. We know the details. We know their stories. We can see their courage.
But if the Government is still having doubts, I would urge them to speak to DS Hunt’s son Philip, as well as the other relatives. Philip says that all the families have ever got from the Government is “go away”. But all he wants is recognition for his father. And he says he won’t give up until he gets it.
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