A BLACK detective broke police 'tolerance and politeness' rules by wearing a traditional African robe to work.
Det Con Paul Bailey's behaviour was the subject of a two-year investigation before he was brought before a tribunal last week.
The police case is understood to have been that the officer wore the robe to make a point following a disagreement over the dress code policy with a senior officer. Supporters say police rules allow cultural dress.
Following the week-long hearing, Mr Bailey was found guilty of wearing the robe, and other allegations including arguing with a senior officer over the force policy on neck ties, disputing his appraisal in an unprofessional way, and asking challenging questions and appearing to look disinterested during briefings.
Today, the chair of Greater Manchester's Black and Asian Police Association claimed the investigation into Mr Bailey had only been started because he made an unsuccessful complaint of racial discrimination against his bosses following the appraisal.
He said his treatment meant the force's equal opportunities policy was 'dead in the water' and `a complete waste of taxpayers' money'.
Mr Bailey, 39, who worked for the Force Major Incident team has had several commendations for his work on cases including the Brass Handles double shooting in Salford. He has been an officer for 18 years.
Now he is to take the police to a tribunal on race grounds. During the disciplinary hearing, two allegations against Mr Bailey were dismissed. The third allegation of failing to be polite and tolerant was broken down into eight incidents. He was cleared of four and found at fault in the others which included attending a work briefing in an African cultural robe.
The panel found the incidents represented a 'continuing course of conduct' and that over a long period of time his 'behaviour at the Major Incident Team was unacceptable'. But the panel ruled he should not face any disciplinary action.
The investigation into Mr Bailey started in 2007. It was launched after a complaint of racial discrimination by Mr Bailey about an appraisal score in 2006. West Yorkshire Police was brought in to investigate his complaint against five senior officers and in October 2006 concluded his complaint was unsubstantiated.
Mr Crichlow from BAPA said: "Paul Bailey has been victimised because he has made a complaint. He raised an issue to try to help the force and as a result they try to shoot him down in flames.
"There will have to be a health warning on GMP's equal opportunities policy. It is dead in the water and not worth the paper it is written on.
"If somebody comes to me for advice about what to do about an issue of concern I will have to tell them, you can make a complaint, but I can't guarantee you won't be victimised as a result. It means people will be very reluctant to raise issues of concern in the future."
Assistant Chief Constable Terry Sweeney said: "The individual made a complaint of racism which was independently investigated by West Yorkshire Police. The force found no evidence of racism, but advised that GMP should consider taking action against the officer for breaches of the police code of conduct.
"We took further independent advice and considered the issues against force policy before deciding the most appropriate action was to proceed to a misconduct tribunal. The panel found that the officer had breached misconduct rules on four occasions but decided that no sanctions should be taken against the individual. Consideration was taken of the length of time between the complaints and the hearing, and the fact that the officer's performance was reported to have improved.
"As we are aware there is an employment tribunal pending, it would be inappropriate for us to comment further."
When the investigation was launched Mr Bailey was moved from FMIT to a police division.
Mr Bailey declined to comment.
Tweet
Cop's dressing down for robe
October 14, 2008
Paul Bailey
Showing comments 1 to 25 and replies | View All
Paul B (14/10/2008 at 08:12)
get real and stop trying to make your own set of rules.
Johnny D, wythenshawe (14/10/2008 at 08:59)
synikal, Manchester (14/10/2008 at 09:12)
A lone Cumbrian gazing through the mist (14/10/2008 at 10:12)
The police have a uniform, wear it or dont join!
Bean B4, manchester (14/10/2008 at 10:29)
Hamish Macbeth, Whitefield (14/10/2008 at 11:31)
Uniformed mean - the same.
Therefore every man and his dog ( or woman ) cannot wear what they want.
I am a "northerner" - do the police allow uniformed cloth flat caps....
If they want to wear cultural dress - they should leave and work in a country that allows it.
David,North M/C (14/10/2008 at 11:52)
Enigma, Trafford (14/10/2008 at 12:15)
Forget his colour for a moment as for all the years I worked with him he never once mentioned it or used it for his own means.
Pearl is one of the best coppers you are likely to meet although he may sometimes look like he is not listening he is as sharp as a tack and will remember everything you say. He is a top rate thief taker!
synikal, Manchester, Lets dress the Pearl in a traditional African robe, and just for fun give him a ball and chain. I promise you that if he was after you my money is on the Pearl, you would not get very far.
I am no supporter of the Black and Asian police association as I find them divisive however Pearl is a bright lad who does not rush into things if he has took such actions then there is a very good reason for it!
Mr Angry, Bury (14/10/2008 at 12:39)
GO CATCH VILLANS, ITS WHAT YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO DO
Pippa, Manchester (14/10/2008 at 12:52)
josiro, radcliffe (14/10/2008 at 13:09)
TracyR, Manchester (14/10/2008 at 13:12)
I don't know this guy or his story, but I do agree that uniforms are compulsory, that no one should feel as though they are discriminated against at work and that all those people who try to make a quick buck by abusing the system should be ashamed as it means genuine cases get cynical responses.
synikal, Manchester (14/10/2008 at 13:30)
Esso Blue, Oil incorporated, Luxury Penthouse, Abu Dhabi, Black Gold, Texas Tea. (14/10/2008 at 14:51)
The rest is child's play
Fair, Lancashire (14/10/2008 at 15:17)
As for the comment from TracyR, Manchester “they are too afraid to sack people who are incapable of doing their job” the article actually says that the DC “has had several commendations for his work on cases including the Brass Handles double shooting in Salford” so to me its doesn’t sound like its a case of him not being able to do his job!
Finally I think some people are missing a point here......this investigation has been ongoing for two years and at what cost? This cost is coming from tax payers money all for not wearing a tie & going to work in a cultural robe.
Has GMP gone mad the time and money spent on this investigation should have gone towards fighting crime!
Esso Blue, Oil incorporated, Luxury Penthouse, Abu Dhabi, Black Gold, Texas Tea. (14/10/2008 at 15:57)
The officer admitted that he wore the robe to make a point following a disagreement over the dress code policy. If you wear the robe after a disagreement then you would assume you read the code again before dressing in the robe.
He was wrong and that has been proved.
Maybe he should have held his hands up a long time ago and accepted defeat, and then it might not have taken two years. I blame his defence team for wasting money. His team could have spelt it out to him years ago, if he didn’t already know.
I would have thought that the police would allow this dress at only the appropriate time, for instance undercover work but not in the office when there is no undercover work. It seems that Mr Bailey wanted to wear it when he felt fit too.
Fair, Lancashire (14/10/2008 at 16:43)
Esso Blue as you will read in the article at the disciplinary hearing, two allegations against Mr Bailey were dismissed – therefore he has been proved innocent on these two accounts therefore how can you blame him and his defence team for wasting money? This together with the fact that they had to break the third allegation (failing to be polite and tolerant)into eight incidents four of which he was cleared of says to me he was far from proved guilty and that in my humble opinion GMP had to find him guilty of something in order to justify the enormous costs incurred.
Alan Kelly (14/10/2008 at 17:15)
Mr Crichlow from BAPA said: "Paul Bailey has been victimised because he has made a complaint. He raised an issue to try to help the force and as a result they try to shoot him down in flames.
"There will have to be a health warning on GMP's equal opportunities policy. It is dead in the water and not worth the paper it is written on.
"If somebody comes to me for advice about what to do about an issue of concern I will have to tell them, you can make a complaint, but I can't guarantee you won't be victimised as a result. It means people will be very reluctant to raise issues of concern in the future."
The issue is not about what he can or cannot wear, it is about the fact that he is the one complaining about the behaviour of others but it is him who is investigated and convicted.
Andy, Wythenshawe (14/10/2008 at 19:12)
ITS NOT INDEPENDENT, for god sake .. it's the police investigating the police.
Esso Blue, Oil incorporated, Luxury Penthouse, Abu Dhabi, Black Gold, Texas Tea. (14/10/2008 at 19:53)
Being victimised for an appraisal score is one thing if that is what it was. Wearing a robe and attitude problems is another issue.
Now he is taking the Police to a tribunal on race grounds again, which If I am right is to do with the robe and attitude issue, which will probably bring to the table the original appraisal score issue.
Fair, my argument was with the robe, two allegations against Mr Bailey were dismissed, the third allegation of failing to be polite and tolerant were broken down into eight incidents. He was cleared of four and found at fault in the others which included attending a work briefing in an african cultural robe, arguing with a senior officer over the force policy on neck ties, disputing his appraisal in an unprofessional way, and asking challenging questions and appearing to look disinterested during briefings.
The Black and Asian Police officers Association state that the investigation only started because he made an unsuccessful complaint of racial discrimination following his appraisal score.
Obviously the investigation started after his initial complaint but it doesn’t prove that it was a witch hunt. Because wrongs have been committed.
Had Mr Bailey ever wore the robe for work before the appraisal?. It would suprise me if the Police hadn’t bent over backwards for Mr Bailey in the previous eighteen years, which they did here by not bringing disciplinary action for his behaviour.
My view is the issue is being pushed by Mr Bailey because of the appraisal score.
that is a separate issue to the dress code he could have held his hands up to being wrong on the dress code and the other offences that he was found guilty of.
The four issues he was found not guilty of were negligible under the circumstances.
So Mr Bailey felt it was race issue with the appraisal Score, now it is a race issue because he is found guilty of wearing a robe and being insubordinate.
Alan Kelly, That is Mr Crichlows opinion why didn't Mr Bailey win hands down today especially something as blatant as the dress robe that should be written in black and white.
Mr Crichlow said there will have to be a health warning on GMP’s equal opportunities policy.
I think that has been the general consensus for years so it is nothing new. But you cannot also jump at race at the nearest opportunity, clutching at straws over an appraisal
It maybe two bulls have collided it happens.
For all we know there may be other reasons why he never got a higher appraisal score which the public may never know about.
JayTilzey, m29 (14/10/2008 at 20:44)
Something that's "dead in the water (is) not worth the paper it's written on"? These people should be charged with cruel and unusual punishment of the English language!
Imagine the scene at the murder briefing: over there we have DC Bailey in his magnificent cultural robes, here we have DC Smith in his Morris Dancing outfit, there's DC O'Reilly in her Riverdance costume and of course here we have DC McTavish in his kilt and Tam O'Shanter! When DC Nanook arrives we can get started.....
Enigma, Trafford (15/10/2008 at 09:44)
Pippa, The M.E.N. has his name correct however he was called Pearl by some.
The photograph on the page was taken many many moons ago in Altrincham. I remember taking the mickey out of him for days afterwards!
Chiave (15/10/2008 at 12:20)
Enigma, this is not entirely true. If you know this man as well as you claim, you could not make this statement.
Josiro: ‘Seams that there is something missing here he is reported as a detective. Detectives don’t wear ‘uniform’ I have seen detectives wearing everything from suite and tie to jeans and tee shirt with trainers. So what’s this uniform thing about? ‘
Josiro, it is true that Detectives do not wear uniform to a certain extent, but consider this situation for a moment: Say an RAF Officer was off duty, and therefore permitted to wear civilian clothing, you would expect them to dress in a manner which is appropriate. I’m not saying that wearing an African robe is inappropriate, but in a position of responsibility such as this, you expect said person to wear something that may not cause offense or interfere with one’s work. As this obviously has.
I understand that the RAF and the Police Force are very different, but the principal is the same. A Police Officer, Detective or not, is a person in a position of responsibility, and therefore looked upon by other people nationwide. How does this situation reflect how good our police service actually is?
If they cannot agree within their own service, what hope do we have when they are the ones upholding the law!
Esso Blue: ‘As far as I am concerned there is a dress code and it has to be abided by.
The rest is child's play ‘
Spot on.
Two years have been spent of tax payer’s money and police time on this case, and it a complete waste. Stop wasting time on money on petty things like this and do what you’re paid for!!!
Alan Kelly (15/10/2008 at 13:45)
Reading between the lines, GMP policy offers protection to those persons making an allegation that there has been discrimination. However, it is clear that the protection does not exist because the person making the complaint in this case has been convicted of matters. It seems to me that Mr Crichlow is saying that this matter would not have arisen if Mr Bailey had not made the complaint. Therefore, he is being victimised and all officers should be made aware of the lack of protection from victimisation.
Enigma, Trafford (15/10/2008 at 14:48)