Det Insp Phillip Turner-Robson, Insp Graham Horton and custody inspector Kirsteen Bishop claimed that Thames Valley Police “directly discriminated” against them in order to improve the diversity of its senior staff.

The tribunal heard that a superintendent from the force was told to “make it happen” by appointing an “Asian” sergeant to the rank of detective inspector, instead of holding a competitive process in which the best candidate got the job.

The three “white British” officers – who had been working for Thames Valley Police for between 19 and 26 years – were even blocked from applying for the role, reports The Telegraph.

In August 2022, plans were discussed for a job advert for a detective inspector in the force’s “priority crime team” at Aylesbury, the tribunal was told. After learning about the vacancy, Turner-Robson expressed his interest on the very same day.

The following month however, Superintendent Emma Baillie made the decision to move Sgt Sidhu, whose forename was not provided, into the role without undertaking any competitive process or advertising the vacancy to staff. That can’t be right, can it?

The sergeant had not even been promoted to inspector at the time she was made detective inspector, the tribunal heard, after Dept Chief Constable Jason Hogg and the superintendent had “jumped the gun” and given her the senior role.

Mr Hogg, an experienced officer who joined Cleveland Police in 1995, became Thames Valley Police chief constable in April 2023.

The superintendent had been told to “make it happen” by the deputy chief constable and “took the decision without thinking it through”, the tribunal said.

The tribunal said:

“Clearly, Supt Baillie was only focused on ‘making it work’ rather than carrying out a balancing exercise of competing factors and considering whether her actions or the respondent’s actions were proportionate.”

She then tried to “retrospectively justify” the decision by saying the appointment came under a “BAME progression program which clearly did not exist at the time”.

It continued:

“Supt Baillie and no doubt the deputy chief constable had been warned of the risk of operating such a policy.”

Employment Judge Robin Postle concluded that the three white officers were directly discriminated against by reason of the protected characteristic of race.

The judge said:

“The superintendent made a decision to move police sergeant Sidhu into the detective inspector role without any competitive assessment process taking place.

“It went beyond mere encouragement, disadvantaging those officers who did not share sergeant Sidhu’s protected characteristic of race and who were denied the opportunity to apply for the role.

“It was not a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

“Clearly, Supt Baillie was only focused on ‘making it work’ rather than carrying out a balancing exercise.

“Supt Baillie’s decision… clearly constituted positive discrimination.”

Not every day you hear about an anti-white discrimination case in the courts but seems a common sense result here. Discrimination is discrimination no matter what your skin colour is.

Obviously the idea was well-intentioned as Thames Valley were clearly desperate to diversify their senior staff and receive a pat on the back for it, but it ended up having the opposite effect because it alienated a bunch of their other staff and damaged the credibility of their process when it comes to promoting and rewarding police staff.

Best man/woman for the job is what should matter, not someone’s skin colour or gender. It really is that simple, isn’t it?

For the white curry worker who won a racism case after being told “you can’t cook, you’re not Asian’, click HERE.