Police Scotland and its damaging cultural mindset around wellbeing

An approximate 8 minute read.

Disclaimer: Whilst I recognise that the Scottish Police Authority (SPA) and Police Scotland are two separate organisations, for the purposes of this piece we will discuss them as ‘Police Scotland’ for reasons that will be clear throughout. I reached out to SPA for comment but received nothing back.

On a recent Scottish Police Authority ‘People Committee’ meeting in August, it was argued that officers who don’t engage with Trauma Risk Incident Management (TRiM) could be seen as ‘contributory negligence’ by an officer when going through the ill health retirement (IHR) process so, let’s talk about it.

You can find the video recording below (automatically starting at 1hr 20) and published minutes here.

Below is my own transcription of the questions posed, and comments made, by Mr Garry Forsyth (ex Beds chief constable) because I believe we absolutely have to challenge this pervasive and harmful cultural narrative around wellbeing. 

I will briefly discuss some of Mr Forsyth’s overarching wellbeing comments first.

Wellbeing comments

Initially Mr Forsyth discusses the “…‘water cooler’ moments even between meetings or whatever where you’d go and have that little informal decompression and that little conversation…” rightly mentioning how important they are. However, he specifically highlights these in the context of pre-pandemic behaviours which is a juxtaposition I’ll dissect below. He then goes on to ask how to create these specific moments, recognising officers go “…from job to job to job” and the reality is you can’t because they’re organic.

This is why my work is about teaching officers, leaders and staff how to be better peers outside of any formal frameworks, such as TRiM or Mental Health First Aid (MHFA) etc. ‘Water cooler’ moments already naturally happen between colleagues so it’s more prudent (financially and logically) to improve these interactions instead of creating yet another ‘formal framework’ to be guided by, which will go largely ignored by the frontline. Dr Jess Miller, a neuropsychologist at the University of Cambridge, said there were “fewer opportunities for some officers to decompress with their colleagues, particularly if they were working alone.”

Shockingly, Mr Forsyth asks “…how robust is our management information when it comes to things like ill health retirement and consideration of contributory negligence of an individual? So do we understand, for example, we’ve got someone applying for IHR for PTSD, trauma exposure, anxiety and depression who, on 37 previous occasions, has refused a TRiM intervention.” and I’ll discuss this appalling statement in detail below.

A (contentious) statement Mr Forsyth posits at the end is: “…this [ill health retirement] is going to be a problem unless we get a really good hold of it and unless we get really targeted, effective interventions that that really starts to make a difference for people. And actually makes people understand that they have a responsibility as well, it’s not just the organisations’ responsibility to take care of them.”

He’s right in that ‘you can’t help someone who doesn’t want to be helped’ but yet again fails to acknowledge the very policing culture which actively suppresses self-awareness and prevents help-seeking. Policing as an organisation has, after all, been found to be up to three times as harmful to an individual’s mental health than the roles they do and jobs they attend. This is echoed by Dr Jane Morris, chair of the Royal College of Psychiatrists in Scotland, sharing with 1919 magazine “We’re now seeing the results of workplace stress and burnout rather than trauma.”

If the SPA/Police Scotland want officers and staff to take more responsibility for their ill health, they need to acknowledge the organisational issues that prevent this such as high workloads, cancelled rest days and protracted misconduct proceedings etc. Yes, an individual may be mentally unwell outside of work-issues but let’s not pretend that modern day policing, and the organisation, don’t actively fuel and uphold many of the issues felt by the individual.

---

The cognitive dissonance here is astonishing. We can’t talk about the awareness of needing a ‘cultural shift’ around wellbeing, whilst simultaneously victim-blaming officers for their mental ill health, viewing and treating them suspiciously from the start of any ill health process.

It’s infuriating that Mr Forsyth and the committee fail to recognise the demonstrable correlation between Covid and the 52% increase in sickness rates for Police Scotland. Regardless of those left with long Covid, and impacted by working during the pandemic, the policing landscape has significantly changed since 2019 with less officers facing higher demand than ever. Cuts do, indeed, have consequences. 

It’s vital we recognise that the ill health retirement process is rarely undertaken lightly by an officer. It’s often devastating as they seek and endure the process, having to give up a job they love because of injury (physical and/or psychological). Over the years I’ve supported several IHR officers and not one of them wanted to stop being police. Being a critical friend, I suspect the main reason IHR is fought against by services is because it comes with a higher rate of pension than a voluntary leaver. But this is even before we recognise there are multiple pension issues within Police Scotland with both senior leaders arguing they’ll lose thousands in their pensions, and the McLoud incentive leading to hundreds of officers retiring early.

The issues with TRiM

Mr Forsyth used the example of not engaging with TRiM specifically to demonstrate ‘contributory negligence’ of an officer, so let’s talk about the multiple ways this is morally and legally incorrect.

Firstly it is a peer-support mechanism/framework and should not be viewed, or used as, a true therapeutic intervention. TRiM is an optional wellbeing initiative post-potentially traumatic incident and individuals are under no obligation to accept a referral. 

Whilst an incident may be defined as ‘traumatic’ by a service, not everyone will react the same and therefore need support. For example, a civilian staff member completing CPR (even if the person survives) may find this highly traumatic and go on to develop post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) whilst an officer who has completed CPR before may not find it traumatic at all. This is a fundamental principle of trauma-informed care and wellbeing as a whole. The failure of the SPA to know and understand this is incredibly concerning. 

Secondly, TRiM practitioners are not formally trained as counsellors/psychologists etc and therefore shouldn’t be considered as the ‘be all and end all’ in wellbeing intervention. I am a qualified TRiM practitioner and the training is a ‘light touch’ introductory approach to wellbeing at best. 

I’m increasingly seeing services use TRiM as a ‘front line defence’ against mental ill health and it’s nothing of the sort. It’s my experience that the officers who benefited from TRiM the most were those who had practitioners, like myself, who supported the officer ‘outside the lines’ of the formulaic framework.

TRiM doesn’t reach everyone as it’s not always offered to leaders/senior leaders as they are presumed to either ‘not need it’ as they’re leaders and therefore hold ‘stronger resilience’ (which is false) or that they’re presumed to know how to self-refer if required. It’s vital we don’t forget them nor ignore that the more senior you become, the less peers there are available to you. 

Thirdly, we must acknowledge that there are some truly terrible TRiM (and other wellbeing) practitioners such as those in occupational health, both because they simply don’t understand trauma well enough to benefit their colleagues but also because there are some who are practitioners purely for the email signature and promotion boards. Not only that but as they are colleagues, many officers will view them with suspicion and doubt confidentiality meaning an individual wouldn’t engage, even if they felt in need of support. 

We can’t have a discussion about ‘cultural shift’ if we have policy makers failing to accept and acknowledge how harmful the police culture can be. I am not, of course, saying officers and staff shouldn’t engage with wellbeing practitioners and occupational health etc, but refusing to acknowledge the egos of some and the subsequent harm they can cause is naive and ignorant.

The above mindset also fails to acknowledge that not only do some officers genuinely not need it after an incident, but also that some may need support but be too unwell to recognise it in themselves, though the committee do acknowledge the latter in their published minutes. Though I note that the ‘contributory negligence’ comments are inauspiciously absent from the same minutes.

Lastly, TRiM is specifically designed for trauma experienced in the job. Therefore it will not capture traumatic events outside of work such as a sudden death of a loved one, nor the trauma that the organisation itself causes its people. Thus, the process of TRiM itself will not be triggered meaning that Police Scotland are unable to capture the data they claim they need around the causes and journey of poor wellbeing, especially within IHR.

---

Conclusion

Condemning, and punitively punishing, an officer for refusing engagement with TRiM (or any wellbeing initiative) is akin to asking a rape victim-survivor why they ‘didn’t fight back’. It’s morally repugnant and I’m astounded we still have this attitude around wellbeing, especially from policy makers (and a progressive(!) ex chief constable), in the year 2026. This ignorance does nothing but feed the frontline narrative that senior leaders ‘sit in ivory towers’, making them less likely to buy in to any required cultural shift.

Though Mr Forsyth mentioned TRiM specifically, it’s important to acknowledge the potential for Police Scotland to cite lack of engagement with any wellbeing initiative as ‘contributory negligence’ by an officer as part of IHR or any other leaving mechanism (especially if they go to employment tribunals). We are already seeing this harmful mindset seep into other wellbeing avenues as the chief constable (citing budget) has recently stopped discretionary extension of sick leave pay, which the Scottish Police Federation rightly state ‘could push police officers to suicide’. This is despite Deputy Chief Constable Alan Speirs telling 1919: “The Chief Constable has prioritised the health and wellbeing of our officers and staff”. The most obvious concern for all of the above being that not only could Police Scotland adopt this policy, however informally, but that other services across the UK would follow suit.

Moreover, if Police Scotland are incorrectly relying on TRiM (or other wellbeing initiatives) to do the heavy lifting they aren’t designed for, leading to further harm to officers and staff, one could argue that they themselves are responsible for ‘contributory negligence’ of an individuals’ poor wellbeing. I have supported dozens of officers (many within Police Scotland) over the years and, without exception, every single service has been legally negligible in their wellbeing support of the officer/leader.

As a service and senior leaders therein, they too have a moral and legal responsibility to its people and I would be more than happy to speak with Police Scotland and the SPA committee to discuss the issues around wellbeing.

I absolutely welcome a true cultural shift around wellbeing within Police Scotland but if these are the views publicly and confidently shared, and endorsed, by the committee, I have to wonder if the ‘shift’ they speak of is nothing more than continuation of the harmful status quo, repackaged in a more palatable way. 

---