Whether you’re brand new – bright yellow hi-vis still unblemished, wide-eyed and convinced you’ll change the world – a few years in and quietly sliding into disillusionment, or a cynical old sweat with no love left for the job but too much pension time banked to walk away, this is for you.
Like it or not, the Police Federation is currently the only representation you’ve got. Maybe you don’t understand what it is, what it isn’t, and why it keeps making headlines for all the wrong reasons. We’ll spell it out, because not many people are lining up to explain it to you.
Read this now – not when two strangers in suits turn up mid-shift to serve you papers. It’s happening to cops daily. How long before it’s your turn?
Apathy kills careers.
Statute, Not Semantics: What the Federation Really Is
The Police Federation of England and Wales (PFEW) is a statutory staff association for constables, sergeants, inspectors and chief inspectors. It is not a trade union, and that is not a matter of wording, it is the law. Police officers are banned from joining trade unions, and there are specific criminal offences for “inducing disaffection” or “withholding services”. That ban has long been criticised as a breach of the right to freedom of association under Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, but successive governments have kept it firmly in place. [1][2]
You hold the Office of Constable and serve the King’s peace. That means taking on responsibilities most workers will never face, such as risking your life to protect others, using lawful force to take away someone’s liberty, or, in the most extreme situations, even their life. In return, you lose rights that almost every other worker in the country enjoys, including the right to strike, the right to join an independent union, and often the right to speak openly about your work.
The Federation was created in 1919 after the police strikes of that year, when the government’s response was not negotiation, but mass sackings. Thousands of officers were dismissed and never reinstated. The message was clear then and remains clear now: challenge the status quo and you risk your career. Over a century later, officers are still represented by the Federation, not a union, and that is no accident. [3]
Every force has a local branch with elected reps, feeding into the National Council and National Board. The structure might look robust on paper, but whether it works for you in practice depends entirely on who your local rep is and how much they are willing to fight your corner.
Your monthly Federation subs fund legal assistance (within strict scheme rules), representation, national campaigning and, in some forces, additional cover. Be clear though: the Group Insurance schemes many officers rely on are separate products, run by or through local branches, and not automatically included in your Fed subs. The golden rule is simple: do not wait until you are under investigation to find out what is covered, what is excluded, and what you thought you had but actually never did. Check your branch’s scheme guide and your payslip this week.
Also worth knowing: the Police Regulations “Quick Reference Guide” – the quick guide – runs to 97 pages in the January 2025 edition. “Quick”, apparently. [4]
Do You Even Know Who Your Local Federation Representative Is?
Every force has a branch of the Police Federation. Each branch has elected workplace Federation Representatives – serving officers, supposedly chosen by you – who act as the first line of defence when things go wrong.
If you don’t know who your Federation Representative is, that’s your first problem. Because when Professional Standards comes calling, the clock starts ticking immediately. Those early hours and days can decide whether you keep your job, your pension, and in some cases, your freedom. If your first conversation with a Fed Rep happens after the papers land on your desk, you’ve already put yourself at a disadvantage.
Not all Fed Reps are created equal. Some are seasoned, battle-hardened defenders who will stand between you and the firing squad without flinching. Others will parrot the official line, avoid conflict with the force, and treat your situation as just another case number in a spreadsheet. The difference can be career-changing – and you don’t get to choose who turns up on the day if you’ve done nothing to build a relationship beforehand.
So find out now. Learn their name, their number, and their style. Have a conversation before you need them. If you cannot find a name and number within five minutes on your branch site, phone the branch office and ask. When the storm hits, it’s too late to check whether the person holding your umbrella actually knows how to use it.
The View From HQ: Who’s Running the Show – And at What Cost?
PFEW now has a Chief Executive, Mukund Krishna, in post since 5 July 2023. His job – on paper – is to bring professional, centralised management to a volunteer-led association that’s been bruised by years of litigation and internal turmoil. That alone was always going to be contentious in a culture built on elected officers and branch autonomy. Add in an opaque pay package and you get the rumour mill grinding. Members have heard six-figure whispers for a year while the organisation has, until recently, declined to publish the number in its own updates. That mismatch – rumour versus silence – breeds resentment when officers are counting pennies. [5][6]
The origin story matters. A PFEW Freedom of Information response confirms the then National Secretary directly appointed Krishna as Chief Operating Officer in November 2019. Unbelievably, the Federation says it does not know if the role was advertised or how many candidates there were. When the post was converted to CEO in 2023, it was done by varying the existing contract, and that variation increased remuneration. That’s not an allegation, that’s their own FOI text. [7]
Money and assets are the other live wires. In January 2025, the CEO publicly outlined a plan to rebuild reserves that includes selling HQ-owned flats and even the main Leatherhead building. You can call that prudent consolidation or a forced sale – the point is the Federation itself put “sale of flats and the main HQ building” on the record. If you didn’t clock that, read that sentence again. [8][9]
And the books? At the time of writing, PFEW’s own “Accounts” page hosts audited accounts up to 2022. In a January 2025 “CEO Direct” update, PFEW said the 2022 audit would be published that month and 2023 would follow “in the coming weeks”. Members can fairly ask why the Accounts page still shows 2017-2022, and when 2023/24 will appear in the same place officers are told to look.
Publish the numbers, end the speculation. [10][8]
Finally, context for why HQ is doing all this: the 2019 cyber incidents and the pensions litigation were not minor scrapes. PFEW’s own FAQs say nearly 20,000 data-protection claims settled for £15m in total, and that the combined potential liabilities from the two group actions had been “a very real threat” to the Federation’s ability to function. If you wondered why the mood at Leatherhead is defensive, that’s why. [11][12]
Silencing Representatives: When the Federation Gags Its Own
This is the bit that should worry everyone carrying a warrant card. The only body that can defend your voice has been busy taking the heads off the people using theirs.
In London, Metropolitan Police Federation chair Rick Prior said the quiet thing out loud on TV: many officers fear being branded racist if they do their job. PFEW’s response was not to debate the point – it was to remove him from office and, according to the Free Speech Union’s case summary, impose a permanent ban on holding any Federation post. Prior is now taking High Court action with FSU support. Win or lose, the message to elected branch leaders is unmistakable: speak plainly about frontline fears and the centre may end your career in the Federation. [13][14]
In the West Midlands, branch chair Richard Cooke challenged a media narrative about “widespread racism” in his force. He was suspended, then removed, barred from re-election and ordered to complete EDI training before he could even try to stand again. He is now pursuing legal action, with national press reporting his claim and the FSU highlighting the case. He has lodged proceedings seeking to overturn the decision, as reported at the end of June 2025. You don’t have to agree with every word Cooke or Prior said to see the extraordinary inversion here: two elected reps turned to a free-speech pressure group to defend them – against their own Federation. And yes, it will be members’ money funding the Federation’s side of those cases. How does that sit with you? [13][15][16]
If HQ really wants to reassure rank and file, it needs to stop treating outspoken branches like a reputational risk to be managed. Implement the Independent Review’s governance and culture reforms fully, publish the delayed financials, and commit – in writing – that elected branch leaders will not be muzzled for articulating members’ concerns in good faith. Otherwise, the “toothless tiger” label writes itself. [17][18]
From 1987 to McCloud: How Your Pension Was Eroded – And Your Federation Failed You
The erosion of police pensions didn’t begin in 2015 – the ground had been shifting for years.
In April 2006, the Home Office closed the Police Pension Scheme 1987 to new entrants and replaced it with the New Police Pension Scheme 2006 (NPPS 2006). Existing members could remain in the 1987 scheme, but every new recruit from that date joined on less generous terms. NPPS 2006 brought a higher normal pension age (typically 60), a different accrual design, changes to commutation, and tighter survivor benefits. Even then, officers saw the direction of travel: work longer, pay more, get less. [19][20][21]
Then came 2015. The Government introduced the CARE-based 2015 Police Pension Scheme. Younger officers were compulsorily transferred into it, while older colleagues kept transitional protection in their existing schemes. Two officers, same job, very different pension ages and benefits, purely on date of birth. [22][23]
In December 2018, the Court of Appeal ruled in the McCloud and Sargeant cases that this arrangement was unlawful age discrimination. The Government accepted the ruling and introduced the “Deferred Choice Underpin” (DCU) remedy, which allows affected officers to choose at retirement whether their service between 2015 and 2022 is counted under their legacy scheme or the 2015 scheme. Forces are issuing Remediable Service Statements through 2025 to facilitate that choice. [24][25][26]
But the legal case isn’t the full story. For many, pensions were the moment they realised their Federation was not fighting in their corner. That’s not paranoia – it’s on the record. In Broadbent & Others v PFEW, the Employment Tribunal found that the Federation had directly discriminated against and victimised some members in the way it handled communications and internal processes during the pensions dispute. PFEW did not appeal those core findings. The Tribunal went further, issuing recommendations on governance and culture – recommendations echoed almost word-for-word in the Independent Review’s assessment of leadership and transparency. So when officers say they were “sold out,” here’s what they mean: you were told to swallow less for longer, while the very body meant to defend you was found by a court to have broken the law against you. [17][18]
That is not something you fix with a slick video, a hashtag, or a “lessons learned” slide deck. You fix it by changing the power balance so it cannot happen again.
Thank You for Your Submission. It’s Been Filed Accordingly.
In England and Wales, police pay is not negotiated. The Police Remuneration Review Body (PRRB) takes written and oral evidence from interested parties, then recommends an award. The Home Secretary makes the decision. The Federation can submit heavyweight evidence. It cannot strike a binding deal. That is the model. [27]
In 2021 the Federation declared no confidence in the PRRB and withdrew. In practice, it has since re-engaged informally — publishing evidence outside the formal submission process and campaigning around the outcomes, while still arguing the mechanism lacks independence. Critics suggest this allows the Fed to claim credit if an award is generous, and distance itself if it is not. None of that changes the physics: ministers hold the pen. [28][29]
The stagnation in police pay also has deeper roots. Critics suggest the Home Office has used below-average awards since the Windsor reforms as leverage to push both the NPCC and the Fed towards a new pay model. The aim would be to replace the current scale with a three-banded structure: higher starting salaries, flatter mid-range pay (especially in roles where warranted powers are rarely used), and a top rate that better rewards those in critical, high-pressure posts. Supporters say this would retain skills where needed most. Others argue it risks driving officers away from roles under constant strain.
What has that meant for your wallet? A double-digit real-terms cut since 2010. Police leaders and independent think-tanks put the fall at around 16 to 17 percent in real terms over the austerity period, even after recent cash uplifts. The PRRB’s own 2025 report notes the persistent real-terms decline since 2010. That is why morale and retention are brittle. [30][31][29]
So the headline is simple. The Federation can argue, evidence, and lobby. The PRRB can recommend. But when it comes to your pay, the Home Secretary decides. Until the law changes to allow genuine bargaining or binding arbitration, that will not change. [27]
The Scottish Police Federation – Breaking the Mould
The Scottish Police Federation works through the Police Negotiating Board for Scotland, not the PRRB merry-go-round. And they are not shy about going public. In 2022 they announced a withdrawal of goodwill over a derisory pay offer. That meant no early starts, no staying late for free, no quiet favours. Just contractual hours, logged and paid. It was as close to industrial action as policing allows, and it moved the needle because it made pressure visible. [34]
When high-profile events land, they don’t hide behind closed doors. Ahead of the recent Trump visit, the SPF warned in plain English that resourcing would be stretched beyond limits and threatened legal action if planning breached agreements. They publish open letters, call out poor decisions, and make it clear what they will and will not accept for their members’ safety and pay. [35]
On entitlements, read the live PNB Scotland handbook, not folklore. The 30 minute casual or unpaid overtime disregard some still talk about is not in the current handbook – it has been negotiated away in recent years. [36]
Why does this matter for England and Wales? Because it shows a staff association can be loud, organised and unapologetic on behalf of its members. Not performative. Not theatrical. Just clear lines in public. Officers notice the difference. Chiefs and ministers do too.
When Doing Your Best, for the Right Reasons, Might Still Not Be Enough
All police officers accept and agree that if you abuse your position or commit serious wrongdoing, you should be found out and dealt with appropriately, whether that be a sacking or even jail. But from 28 May 2025, the bar shifted: if gross misconduct is proven, dismissal is the presumed outcome. That can be fine when someone is clearly unfit to serve. It is a very high and very blunt bar when you acted for the right reasons in difficult, fast-moving circumstances, or made an honest mistake and were truthful throughout. You now have to fight to keep your job. [32][33]
Independent legal chairs meant transparency. Bringing chairs back in-house removed that safety valve.
Your defence is usually handled by another serving officer from your own force, answerable to the very Chief Constable who could be chairing your hearing. From day one, the process is loaded against you. In any other sector, that level of conflict would be considered unethical and completely unacceptable. Yet in policing – an institution that endlessly cites the Code of Ethics – it is business as usual.
Think it could not happen to you? It could start with a petty row with a neighbour or a messy break-up. A malicious complaint lands on a Professional Standards desk, and suddenly your phone is seized. Every photo, every private conversation – with your partner, kids, friends, colleagues, group chats – is open to scrutiny. One offensive message from someone else in a thread you never even read could still see you served with papers, with further papers for an unrelated matter. And then, when the initial malicious complaint comes to nothing, you are still fighting for your job over something completely unrelated. Again, it would not be allowed anywhere else.
It is an accountability system that demands perfection in chaos, then denies you an independent defence. And if you carry a warrant card, that is not someone else’s problem – it is yours waiting to happen.
2015: Compulsory Severance – And How It Was Stopped
If you don’t remember compulsory severance, count yourself lucky. In plain terms, it would have allowed forces to sack warranted officers purely to save money – not for misconduct, not for performance issues, but simply because the budget was tight. And unlike redundancy in other sectors, there would be no comparable protections, no voluntary schemes, and no transferable package to another employer. It was a blunt financial tool aimed at careers that were supposed to be protected by the office of constable.
In 2014, ministers accepted an arbitration decision not to introduce it “at this time”. But by late 2015, chiefs were openly considering it again. And here’s the part that still jars: the Federation had not even alerted members to the fact it was back on the table. No campaigns, no emails, no warnings – nothing. [37][38][39]
That silence didn’t last. UKCH started a campaign to drag the issue into the daylight. Every day we posted about it, explained the stakes, and encouraged officers and the public to write to Chief Constables and MPs. The message was simple: you cannot balance the books by tearing up the careers of those sworn to serve.
Eventually, the Federation sent a last-minute letter to ministers opposing compulsory severance. The then Chair of PFEW later claimed that letter was the turning point. Anyone paying attention at the time knows that was wishful thinking. The pressure was already building in the public arena, and our followers had been putting the question directly to decision-makers daily leading up to the vote.
This reluctance to engage wasn’t unique to severance. Around the same period, communications from the Federation on the CARE 2015 pensions changes took a similar line – telling members nothing could be done and that a legal challenge wasn’t worth pursuing. That position angered many, particularly when the independent challenge later proved the government – and in turn the Fed, had been wrong.
We’re not claiming sole credit. But we are saying public pressure mattered – and careers were saved because enough people came together with the mindset to create change and refused to accept “that’s just how it is”. That is the point worth remembering. Because if it could happen once, it could happen again. And if it comes back, silence won’t stop it.
The fight over compulsory severance proved something important – that officers, when informed and mobilised, can stop a bad idea dead in its tracks. But it also raises a harder question. If policing ever gained full trade union rights, as some campaigners now want, what would that mean for protections like this? Would unionised officers remain Crown servants, or would they become employees – potentially opening the door for compulsory severance to return in another form? Those are not abstract points. They go to the heart of what officers might gain, and what they might lose, if the rules ever change. Which brings us to Lee Broadbent’s campaign.
Breaking the Monopoly: Why Broadbent’s Case Is the Fight That Matters
We’ve mentioned Lee Broadbent before, but here’s who he is and why he matters. Lee is a serving police constable with Greater Manchester Police, a frontline officer then served as Chair of the Greater Manchester branch of the Federation in 2023. He stepped into the breach for colleagues and took heat for saying out loud what many were thinking.
He is now taking on Section 64 of the Police Act 1996, which bars police from union membership. Police are the only public servants in the UK with that restriction. Represented by Leigh Day solicitors, Broadbent argues the ban violates Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees freedom of association. This is not about a right to strike. It is about the right to choose your own representation, with policing-specific limits on industrial action if Parliament insists. The problem is the monopoly enforced by law. [41][42]
Why now? Because the screws have turned everywhere else. Presumption of dismissal. Chiefs in the chair. PRRB theatre on pay. A culture review telling the Federation to reform. If the system has evolved to remove you faster, your representation must evolve to protect you better. This is that pivot point. [32][33][29][17][18]
Legal precedent supports the challenge. The European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly found that blanket bans on entire groups joining unions tend to be disproportionate, even though strike bans for police can be lawful. The ASLEF v UK judgment also underscored that unions must be free to decide their own membership and protect their ethos. Police officers today have no comparable independence in choosing a union. [43][44]
Imagine a national police union with the same weight and organisation as the train drivers. When Mick Lynch stood up for his members, he forced politicians and employers to the table. That kind of power, applied to policing, would shift the balance entirely.
You can support the legal challenge here:
CrowdJustice.com – Breaking the Monopoly [41]
You can contribute from as little as £5 – about the price of a Freddo or a loaf of bread these days. If everyone who reads this chipped in that small amount, this challenge would fly through. It is your job, your wages, your career and your pension on the line. You can also set the “tip” option to zero to avoid any extra platform fees.
Doing nothing and hoping for the best is no longer an option.
Apathy kills careers.
Stay safe out there and look after each other.
Endnotes
1) Police Act 1996, s.64 (trade union ban)
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/16/section/64
2) Police Act 1996, s.91 (causing disaffection etc.)
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/16/section/91
3) 1919 Police Strike overview (West Midlands Police Museum)
4) Police Regulations Quick Reference Guide (97 pages, Jan 2025 ed.)
www.polfed.org/northants/media/2050/qrg-2024-09-01-25-v1.pdf
5) PFEW: CEO appointment (5 July 2023)
6) PFEW: Key people
https://www.polfed.org/about-us/whos-who/key-people/
7) PFEW FOI 00390 – Mukund Krishna appointment details
https://www.polfed.org/resources/access-to-information/disclosure-log/foi-00390-mukund-krishna/
8) PFEW “CEO Direct” update (Jan 2025)
9) Leatherhead HQ sale report (Leatherhead Living)
10) PFEW Accounts page
https://www.polfed.org/resources/reports/accounts/
11) PFEW: data-protection claims settled
https://www.polfed.org/news/data-protection-claims-against-pfew/
12) PFEW FAQs on data-protection claims and exposure
https://www.polfed.org/news/data-protection-claims-against-pfew/faqs/
13) Free Speech Union – Rick Prior and Richard Cooke cases hub
14) Rick Prior outcome coverage (Evening Standard)
15) PFEW West Midlands – Statement from Rich Cooke
https://www.polfed.org/westmids/news-and-events/2023/statement-from-rich-cooke/
16) National press report on Cooke legal action (The Telegraph)
17) PFEW Independent Review – “Looking Back” (Dec 2024)
www.polfed.org/media/19724/independent-review-panel-looking-back-report_17-12-24_new.pdf
18) PFEW Independent Review – Final Report (Apr 2025)
www.polfed.org/media/19809/pfew-final-report-30-04-25.pdf
19) NPPS 2006 Members’ Guide
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a82afcee5274a2e87dc2774/NPPS_Members_Guide.pdf
20) Police Pensions Regulations 2006
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2006/3415/contents/made
21) House of Commons Library briefing: Police pensions
researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06965/SN06965.pdf
22) Police Pension Scheme 2015 Members’ Guide
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-police-pensions-scheme-2015-members-guide
23) Police Pensions Regulations 2015
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/445/contents
24) McCloud/Sargeant Court of Appeal judgment (2018)
www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/lord-chancellor-v-mcloud-and-ors-judgment.pdf
25) Commons Library briefing: McCloud remedy (DCU)
researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-9177/CBP-9177.pdf
26) Home Office consultation page: Police pension scheme retrospective remedy
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/police-pension-scheme-retrospective-remedy
27) PRRB overview
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/police-remuneration-review-body
28) PFEW: “No confidence” in PRRB (2021)
29) PRRB Report 2025: England and Wales
30) NPCC: “Better pay crucial to recruiting more officers”
https://news.npcc.police.uk/releases/better-pay-crucial-to-recruiting-more-officers
31) Real-terms pay analysis – Social Market Foundation
https://www.smf.co.uk/publications/police-pay/
32) Police (Conduct) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 – presumption of dismissal
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2025/558/contents/made
33) Home Office: misconduct reforms (new rules to sack officers guilty of gross misconduct)
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-rules-to-sack-officers-guilty-of-gross-misconduct
34) SPF withdrawal of goodwill (2022) – media coverage (STV)
35) SPF legal warning ahead of Trump visit – Holyrood
36) PNB Scotland Handbook – Overtime and Premia
37) Home Secretary accepts PAT “not at this time” (2014)
38) Compulsory severance still “on the table” (2015)
http://essexfedfocus.co.uk/?p=2258
39) Police Arbitration Tribunal decision (Dec 2013)
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7cd8e4e5274a2c9a484799/PATdecision2013.pdf
40) Police Act 1996, s.64 (again, for Broadbent context)
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/16/section/64
41) Broadbent legal challenge – CrowdJustice
https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/breaking-the-monopoly/
42) Broadbent legal challenge – Leigh Day announcement (2024)
43) Demir and Baykara v Turkey (ECHR Grand Chamber)
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-89558
44) ASLEF v United Kingdom (ECHR)
The Pocket Notebook 