EXCLUSIVE: SHE DIDN’T WANT THEM SACKED — How A GMP Racism Scandal Ended Eight Police Careers Despite The Complainant’s Plea For Education, Not Dismissal

She wanted an apology, an end to the mocking and a little understanding. What she got was a disciplinary scandal that cost eight police officers their careers — even though she had made it clear she did not want a single one of them to lose their job.

A BLACK police officer at the centre of a racism scandal that ended eight police careers had expressly told investigators she did not want any of her colleagues sacked, extraordinary disciplinary documents reveal.

Instead, the Greater Manchester Police officer wanted those responsible to learn the consequences of their behaviour.

In an unexpected twist, she even reassured two colleagues in affectionate WhatsApp messages after they apologised for mimicking her African accent.

In one exchange, she told them they were “fiiine xx”.

She said she had enjoyed close friendships with some officers and sometimes laughed along with their jokes.

Yet behind those apparently warm exchanges was a woman who said she had become increasingly hurt, anxious, and uncomfortable at work.

She alleged that colleagues repeatedly imitated her accent, mocked her expressions and laughed at the way she spoke.

According to her evidence, what some officers dismissed as everyday workplace banter became so humiliating that she avoided answering the office telephone for fear of being mimicked.

And despite her wish that nobody should lose their livelihood, the force dismissed six serving officers without notice, while two former colleagues were found to have committed gross misconduct and would have been sacked had they remained in the force.

The revelations, detailed misconduct findings concerning officers in GMP’s Bury District Investigation Team, tell a more complicated story than the straightforward announcements of the dismissals.

They reveal friendships, apologies, conflicting interpretations of behaviour, and a complainant whose personal wishes differed markedly from the punishments ultimately imposed.

They also raise difficult questions about where workplace banter ends, and racial discrimination begins, whether apparently reassuring messages can disguise genuine distress, and why behaviour witnessed by other officers was not stopped sooner.

At the heart of the scandal was a female officer identified only as PC Y.

Of African heritage, she was considerably older than some of her colleagues and was regarded by team members as something of a maternal figure.

She had developed a particularly close relationship with PC Lucy Granby, who was around the same age as her son.

During the hearing, the relationship was described as a “work mum” dynamic.

Another colleague, PC Heena Rani, had also enjoyed a supportive relationship with PC Y.

The two women encouraged one another about fitness and the physical demands of policing, while PC Y acknowledged that she had previously enjoyed strong friendship and camaraderie within the team.

Against this apparently friendly background, the complained-of behaviour developed.

Granby and Rani were among officers accused of mimicking how PC Y spoke.

According to evidence the panel considered, the issue was raised in December 2022, prompting the two younger officers to apologise both in person and via WhatsApp.

Those messages, sent on December 6 and 7, became a significant feature of the disciplinary proceedings.

Rather than respond with anger, PC Y appeared to reassure her colleagues that there was nothing to worry about.

In one exchange, she told them they were “fiiine xx”.

Other messages suggested she was not offended by their behaviour.

To an outsider reading the exchanges, the matter might have appeared to have ended amicably.

The officers had apologised. Their colleague seemed to have accepted those apologies. And the affectionate tone suggested their relationships remained intact.

But PC Y later told the misconduct panel that her responses did not reflect what she truly felt.

She explained that she had been awkward and nervous, did not want her colleagues to think she was offended, and hoped the apologies would end the imitation.

Significantly, she acknowledged during questioning that her reassuring messages might have led the officers to believe they did not need to change their behaviour.

That admission was important to understanding the officers’ explanations.

But PC Y insisted that the mimicking had continued.

She described colleagues copying words and expressions including “okay”, “cheeky”, “hello” and “stop it”.

On occasion, she claimed, even when she asked them to stop, they repeated her words back to her.

She said the imitation became so uncomfortable that she avoided answering the office telephone when colleagues were nearby because she expected them to mock her greeting.

What might have appeared to others to be a moment of shared amusement had, in her account, become a source of embarrassment and distress.

PC Y believed Granby’s apology had been sincere.

What upset her was that she had expected the behaviour to end and, according to her evidence, it did not.

Whether officers genuinely understood she was upset became central to the proceedings.

Some maintained that they were copying particular phrases or intonations rather than deliberately mocking her ethnicity.

They denied racially motivated conduct and relied on the team’s friendly atmosphere, including occasions when PC Y laughed along.

But PC Y explained that laughter did not necessarily mean she had found the behaviour amusing.

She said she sometimes laughed when uncomfortable or anxious and was reluctant to confront colleagues with whom she had previously enjoyed close relationships.

The panel had to decide whether the behaviour was simply misguided familiarity or whether it breached the professional standards expected of police officers.

Ultimately, it found that serious misconduct had occurred.

But perhaps the most striking revelation was that PC Y had never sought the outcome that followed.

The disciplinary findings record that she had not made a formal complaint against her colleagues before taking part in a workplace “stay interview” in November 2023.

That conversation led to concerns being passed to the Professional Standards Department.

The documents record that PC Y had made clear she did not want anybody to lose their job.

Instead, she wanted the officers to understand the impact of their behaviour.

She had not personally confronted everyone involved and believed that, in some instances, others had already spoken to colleagues about their conduct.

She hoped the behaviour would stop.

Yet once the allegations entered the formal disciplinary process, she no longer decided the consequences.

The investigation eventually involved nine serving and former police officers.

PCs Demi Green, Heena Rani, Lucy Granby, Matthew Barlow, Matthew Hill and Mohammed Abid were dismissed without notice.

The panel found that former PC Jake Holt and another former officer, identified only as Officer A, committed gross misconduct and would have been dismissed had they still been serving.

Sergeant Adrian Bick received a final written warning following a separate finding of misconduct.

The allegations were not identical for all nine officers, and the panel assessed their conduct individually.

Seven officers or former officers faced allegations of imitating PC Y’s accent, while others concerned remarks about her appearance or inappropriate comparisons.

Among the most offensive incidents was a remark attributed to PC Mohammed Abid, who was found to have told PC Y that her braided hair looked like a mop.

Abid denied making the comment.

But the panel rejected his account and concluded that the remark had been deliberate, targeted and offensive.

Importantly, the panel did not find that he had deliberately targeted PC Y because of her race.

That distinction did not save his career.

The panel considered the harm foreseeable and the conduct sufficiently serious to amount to gross misconduct.

It illustrated the distinction running through the wider case: conduct did not need to be driven by a conscious intention to cause racial harm to breach the standards expected of a serving police officer.

Although the individual allegations differed, the panel considered whether the proven behaviour was compatible with the integrity, respect and professionalism demanded of the police service.

The officers’ explanations, apologies and previous good character were all relevant.

So, too, were the relationships they had enjoyed with PC Y.

But those factors did not automatically excuse the conduct.

In Rani’s case, the panel acknowledged that she had apologised to PC Y, expressed remorse and previously offered her colleague support.

It also considered her relative youth and inexperience, positive character references and the wider context of their friendship.

Nevertheless, it found that the behaviour had continued after the December 2022 apology.

The panel concluded that although the harm had not been intentional, it had been foreseeable.

It considered whether a lesser sanction could sufficiently address the misconduct.

It concluded that dismissal without notice was necessary.

The decision reflected the panel’s view that the seriousness of the proven behaviour outweighed the mitigation.

That is a crucial part of the story.

It would be misleading to suggest that eight police careers ended merely because colleagues made jokes that someone later regretted.

The findings followed contested proceedings in which witnesses were questioned, defence accounts were examined, and individual allegations were assessed.

At the same time, the evidence reveals uncomfortable complexities that risk being lost when the case is reduced to a list of officers dismissed for racism.

The complainant had enjoyed genuine friendships with some of those involved.

She had accepted apologies.

She had sent reassuring messages.

She had sometimes laughed along.

And she had told investigators that she wanted education, not unemployment.

None of those details proves that the behaviour was acceptable.

But they show how relationships can deteriorate without an obvious confrontation and how someone who feels mistreated may nevertheless try to preserve the friendship of the person causing the distress.

The evidence also raises questions about how other officers responded.

PC Aqeel Azam described challenging PC Matthew Hill after noticing that PC Y appeared uncomfortable.

Another colleague, PC Cooper-Fox, gave evidence about witnessing officers mock PC Y’s laugh.

He regarded the behaviour as unacceptable, although he did not immediately raise a formal complaint.

Other evidence suggested colleagues were aware of some of the behaviour and had challenged aspects of it.

PC Y herself did not always want matters escalated.

But the overall picture was of conduct that was witnessed, questioned and, according to the findings, allowed to continue.

This raises an obvious question: if officers could see that a colleague was uncomfortable, why didn’t they address the matter effectively before it developed into a disciplinary investigation involving nine people?

There was also evidence of the damage PC Y said the experience had caused.

She described becoming anxious, withdrawn and increasingly uncomfortable around colleagues.

She underwent talking therapy and reported health problems, including high blood pressure.

Her relationship with the team deteriorated, and this behaviour contributed to her decision to move elsewhere.

Her account was therefore not simply that she had overheard one offensive remark and demanded action.

She described repeated behaviour that, over time, affected her confidence and wellbeing.

Even then, she said she wanted those involved to be helped to understand the harm they caused rather than lose their jobs.

That position draws an important distinction between what a complainant wants and what a police misconduct panel must consider.

A disciplinary hearing is not a private dispute in which the person affected has the final say over punishment.

The panel must assess the seriousness of proven breaches, the officer’s culpability, the harm caused, any mitigation and the need to maintain public confidence in policing.

It can impose sanctions more severe than the complainant prefers.

That is what happened here.

In September 2026, the misconduct proceedings dismissed six serving officers and found that two former officers would have been dismissed.

All eight faced the consequences of gross misconduct findings that effectively barred them from returning to policing.

GMP defended the outcome as part of its commitment to tackling discriminatory behaviour within the force.

Deputy Chief Constable Terry Woods emphasised that no officer should have to experience discrimination from colleagues and praised PC Y for coming forward.

The force said unacceptable conduct had to be challenged and professional standards must be upheld.

But the findings raise a series of questions beyond whether the panel was entitled to dismiss those involved.

Could earlier supervision have stopped the behaviour before relationships deteriorated?

Were apologies treated too casually?

Did the apparently affectionate WhatsApp exchanges lead officers to believe the matter was resolved?

How much weight should a disciplinary system give to a complainant’s wishes when she expressly says she does not want colleagues to lose their livelihoods?

The answers are not straightforward.

Critics will inevitably question proportionality after eight policing careers are lost despite PC Y’s stated wishes.

To those defending the disciplinary outcome, the fact that the complainant did not seek dismissals does not reduce the seriousness of repeated racialised mockery in a police workplace.

Both considerations are part of the story.

The panel made its judgment after considering evidence including friendships, apologies, remorse, mitigation, and the impact on PC Y.

It concluded that the proven breaches demanded the most serious disciplinary consequences for eight officers and former officers.

For the woman whose experiences prompted the proceedings, however, the result was considerably more severe than the remedy she said she wanted.

She had sought understanding from colleagues she had once regarded as friends.

What followed was a major police racism scandal, public findings of gross misconduct and the destruction of careers.

She wanted her colleagues to learn a lesson, not lose their livelihoods. But by the time Greater Manchester Police had finished teaching it, eight careers were over — and the woman they had wronged was the one person who had never asked for that punishment.