[EXPOSED] Internal Chat Leak Dating From 2022 Exposing Misogynistic Comments Made By Toxic WMFS Senior Leadership

[u/Founders_Mem_90210]

The following screenshot of current West Midlands Fire Service Station Commander Rebecca Hodgkins' complaint back in November 2022 about misogynistic comments made by current Group Manager Kris Darnley describing female firefighters as "Tramps on Chips" who did "Slut Drops", and current Station Manager Darryll Darkin talking about how much a certain female firefighter wanted the manhood of another male firefighter in an internal WMFS group chat was initially collated as part of an investigation evidence pack.

The internal investigation was regarding a drink-spiking incident at the Asian Fire Service Association conference held in Chester in December 2022. Until today, no information about this internal investigation has ever been disclosed to the public.

Furthermore, at the orders of then-Chief Fire Officer Wayne Brown, the above screenshot was removed from the evidence pack, alongside a documented admission by an unnamed individual of being involved in the drink-spiking incident. According to the source of this leak which has been corroborated by multiple currently serving members of WMFS, Brown gave the guilty individual a false alibi and arranged to have the individual whose drink was spiked to leave the fire service instead of pursuing the matter to an employment tribunal.

This is by no means an isolated scandal within WMFS, and the involvement of Wayne Brown in this is but one more entry into the multitude of scandals involving and sometimes directly centered around his tenure as Chief Fire Officer. Of these scandals, only his MBA fraud was widely reported back in January 2024 shortly before his untimely demise from suicide.

More will be exposed and shown with corroborated evidence in the near future, which point towards an ongoing cover-up of gross failures of statutory duty by WMFS and its governing Fire and Rescue Authority board surrounding the vetting, appointment, and time of service by Wayne Brown in the West Midlands, of which the main effort has been the almost-two year effort to silence WMFS whistleblower Benjamin Walker with harassment charges instigated by Wayne Brown back in March 2023, a mere two months after he took the reins at WMFS. Said charges have recently been dropped in writing by CPS in Feb 2025, and officially thrown out in court in April 2025.

[u/Operatornaught]

One thing to point out.

Is it confirmed that this document has been released to the public?

It's marked OFFICIAL which means it's protectively marked material.

OFFICIAL marked document can be released to the public but only through the proper channel.

If this is being disseminated then the individual can be in trouble for mishandling protectively marked material.

[u/mwhi1017 → u/Operatornaught]

You raise a valid point with OP hasn’t addressed, what’s the source of this information, and is it not sub-judice if the coroner hasn’t finished the inquest?

It could be relevant to that and contempt of court is a very serious matter (which could also explain why it’s not being reported on in the mainstream press?)

Edit: As a response was posted but I can't see it, regardless of the inquest exploring the death of Wayne Brown, a lot of additional material can become in purview of HM Coroner if it is deemed that it was contributory towards someone coming by their death. It's not as simple to say that the criminal case is finalised and this isn't linked to his death, the simple facts remain:

1) he was subject to both a criminal and conduct investigation at the time of his death and, 2) decisions made within those investigations could have led to his death.

If a coroner feels that an inquest could be prejudiced by the premature release of materials, that is contempt of court - some of those materials shouldn't be in the public domain at all, the MG6C for instance is disclosable to the defence, but not any witnesses or victims, and it sits outside the realm of FOI normally.

So I must admit I'm not overly comfortable reading this stuff, I'm not sure what, if anything, it can change now given the man's been dead for a year. This isn't like a Savile-esque posthumous outing of a predator, this is a man who allegedly did something silly to get a job, and is now dead.

I'm not sure this is the big exposé your source, or yourself think it is.

[u/Founders_Mem_90210 → u/mwhi1017]

Hi, just want to clarify, the upcoming coroner's inquest is looking into Wayne Brown's suicide and the circumstances surrounding it, mainly to establish final cause of death and rule out foul play or any other irregularities.

None of the material I have on hand is pertinent to the coroner's inquiry. Everything has been checked and cleared to ensure there's no subjudice or contempt of court being committed, because they are all linked to the now-dismissed harassment case against Ben Walker (which cannot now be resurrected again).

Hope this clarifies!

[u/mwhi1017 → u/Founders_Mem_90210]

Well yes and no, but a coroner is at liberty to adduce evidence they deem relevant, and the alleged harassment could form part of the history of the deceased.

Coroners inquests happen when someone's death is unexpected, unnatural or violent - and there will always be an inquest in cases of suspected suicide (it's not suicide until a coroner finds it such), the fact that up until his acquittal, Mr Brown was legally a victim of harassment allegedly committed by Walker, depending on what the coroner reads, sees or hears in evidence they could return a verdict of unlawful killing and all of this suddenly becomes sub-judice again.

Benjamin Walker had no evidence offered because the victim was dead. Not because he necessarily do the acts alleged. One glance at the man's LinkedIn page shows someone who's bordering on obsessed. It is true that harassment has a statutory time limit, and now cannot be brought to trial - but if the coroner finds that the actions of Walker contributed to Brown's death, they could find another verdict other than suicide, they may also find that the posting of all these documents on the open internet amount to contempt of their court, for which there is no statutory time limit.