Top Muslim policeman to sue Met for racism

BY JOEL TAYLOR

'Victimised': GhaffurBRITAIN' S highest ranking Muslim police officer is to sue Scotland Yard for racial discrimination, it emerged last right. Tarique Ghaffur, a Metropolitan Police assistant commissioner, claims he was bullied and harassed. Some of the accusations drawn up in legal papers point to Met chief Sir Ian Blair. It is claimed their relationship had deteriorated so much the two officers were not on speaking terms. Mr Ghaffur, who is responsible for security at the 2012 Olympics, alleges he was undermined by his superiors. He also alleges that his contract was extended for only one year - when senior white colleagues were offered more. A Met spokesman last right said the force was unaware of an employment tribunal application from Mr Ghaffur. He added: "If it is, we regret and are disappointed that asst comm Tarique Ghaffur has chosen to pursue such a course.' - Ali Dizaei, - president of the National Black Police Association, said he was aware of Mr Ghaffur's concerns: He added: 'It will be a sad day for the police service if one of the UK's most respected senior etnnic inniority officers is forced to challenge his treattnent in court.' The news came as Sir Ian was accused in another tribunal of excluding black and Asian policemen in favour of white officers. Cmdr Shabir Hussain claimed earlier this week he was passed over for promotion by Sir Ian, who allegedly used his influence to earmark others. [Metro June26,2008]

Top officer sparks war with 'racist' claims

Metro Aug28,2008

Dear Ed,
With regard to Tarique Ghaffur and his racist claims about the police. It is rather ironic that there is a black police association and there is no white police association,if any one is racist it is those people who continue to see themselves as groups labelled by the colour of their skin. The police are placed in a ridiculous position of having to use skin colour as a trait when running down a criminal,as much as they may use hair or eye colour,but as far as their own officers are concerned,the slightest indication that they are referring to some aspect of their colour or race receives utter condemnation. The fact is,too many "minority" groups are getting too big a politically correct voice and we are ending up with inverted racism and ridiculous claims of racism. It is entirely possible that Mr Ghaffur is not good at his job for other reasons than race,but we would never know because he'd always play the colour card. He is also a shade of brown,and therefore we need a brown policeman's association - what utter rubbish this country is succumbing too.

To: mail@ukmetro.co.ukCC:BCC:Date:Fri, 29 Aug 2008 22:37


Metro 9/9/08

Dear Ed,

I am so glad that J Taylor corrected Steven Price's unfounded comments about colour schools not being the same as faith schools. However,using J Taylor's same argument,faith schools are unfounded for the same reason,they are divisive,and lead to people not understanding those not of their faith. Beliefs are personal choices,not matters of basic knowledge and have no place in the school system.

DL Borrell

Metro 11/9/08

Metro 12/9/08

Met  'is spying on its black officers'

Metro 22/9/08

Don't join the Met say black officers

Metro 7/10/08

It's not black and white

Metro 9/10/08

Muslim sues Met after being told to fry bacon

Metro 3/10/08

The Black Police association is corrupt and racist


Service Delivery Unit
Professional Standards Department

Kent Police
Internal e-mail: PSD - General Enquiries

>>> Lee Borrell < 14/07/2009 21:59 >>>

Please could someone respond to the METRO article concerning Chris Hogben's zero tolerance of litter louts,which says that they will be locked up for 24hrs.

Are the police in this country totally nuts? They do not seem to realise why they are being paid - it is to protect people from crime. Petty crime such as dropping litter should not be a priority when people are being knifed to death. Perhaps if the police took a zero tolerance approach to abusive alcoholic teenagers threatening people then we would not hear the stories we do of gangs texting people into honey traps and being killed.

Litter is a problem - it is not THAT big a problem and people should not be jailed for it - killing people IS a big crime and should be punished. The fact is the police pay too much attention to petty crime and not enough to serious crime. In my own area (Manchester) the police failed to attend a public beating of a woman - meanwhile the local council and it's police lackey's are trying to criminalise dog owners who leave excrement behind.

The police have their priorities all mixed up - and the Metro story only highlight's this further - no wonder the public have no confidence in a force that is completely out of touch with the crimes the people want something doing about.

Litter is a job for local council by -laws - not the police.

>>> Louiza SPOKES PSE 52809 15/07/09 10:00 >>>

>>> PSD - General Enquiries 15/07/09 07:54 >>>

Dear Mr. Borrell

Thank you for your e-mail which I have today forwarded to the Area Commander at South Kent for attention.

Sue Cooper

--- On Wed, 15/7/09, Chris HOGBEN CH/SUPT 7709 >

Subject: Fwd: Re: Litter Louts
Date: Wednesday, 15 July, 2009, 6:53 PM

Dear Mr Borrell

I write in response to the email that you sent to the Kent Police Professional Standards department.I would make the following points:

Firstly I have not stated that people who drop litter should be jailed,any suggestion of this in a paper is simply wrong.What I do strongly advocate is that my officers should robustly enforce the law at all levels,in my experience if we allow standards to drop,in particular around low level antisocial behaviour,then offenders go on to commit more serious offences.All of the feedback I get from the Local communities that we serve suggests that this is actually what the public want to see their Police Officers doing.In terms of litter,this means challenging those who drop litter,giving a warning to offenders and making them pick up what they have dropped.If they refuse or the matter is seen as more serious dealing with it by way of a fixed penalty notice or by reporting the offender for summons so that they can be summonsed to court for the offence.If the offender refuses to give their name and address,or the one given is not suitable for service of a summons,then the offender can be arrested and dealt with at the Police Station.These powers already exist.

We treat serious crime as a priority in Kent,we have an excellent track record in dealing the murders and other serious crimes that occur.It may interest you to know that Public confidence is rising in Kent and indeed strongly in my Policing Area,South Kent.I have consistently sent out a robust message through the press about the Police enforcing the law and will continue to do so.I get a lot of public feedback,the vast bulk of which is very positive,in fact I have even had correspondence from members of the public in other Counties asking why they don't see the same approach from their local Police.

I agree that the local Council have a responsibility in tackling litter and all forms of anti social behaviour,in Kent the Police and Local Councils work together to deal with these issues.I expect my Officers to play their part.Hopefully my explanation will demonstrate to you that we haven't got our priorities wrong and that we are making Kent a safer place to live and work.

Yours sincerely Chris Hogben Area Commander,South Kent Police.

>>> Lee Borrell <> 16/07/09 19:25 >>>

Please find attached report from today's paper.

I think you may find that the public see such policies as unfair and seemingly are willing to retaliate. It maybe better to realise that the police are public servants and should be policing what the public want. At the very least they should not expect support for litter lout offences when people are being knifed to death. Add to that the corralling of people voicing their opinions using free speech and I would say opinion of the police is at an all time low.

--- On Fri, 17/7/09, Chris HOGBEN CH/SUPT 7709 <> wrote:

From: Chris HOGBEN CH/SUPT 7709 <>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Litter Louts
To: "Lee Borrell" <>
Date: Friday, 17 July, 2009, 9:43 AM

Mr Borrell

I don't think that the mob of what can only be described as yobs count as the public.The decent,law abiding members of the local community expect the Police to enforce the law,that is what they pay for through taxation.My officers will enforce the law,including against low level anti social behaviour.If criminals such as those described in the press article attack our officers we will deal with them robustly.These sorts of yobs do not have the support of the community and certainly would not stop my officers going about their lawful duty.

I would also stress the point that we are more than capable of dealing with serious crime and addressing issues of anti social behaviour.All of the feedback that we get from the public relates to anti social behaviour rather than the serious crime that you highlight.

You may also be interested to know that public confidence in the Police in Kent seems to be rising,we have seen strong improvements in the Public confidence figures in my policing area, South Kent over the last 9 months.

Your's sincerely

Chris Hogben Area Commander, South Kent Police.

Re: Fwd: Re: Litter LoutsFriday, 17 July, 2009 11:29 AM

From: "Lee Borrell" <>View contact details

To: "Chris HOGBEN CH/SUPT 7709" <>

I am glad that the statistics show an improvement. Whilst I do not count myself as a yob but a member of the public,and would not stamp on an officers head,I would surely complain that the police had their priorities wrong should I be asked to lift a burger wrapper from the street. As it happens I do not eat burgers, and I put litter in bins,but I can surely sympathise with people who might hurl abuse at what seems like pedantry. The point is that whilst dropping litter is actually a law,and thence should be enforced in principle,the public is liable to see it as draconian,and when the police already (at least here) have a bad press,it only further serves to alienate them from the public. I would rather see an officer use force when a REAL crime has been committed,and I would not be surprised if they get an adverse reaction about dropping litter.

There was a book called 1984 which suggested having sex would become a crime - if you don't know it - read it - we're practically there. No doubt you would pride yourself on stopping people having sex and say that the statistics reflected that you were doing a good job. Sometimes the police cannot see the wood for the statistics.

I hope that the policies that are pursued by any police force do not end with us having a country where people you are protecting are more frightened of the force that protects them than they are of criminals. Right now,advice given by the police is to leave your car keys out for criminals - hardly a tactic that fights crime.

Thankyou for your replies.

'Police must change protest tactics'

Police must change the way they manage protests or risk losing public confidence, a report into the G20 demonstrations has warned.

Crime Senior officers are too focused on dealing with disorder and not enough on allowing peaceful protest, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary, Denis O'Connor, has said. His report into the April 1 London protests found public order training and tactics are "inadequate for the modern day". He said officers are too interested in whether protests are lawful or not, instead of focusing on allowing peaceful demonstrations. Mr O'Connor said some officers policing G20 were not sufficiently aware of human rights laws and he criticised police use of containment to pen in demonstrators on the day Ian Tomlinson died, calling it "inconsistent". He called on the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) to carry out a wide-ranging review of tactics and training for officers dealing with protesters. The Metropolitan Police accepted the report's recommendations and launched a review of officer training. But Assistant commissioner Chris Allison denied senior officers were unaware of human rights laws and how they relate to protests. However, he accepted the Met could lose public confidence if it did not make changes to how it polices protest. He said: "As an organisation that serves the public, we accept that we must always seek to provide the best possible service and this means making improvements where necessary." Mr O'Connor said the changes must be made as soon as possible to "meet the challenges of the 21st century", and particularly ahead of the 2012 Olympic Games. James Welch, legal director at human rights group Liberty said: "We welcome the finding that the police have a positive duty to facilitate peaceful protest and a common sense obligation not to make difficult situations worse. "However, this debate is only just beginning. The tactic of 'kettling' large groups so that peaceful protesters and passers-by are trapped for hours alongside more troublesome elements exacerbates tensions and creates a risk to public safety."

Obama's victory paves way for black prime minister

Metro 18/12/08

Metro 18/12/08

With respect to your stories about Alun Elder-Brown and Fata Lemes,the British population are sick of kow-towing to muslims who fal to realise they are living in Britain. If they do not like it here then why come here? Blind men have rights too,and the dress that was part of a dress code was not "sexy" - it merely did not comply with muslim's ideas of prudishness. If I am employed - I expect to comply with an employer's dress code regardless of what my beliefs happen to be. As both your correspondent's noted there is a level of hypocrisy in muslim's intolerance of other people's ways of being that makes them stand out in a country that tries to tolerate difference. Why do they not accept that sometimes they have to tolerate things they do not like,much as I tolerate muslims?


MAIN INDEX

REFERENCE GUIDE

TRANSCRIPTS

GLOSSARY

Maths Physics Biology Chemistry Computing Science Electronics Belief Art Philosophy

www.000webhost.com