Who does the police work for? A Statement by Southall Black Sisters

[IwantToRetire]

This is from October last year and I thought there was a thread about it, but if there was it has gone. So will post link to the statement from that time as there has been an update today.

On the night of Friday, the 29th September, Selma Taha, Executive Director of SBS, and her friends were verbally and physically assaulted in an extremely violent racist attack on public transport; this included pulling clumps of hair off Selma and her friend and biting Selma’s flesh, leaving a deeply embedded imprint of her teeth which necessitated a tetanus injection and antibiotics.

A Metropolitan Detective Constable was present at the scene but did nothing to de-escalate the verbal racist abuse when the assailant, a white woman, began making monkey sounds, calling Selma and her friends “bitches”, and “slaves,” and subjecting them to other vile racist slurs. Nor did he apprehend the attacker until it turned into extremely violent physical assault.

To make sense of today's statement you do read the original statement in full which is at https://southallblacksisters.org.uk/news/who-does-the-police-work-for-a-statement-by-southall-black-sisters/

Update – Violent Racist Attack on Selma Taha and Friends

On 5 October 2023, I made it known publicly that I and two friends had been the victims of racist abuse and physical violence on the tube, and that a police officer was present, off-duty, who had failed to intervene during the incident to de-escalate the situation so as to protect me and my friends.

In a development that is deeply shocking to the three of us, the CPS has now made the following charging decisions:https://southallblacksisters.org.uk/news/update-violent-racist-attack-on-selma-taha-and-friends/

Nothing surprises me about the police any more.

Outrageous. The black women are being charged with assault? Because a white woman attacked them and racially abused them?

You should post this on the AIBU board.

Holy shit - that's horrendous.

I'm not interested in AIBU.

For obvious reasons (I would have thought) I posted it on Feminism and Women's Rights.

(nothing stopping you from posting it if you think AIBU would be more interesting)

Not surprising, but disgusting nonetheless

I am not sure how much it is possible to comment as there is now a court case.

But I think, and will try and find the link if anyone wants it, that the police officer concerned was investigated, and as he was off duty and so not obliged to act as a police officer, he was not found to have failed in his duty. In choosing to intervene he did so as a member of the public, which in fact anyone else witnessing what was going on could have done.

I think the Transport Police were "in charge".

There's only one side of a story here. It might be totally accurate, but it might not be the complete picture....
In the story as we have it, with no other information, it's a 3 on 1, with the 3 facing 5 charges.
It happened at a tube station where I assume there are cameras everywhere.
If the 3 girls are facing any misjustice in being charged they will have access to ample evidence to prove they are being mistreated. They will get a fortune from the police.
Both sides have either been cautioned or charged for racial abuse. The poster points out the race of the police officers involved. Race seems important to both sides.
I suspect that the full story might paint a slightly more complex picture of what happened than this one sided story.

In all my time whenever I hear a story about an incident/fight I have never heard the full truth from either side. Usually you have to fit both side's stories together like a jigsaw to work out what happened.

I would caution against an emotional knee jerk reaction.

I'd like to say that's shocking but it really isn't anymore

I'd be interested in others opinion of this.

When the first press release was issued in October I was a bit puzzled.

Not by the description of the event, but more that SBS had issued a statement.

So withouth making it about the actual incident, my question is this.

If a senior member of a charity in their own time (ie not when representing the charity at a work event) had been part of a situation where police were involved, but the investigation of the situation not officially concluded, would the charity as an employer release a statement promoting the version of events of their employee?

And would other charities feel the need to support the statement because of who the other charity was even though it only reflected one side of the story?

Or would the charity just issue some bland few lines about it was aware of reports of an incident involving one its employees and they would wait for the investigation to conclude before making further comment so as not to prejudice the outcome.

In this instance I can understand why quite a few groups then and now have issued supporting press releases, partly because so many women's groups have such distrust of the Met, as much as being supportive of women saying they were subjected to racist abuse and violence. And an (off duty) police man just stood by.

But what if, because witnesses come forward and substantiate the case that the CPS have now presented, there are guilty verdicts (with mitigating circumstances).

Are all these groups now trapped in the position that because it was the Met there was no case to answer, and it is a CPS stitch up.

I am not trying to get into the detail of the case, but more wondering about the role of an employer in a situation like this, let alone organisations working in the same sector.

Assuming this description of the powers of off-duty officers is accurate; I could understand an officer might find the speech the women were initially subjected to fell into the category of “to be reported to colleagues who are on duty” (though I don’t think a deescalation attempt as a private individual would have precluded this?) & physical assault placing the crime firmly into the category of a matter for them to deal with themselves.

However, it looks very much as if they just couldn’t be arsed & are now punishing a group of black women for seeking justice. British Transport Police’s racism is not, much as they want us to believe, historic, it’s still firmly baked in. We’ve seen on here that cops with an agenda will fit people up; & that the CPS will go along with it. It’s to be hoped the truth (whatever it may be) is revealed in its entirety at trial & all offenders face serious consequences.

I thought the comments on it by charities were risky unless they were in full possession of the facts, felt like virtue signalling to me, though I dislike how sceptical and untrusting I have become about everything.

In answer to your question about a charity posting about this, I think it's relevant that it's SBS. They're a campaigning organisation as well as one who supports individual women. They've very much always been activists who challenge racism and misogyny within the law and therefore this is what I would expect them to do. Regarding other women's orgs supporting them, well the women's sector is a small place and many people know Selma personally so likely to believe her. Many organisations are small so don't have PR people or comms people, it'll just be someone who works there tweeting.

Yes, this. I don't trust the police either, but they don't make charging decisions.

I note the careful wording of the SBS statement, which leaves room for the initial physical violence to have been from one of the SBS women, not the woman who was verbally abusive. I am not saying this was the case, only the it could have been, from the way the statement is worded. Generally, if you respond with physical violence to verbal abuse, you can expect to be the one charged.

If a senior member of a charity in their own time (ie not when representing the charity at a work event) had been part of a situation where police were involved, but the investigation of the situation not officially concluded, would the charity as an employer release a statement promoting the version of events of their employee?

I don't think you can make it a general question rather than this specific charity though. If the charity were, I dunno, Save the Whales or Pottery for Peace then I'd expect them to stay well well out of it. At most state "We can confirm that a senior person has been charged with... Pottery for Peace will await the outcome of the legal process..."

However, SBS is in part a campaigning charity challenging racism. So I can see that if a senior member believes they have experienced racism from the police it's highly relevant to their campaigning.

I phrase it that way because, as others have said, we only have one side of the story. It is possible, of course, that the charging decision is as the statement says, criminalising the rights of black people to resist racist abuse. It's also possible that they gave as good as they got and have been charged because, unlike the other party, they did not accept a caution. It will be interesting to see how this unfolds in the courts.

It sounds to me that the racism was flowing in both directions.
From their own statement "One of my friends has also been charged with a racially aggravated public order offence, in relation to alleged conduct towards a white British Transport police officer"

We don't know how it started, or what started it, but once it did get started I'm guessing the racial slurs flowed freely just like the fists.

Its a fight 3 on 1. Racism and violence was free flowing. When the police intervened they got some too.

The police are quite afraid of accusations of racism. For them to be charging the 3 black girls and letting the 1 white girl off with a warning there must have been an overwhelmingly strong reason. I would guess charging everyone would an easy cop out for the police to avoid any claims like this.

The statement by Southall Black Sisters reads to me like a call to put "racism" pressure on the police/justice system.

I don't suppose anyone is in a position to attend the trial and learn the wider truth?

My ex was a police officer, and the issue of powers while off-duty thing was always an issue.

Generally he would not intervene if the incident was purely verbal, only if something turned into physical assault.

Why - because when off duty they have no baton, no cs spray, no backup, no handcuffs, no bodycam, no proof they are a police officer, no stab vest, no ability to call for help, no emergency button on their radio. Because they aren't superheroes with superpowers. Because they may have their wife or child with them and getting involved means leaving their wife or child alone & vulnerable.

We seldom travelled on public transport for this reason. Were very careful where we went. Didn't advertise his job.

If this happened on public transport, there will be cctv coverage and detailed evidence of who did what to whom. The courts will hear both sides of the story.

Can I also highlight that in the statement that gives one side of the story, they don't mention at all how it started or who started it.
The initial statement goes into quite a lot of detail where it suits them, and I can only assume where it doesn't go into detail it's because those facts do not support them.
That they don't give any details of how it started makes me wonder if those facts don't support them.

Yep. It's unreasonable to expect off-duty officers to intervene in every potential offence, and I doubt we would like it if they did. You see potential offences all day, every day. They wouldn't be able to leave the house.

I would guess that, in this case, the officer clocked that the woman being verbally abusive was outnumbered and female, so the risk to the women being abused was low. It is tricky because, of course, being racially abused is going to make anyone feel very unsafe but, in most cases, in this scenario, they wouldn't be at physical risk.

Really interesting set of questions, and I think all the assumptions can be true. Yes the met is often racist and misogynist. Yes one white women behaved appallingly. Yes three women responded with defensive aggression.

Yes, all those organisations commenting should have been more careful about what they said.

No, you can’t believe anyone about anything these days! 😅

Sad times when CCTV is necessary everywhere.

Yes, the question of who protects women from racial or misogynistic abuse in public remains unanswered. And the retreat of the police from routine patrols of the streets as a policy decision (not blaming individual officers) makes us all less safe. I'm tired of being gas-lit that "Bobbies on the beat was a myth" or that a visible police presence is not cost effective - it's conveniently difficult to quantify crime prevented or the public feeling safer.

Nah, all the real information is all going to come out in the wash. It'll be a highly publicised trial.

I look forward to seeing the CCTV footage and hearing the facts from beginning to end - not just the cherry picked elements from either side.

The white woman accepted a caution for racially aggravated public order - to receive that outcome, she's admitted her crime and is eligible for a caution, so that's over and done with.

The three women are clearly denying any offences and as such are not eligible for a caution. Therefore they have been charged and will have to go to court to either plead not guilty and see a trial through or plead guilty.

CPS made this charging decision, not the police. They will have had to have seen all the CCTV footage, any body worn camera footage (which also records all sound) and any statements from any person who has given one - and any explanation as to why someone didn't or wouldn't give a statement.

There's a lot more to this than we've been told so far.

You assume wrongly, it’s in the news reports. White woman started on them after they asked her to move her suitcase after she nearly hit one of the women with it.

Incidentally, the CPS is probably doing exactly what you did. Recently white people have been getting so upset poc speak out against racism that they’ve been excusing all racist behaviour and trying to find some way to make it the poc fault.

The black woman in this scenario was bitten, had her hair pulled out, was called a slave and had monkey noises made at her. There are pictures of her injury all over the Internet. Why are you going to assume that somebody who has been so violent is the more innocent party in the scenario?

Inevitably, all that happened is that they were trying to get the woman off when the policeman initially failed to bestir himself. It will be interesting to see all the responses once that trial is over. Even if they’re vindicated, somehow it will still be their fault.

If this version is correct (which it certainly could be), that will be made evident in court, when the video becomes public.

There does not seem to be any dispute that the black women were subjected to racist abuse, as the white woman has accepted a police caution. What is less clear-cut is what happened in the physical fight. We will find out when it goes to court.

I think best not to jump to conclusions and let it play out.