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/

I don't think there is a solicitor or barrister alive who would advise their client to do this. It compromises the defence. There is a reason why solicitors advise their clients to 'No comment' in police interviews and to the media. As soon as you give your version of events, it becomes impossible to backtrack or change without looking like a liar.

To take a different example, as this case is sub-judice, say I'm accused of nicking a bike. There are various defences I could try - "it wasn't me, Guv", or I only borrowed it, or I thought it was actually mine etc etc. But I don't want to commit until I know what evidence the prosecution has, and the narrative they intend to build from it . Otherwise, if I go for, "It wasn't me, Guv" and it turns out that the police have close up CCTV of me doing it, I can't then pivot to, "I only borrowed it" without looking like a liar.

This applies if you are innocent of the offence, as well as if you are guilty, because you can still undermine your own defence if the prosecution can make you look untruthful.

In this case, they are shouting all over SM about their version of events. I don't know enough about hearsay to know whether any of this is admissible in court as evidence of the truth of the case - i would guess not because the statements were made not within the judicial process. However, there are various cunning ways of including evidence that would be hearsay if directly introduced as evidence of truth, particularly around character. So what they are doing seems highly risky.

SBS must be taking advice from their legal advocate(s) about how to conduct themselves, surely?

I am not sure that they are doing anything wrong legally but wondered about the charity commissioners, funders etc..

Not that I think they should have the right to silence groups, but it is based on (past) experiences most charities are very wary of being seen to use their charity status as a platorm for personal politics.

Although if you meant in relation to the actual court case, maybe they have been encouraged to make statements like this.

Just to re-state, I am making a distinction between a charity that happens to be the employer of someone facting a court case, and the individual being entitled to make a comment about how they feel about the legal system, and the basis of the case against them.

Since this case is very much in line with their mission and purpose as a charity - how can violence against women and girls be tackled if police see women of colour, especially Black women of colour, as aggressors when they defend themselves - I don’t think it is particularly dodgy for the charity to support them, especially in terms of publicising racist policing. It’s also possible the charity see the police as targeting Taha as Executive Director because of advocacy the charity has done in the past criticising the Met, which, again, would justify support by the charity.

@MissLucyEyelesbarrow
In this case, they are shouting all over SM about their version of events. I don't know enough about hearsay to know whether any of this is admissible in court as evidence of the truth of the case - i would guess not because the statements were made not within the judicial process. However, there are various cunning ways of including evidence that would be hearsay if directly introduced as evidence of truth, particularly around character. So what they are doing seems highly risky.

IANAL but I think it works like this.
Stuff you say on social media can be used against you by the prosecution, but is considered heresay and inadmissible in your defense. It seems unfair but it makes sense when you consider you can't be the source of 3rd party statments that exonerate you.

Hypothetical example. A man gets beaten up.

1. You post on social media how you beat him up and why he deserved it, you enjoyed giving him an ass whupping, you describe where, when, and how you did it, and you'll do it again if he gives you reason to. The prosecution is going to use this to convict you. It's a confession, not heresay.
2. You post on social media how you heard about the man getting beat up, you heard rumours people thought it might be you, and you deny it had anything to do with you. This is inadmissable heresay because you are the source, and you could be lying.

I don't know how it would work with more indirect evidence.
e.g. if at the time the man got beaten up you were on holiday for two weeks daily posting many pictures of yourself in a faraway land that were easily verifiable. That might be allowed? But I'm not a lawyer.

@MissLucyEyelesbarrow
I don't think there is a solicitor or barrister alive who would advise their client to do this. It compromises the defence. There is a reason why solicitors advise their clients to 'No comment' in police interviews and to the media. As soon as you give your version of events, it becomes impossible to backtrack or change without looking like a liar.

Possibly Lionel Hutz attorney at law? Although I don't know if animated characters off The Simpsons qualify?

A lot will be explained, if he turns up with them in court 😉

For any lay person interested in law I cannot recommend this famous video highly enough. An American law school professor gives a taster lecture to prospective law students explaining why talking to the police without a lawyer present is always, under every circumstance, a bad idea. It includes the heresay mentioned upthread. It's really engaging.
w

Thanks - will watch this later.

It's even riskier in the US, because lying to the FBI (though not the regular police) is a crime in its own right, and because the police are allowed to lie to you during an interrogation. The latter point boggles my mind, although I believe it's true in quite a few (democratic) countries.

I am not going to comment on he ongoing court case for obvious reasons but would like to reply to the above quote

I have heard others who send their children to Steiner schools enthuse about the commitment to diversity and equality, so you are not alone in your opinion, although given the underlying racist and colourist philosophy I find it distressing to think of darker skinned children attending such a school.

If you examine Steiner’s bizarre beliefs about reincarnation through the “inferior races” (black people) through various lighter colour shades until to eventual reincarnation into the “superior” “Aryan race” (blue eyed, blonde) the colourism inherent in the theory is not a million miles away from the colourism in the Hindu caste system.

I have attached below a still from the BBC report into racism at Steiner schools that clearly demonstrates this strange belief from an illustrated page in one of Steiner’s books. It depicts the “superior” white person on the right while to the left is the black person, who is at a more primitive stage of evolution.

This makes the SBS’s relationship to Triodos especially interesting as SBS have been vocal in their condemnation of Narendra Modi and of the Hindu caste system that leaves many Dalits living in miserable, oppressive conditions.

This is the SBS video demonstrating their opposition to Modi

I find it remarkable that the SBSs condemn the Indian caste system whilst accepting financial support from a bank whose underlying philosophy incorporates the same kind of insanely racist and colourist beliefs involving a racial hierarchy of reincarnation with darker skinned people being reincarnated at the bottom and lighter skinned people being reincarnated into privileged, superior lives. In fact Steiner’s beliefs appear to be rooted in Hindu concepts of reincarnation based on skin colour.

I’m scratching my head at this one and I honestly don’t know what to make of it.

I notice your user name honours the Hindu goddess Kali, a Hindu goddess of destruction and death. I wonder whether your enthusiasm for Hindu deities, as evidenced by your user name, might leave you more disposed towards or inclined to believe spiritual doctrines based on hierarchical caste systems? Apologies if this is not the case it is just that, given your user name, I am genuinely curious.

I can imagine that UK activists with concerns about Modi and the BJP might contact the SBS to join in their activist struggle but might feel perturbed by the discovery that the SBS have been in reception of funding from Triodos bank for many years.

The entire situation is extremely odd and I am left scratching my head in puzzlement.

oops, here's the image from one of Steiner's books that didn't work in my post
It shows the evolution from "inferior" black person, through to "superior" white / aryan person very clearly

also BlessedKali you say that

I'm sure most philosophers / psychologists / scientists from 100 years ago were racist and were recorded saying racist things, Freud for example was racist, but we still value his contribution to psychology.

I am not an expert in Freud or in the Hindu caste system but to my knowledge Freud at no time developed a complex spiritual / occult belief system based on the same reincarnation of the the “darker skin = inferior / lighten skin = superior” equation underpinning both Steiner’s anthroposophy and the Hindu caste system. I am open to being corrected on this point if I am mistaken.

I don't think there is a single eminent person pre-Second World War, whose ideas would be fully compatible with modern beliefs. Are we discarding everything positive done by those people, as a result? Because that's everything in the arts, science, medicine, technology, fashion, sport etc.

Steiner's beliefs about race were foul. Fuck knows why anyone thinks that's a gotcha about Steiner schools, 100 years after his death. There have been more recent concerns about racism in the schools, I know, and clearly that is a concern. But it is bizarre to suggest that, somehow, the schools are tainted by the ideas of a man who died in 1925.

I get frustrated when beliefs that were the norm several generations ago are seen as evidence of moral depravity.

Ignorant, yes.
Morally depraved if adhered to now.
At the time, a symptom of the culture they existed in. Very few people are exceptional enough to escape that straightjacket, for all we hope we ourselves would.

But it is bizarre to suggest that, somehow, the schools are tainted by the ideas of a man who died in 1925.

I agree that you cannot judge people from and different time or place just using modern or local standards. But how on earth is it bizarre to suggest Steiner schools are not ‘tainted’ by the ideas of Steiner himself? They make a point of following his precepts, even where some of his ‘reasoning’ for those ideas are no longer agreed with.

Not his racial hierarchy theories!

That's like saying that family planning clinics are tainted, because Marie Stopes was a eugenicist. Have we really dumbed down to a point where we can't distinguish between the good (or at least inoffensive) ideas that people had in the past, and the outdated/offensive ones?

Seriously - can those who want to discuss Steiner schools and their conspiracy theories start their own thread.

It was bad enough that someone who apparently wasn't committed enough to start their own thread just randomly posted on a thread about a court case, but to then entrench it by replying is just another example of what in fact looks like only half a committment to having threads on FWR that make sense.

Idealy start the thread, repeat all the posts about it that are irrelevant to this thread, and then get them deleted from here.

Since this case is very much in line with their mission and purpose as a charity

You are aware are you that SBS is primarily about protecting women in their own community for domestic and sexual violence.

There have been a couple of occassions when they have partnered in high profile court cases re police / law. eg lack of support for women without leave to remain trapped in a violent relationship.

You may be confusing the organisation with the work of the woman who was the previous Director of SBS who was also active in more overtly political groups such as Women Against Fundamentalism

This is a description of the work of SBS from their web site:

SBS provides holistic specialist services by combining advice and advocacy work with ongoing support such as counselling and psychotherapy. We combine crisis intervention work with long term advocacy and policy and campaigning work.

Through our advocacy work, we assist women to access relevant services that are needed for their protection and redress, ranging from accessing safe housing, the police, welfare, and mental health services, to the legal system.

The issues that SBS deals with include: domestic violence, rape, sexual abuse, “honour” crimes, forced marriage, dowry-based violence, homicide, suicide aggravated by domestic violence and other forms of familial abuse including imprisonment, restriction of movement, abandonment, abduction to countries of origin and denial of education and independent careers. These issues are very much interrelated with other matters such as homelessness, immigration, mental health, criminal and civil issues, destitution, and poverty. Our casework also has an international dimension (e.g. honour-based violence, threats to abduct or take women and children abroad, forced marriage and transnational marriage abandonment).

Our work by its very nature addresses issues of multiple or intersectional discrimination, involving the simultaneous experience of race, gender, class, and other forms of inequality.

Yes, I can read their website and I’m aware it’s not part of their regular service offering. But you’re asking if they’d be in trouble with the Charity Commission, and I don’t think they would because it’s still in keeping with their purpose. Charities are allowed to change their program offering, try experimental things, take advantage of opportunities that present themselves, etc. if it’s in keeping with their purpose. Just because their current service offering is more restricted than their purpose allows doesn’t mean they can’t expand and fill that gap when they have the opportunity to.

This fits right in with their advocacy work to assist women to access relevant service…[including] the police.

It’s not like they’re a pet rescue charity who have suddenly taken up advocacy for Black women. They are very much about how women of colour are perceived and how this might impact their access to justice.

To add: Of course, it does depend on how they are supporting her. It would seem appropriate to, for instance, pay for legal advice on the judicial review, or to provide resources for publicity and advocacy. Less appropriate to pay for her and her friends to go on a month long holiday to get over the stress. But I don’t think there’s any suggestion that anything like the latter has happened, is there?

@NumberTheory
Do you think it's a possibility that she's pressuring them to publicly support her? Or even that it's her decision that they as a charity publicly support her?

Sure, it’s a possibility she’s pressuring. But is there any evidence of it or are you just speculating?

As to it being her decision - she’s the executive director, it would need to be her decision. The question in terms of the Charity Commission would be whether there was appropriate oversight of that decision by the board. And again, any questions around that would just be speculation unless there’s more information not linked to on this thread.

Sounds like a clear conflict of interest to me.

Charities don’t have to ensure there are no ties between the benefits of their advocacy or programs and their staff. There are models of governance that recommend it, but significant voices in the charitable sector argue that model of philanthropy is bankrupt. In terms of the Charity Commission, I don’t think it is an automatic concern.

There is certainly room for Taha to take advantage of SBS, for her own ends, to their detriment. But that isn’t necessarily what’s happening here. Indeed, as others have pointed out, Taha’s lawyers would be unlikely to recommend this course of action. Publicizing the case like this is probably not to her personal benefit but exposing racism in police decision making when it comes to women defending themselves in violent altercations furthers SBS’s mission. Whether this will, ultimately, do that is still up in the air, though.

If the head of a charity whose purpose was to support a particular group of people was also a member of that group of people, would it be ethical for them to just keep all the money for themself?

I agree. The trustees should be stepping in here.