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/

As to it being her decision - she’s the executive director, it would need to be her decision.

An executive director of a charity is an employee of the board of trustees. It absolutely should not be her decision that the charity should support her.

I’m not suggesting she’s the only one who would need to decide to do this, but it would be virtually impossible for the organization to do it if she hadn’t. The board are oversight (and should definitely have a beady eye on this) but as executive director she’s the hands on leader executing the boards vision. That normally involves significant power to initiate within limits.

The board does not have "over sight". The set the goals and purpose of the charity in line with the registered aims of the charity.

The CE is employed to execute them, within the terms of the aims and the budget allowed, as instructed to by the Trustees.

And if there was a process by which an additional piece of work or campaign is undertaken, it certainly shouldn't arise out of someone who has a conflict of interest in not only suggesting it as important for the charity to undertake it, but in executing it because of theirpersonal involvement.

Remember the criticisms of how Kids Company and Camila Batmanghelidjh?

No. Are you suggesting SBS has stopped serving everyone else and is funneling all resources to their executive director?

No. That's why I didnt mention SBS, or even what the group of people the charity might be supporting. Also there's no mention of legal action.
Its almost like I might be referring to something else........

My question was aimed not at SBS at all, but where your moral boundaries around charities and the the behaviour of their employees lied.

I asked the question because you said this:
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.

It made me think you might be ok with charity CEOs keeping the money for themselves, so I wanted to find out from you what your position was.

But your answer was "no", and we agree on this.

The board does have oversight. They set goals and purpose and then provide oversight of how that is executed.

As I’ve pointed out, this is within the stated purpose of the charity, and the charity already engage in activism through the making of statements of support so budget already available. The board may well have considered it, especially at the point at which they were considering funding the judicial review. For statements of support they may have a committee or Taha may just need to advise the Chair. The board, or a sub committee may well have considered the ethical issues and decided it was a good opportunity for the charity. There are plenty of ways this could have gone ahead in a manner that would not be of concern to the Charity Commission (which was your question). They may not be the choices you would make if you were involved (nor me, I suspect), but there is plenty of scope for charities to not be perfect and still not be subject to censure.

And yes, I remember the criticism of Kids Company - and that the Charity Commission did not agree with much of it. I also don’t think the actions engaged in here amount to anything like the scope of the concerns of that organization.

I haven’t said I agree with the way Taha and SBS are acting in this scenario. I’m much more straightlaced and see value in separation and the ability to claim the high ground. I’m simply pointing out that that isn’t a universal value for how charities should act, especially grassroots charities and those engaged in activism. There are several schools of thought and the Charity Commission doesn’t just subscribe to one. So the idea the Charity Commission should necessarily be concerned about this without some evidence of pressure or deception or act of bad faith is, in my opinion, totally unfounded. And that’s the only point I’ve been trying to make.

There are plenty of ways this could have gone ahead in a manner that would not be of concern to the Charity Commission (which was your question).

No that isn't my question and never was. You have presumed to think so.

I am saying based on my experience of voluntary and charity organisations, that a board of trustees would never have allowed an individual to influence what they said or did, when there would be a conflict of interest in doing that. Any more than they would accept the bid from a provider because the provider was a private enterprise of the employee.

The most important thing for the Trustees is the public perception of the organisation.

And that is why the parrallel's with Kid's Company. ie that it becomes identified with an individual rather than with its actual work.

I’m simply pointing out that that isn’t a universal value for how charities should act, especially grassroots charities and those engaged in activism.

In fact it is exactly the opposite. Tthese type of charities are subjected to far higher scrutiny for the very reason that it is too easy for them to be seen to be under undue influence by one person.

@NumberTheory
I don't think it's anywhere near close to a concern for the Charity Comission right now. It's more an internal matter for SBS, and how it looks to the outside world.
I think the most important thing right now is the evidence presented during the trial. There seems to be two parallel schools of thought going on.
1 ) Racism is at play. Not from the racist woman, that's accepted, but in the wider sense of the system, police, justice etc.....
2 ) There's two sides to every story. What is the whole story?

If the police have behaved in a racist manner I hope they get held to account. It won't be the first time. But for me there's elements of this story that make me think it's best to see all the evidence before jumping on a bandwagon. People of every skin colour can be right twats when it suits them. A child caught with their fingers in the cookie jar will swear blind the dog made them do it. For many of us that never changes during our entire lives.

I’m sorry if I’ve misunderstood your question. I thought you were concerned about the Charity Commission because you specifically mentioned them.

I disagree with you that a board would or should necessarily decide not to involve itself in an issue just because the central characters are heavily involved in the organization, though many would.

As I’ve said in other posts on this thread, there is more than one school of thought on how, particularly grassroots and activist organizations, should engage. A board’s first consideration isn’t public perception, it’s the furtherance of the mission. Public perception is often crucial, but the perception of local supporters may be more crucial than wider perception in a grassroots organization. And the opportunity to personalise activism through the use of someone who does not mind being named and put in the limelight, or might be known to supporters and so encourage engagement, may be seen as an opportunity worth some risk.

I think there are plenty of boards, especially of organizations that aren’t local or that get most funding from corporate or national sources, that would baulk at this sort of engagement, but I don’t think that’s the only reasonable way for a board to respond.

Agreed. I wouldn’t want to pass judgement on a trial without seeing the evidence!

I can see that if your grass roots community which simultaneously receives and provides your services sees this issue in a very specific way, the charity could justify promoting that perception.

To use the two perspectives laid out by PP, if the entire community of the SBS believes there is racism in play, then it would seem outrageous for SBS not to proclaim the same.
The two sides perspective may well look rational from where I'm standing, but would not to the community. Waiting to back the women up would appear locally as dereliction of duty.

Tricky though. I am uneasy about a type 1 perspective in all circumstances. In safeguarding, you can't always back the person in your community. It's made me wary.

. A board’s first consideration isn’t public perception, it’s the furtherance of the mission.

Their first consideration must be good governance. Not least because they have personal legal responsibilities in this matter. Ones that are not simply the concern of the Charities Commission.

A good blog to covering board and director responsibilities:

https://www.legalfeminist.org.uk/2023/02/06/governance-and-groupthink/

SBS is a service provider.

It recieves funding from central sources.

it is not a local campaign group.

It have used it experience of helping women from Black and other Ethnic communities to then campaign for changes to the law, eg the one I mentioned above, resources for women experiencing DV but have no recourse to public funds.

This has involved instigating legal action, and have often been sucessful.

As far as I am aware (and if it has happened it has not been made public) they have never acted for or campaigned for an individual women who have said the way police responded to them was racist.

And giving their primary client group I have not doubt that amongst them there are many women who have experienced this.

So in taking a position on an active court case because it involves one of their employees is not in line with their existing practice.

If in the future because they have responded on the basis of who the individual is, they then say they will take up court cases brought by the police against a woman who alleges that the fact of the prosecution is because of police racism, it may go some way to mitigate what could well be reputational damage for the organisation that currently works with statutory bodies including the police to help women access their services.

SBS is not some tiny unknown local community group. It is one of the best known of the number of women's service providers.

Which doesn't mean it cant decide to be less of a service provider and more of a campaign group, but in doing that will not have access to the funds that many women's support groups can apply for.

A meeting has been called to discus the case (before it is heard in court?) if anyone is interested.

https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/public-meeting-on-institutional-racism-the-criminalisation-of-black-women-tickets-918936412547

Thank you for posting about the event. Just signed up.

Sounds like it's more generally about the criminalising of black women than discussing details of the case.

Sounds like it's more generally about the criminalising of black women than discussing details of the case.

Hope you are right.

I think as I've said before, I am not questioning their analysis and lived experience police racism.

And dont want them to be silenced.

But am concerned that if the court takes the view that they have "politicised" (ignoring that this is what the status quo does) there could be further consequences.

But thinking back a few decades, or whenever pre internet was, I am sure leafleting by groups who felt a court action was political / based on discrimination, they probably weren't in fact much different to this.

The recording of the meeting is now available on line at

There's a trial set for next week.

x.com/sbsisters/status/1808157120522555755?s=46&t=p6GESSn09HWHVXYgTLIbJg

Yes I think the trial date was set some time ago, but what is significant in this announcement is that the CPS has dropped the racially aggravate charges!

For those not on twitter, the text of the statement is here https://southallblacksisters.org.uk/news/update-violent-racist-attack-on-selma-taha-and-friends-3/

The have also put out an appeal for witnesses https://southallblacksisters.org.uk/news/appeal-for-witnesses

There was an interesting and quite detailed article in the Voice which I forgot to post at the time.

But no find it is no longer available.

I think there is also an appeal for money but obviously cant post link.

What do you you expect him to do. He’s no radio, no cuffs, no back up, no vehicle, no one else is intervening so the officers is clearly on their own. He was off duty. Your expectations are unrealistic.

Yes, I saw the appeal for witnesses over six months after the event.

So, there wasn't enough evidence for the CPS to pursue the racially aggravated and public order charges, the first of which the CPS added to the charge sheet, I believe.

Yes it did seem strange to appeal so late after the event, but it maybe that that appeal and the possibilities of witnesses meant they dropped the racially aggravated charge.

It is just strange the way it has been happening in the public sphere.

Which was my worry in the first instance, but it maybe that that approach has helped.

Yes, it seems to. Harriet Wistrich is a veteran of these types of cases - her book 'Sister in law' is fantastic, so they'll have had the best advice about how to approach it.