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/

Charges dropped today as no realistic prospect of a conviction.

https://southallblacksisters.org.uk/news/victory-for-the-kingscross3/

Giving the case some daylight seems to have been an effective strategy in focusing the minds of the CPS.

I did wonder if it was because of that, but really do wonder what the CPS were up to.

Most cases take months if not years to come to court. The CPS seem to have rushed this through, then adding an additional charge at the last minute and now, on the first day of what was meant to be the trial, they say there isn't enough evidence or something.

Makes you wonder if they are used to just pushing cases through assuming that no one will take any notice, but in this case because this became known they didn't want the scrutiny.

So my initial post about was it appropriate for a charity to take up the case of an employee hasn't really been answered, but irrespective of whether it is appropriate certainly seems to show it can be effective.

Both the statement from SBS and news reports still dont explain what the charges related to.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/tube-asasult-southall-black-sisters-london-northern-line-highbury-corner-court-b1169842.html

https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jul/10/southall-black-sisters-chief-racist-uk-legal-system-assault-case-collapses

I'd like to know why it was dropped - shit evidence that hadn't been reviewed properly?
Police not taking statements from all witnesses? CPS losing key evidence down the back of a locker? (happens more than they will ever admit)

Defence evidence undermining the prosecution? Providing statements the Police failed to gather?

Prosecution witnesses refusing to give evidence? Witnesses have left the country and no longer contactable?
Prosecution witnesses unreliability (ie convictions for perjury or similar).

So many possibilities and all very important elements to understand what's going on!

Or possibly should never have been charged in the first place?! I wish this was thoroughly investigated!

As servants of the public (joke) I would think they are obliged to make a clear statement.

There is such disparity with the way cases are referred to and accepted by the CPS, and then inexplicable delays (in most cases).

There is a reference to last minute information becoming available or something, but that is the same excuse they made for suddenly adding additional charges at the last hearing.

Or it is just as SBS have been saying that this just an example of a state institution that is institutionally racist.

And that’s the worry isn’t it? Unless things are clarified, ‘institutionally racist’ looks the most likely. While a counter narrative will run about being ‘too scared of being called racist’ to prosecute properly. Neither of which is an acceptable state of affairs.

And that’s the worry isn’t it? Unless things are clarified, ‘institutionally racist’ looks the most likely. While a counter narrative will run about being ‘too scared of being called racist’ to prosecute properly. Neither of which is an acceptable state of affairs.

The third being the one that seems to now be true of all institutions, whether police, cps, nhs, and all the rest.

If not total incompetence a system run by people who either dont know enough to do the job properly, or actually dont care.

Having watched the tv documentary about the 3 gay men murdered by the same man, that the local police did not investigate, until the sisters of one of the murdered men did their own investigation, a lot of what happens is the culture in the work place. ie decisions and (non) actions are taken on basis of what fits in best with what your work mates think.

And what your work mates think is shaped by the structural racism, sexism, homophobia, disablism and classism that society and it's institutions are based on and perpetuate.

So, yes 'institutional racism' does seem to be the driving factor. Any counter narrative about the police being scared of being accused of racism isn't really born out by the huge disparities in prosection experienced by black and other minoritised communities compared to white.

There being some sunlight on the CPS's charging decisions seems to be what made the difference in how this case played out.

And what your work mates think is shaped by the structural racism, sexism, homophobia, disablism and classism that society and it's institutions are based on and perpetuate.

Agreed but based on not just some family experience of the police, and confirmed by some of the threads on here, a police officer who can be quite low down in the pecking order, will not be challenged by a senior officer because it is accepted practice that whoever that sole officer is, is the only one who can decide whether an investigation or sending a case to the CPS goes ahead. (Remember the thread where someone being investigated was told the person in charge would be away for 2 or was it 3 months, and nothing would happen until they came back to work.)

So the immediate racism that influences how someone responds will be to fit in with the canteen culture.

Which doesn't mean I dont think the police like all other organisations isn't institutionally racist, but how it impacts on people under investigation is about the attitude of a lone officer or their team.

That's why all these stupid ideas that just get in the right head of the police and it will all stop is just rubbish.

The police hierarchy can make all sorts of grand statements about challenging racism, homophobia etc., but those on the front line just nod and then ignore.

As was the case with Wayne Couzens. His attitudes were shared by many he worked with. That's why he was never reported. And so he was free to then go and act on his violent attitudes towards women.

So more importantly what informs how the police respond to an individual is very much an indication of the society they grew up in.

The women concerned were interviewed on Women's Hour today.

I haven't listened so not sure how far into the programme it is.

But this is the link https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0020y6s

Another interview this time C4 news

As far as I can make out, but haven't re-listened it appears that the sudden introduction of a charge was because one of the women wouldn't accept a conditional discharge (that might not be the correct term) so they were told then it would lead to a trial.

So it seems that when the CPS saw what that was about, they felt it would stand up in court.

Best to listen to them explaining in their own words.

https://www.channel4.com/news/three-black-women-bitten-mocked-with-monkey-chants-called-slaves-and-then-prosecuted-for-self-defence

Nothing surprises me about the police. Had Selma not said who she was then the assailant would have gone on her way. But because they told the police officer they'd report him to the Commissioner suddenly they are accused of a public order offence. Pretty obvious who the police work for here. It worries me for the safety of my DD and DS and DGC.

Sorry for late night typo that changed the sense of what I was trying to say.

So it seems that when the CPS saw what that was about, they felt it would stand up in court.

So it seems that when the CPS saw what that was about, they felt it would not stand up in court.

SBS are holding a public meeting about this.

Empower, Not Oppress: Institutional Racism in the Criminal Justice System

A public meeting to raise awareness about Black women’s experiences of institutional racism in the criminal justice system

Southall Black Sisters are organising a public meeting to raise awareness about Black women’s experiences of institutional racism in the criminal justice system and the duality of over-policing and under-protection they are subjected to.

...

As a first step, the Met police must accept the findings of institutional racism and misogyny in the Casey Report. This must be accompanied by measures that build trust with Black, minoritised and migrant communities, including an end to discriminatory policing, the institution of safe reporting mechanisms such as a firewall, and increased data transparency disaggregated by ethnicity.

This public meeting is intended to be a collective call to action. We look forward to having you join the conversation.

Speakers Include:
Bell Ribeiro-Addy MP (Labour MP for Clapham and Brixton Hill)
Andy George (President, National Black Police Association)
Selma Taha (Executive Director, Southall Black Sisters)
Rajiv Menon KC (Joint Head, Garden Court Chambers)
Sarah Ricca (Partner, Deighton Pierce Glynn)
Symeon Brown (Correspondent, Channel 4 News)
Melissa Sigodo (Community Reporter, Daily Mirror)

Date: Wed, 18th September 2024
Venue: Conway Hall, 25 Red Lion St, London WC1R 4RL
Time: 6.30pm to 10pm
Join us from 6.30pm onwards for a 7pm meeting start. Reception to follow.

https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/empower-not-oppress-institutional-racism-in-the-criminal-justice-system-tickets-996127613507

THREE BLACK British women who say they were victims of a violent racist attack on the London Underground are set to take legal action following the dismissal of a court case against them.

Selma Taha, the executive director of Southall Black Sisters (SBS) along with her friends Danae Thomas and Divina Riggon, known to their supporters as #KingsCross3, were physically assaulted and subjected to vile racist verbal abuse from a White female passenger, while traveling from Camden Town to Kings Cross Underground station last year.

The three friends claim they were subjected to monkey sounds and were called “Black b***s” and “slaves”, while on the Northern Line on September 29 2023.

An off-duty Met Detective Constable was present in the same tube carriage but failed to intervene or de-escalate the incident.

Speaking to The Voice, just over a year on from the incident, two of the women insist they are the victims of an injustice and are calling for the off-duty officer to be held accountable for his lack of action.

“He did nothing until it became physical, extremely physical and that’s when he stepped in” Ms Taha said. “I was injured, there was no interest in him carrying out his duties to the extent that we expect of them.”

Continues at https://www.voice-online.co.uk/news/uk-news/2024/11/06/we-were-the-victims-kingscross3-seek-justice-after-racist-tube-attack-and-dropped-court-case/

I am not sure what the women verbally assaulted expected an off-duty policeman (the police are never really 'off duty', surely?) to do against a woman shouting at other women. Physical intervention would be difficult as it would amount to assault. Telling the woman to calm down would probably have escalated her abuse.

He did intervene when the abusive woman became physical, which means he was keeping a close eye on events. Indeed the one verifiable fact would appear to be that the off-duty policeman stopped the assault.
I am a bit curious about the insult 'slaves' being used by the abusive woman. This is not something a person in Britain (where slavery has not existed since c. 1100 CE and slavery itself is anathema) is liable to throw as an insult. If the policeman perceived that this was an incident between two non-ethnic groups he would have been even more reluctant to step in before things got physical because of the charge of racism likely to come from both sides.

He stopped the assault. The woman who carried out the assault was charged and accepted a caution. That's how the law works, the victims of assault say, and are angry not more was done. I feel for them, because it looks very much to me that a very unpleasant incident between 4 women was treated quite lightly - 'it's only some women having a spat' - but the attack on the off-duty policeman who stopped the physical assault seems unwarranted. It's the law that the victims should seek to change and attitudes to women irrespective of their ethnic origin.

This was discussed earlier in the thread, and from memory most said that an off duty police person has no responsibility to intervene.

The question could be asked of everyone else on the train.

But I assumed from the article that they are saying he didn't do anything because of racism.

But I can see why they want to challenge why they were charged as it appears from how quickly the case was withdrawn that there never was a chance of it having merit. But whether this was done to punish them for challenging the behaviour of the off duty police man, or just institutional racism, or done knowing it would never come to trial, but put the women through how ever many months it was before it was dimissed.

I suspect it was dropped because of the small chance of conviction. There is also the problem of not taking women's complaints seriously - but that's another can of worms.