Chapter 9.3: Racism
Introduction
We start by stating the obvious,
There is a very long history linking British policing with mistreatment of, and prejudice against, Black and ethnic minority communities. [p286]
The Review briefly describes the Macpherson Inquiry and its conclusion that the Met was 'institutionally racist' [p287]. It acknowledges that the Met 'is very different to the force of the 1990s in many ways' [p287] but also notes that it 'continues to be described by some as institutionally racist' [p287] and that in recent years the Met has begun to deny the presence of institutional racism in its organisation.
Racism and its persistence in the Met
The Review recognises that 'the same themes emerge regularly in the many past inquiries and investigations into racism in the Met' [p288] and says it has also found these issues. They are:
Diversity within the workforce - the Met still doesn't represent the population it serves and at current recruitment rates it would take 40 years before it does, 10 years more than to meet equality for women.
The key issue here is that nothing that the Met has done or is currently planning to do that will change this position in the near future. [p288]
Professional standards - Black, Asian and ethnic minority officers and staff routinely face discrimination. The Review's Interim Report on misconduct (discussed in
Chapter 7) found 'evidence of systemic racial bias' [p288].
‘Under-protection’ - Areas with higher minority populations see a more active Met police presence yet this doesn't result in better protection - the opposite is true and 'victimisation is in fact higher for certain crimes' [p289].
'Over-policing’ and disproportionate use of powers against certain communities - Black, Asian and ethnic minority Londoners are subjected to higher rates of stop and search, the use of force, strip searches, injuries and deaths during interactions with Met police compared to white Londoners.
These issues broadly fall into either the internal culture of the Met, or how the Met treats its own people of colour; or the external face of the Met, or how the Met interacts with different communities in London.
The two issues are inextricably linked. On one hand, how Black, Asian, and ethnic minority communities are represented at all levels of the Met workforce impacts how the Met understands, engages with and makes decisions affecting different communities.
On the other, how the Met treats its officers and staff of colour impacts on how different communities view and interact with the organisation, as well as informing decisions such as whether they want to join the police. [p289]
The Met’s workforce; the internal culture
Recruitment and representation
Black, Asian and ethnic minority groups are under-represented in all police forces, and the Met is actually the best in terms of representation, which is a very depressing statistic. Numbers have improved, with Black, Asian, and ethnic minority officers increasing from 10% of the workforce in 2012 to 17% in 2022. But for Black, Asian, and ethnic minority women the figures are much worse, with a 3% increase in the same time period, making up only 5% of Met officers in 2022. There are much smaller fluctuations in the numbers of Black, Asian, and ethnic minority officers being recruited compared to the broader population.
This means that more recruitment of Met officers has not automatically resulted in more candidates from ethnically diverse backgrounds. [p291]
For the final time in the Review we have their survey results to see whether that under-representation is recognised. 49% of Met employees think that Black people are under-represented in the organisation. 83% of Black respondents think this compared to 47% of White respondents. A survey of Londoners found similar results - overall 51% think that Black people are under-represented, 72% of Black Londoners think this and 46% of White Londoners do.
The Met have repeatedly acknowledged a lack of diversity as both a challenge and a priority. There have been various initiatives designed to reduce disparity....
Having initiatives designed to attract greater ethnic diversity... has been a positive step by the Met. However, rather than acknowledging the importance of these initiatives, a view has been allowed to emerge in some officers, including some of those at a senior level, that standards have been lowered to attract more diverse officers into the force. [p292, my emphasis]
This comment by an anonymous contributor is indicative of this view,
“There is a disproportionate number of people leaving the job from underrepresented groups: is because they were recruited but never stood a chance or are we inherently racist? Think it’s the former.” [p292]
This is an argument anyone who's done any work in DEI initiatives will be familiar with and it's bollocks. But repeat a lie enough times and people will believe it,
This has translated into a myth that is repeated in the organisation, so much so that officers at different ranks in the organisation felt comfortable repeating it in the company of their colleagues who are from a Black, Asian and ethnic minority background, officers and members of the Review team. [p292]
The Review describes an interview His Majesty’s Inspector Matt Parr had with The Telegraph where he repeated these myths, calling them 'anecdotes'. The Met did nothing to challenge this narrative. The report has a quite glorious footnote about this,
Mr Parr has asked the Review to explain that the words quoted were ones he had heard anecdotally; HMICFRS has not inspected on this topic and Mr Parr had no evidence that standards were being lowered [p292, my emphasis]
The Review goes on to the describe the 'huge challenge' that the Met faces to improve diversity and fully reflect the communities it serves. As with all the other minority groups the Review has examined, the Met is ill-equiped to even understand the scale of the task before it.
The Met does not appear to have made any assessment of what is achievable, or what additional steps might be needed to address the deficit in its workforce’s reflection of Londoners...
If the problem is that the Met cannot meet its diversity aspirations, then it is even more important that it overhauls how it works with and polices the communities of London. It must ask itself searching questions about why it is so difficult to attract talent from London’s diverse pool of talents.
The Met also needs to be proactive in countering corrosive myths about the quality of diverse recruits, and it needs to do so right from the top of the organisation. [p293, my emphasis]
Progression
As with women, there is a lack of career progression for Black, Asian, and ethnic minority officers. If you're a Black, Asian, or ethnic minority woman your chance of progress is even more limited.
In 2021-22 Black, Asian, and ethnic minority women made up less than 2% of Superintendents and 3% Inspectors in the Met. As of 31 December 2022, there are no female Black, Asian or ethnic minority Chief Superintendents in the Met. [p295, my emphasis]
Black, Asian, and ethnic minority officers apply for promotion, are denied due to a "lack of experience" and then are denied opportunities to gain that experience. Those who do get promoted are assumed to have achieved it as a result of diversity initiatives rather than merit. And if you speak up about discrimination any lingering possibilities of promotion disappear.
Many Black, Asian, and ethnic minority officers reflected that those who put up with discrimination stood a greater chance of getting by. They said challenging discrimination or showing offence would stymie progress...
A former Met officer reflected:
"The ugly truth is that the organisation is riddled with racism – how much have
people like me acquiesced?" [p297]
Attrition
Unsurprisingly, attrition rates are higher for Black, Asian, and ethnic minority officers. The Review suspects that many are 'put off by a lack of progress' [p297].
Officers and staff also told us that the leadership, culture, and mission are leading some Black, Asian, and ethnic minority officers to consider leaving the Met. The Review heard from numerous people of colour who said they had had enough, and would be leaving at the first opportunity. [p297]
While resignation rates of probationers are low, Black, Asian, and ethnic minority probationers resign at double the rate of White probationers.
Officers can be served a notice if they are considered 'unsuitable for policing' [p298] termed a Regulation 13 notice. Dismissal as a result of a Regulation 13 notice is really low, but 'many probationers served with a Regulation 13 notice will, unsurprisingly, end up resigning.' [p298]. You will be unsurprised to hear that they are disproportionately served against Black, Asian, and ethnic minority probationers.
between 2018 and 2022, when compared with White officers:
- Black officers are 126% more likely to be subject to a Regulation 13 case
- Asian officers are 123% more likely
- Mixed ethnicity officers are 50% more likely. [p299]
The disciplinary system: grievances and misconduct
If a Met employee wants to report a concern about their treatment within the organisation they have two primary routes. If they think a colleague has breached standards of professional behaviour the have to raise an allegation of misconduct. If they think a colleague has problems with their work, working environment, or working relationships they raise a formal grievance.
Black, Asian, or Mixed ethnicity officers and staff were considerably more likely to raise a grievance than their White colleagues. [p300]
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) investigated the Met's handling of discrimination cases and published its report in 2016, finding 'significant weaknesses' [p300].
This included poor data collection and inconsistent application of legislation and policy. Overall, the report found a ‘general reluctance within the MPS to admit mistakes and apologise for them’.
It said that the policy requiring all claims of discrimination to be escalated to misconduct meant there was a widely held perception that raising a discrimination grievance would lead to the complainant being the subject of formal and informal victimisation within the organisation.
Due to poor data, the report could not conclude whether there was indeed any victimisation of those who made discrimination grievances. The report concluded that the perception was sufficiently widely and strongly held to suppress these grievances being made. [p300]
While Black, Asian, or Mixed ethnicity officers and staff were far more likely to raise a grievance than their White colleagues, Black, Asian, or Mixed ethnicity officers and staff were far more likely to be the subject of a misconduct allegation, and these allegations were more likely to result in a 'case to answer' decision.
It has not been possible for the Review to connect the grievance data to the misconduct data, as the Met’s misconduct data only shows information on the person complained about, and grievance data only shows information on the complainant. However, the disproportionate representation of Black, Asian, and Mixed ethnicity Met employees in misconduct cases raises questions around the grievance process as well. [p302]
I think they suspect that officers who raise a formal grievance are more likely to face retribution by having misconduct allegations made against them.
The disproportionality within the front-end of the misconduct system, reflected in the number of allegations, is a now a well-established fact. MOPAC, the EHRC, and the NPCC have all reached this same conclusion. [p303]
The explanation provided to the Review was that managers are 'ill-equipped to have informal conversations about poor performance or practice' [p303] and are scared of being accused of being racist if they challenge the behaviour of Black, Asian, or another ethnic minority officers so rely on the formal system to manage concerns.
The report notes that it's 'entirely possible' [p303] that poor management tools has resulted in the disproportionate number of Black, Asian, and ethnic minority officers entering the formal system. But it notes that this overlooks two potential alternative explanations:
1) Too few allegations against White officers and greater leniency shown to those who do have allegations made;
2) Allegations being made against Black, Asian, and ethnic minority officers as punishment 'when they raise their head above the parapet to call out poor behaviour' [p303]
Like the EHRC, who tried to test this theory of victimisation in grievances, the Review has found the data available is also too poor when it comes to misconduct. Whilst details on the subject of a misconduct complaint are well-recorded, details on the person making the complaint are not. [p304]
The Review also notes that allegations of racism and discrimination aren't taken seriously (supporting their first alternative explanation).
We found further evidence of this in the misconduct system. Allegations regarding race and faith-based discrimination are poorly recorded. But from what we can see, they are less likely than other allegations to have a ‘case to answer’ found.
The Review has been told by many officers of colour of direct experiences of racism or discrimination which has resulted in inappropriate action, or no action at all. [p304-305]
Experience of racism in the Met
Black, Asian, and ethnic minority officers routinely face discrimination from their colleagues and superiors. They have been subjected to stop and search, even after joining the Met.
One officer recounted,
“I have been stopped and asked for ID on multiple occasions inside police stations. I understand the need for security but the amount is abnormal. I have been mistaken for a lawyer or FME [force medical examiner] or a prisoner (despite being in suits) on numerous occasions and on one occasion I was actually reviewed by an inspector in custody who thought I was a prisoner he had to complete a PACE [Police and Criminal Evidence] review on!” [p305-306]
White officers express racist sentiments openly, even around their Black, Asian, and ethnic minority colleagues. The Black Lives Matter protests in 2020 exacerbated the divide between White and Black, Asian, and ethnic minority employees.
Their experiences make it difficult for ethnic minority officers to recommend other people of colour to join the Met. Many ethnic minority officers told us that they are doubly isolated: Isolated at work by virtue of their colour; and isolated in their community by virtue of having joined the Met. [p308]
The Met and Black Londoners
'The Peelian notion of policing by consent relies on trust' [p308] yet trust in the Met has fallen below 50% for Black and mixed ethnicity Londoners.
As Macpherson said:
Seeking to achieve trust and confidence through the demonstration of fairness will not in itself be sufficient. It must be accompanied by a vigorous pursuit of openness and accountability across Police Services.
This statement shows that procedural justice, while important, is not sufficient. The organisation needs to be transparent and accountable for its mistakes, able to accept challenge, and prepared to hold itself to a higher standard. [p311]
In the immediate aftermath of the Macpherson report there were efforts to improve things for Black and other ethnic minority groups which had a positive impact for a 'couple of years' [p311] but things have stalled.
Under-protection of Black communities
Despite being subjected to substantially higher levels of policing in London, Black Londoners remain considerably more likely to be the victims of several serious and violent crimes than White Londoners. This leads to the view that London’s communities of colour are both over-policed and under-protected. [p312]
There's a bunch of horrifying statistics about how Black people are more likely to be victims of violent crimes including rape, domestic abuse and murder.
And in every year since at least 2002-03, Black people were at least twice as likely to be the victim of a homicide. The most recent data shows Black people were nearly six times more likely to be murdered in London. [p312]
MOPAC does satisfaction surveys of Londoners who are victims of crimes. They found that Black, Asian, and ethnic minority people have consistently lower satisfaction levels and those who report hate crimes were the least satisfied. 'This has remained consistent over time.' [p313]
Hate crimes are increasing, but are under-reported.
When it is reported, the conviction rate for racially motivated crimes has been lower in the Met (66% in 2020) than for England and Wales (71%). t has been gradually rising, but this is in the context of plummeting proportions of racially motivated crimes reaching trial in the first place. Between 2010 and 2020 there was a 44% decrease in volume of racially motivated crimes reaching trial in the Met. [p314]
While Macpherson has improved the way that the Met recognises and responds to racist incidents, the Met still fails Black, Asian and minority ethnic Londoners.
Black Londoners have continuously made allegations against Met officers at a much higher rate than any other ethnic group relative to their population. Black Londoners make 26% of complaints when they make up only 13.5% of the population. There was also an increase in the volume of complaints linked to race discrimination in 2020-21. [p316]
Use of powers: Stop and search, and ‘every contact leaves a trace’
There is 'widespread support' for stop and search among the public, but this support is not even. 77% of White people support stop and search while only 53% of Black people do.
The Met Police make the greatest use of stop and search powers of any force in the country. They consistently account for 40-50% of all stops carried out in England and Wales. Stop and search is deeply embedded in the Met’s culture. [p316, my emphasis]
In 2020, '1 in 4 Black males aged 15-24 in London were stopped and searched in a three-month period] [p317]. This is about the same level described in the Macpherson report over 20 years ago.
The Met accepts it uses stop and search disproportionately but explains that they target high crime areas which tend to be areas where Black people live. It even claims it's helping Black people,
It has also said that the Met is saving young Black lives by using stop and search in the way they do, as young Black boys and men are not only more likely carry a knife, but also more likely to suffer from someone else using that knife. [p317]
Despite their intentions, the reality is that between 70-80% of stop and searches lead to no further action, and the more that are done the more that result in no further action. Drugs are the main reason people are stopped and searched, then theft, then weapons. Only 12% of stop nd searches lead to arrest, ranking the Met 31 out of 44 forces in England and Wales in terms of arrest rate. Research published in 2019 showed that stop and search is ineffective,
Overall, our analysis of ten years’ worth of London-wide data suggests that although stop and search had a weak association with some forms of crime, this effect was at the outer margins of statistical and social significance. We found no evidence for effects on robbery and theft, vehicle crime or criminal damage, and inconsistent evidence of very small effects on burglary, non- domestic violent crime and total crime. When we looked separately at S.60 searches [Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 that allows an officer to stop and search someone without the need for suspicion], it did not appear that a sudden surge in use had any effect on the underlying trend in nondomestic violent crime. [p318-319]
The Review notes that a
systematic review published this year found evidence of crime reduction but the costs in terms of increasing levels of distrust and negative attitudes towards police outweighed the marginal benefits and concluded "Existing scientific evidence does not support the widespread use of [police stops] as a proactive policing strategy" [p319]
The Review 'heard numerous examples of stop and search being carried out badly on Londoners from Black, Asian ethnic minority backgrounds' including examples were officers were admitted to racial profiling, were rude and used excessive force, humiliating those being subjected to the stop and search.
the Met’s response, both to these examples and to complaints, was to focus on whether the search was lawful, rather than considering whether it was done well, or fairly, or examining the impact on the person being searched and their view of the police.
In a system of policing by consent, considering whether an act was lawful or not is not sufficient. [p320, my emphasis]
Officers routinely told the Review 'they understood that ‘every contact leaves a trace’ [p320] but they found no evidence 'the Met has built this approach to its application of stop and search as a crime fighting tool.' [p320]
The Review was unable to identify any indications that the Met had explored the impact of stop and search on the trust and confidence of Londoners, especially the young Black men who are disproportionately the victims and perpetrators of police recorded violence in London. [p320]
The Met hasn't considered that their approach could mean that people in communities targeted by stop and search are less likely to help the police in either prevention or solving of crimes. Instead of recognising that the problem with stop and search is that it targets groups unfairly, doesn't reduce crime and harms relationships with communities, they seem to think the problem is that the public just doesn't understand what they're trying to do properly. It's very reminiscent of the
deficit model of science communication.
This is an example of how the Met engages with the public. The belief is that it is for the public to understand the Met better, not for the Met to listen or understand public concerns regarding stop and search.
Attempts on the part of MOPAC to hold the Met to account and understand better their approach to stop and search, have been met with resistance. [p321]
They use the example of a joint Met and MOPAC Body-Worn Video Camera research project which is a complete shitshow. It was first discussed in 2018, but wasn't announced until 2020 when they finally agreed on the project's aims and terms of reference. That wasn't the end of the disagreements and the Met finally agreed the project could proceed as a pilot in February 2021 as long as they were the only ones to access and code the footage. Training was scheduled to begin in summer 2021 but didn't get going until December due to staff illness and abstractions. Coding of videos took place in the first three months of 2022 and the first meeting of the Advisory Group took place. The data was given to MOPAC in July 2022.
When MOPAC reviewed the work, they found huge variation across coders’ level of detail and on key information including use of Taser, use of PAVA,235 subjects fleeing the scene, and subjects in possession of a weapon. Officers were often coding the same encounter in very different ways. MOPAC held debrief sessions with the Met in October 2022 to discuss the issues, but the Review was told only four of the initial 20 coders attended, some of whom had not done any coding. In November 2022 MOPAC paused the project indefinitely as they were unable to fully understand or address the coding variation or amend the coding framework without the ability to review the footage. [p322]
Discussions took place between the Met and MOPAC at the beginning of 2023 to try and find a solution. A further meeting took place in February but MOPAC weren't even invited.
Stop and search is currently deployed by the Met at the cost of legitimacy, trust and, therefore consent. To date, the Met has been unable to explain clearly enough why its use is justified on the scale it uses it, and in the manner and way it is carried out, particularly on Black Londoners. It has damaged trust. If the Met is unable to explain and justify its disproportionate use and the impacts of these, then it needs a fundamental reset. [p322, my emphasis]
Use of Force
Black people are far more likely to be handcuffed, beaten with a baton or tasered than White people. Every independent review finds disproportionate use of force against Black and ethnic minority people.
The Review’s own data shows significant levels of disproportionality. When sharing our findings with the Met, the Review was informed that they had conducted their own internal analysis in December 2020 that reached a very different conclusion – little to no ethnic disproportionality. [p324]
They found this by looking at the ethnic composition of people in custody, rather than of London itself.
Using the custody population as a baseline for understanding potential disproportionality in the Met’s use of force is concerning for several reasons. By trying to assess ethnic proportionality of “the types of people our officers encounter in situations that could lead to the use of force” assumes no disproportionality or bias exists in any and all encounters the Met have with the public. Using the custody population as a proxy for these “types of people” assumes there is no disproportionality or bias in the make-up of this population, including how and why they (and not others) were arrested and taken into custody in the first place. For this reason, we do not accept the results of this analysis. [p325]
Strip searching children: ‘adultification’
This section begins by discussing the Child Q case, which
we discussed here. To summarise, a 15 year old girl was strip searched by two Met officers in her school because she smelled of weed. Racism was determined to be a factor in the decision to strip search her in a Local Child Safeguarding Practice Review. There's an ongoing IOPC investigation into the officers which means that the Review can't comment on the incident. But they can discuss the results of and Office of the Children’s Commissioner investigation into the issue of strip searching children. They found that between 2018 and 2020 the Met strip searched 650 children, a quarter of whom were between 10 and 15 years old and that Black children were disproportionately strip searched.
Of these 650 searches:
- In 23% of instances an Appropriate Adult was not present
- In 53% of instances no further action was taken
- In more than half of the searches the location was not recorded. [p326]
The prevalence of widespread racial disproportionality in intimate searches lends weight to the claim that ‘adultification’, where Black children are treated as adults and as a threat, therefore justifying greater use of force or intrusive interventions, is present in the Met. [p326]
The Review heard of a child who told a 'non-police safeguarding professional' [p326] that they had got involved in a gang but wanted to leave, and were carrying a knife for protection. Later, they told that same professional they'd been assaulted by an adult. The professional contacted the police, who ended up arresting the child.
“We completely lost him, he totally disengaged. He lost trust in the safeguarding professional, he didn't trust the authorities.” [p326]
At the beginning of this year the Runnymede Trust recommended that the power of strip searching children be removed, and all Safer Schools Officers be withdrawn from schools 'due to the disproportionate impacts on Black and ethnic minority communities and their failure to support a safer school environment.' [p327]
While the Met recognises individual cases of 'procedural mistakes and policy breeches' [p327] it is unwilling to 'interrogate whether there are broader issues around race, desensitisation and systemic bias towards Black children.' [p327]
It is symptomatic of the Met’s approach to understanding, recognising, and responding to allegations of racism within its ranks. [p327]
Black Londoners and lack of trust
The low levels of trust and confidence in the Met among Black and Mixed ethnicity Londoners are a result of years of failings.
We heard from Black Londoners about a deep mistrust of the Met resulting from years of over-policing and under-protection. The Met deals with each incident by explaining the lawfulness or correctness of a procedure, but it ignores a much wider and deeper experience.
Lack of trust is generational. While many families teach their children that police are there to keep you safe, many Black Londoners have to teach their children something different: that they should avoid contact with the police in case they are stopped or searched without cause. With each generation, that mistrust deepens. [p327, my emphasis]
Conclusion
The Review concludes that, 'the findings in this chapter are not new' [p329]. The racism encountered by employees of the Met and the people they purport to serve have long been known.
These point to a collective and continued failure by the Met to understand, accept and address the existence of racism at all levels in the organisation. We have found complacency in the Met to tackle problems, a lack of curiosity about what people of colour are telling them; and a wilful blindness to seeing the evidence all around them, within and outside the Met...
We have found institutional racism in the Metropolitan Police. [p329, my emphasis]