I agree with your analysis. The Lawrence Inquiry findings, and the Government action plan which followed, were aimed less at tackling specific acts of racism, but more at addressing the ways in which organisations develop ways of working - and ways of thinking - which reflect the majority dominant interests in the organisation; and which disadvantage the minorities. It's about culture and how power is exercised. The public sector equality duties which followed were an attempt to shift those behaviours. But the duties have been applied in too transactional ways; and they were never properly understood by some senior leaders in the police and elsewhere.
Thanks for commenting Paul, we could have a chat offline. I agree with what you have said; I think we could explore what 'majority dominant interests in the organisation' means in practice. The police enforce some laws more than others for example and that could stem from a 'majority dominant interest'.
1. Until the term 'Institutional' is defined, it is not possible to form an accurate opinion of whether any organisation is institutionally biased. After 12 months on MPS DPS, I saw no policy or procedure designed to disadvantage a particular community.
2. Culture starts with the behaviour and values of its staff, and after facilitating discussion on this issue with over 1500 diverse officers and staff of the MPS as part of the NMfL programme, it was apparent that a handful of Black & Asian officers & staff believed the Met to be racist. The vast majority stated they received the vast majority of racism from the public, not colleagues. They also pointed out that Baroness Casey was very selective as to those she interviewed, limiting her encounters to those who had a negative perspective! Most considered that there were Met officers & staff with racist views but that the organisation was not systemmically racist, misogyinist or homophobic!
3. I received a 3 hour briefing on The Macpherson Report/Stephen Lawrence Murder investigation in 1997. It was a seriously flawed investigation, mainly due to the incompetence of the SIO. The 'examples' given of perceived racism by the officers in many cases concerned lacked merit, hence the reference to 'institutional' rather than 'overt' racism. I spoke to the daughter of the PC who was the FLO for Mr & Mrs Lawrence. He advised her that they were anti police from the outset, and he was unable to support them effectively as a consequence.
Thanks for the detailed reply, Simon. I really like your first point, because it is so relevant to the most recent reports re Daniel Morgan (a finding of institutional corruption) and Baroness Casey (findings of multiple institutional 'isms). The three reports use 'institutional' in precise but different ways; no wonder the public are confused. One of the serious consequences of the confusion is a lack of confidence in the police, which makes us all less safe.
I agree with your analysis. The Lawrence Inquiry findings, and the Government action plan which followed, were aimed less at tackling specific acts of racism, but more at addressing the ways in which organisations develop ways of working - and ways of thinking - which reflect the majority dominant interests in the organisation; and which disadvantage the minorities. It's about culture and how power is exercised. The public sector equality duties which followed were an attempt to shift those behaviours. But the duties have been applied in too transactional ways; and they were never properly understood by some senior leaders in the police and elsewhere.
Thanks for commenting Paul, we could have a chat offline. I agree with what you have said; I think we could explore what 'majority dominant interests in the organisation' means in practice. The police enforce some laws more than others for example and that could stem from a 'majority dominant interest'.
1. Until the term 'Institutional' is defined, it is not possible to form an accurate opinion of whether any organisation is institutionally biased. After 12 months on MPS DPS, I saw no policy or procedure designed to disadvantage a particular community.
2. Culture starts with the behaviour and values of its staff, and after facilitating discussion on this issue with over 1500 diverse officers and staff of the MPS as part of the NMfL programme, it was apparent that a handful of Black & Asian officers & staff believed the Met to be racist. The vast majority stated they received the vast majority of racism from the public, not colleagues. They also pointed out that Baroness Casey was very selective as to those she interviewed, limiting her encounters to those who had a negative perspective! Most considered that there were Met officers & staff with racist views but that the organisation was not systemmically racist, misogyinist or homophobic!
3. I received a 3 hour briefing on The Macpherson Report/Stephen Lawrence Murder investigation in 1997. It was a seriously flawed investigation, mainly due to the incompetence of the SIO. The 'examples' given of perceived racism by the officers in many cases concerned lacked merit, hence the reference to 'institutional' rather than 'overt' racism. I spoke to the daughter of the PC who was the FLO for Mr & Mrs Lawrence. He advised her that they were anti police from the outset, and he was unable to support them effectively as a consequence.
Thanks for the detailed reply, Simon. I really like your first point, because it is so relevant to the most recent reports re Daniel Morgan (a finding of institutional corruption) and Baroness Casey (findings of multiple institutional 'isms). The three reports use 'institutional' in precise but different ways; no wonder the public are confused. One of the serious consequences of the confusion is a lack of confidence in the police, which makes us all less safe.