Sir Mark Rowley has denied Elon Musk’s claim that the Met has been guilty of two-tier policing. He insists that the force acts impartially, without fear or favour. That may be his sincere intention, but he is up against a workplace culture pervaded by identity politics. A huge number of police officers are members of staff associations that seek to advance the special interests of their own racial or religious group. A working culture that is regularly infused with sectarian self-interest is not a good preparation for impartiality when serving the public. 

The Met told the London Assembly in March this year that there were about 20 staff associations representing identity groups, including the Association of Muslim Police, the British Association for Women in Policing, the Gypsy, Roma & Traveller Police Association, the Metropolitan Black Police Association, and the Metropolitan Police LGBT+ Network. The Met has been paying the full-time salary of an official in four of these groups so that they can concentrate solely on membership issues. 

The groups typically call for identity-based quotas in recruitment and promotions; and for the encouragement of hate-crime reporting that affects members of their own identity group in the wider society. 

It’s been the reality for several years. In 2004, the National Black Police Association called on the Government to set quotas to increase the number of black police officers. The Association said that ministers should take “affirmative action”, to ensure that a set number of posts at all ranks of the police service would be reserved for black candidates, as well as ensuring that when two potential candidates “of similar standard enter the pool… a black or Asian officer” should be considered first. 

The National Association of Muslim Police has campaigned to alter police counter-terrorism strategy, arguing that Muslims were being unfairly picked on. It submitted what it thought was a secret memo to the House of Commons Home Affairs select committee and said on its website that it was “deeply disappointed” to discover that the memo had been made public. In its statement it goes on to call for more Muslim police officers to be appointed to senior positions in counter-terrorism command. 

Some ethnic or religious groups are said to be happier to be policed by people who “look like” them. Already some Muslim men, for example, have let it be known that they do not like being bossed around by women. During the recent riots Muslim protesters in Birmingham were allowed to police their own demo, leading to a serious assault. A police officer told a Sky news reporter that officers had spoken to “community leaders” and the “communities” were trying to make sure that the counter-protest “was policed within themselves”. 

Identity groups are represented at the highest level in police decision making

In truth, the police have never been representative of the social or ethnic breakdown of society. Officers have been selected because of their personal qualities. So long as that remains true, then every officer is entitled to respect, whether black or white, male or female, gay or straight. The legitimacy of the police has nothing to do with the racial or religious composition of the force. Even if every police officer were non-white it would be irrelevant so long as they all deserved to wear the uniform because they possessed the personal integrity, impartial temperament, and courage required of a good officer. 

Identity groups are represented at the highest level in police decision making. The National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC) has a Race, Religion and Beliefs Group, which meets with identity groups, and there is also a Police Association Strategic Leaders (PASL) group for leaders of police staff associations. It was formed in 2016 with the blessing of the Home Office to bring together “the full spectrum of police faith, race, disability, sexuality and gender groups to share their unique perspectives and work collectively”. 

Police officers are forbidden to go on strike or join a trade union. The 1996 Police Act says that officers must not be members of any trade union aiming “to control or influence the pay, pensions or conditions of service of any police force”. That task is reserved for the Police Federation whose job is to represent members in all matters affecting their welfare and efficiency, except for questions of promotion or discipline affecting individuals. However, the Federation may represent an officer at disciplinary proceedings. Despite these unambiguous limitations, the identity-based staff associations concern themselves with promotions and discipline. 

Impartiality is repeatedly mentioned as the primary obligation of the police officer by the Police Federation. Its regular publication “The Office of Constable” highlights in bold: “Every constable is an independent legal entity; the public’s guarantee of impartiality.” According to the “quick guide” to police regulations, also published by the Police Federation: “Members must abstain from any activity which is likely to interfere with the impartial discharge of duty or is likely to give rise to the impression that the activity may do so.”

No doubt with the intention of ensuring that even the impression of bias is not given, police officers are also required not to take an active part in politics. Moreover, to prevent them from coming under improper social pressure in their private lives, they must not live in premises without the approval of their chief officer. If a member is in accommodation provided by the police, the chief officer’s permission is required to have a lodger. If an officer (or a close relative) has, or proposes to have, a business interest, he or she must give written notice to the chief officer who will determine whether or not the interest is compatible with remaining a member of the force. 

It is not only a crime for a police officer to belong to a trade union, it is also a criminal offence to stir up controversy within the police. Section 91 of the 1996 Act prohibits “causing disaffection” in the police. Not only do identity-based staff association campaign on matters denied to the Police Federation, notably promotions and discipline, they engage in wider political campaigns. 

How should the government and local forces respond to the rise of identity-based sectarianism within the police? Sir Mark Rowley should start by putting on record how many identity-based staff associations there are, and how many officers are members of each. He should explain how a workplace in which the special interests of identity groups are so prominent can be expected to encourage officers to act without “favour or affection, malice or ill will”, in the words of the pre-2002 oath of attestation sworn by constables.