Rising East Online

Multiculturalism and the ‘war on terror’

Stating The Obvious and Re-stating The Problem

—Lennie Pothecary

Everyone is different, eats different food, wears different clothes, has different beliefs.

This is a fact of life that the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) has just recognised. Having recognised it, the MPA has drawn up an action plan oriented towards ‘increasing trust and confidence by responding to difference’. Towards this strategic objective, the plan contains seven, newly-identified tactical priorities including safer neighbourhoods (doesn’t this come with the Job?), counter-terrorism, protection and security (upgraded since 7/7), criminal networks (have they only just realised that criminals work together?), and capital city policing (since when was London not the capital city?).

OK, it’s fair to say that over the last couple of years London and the people in it have been changing fast, and a new set of policing strategies is needed to cope with these developments. But it is absurd to think that London will become ‘the Safest Major City in the world’ as a result of the re-invention of the wheel in this policy.

Another stumbling block is that the policy relies on public trust and confidence in the police, just at the time when these are at a low ebb, viz. the recent survey showing dissatisfaction with the police among 61.5 per cent of the population, and the media mauling of Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair. Mixed messages about the role of newly introduced support officers (a friendly face that lacks authority?) and their relationship to traditional police officers (big bad wolf?), have only served to widen the gap between public and police, and between different sections of the police force itself.

Internally, a tactic labelled Together is meant to improve the day-to-day workings of the police by inculcating the idea that everyone in the Met is to be regarded equally. By validating the role of support officers internally, it is hoped that external relations with the public will also see some improvement.

This may well bring some new life to the organisation, but improving esteem does not provide safer streets and less crime. This task falls to the other six tactics. These are intended to transform both the organisation and the view the public has of it, but the police are still struggling with the question of how to deal with difference in a coherent way.

Thank goodness they have noticed that not everyone in London is the same, that each community is comprised of a group of people with different needs which need to be acknowledged in different policing tactics. This is excellent! But with this emphasis on different communities, there is a concern that policing tailored to difference will not be advantageous to all. What if areas with crime rates are given careful attention while low crime areas are all but ignored? That won’t make for public trust and confidence either, any more than ignoring the differences between communities.

New policing methods are heavily reliant on community support, with free phone numbers, citizen panels etc. This is a good start, in my opinion, because at least it shows that the police do care and are prepared to engage with local people. But the philosophy of policing for difference – differential policing – does not make for consistency; and inconsistent application of authority, perceived or real, may lead to further erosion of the very trust which the MPA strategy aims to build up.

Lennie Pothecary is studying journalism

Return to top

---

© 2004·06