Police chief constables are sleep-walking into one of the gravest threats to the impartiality of British policing we have ever seen. To act ‘without fear or favour’ has been the bedrock of this country’s policing since Sir Robert Peel established the Metropolitan Police almost 200 years ago. Yet, as the report published by Policy Exchange today shows, a cadre of naïve or political police chiefs have allowed an untenable position on so-called ‘staff networks’ to arise.
In February 2024, the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) recognised twelve national staff networks through their ‘national staff network definition’ policy document. These groups are divided based on ‘protected characteristics’ – although it would be almost as accurate to say that they are divided on sectarian grounds. They include the National Association of Muslim Police (NAMP), the National Sikh Police Association, the Hindu Police Association, the Christian Police Association, the Gypsy, Roma, Traveller Police Association and the National Black Police Association (NBPA).
My previous research into police staff networks, published in January 2023, found that in addition to these twelve national bodies, there are around 200 locally based networks operating in police forces across the country. If these groups restrained themselves merely to providing internal support to their members, it might be possible to dismiss them as being just one of the many activities which distract police officers from fighting crime and disorder on our streets. While still problematic, this could be tackled through effective police leadership at a local level. However, several of these bodies go way beyond such limited objectives.
These sectarian groups within policing should be in the last chance saloon
The National Association of Muslim Police has spent years lobbying for policy changes on highly contentious issues. As was previously revealed by my colleague Andrew Gilligan in these pages: in July last year, the NAMP published a policy paper which branded Zionism ‘one of the manifestations of anti-Muslim hatred’, described the Israel Defence Force as a ‘Zionist terrorist group’ and defended Hamas against ‘unverified stories about acts of violence’.
The NAMP has repeatedly sought to change the policies surrounding the terminology used as part of counter-terrorism policing. The Independent Review of Prevent by Sir William Shawcross found that NAMP figures and its force affiliates had promoted several individuals and organisations with ‘disturbing views or affiliations’ – including the Muslim Council of Britain and MEND. Successive governments have had a policy of non-engagement with both.
Despite NAMP’s lobbying on contentious matters and a track record of questionable associations, they are not the staff network for whom police chiefs reserve their greatest ire. When I speak with chief constables, that distinction instead goes to the National Black Police Association (NBPA) and their local force equivalents. The National Association of Muslim Police, meanwhile, gets a comparative free pass.
Why is this the case? Principally, it is because there is a belief amongst many senior police officers that the National Black Police Association and their force equivalents are troublemakers. With a long track record of commenting publicly on contentious matters – including stop and search, police accountability and the shooting by police officers of the criminal gangster Chris Kaba – the NBPA is seen as causing chaos, both publicly and within the ranks.
The National Association of Muslim Police, on the other hand, are more publicity-shy and perceived to operate in a more ‘orderly’ and ‘disciplined’ manner. The NAMP rarely comments in the media, restricting themselves to producing contentious policy papers they have no business publishing and involving themselves with individuals and organisations that no one in policing should be consorting with. As a result, this more private approach is seen by many police chiefs as being less problematic than the public activities of the Black Police Association.
This attitude of many chief constables – to view NAMP as a more attractive ‘partner’ – is, however, dangerously complacent. The National Police Chiefs’ Council are in the process of crafting policies which, if adopted by Chief Constables’ Council – policing’s overarching decision-making body – will permit the continued lobbying by staff networks on partisan political areas.
The latest draft of the NPCC’s ‘Operating Principles for National Staff Support Networks’, obtained by Policy Exchange through a freedom of information request, does not contain an absolute ban on these groups commenting on policy matters. Nor is there any requirement for these groups to be strictly impartial. In September last year, it was reported that a previous version of this document had said:
All members of the network must … remain impartial, which includes: not making public their views on government policy; not engaging in formal political debate in their network role and not engaging in activities that could be construed to be political.
Yet these impartiality standards appear to have been removed from the latest draft. Did the National Police Chiefs’ Council come under pressure to remove an impartiality requirement on staff networks? If so, from who? And why did they capitulate?
Neither do the problems with the NPCC’s draft operating principles end there. Police chiefs plan only to require that staff networks’ aims and objectives be merely ‘broadly consistent with the aim of the NPCC to “set direction in policing and drive progress for the public”‘. Why only ‘broadly consistent’? How much wiggle room does ‘broadly consistent’ provide staff networks with? Plenty. Previous track records suggest that at least some will fall foul of this meagre expectation, so what are the consequences and sanctions for staff networks which fail to comply? The NPCC policy gives little indication. Such toothlessness almost invites staff networks to cross the line with impunity.
These draft operating principles should be rejected by chief constables and by the government. Every police officer swears an oath to serve with impartiality and schedule 1 to the Police Regulations 2003 requires officers to ‘abstain from any activity likely to interfere with the impartial discharge of their duties’. Two years ago, in September 2024, His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services highlighted the risks here and yet some staff networks continue to push the boundaries at every turn.
The time has come to bring the existing version of police staff networks and the pursuit of their partisan interests to an end. There are two options available to chief constables: either abolish these groups or impose very strict limitations on their activities, with consequences for those who fail to comply. These sectarian groups within policing should be in the last chance saloon – if chief constables won’t put their own house in order, then the Home Secretary will need to do it for them.
Comments