What is the West Midlands Police up to?
Following the vindication of the Channel 4 Dispatches documentary Undercover Mosque covered in the The Times (twice), The Telegraph, The Sun, The Daily Mail, The Guardian, and the BBC, it is perhaps worth reviewing some of the background.
Let’s start with one of the subjects of the documentary itself, Abu Usamah At-Thahabi, who was filmed saying “If I were to call homosexuals perverted, dirty, filthy dogs who should be murdered, that’s my freedom of speech, isn’t it?”.
“I totally embrace and encourage a police investigation because I do not believe that the security forces will have any hidden agenda in which they will allow themselves to be swayed by Channel Four’s sensationalist journalism.”
[…]
Abu Usamah At-Thahabi said he would provide the police with DVDs of his lectures.“Let the authorities get involved in the investigation and get to the bottom of this matter in which I was quoted out of context,” he said.
The man was right. The security forces certainly didn’t have a secret agenda to be swayed by Channel Four, they appear to have been more swayed by him.
A West Midlands Police press release was issued and a CPS lawyer, Bethan David, was quoted:
“The splicing together of extracts from longer speeches appears to have completely distorted what the speakers were saying. The CPS has demonstrated that it will not hesitate to prosecute those responsible for criminal incitement. But in this case we have been dealing with a heavily edited programme, apparently taking out of context aspects of speeches which in their totality could never have provided a realistic prospect of any convictions.”
The West Midlands Police apology is now on line:
On 8 August 2007 we published, jointly with the Crown Prosecution Service, a press release relating to the Channel Four Dispatches programme “Undercover Mosque”. This press release alleged that footage of the speakers shown had been so “heavily edited” and taken out of context that it had “completely distorted” their meaning. Reference was made to the CPS having been asked to consider (although against advice) instituting proceedings against those involved in making the programme for inciting racial hatred.
Following an independent investigation by the broadcasting regulator Ofcom, we now accept that we were wrong to make these allegations. We now accept that there was no evidence that the broadcaster or programme makers had misled the audience or that the programme was likely to encourage or incite criminal activity. A review of the evidence (including untransmitted footage and scripts) by Ofcom demonstrated that the programme had accurately represented the material it had gathered and dealt with the subject matter responsibly and in context.
We accept, without reservation, the conclusions of Ofcom and apologise to the programme makers for the damage and distress caused by our original press release.
Kevin Sutcliffe has written about the case in a piece entitled Not guilty – but who’s to know?, pointing out that fellow media outlets were quick to jump on the initial claims of distortion, but slower to report the previous OFCOM decision that cleared them.
There was to be one last – and bitter – surprise. “Undercover Mosque” had been given a ringing endorsement from Ofcom, Channel 4 and the producers at Hardcash no longer stood accused of being fakers and twisters, but we were no longer news. I sat at my workstation and waited for the phone to ring. The Channel 4 press office issued a suitably upbeat statement. The BBC, who’d sent an expensive satellite truck over to London SW1 to demand I answer WMP’s allegations last August, appeared to have lost their A-Z. My boss emailed a senior BBC news executive to say I was in the office, wearing a suit and waiting to be interviewed. He replied, offering his congratulations but saying that “Undercover Mosque” was not a news priority. I mused out loud that only a finding against the programme would have demanded their precious truck’s return to our building. Exoneration may not be big news and the BBC may well have had good reason to target resources at other stories. But in August they set the agenda by “going big” with the story. Others noticed and took their lead. The same was happening again, only in reverse.
It rankled that one of the key ways to set the record straight, to restore reputations and highlight the absurd and worrying behaviour of the police towards journalists – publicising Ofcom’s verdict – just wasn’t happening. This was an important story and not just for Channel 4. It was a victory – albeit a modest one – for free speech; a line had been drawn over which public authorities intent in meddling with journalism would now have to think carefully about before crossing. There was some pick-up but nowhere near the intensity of the interest when it looked as if we were in trouble. I felt the lukewarm press response to our victory had failed to dissipate the stench of fakery. The allegations lingered just off stage.
Thankfully, it appears that this story is getting the exposure its deserves, possibly because it may be the first case of the CPS being sued for libel. However, what is of more importance is what did the West Midlands Police and the CPS think they were doing? Was this a case of community relations gone wrong?
The assistant chief constable of the West Midlands Police, Anil Patani, wrote in a letter to Channel 4 at the time: “It is clear that Undercover Mosque had an impact in the community and the cohesion within it.”. Two weeks after the broadcast of Undercover Mosque Police conducted raids to prevent a beheading plot in Birmingham. Community leaders such as Dr Mohammad Naseem, complained of Britain sliding into a Police State. Such “community leaders” are given an undue amount of respect. Birmingham University awarded the crackpot Dr Mohammad Naseem an honorary degree for his commitment to ‘freedom of expression, rule of law and democracy since his formative years’. West Midlands Police have also felt it necessary to inform Dr Mohammed Naseem before anti-terrorist operations.
One wonders if a desire to remain on the right side of such individuals influenced the decision to attempt to smear Dispatches?
An apology is all well and good, but there should be an inquiry into how the West Midlands Police and the CPS got themselves into this position, and a serious look at their policies with regard to community relations, which appear to pander to the most reactionary voices.
Comments
| 15 May 2008, 11:29 am |
Has the CPS also issued a formal apology? The police can of course hide behind taking legal advice and withdrawing their allegations, what screen of political correctness can the CPS hide behind?
| 15 May 2008, 12:33 pm |
The CPS apology here -
http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/pressreleases/channel_4.html
is the same text as the one on the WMP site.
| 15 May 2008, 1:02 pm |
I really don’t know what the WMP/CPS thought they were doing. Either (a) they’ve been infiltrated or (b) they’ve been to “sensitivity” courses, where they’ve been told by “community leaders” that they’re all institutionally Islamophobic, and that if they don’t act quickly, community cohesion will collapse, and they won’t be able to police by consent.
| 15 May 2008, 1:08 pm |
More likely to be (b).
Kevin Sutcliffe, in the bjr article Neil links to above, suggests an alternative possibility, namely that -
“Patani’s and David’s allegations [against Dispatches] were very general, and no credible supporting evidence was produced. It was hard not to suspect that having spent considerable sums of public money and police time on a criminal investigation they were told from the outset was likely to return nothing, the police had looked for a way to save face. Referring the programme to the regulator in the hope of taking credit if Ofcom found against the makers and Channel 4 must have seemed a good bet.”
| 15 May 2008, 1:15 pm |
They probably thought, correctly as it happens, that even if the OFCOM decision went against them it would not be big news.
Now they look like complete arses.
| 15 May 2008, 1:26 pm |
ANIL PATANI, an Asian police officer in the Nottinghamshire force, was rejected for the post of superintendent after tests told his superiors he was not up to scratch. He complained, and the force, not wanting to be accused of “racism”, upheld his complaint. He was put on the fast track for promotion, being promised “priority” treatment over other applicants. In due course he achieved his ambition and was made superintendent.
But now he is complaining again - and, believe it or not, the complaint is that he has been a victim of - “racism.”
How so? According to Supt Patani, his rapid rise has antagonised his fellow officers, who claimed it was his race that got him the promotion. This, he says, has lost him respect, and he is suing the force as a result!
As this comes from a far right site, I cannot vouch for its veracity. I did not seek this site out, it was merely the first hit for “Anil Patani” - which on its own should cause some concern. But I doubt if many MSM sites would write such stuff, even if it were all 100% true, so just where are we supposed to get the facts on such people? In the light of recent events, this report would seem to have some foundation. It would not seem an unreasonable hypothesis that the root cause of this charade lies in the head of Mr Patani.
Ideal material for assistant chief constable (security and cohesion), don’t you think?
| 15 May 2008, 1:37 pm |
I think whatever the deficiencies of Anil Patani, we ought to have a high degree of skepticism about any information cleaned from a website like Spearhead.
| 15 May 2008, 2:02 pm |
The Private Eye story on this, from August 2007 (when WMP and the CPS announced they were reporting the programme to Ofcom) is worth reading in the light of what has transpired -
Playing silly burkas
The silliest of all this summer’s silly season stories broke last Wednesday, when the West Midlands Police and the Crown Prosecution Service issued a joint press release attacking Undercover Mosque, a Dispatches programme broadcast in January by Channel 4.
The film showed preachers at various “moderate” British mosques - notably the Green Lane mosque in Birmingham - delivering wild rants against kuffaar (non-muslims). “We hate the people of kufr, we hate the kuffaar”, Abu Usamah of Green Lane mosque declared, adding that although he didn’t agree with terrorists “at the same time they’re closer to me than those criminals of the kufr… He’s better than a million George Bushes, Osama bin Laden, he’s better than a thousand Tony Blair’s because he’s a muslim”. Murtaza Khan, a teacher from Essex who preaches at many UK mosques, denounced non-muslims as “filthy” and “accursed”.
Last week’s press release quoted Bethan David, a lawyer from the CPS, who alleged that the film “completely distorted what the speakers were saying” by quoting them out of context. It revealed that Inspector Knacker, a.k.a. Anil Patani MBA, Assistant Chief Constable (Security and Cohesion) for the West Midlands force - is now making a formal complaint to Ofcom that the programme was unfair and misleading.
Had Patani bothered to check the [Ofcom] website beforehand he’d have realised that, under the legislation governing Ofcom, complaints about unfairness can come only from “the person affected”, i.e. someone who has been personally traduced in a programme or by someone offically authorised by that person to act for them. Since the West Midlands Police fits neither category, the “formal complaint” looks like a non-starter. It appears to be little more than a silly season publicity stunt - though quite an effective one, as it was duly and widely reported the next day by newspapers hungry for more tales of TV fakery.
The Eye asked the West Midlands Police why they hadn’t read the rules before lodging the complaint. A spokesman told us that they had “liaised” with Ofcom in advance and been assured that they were following the correct procedures. But is this true?
“No”, said an Ofcom spokesman. Ofcom saw the press release a mere ten minutes before it was issued. Did you “liaise” with the police? “We certainly didn’t”.
The police also told the Eye that the formal complaint to Ofcom came jointly from themselves and the CPS. Again, this turns out to be untrue. But the confusion is understandable, since Bethan David of the CPS certainly aided and abetted the stunt.
Did the police or CPS discuss their criticism of the film with C4 before issuing the press release? No. (As one bemused C4 executive observed: “This isn’t what a proper police force does. It’s the sort of thing Alastair Campbell does”).
Even more surprisingly, neither Patani nor David has produced one shred of evidence - in the press release, or in simultaneous letters to C4 and Ofcom - to back up their serious allegations.
Even the Eye wouldn’t accuse a film-maker of “completely distorting” the truth without giving chapter and verse - and we’re not an official branch of the criminal justice system. So could the CPS please cite some examples of of complete distortion that support Bethan David’s defamatory attack on the film-makers’ integrity?
“No”, a CPS spokesman told us. “We don’t go into that level of detail”. Or indeed any detail at all. The same goes for the West Midlands Police.
But Knacker may eventually have to justify wasting public money on this media stunt when he could have been tackling real criminals. He and Bethan David may also find themselves having to defend their unsubstantiated allegations in a court of law: Channel 4 and HardCash Productions, the company behind the film, are considering suing the police and CPS for libel.
| 15 May 2008, 2:10 pm |
An apology is all well and good, but there should be an inquiry into how the West Midlands Police and the CPS got themselves into this position, and a serious look at their policies with regard to community relations, which appear to pander to the most reactionary voices.
Brilliant post and observations. You just have to wonder if Anil Patani has some particular axe to grind or is beholding to certain groups I think this requires investigating. Is there some outside sinister pressure on West Midlands Police
| 15 May 2008, 2:55 pm |
I wonder if some of the Muslims joinin gthe police have psychological problems. At on eof the local nicks, in Wood Green, a Turkish copper on the desk was reportedly stabbed by a man who rushed in off the street. Several weeks later it emerged that he had stabbed himself. Why I don’t know. Attention seeking, trying to avoid something, I don’t know. There’s always been bent coppers, but it’s worrying if we are now going to get coppers who are playing out personal power-games.
| 15 May 2008, 3:07 pm |
I really don’t know what the WMP/CPS thought they were doing. Either (a) they’ve been infiltrated or (b) they’ve been to “sensitivity” courses, where they’ve been told by “community leaders” that they’re all institutionally Islamophobic, and that if they don’t act quickly, community cohesion will collapse, and they won’t be able to police by consent.
I agree, and I do so because it’s much the same situation over here.
The police, by and large, are now far too hamstung by the diktats of ’sensitivity’ to be of much use against radicals, radical cast as chic, emancipatory anti-heros by the hard left.
| 15 May 2008, 6:52 pm |
I imagine ACC Pantani is just a bird brain, promoted into a made up job as a sop to the local volatile, vociferous hardline ethnics in Birmingham and gets sent off to talk to them whenever they get wound up over some imagined slight, so that the police can get on with the real work.
That would certainly explain his complaint that he is the victim of racism because his fellow officers think he only got the job on ethnic grounds and make it clear they think so.
On this occasion, because of the row following the Despatches programme, Patani got it in the neck from the local Muslim nutjobs and agitated for something to be done to pacify them. The WMP probably don’t know what was said originally but bought into the Offcom complaint as a way of deflecting the flack. Patani’s statements reflect a tendency of this type of fool to complain about how they have chosen to interpret was said, rather than what was actually said.
But what on earth was the CPS doing in this?. We are told that CPS Prosecutor Bethan David examined 56 hours of collected material from the programme makers and agreed with Patani. She made an official statement onb behalf of the CPS doing so. So what did she find? Presumably as a lawyer she would be looking for a burden of proof and her statement said she found it.
How could she say this when there was no evidence? One can only assume this was a clear case of political correctness or expediency overriding the facts. David must have agreed to be the fall-woman. She should be ashamed of herself and so should the CPS.
We are constantly being told that the law must prevail, as in the case of granting bail to Abu Qatada. Yet the CPS can make false pronouncements like the one in this case, against all natural and indeed legal justice, without any evidence at all. And this brings the law into disrepute.
Maybe it is because the CPS was busy outing itself as institutionally racist only a few years ago, which is why it is so ready to go along with this sort of insanity and why it failed, according to Sir Ian Blair to find any reason to prosecute Abu Hamza for incitement to terrorism (among several such incidents).
There are always plenty of ethnic agitators about ready and able to shout racist and unfair at the slightest provocation. Peter Herbert, a “radical” black barrister in London and another Ken crony (and member of the MPA) has been getting on his high horse this week about police sweeps for knife carriers as discriminating against the black community. Its not just some Moslems who try to make a career out of the ethnicity card.
Still there are signs things may be changing. Wasn’t Bethan David the crown prosecutor in the case against Trevor Brooks recently, for incitement to terrorism, which was successful?.
| 16 May 2008, 7:36 pm |
Absolutely - an inquiry is essential.
We need to understand what lay behind this unprecedented attack on free speech and defence of hate speech by the Police and CPS. It’s completely outrageous.
Who took the decision within the Police and have they been disciplined yet for what was clearly a completely unjustified abuse of power?
Write a comment