Friday, July 01, 2005


Three white officers who sued the Metropolitan Police for race and sex discrimination have won their case. They faced disciplinary action after an Asian officer said they had made racist remarks at a training day in 1999. Later cleared on appeal, they said they were victims of political correctness following the Macpherson report into the Stephen Lawrence murder inquiry. Met Commissioner Sir Ian Blair had denied "hanging the men out to dry" to make an example of them.

Det Con Tom Hassell, 60, Det Sgt Colin Lockwood, 55, and Det Insp Paul Whatmore, 39, said the complaint would not have been treated the same way if it had come from a white officer. Det Sgt Shabnam Chaudhri complained after Mr Hassell referred to Muslim headwear as "tea cosies" and mispronounced "Shi'ites" during a presentation on Islam in 1999.

Although Mr Hassell apologised, Det Sgt Chaudhri said he had been racist and Mr Lockwood and Mr Whatmore had failed to intervene. A disciplinary hearing in 2001 found them partly guilty of misconduct but recommended no further action be taken. Sir Ian told the tribunal he had found this extraordinary, and asked if the decision could be challenged. The employment tribunal chairman said his intervention amounted to unfavourable treatment by prejudicing the case against the men.

Later they were cleared on appeal by Britain's most senior Asian police officer, who said it was incredible the case had ever been brought.

Mr Hassell, who had a police good conduct medal and an unblemished 26-year career, said the matter would not have got beyond an informal complaint, had it not been for Det Sgt Chaudhri's race, sex and religious background. It came months after the publication of the Macpherson report into the Lawrence murder investigation which found the Met was "institutionally racist". After winning the case, Mr Hassell told the Daily Mail: "We feel relieved and vindicated. This has gone on for six years and nearly destroyed our names, our careers and our family lives. "It's a sad day for the Met Police Service that officers have to go through this to clear their names."

Glen Smyth, chairman of the Met Police Federation, which represents rank-and-file officers, said Met managers should not be "behaving like a pack of rottweilers after a rabbit" at any hint of discrimination. In a statement, Scotland Yard said it was disappointed with the tribunal's ruling and felt it was right to defend the case, but would give "careful consideration" to the findings. It added: "We have and will continue to challenge instances of what we believe to be inappropriate or discriminatory behaviour. "The Met is policing probably the most diverse city in the world. We have a duty to help our staff understand diversity and to create a workforce that reflects London's make-up."

Earlier in June another white officer, Chief Inspector Julia Pendry, settled out-of-court after bringing a race and sex discrimination claim against the Met


A further report here tells that the victims of PC persecution got a substantial damages award

Three white officers who were "hung out to dry" as an example of how non-discriminatory the Metropolitan Police has become have won 90,000 pounds in compensation. The Met has agreed to pay 25,000 pounds to Detective Constable Tom Hassell, 60, and 32,500 pounds to acting Detective Inspector Paul Whatmore, 39, and Detective Sergeant Colin Lockwood, 55. The men had claimed that they were victims of a "witch-hunt" driven by political correctness in the wake of the Macpherson Report, which accused the police of institutionalised racism....

Giving its decision, an employment tribunal attacked Sir Ian Blair, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, for "hanging out to dry" the three officers. The tribunal concluded that Sir Ian had "made an example" of the officers to prove to the public that racist and politically incorrect behaviour would not be tolerated.

All three were brought before a disciplinary panel in June 2001 and found guilty of inappropriate behaviour, but the board ruled that there should be no further action. The tribunal heard that Sir Ian found the panel's decision "extraordinary" and sought legal advice about having it overturned. They were later cleared on appeal by Assistant Commissioner Tarique Ghaffur, the most senior Asian officer at the Yard.

Ian Pritchard-Witts, the tribunal chairman, ruled that the Yard was justified in suspending the officers during an investigation but concluded that Sir Ian's intervention was unlawful. "We take the view, using his own words, that white officers were to be hung out to dry. He prejudiced the matter," Mr Pritchard-Witts said."


Karl Rove's recent remarks on the demise of liberalism in the UnitedStates elicited the expected knee-jerk reactions from the usual suspects in the Democratic party, and many of their watch dogs from the mainstream media. While the rehearsed, hate-filled rhetoric pouring out of the mouths of congressional Democrats is to be expected, the assist from some in the mainstream media is to be pitied.

The liberal media's reaction to Rove's remarks illustrates, potentially, their greatest weakness. That being that their professed staunch belief in diversity is an unethical fraud. Why? Let's examine the typical "diverse" newsroom at one of the major daily newspapers in the United States such as the New York Times, or The Washington Post, or one of the major networks like NBC, ABC or CBS News.

What is the totally predictable breakdown of their "diverse" collection of reporters, editors, producers and executives? Among their number, you will find liberal African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, Arab Americans, caucasians, Catholics, Jews, protestants, Muslims, Scientologists, Buddhists and every other conceivable ethnic and religious background known to the planet. What you won't find, however, on this very eclectic list, is the demographic that proves the premeditated prejudice of the mainstream newsroom. You won't find conservatives.

The mainstream media's "deep, moral, and principled" belief in diversity does not extend to conservatives. It's not even that the liberal media forces conservatives to use separate bathrooms or drink from their own water fountains. It's worse than that. They don't allow them on the premises, period. Strange, but I don't hear these newsrooms reporting on this form of discrimination. Rather, they celebrate this unconscionable transgression in the misguided belief that they, and only they, can interpret the news and the "truth" that shall be disseminated to the American people.

Ironically, it is the liberal newsroom that is most being hurt by this sanctioned bigotry. The very newspapers and networks that allow no conservatives into their restricted clubs are the ones who are now bleeding readers and viewers. The American people want, need, and in greater numbers are demanding some semblance of balance in their news coverage. With its bigotry against the conservative viewpoint, the mainstream media has basically told at least one half of the nation that, "Your interests are not our interests. Your beliefs are not our beliefs. Your morals are not our morals." These Americans have absorbed that rhetorical slap in the face, and by the hundreds of thousands per year, have turned their backs on much of the mainstream press in search of news outlets that will present more balance in their reporting. Be that cable channels, the Internet or blogs, they are abandoning the liberal press in record numbers.

Make no mistake. I am not advocating a conservative viewpoint in hard-news copy. I would argue against that just as strongly as I do against liberal viewpoint in news copy. Wrong is wrong. Those viewpoints should only be expressed in commentaries or on Op-Ed pages.

The point I am trying to make, however, is that if liberal newsrooms continue to exclude reporters, editors, producers or executives who might have a"conservative"background, then they are losing touch with many of the people they are trying to serve. They have no ability to cover what they don't understand. So, the liberal media can beat up Karl Rove all they want for doing nothing more than quoting other liberals. But each day, week, month and year they do, they will be ranting to a smaller and smaller audience.


No comments: