Ghaffur settles claim


by Rumbold
25th November, 2008 at 6:39 pm    

Assistant police Commissioner Tarique Ghaffur has withdrawn his allegations of racial discrimination against Sir Ian Blair and the Metropolitan Police in return for a settlement:

“A statement confirming the settlement was issued on Tuesday on behalf of Mr Ghaffur, Sir Ian Blair, Deputy Assistant Commissioner Richard Bryan, the Met Police and the Met Police Authority (MPA). It read: “The MPA has paid a sum of money in settlement of Assistant Commissioner Ghaffur’s claims including contractual obligations and a contribution to his legal costs. Assistant Commissioner Ghaffur has withdrawn the proceedings and his claims that Sir Ian Blair and Deputy Assistant Commissioner Bryan acted in a racist or other discriminatory way towards him.”

While we will never know the full story, thanks to all the gagging orders, the whole thing leaves an unsavoury taste in the mouth. Either Mr Ghaffur had suffered racial discrimination or not. If so, why isn’t Sir Ian Blair being punished? If not, why is the taxpayer paying Mr Ghaffur compensation, as well as some of his legal costs?


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Current affairs,Race politics






12 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs


  1. Ravi Naik — on 25th November, 2008 at 9:29 pm  

    Ghaffur should be ashamed of himself. If he had an ounce of decency, he would be fighting to make the lives of other minorities working in the Met easier. Instead, we learn that racism can be paid off by taxpayers money and go unpunished, or that using the race card is profitable.

  2. Andrew — on 25th November, 2008 at 9:39 pm  

    It’s probably the result of rational calculation – the Met figuring that it would be cheaper to pay him off now, rather than rack up legal costs which might never be recovered even if they won the case, and Ghaffur figuring that it was better to take the money rather than continue to fight a case he might not win. Those sorts of compromises happen all the time in grievance or discrimination cases. And yes, they do leave an unsavory taste in the mouth. I was an unwilling party to a similar deal a couple of years ago.

    He’s not being paid compensation as far as I can see – he’s being paid what they are contractually obliged to pay him, and a “contribution” to his legal costs (how much of a contribution, we can’t know). The statement from the MPA is quite carefully worded.

    http://www.mpa.gov.uk/news/press/2008/08-056.htm

  3. ac256 — on 25th November, 2008 at 11:21 pm  

    The Met Black Police Association should now apologise for its shameful campaign to get young black and other minority people to boycott the Met.

    It should also pay towards the costs so far of Boris Johnson’s investigation into supposed ‘racism’ at the Met.

    Tarique Ghaffur should take his 30 pieces of silver and never raise his head again.

  4. Sunny — on 26th November, 2008 at 5:05 am  

    Ravi – I disagree. Its more likely he did so to avoid making the MET go through an excruciating trial that would uncover more worms there.

    Its more good for the MEt, which avoids the publicity, than him – because his reputation is still a bit sullied. He should have taken the MET to the cleaners, but the man is too loyal.

  5. The Dude — on 26th November, 2008 at 9:11 am  

    Maybe Mr Ghaffur figured he had got one BIG scalp already ( the head of Sir Ian Blair) and that going for more was being a bit too greedy. What is clear for ALL to see is that racism within the MET is still deeply entrenched and going nowhere. The conclusion of this case will do nothing in making that situation any better. This also inevitably means for the time being, the MET is no safe place BEM recruits, as the MBPA have now been placed in a untenable position of putting a square peg in a round hole. This is NOT a good day for policing or the community as a whole. We’re all losers and worse still, it’s us, the TAXPAYERS that once again has to pick up the bill.

  6. The Dude — on 26th November, 2008 at 9:18 am  

    One other thing, could someone please remove the picture of the girl with the big chest from this page. This “AD” should have no place on this forum.

  7. Hermes — on 26th November, 2008 at 10:13 am  

    He Dude, I have been back to this forum three times today, just to look at that picture of the girl with the boobies!! Lovely, keep it there.

  8. Hermes — on 26th November, 2008 at 10:16 am  

    I agree with Ravi…maybe Ghaffur was only after a bit of cash from an organisation which is already too sensitive to such claims. The fact remains, he didn’t get as far as he did because he was held back due to his race. People like him should grow up and stop throwing their toys out of the pram as soon as they meet an obstacle in their career paths.

  9. billy — on 26th November, 2008 at 12:17 pm  

    This whole episode is troubling. In many ways, the worst possible outcome.

    Because now we don’t know (a) If Ghaffur’s claims were true, or (b) whether he was not telling the truth and wanted to start a bonfire to respond to his own professional frustrations.

    If the claims were true, we needed to get things out in the open. We need to address the issues he talked of if they need to be aired. Racism in the force is unnaceptable.

    But if he was starting a bonfire, he is an utter disgrace and does nothing but harm to the cause of Black police officers. It would be cynicism on an unbelievable scale.

    So this who affair diminishes everyone. Trust is corroded on all sides. And once again, we don’t know what really happened. All around, a disaster for the Met.

  10. Random Guy — on 26th November, 2008 at 1:07 pm  

    Of course his claims were true – why else settle it without publishing the documents? The only reason is they could not do enough to discredit him.

    Ravi, your accusation about Ghaffur is baseless. I think this whole episode has put into stark light some of the realities of racism/discrimination and the extent to which it is still prevalent. I agree with you that it does not leave us with any lessons learnt.

    Quite a discouraging outcome to be honest.

  11. Ravi Naik — on 26th November, 2008 at 4:34 pm  

    If the claims were true, we needed to get things out in the open. We need to address the issues he talked of if they need to be aired. Racism in the force is unnaceptable.

    But if he was starting a bonfire, he is an utter disgrace and does nothing but harm to the cause of Black police officers. It would be cynicism on an unbelievable scale.

    He is an utter disgrace in any case. If – as Sunny says – he is being loyal to the MET (which makes no sense to me considering he started this whole circus), then he is doing so at the expense of other minorities: he got his hush money – which signals that racism can continue roaming free as it goes unpunished. But it also leaves a bitter taste, as it feels like the race card has been played, and in that sense, it puts extra layers of glass ceilings on minorities. I am *very* pissed.

  12. MaidMarian — on 27th November, 2008 at 12:09 pm  

    Sunny (4) – ‘Its more likely he did so to avoid making the MET go through an excruciating trial that would uncover more worms there.’

    [Assuming that is serious - which I question]

    Sunny, can I get a pair of those rose tinteds you are wearing?

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.