News0 min ago
Criminal cop supported by the National Black Police Association, of which he is a former president.
21 Answers
http://www.telegraph....d-for-corruption.html
How did this Police Officer rise to such a rank, with his past record?
http://www.telegraph....-Dizaei-timeline.html
http://www.telegraph....i-Dizaei-profile.html
Couldn't be anything to do with the colour of his skin could it?
I am not the only one to think this it has also been suggested on the media.
How did this Police Officer rise to such a rank, with his past record?
http://www.telegraph....-Dizaei-timeline.html
http://www.telegraph....i-Dizaei-profile.html
Couldn't be anything to do with the colour of his skin could it?
I am not the only one to think this it has also been suggested on the media.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Nothing in his past record was proven. He has only just been brought to account. Maybe the fact he was a high ranking policeman was responsible for lack of convictions in previous investigations rather than his skin colour.
It is good that a bad apple has finally been found out and his police career is at an end.
As our MPs have shown, you do not have to be black to be bent.
It is good that a bad apple has finally been found out and his police career is at an end.
As our MPs have shown, you do not have to be black to be bent.
whoa there AOG, are you saying the fluffy bunny NBPA are in some way racist? That outfit that have this very week refused white officers entry? Even though we are not allowed to have a NWPA? Come on AOG don't you know that all racists are white middle class blokes? Get on message mate! next you'll be saying the various bandits and sexual deviant police officers association is prejudiced against Hetro's!, Scandalous!
Jjeffery Archer rose rapidly to become Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party despite not being black. Scoundrels who lie have a habit of going far in an organisation without 'positive discrimination' having played a part.
I can see why an organisation might be reluctant to sack someone if they have a workforce which does not fully represent the community in which it operates, and the person is from one of those under-represented groups.
Probably best to make efforts to get a fully representative workforce rather than fast tracking just a few of those under represented to high profile jobs.
I can see why an organisation might be reluctant to sack someone if they have a workforce which does not fully represent the community in which it operates, and the person is from one of those under-represented groups.
Probably best to make efforts to get a fully representative workforce rather than fast tracking just a few of those under represented to high profile jobs.
-- answer removed --
Looks like the usual crowd are spitting their Humus all over their cords !
Its as plain as the nose on your face. This man was clearly promoted quickly because a) he could lie and b) he was black. Thats the way life is, why do we have to hide and NO I am not racist before any of you right on pinko t**pots start that one.
Its as plain as the nose on your face. This man was clearly promoted quickly because a) he could lie and b) he was black. Thats the way life is, why do we have to hide and NO I am not racist before any of you right on pinko t**pots start that one.
youngmafbog
At last - someone who was there at the Metropolitan Police Promotions Review Panel.
Give us all the inside dirt then.
I'm not being sarcastic. I totally agree that ANYONE who reaches the top of their profession who is either disabled, a woman, gay or black HAS to get there because of dodgy political reasons.
Barack Obama, Margaret Thatcher, Brian Paddick, Madonna - all of 'em.
It's only white men who are discriminated against nowadays.
The country's gone to the dogs.
(etc to infinity).
At last - someone who was there at the Metropolitan Police Promotions Review Panel.
Give us all the inside dirt then.
I'm not being sarcastic. I totally agree that ANYONE who reaches the top of their profession who is either disabled, a woman, gay or black HAS to get there because of dodgy political reasons.
Barack Obama, Margaret Thatcher, Brian Paddick, Madonna - all of 'em.
It's only white men who are discriminated against nowadays.
The country's gone to the dogs.
(etc to infinity).
Dizaei served in the Police for 24 years, a 'criminal in uniform' is how Nick Hardwick head of PCC describes him, not as a 'coloured criminal in uniform.' Dizaei considered himself 'untouchable'. There is always going to be corruption at some level with whatever colour of skin one has but a criminal is a criminal regardless of colour.
Does it not bother you that he is 'sitting on a pension pot worth £1 million' in consideration of his Police service? Should that not be more the issue of concern in this case?
Does it not bother you that he is 'sitting on a pension pot worth £1 million' in consideration of his Police service? Should that not be more the issue of concern in this case?
Yes seadragon, a crook is a crook regardless. However Mr Dizaei’s race most certainly is a deciding factor in this matter.
The root cause of this ridiculous situation is the ludicrous Macpherson Report on the handling by the Met of the murder of Stephen Lawrence. Regular readers will know that the report (which far exceeded its remit) branded the Met “institutionally racist”.
From then on, the senior management of the Met were paralysed with the fear that any action they took be it against criminals or their staff, might be branded racist if any ethnic minorities were involved.
Mr Dizaei is a clever manipulative individual. He seized upon the opportunity presented by the Met’s paralysis to further his career to a degree which he would not have achieved in any other organisation. As has been pointed out, nothing was proved. However, there had been reasonably founded allegations against him during his time in the Met and in any other organisation he would have been lucky to retain his job, let alone be promoted to senior rank. Nonetheless this he achieved despite performing poorly at interviews and his bosses being informed by the Serious Organised Crime Squad of their concerns about his activities.
Regretfully he will almost certainly appeal against his conviction, bringing further risk of a massive payout being necessary should he succeed. Interestingly, the hapless Mr al-Baghadadi, the victim of Dizaei’s attempt to pervert the course of justice, is unlikely to be in line for any such riches. Most regretful of all the Met is now likely to be labelled “institutionally corrupt” as well as racist because of this disgraceful apology for an officer, making it all the more difficult for officers at the sharp end to do their job.
And the blame for all this lies with Macpherson and the paralysis of the Met’s senior management in their reaction to it.
The root cause of this ridiculous situation is the ludicrous Macpherson Report on the handling by the Met of the murder of Stephen Lawrence. Regular readers will know that the report (which far exceeded its remit) branded the Met “institutionally racist”.
From then on, the senior management of the Met were paralysed with the fear that any action they took be it against criminals or their staff, might be branded racist if any ethnic minorities were involved.
Mr Dizaei is a clever manipulative individual. He seized upon the opportunity presented by the Met’s paralysis to further his career to a degree which he would not have achieved in any other organisation. As has been pointed out, nothing was proved. However, there had been reasonably founded allegations against him during his time in the Met and in any other organisation he would have been lucky to retain his job, let alone be promoted to senior rank. Nonetheless this he achieved despite performing poorly at interviews and his bosses being informed by the Serious Organised Crime Squad of their concerns about his activities.
Regretfully he will almost certainly appeal against his conviction, bringing further risk of a massive payout being necessary should he succeed. Interestingly, the hapless Mr al-Baghadadi, the victim of Dizaei’s attempt to pervert the course of justice, is unlikely to be in line for any such riches. Most regretful of all the Met is now likely to be labelled “institutionally corrupt” as well as racist because of this disgraceful apology for an officer, making it all the more difficult for officers at the sharp end to do their job.
And the blame for all this lies with Macpherson and the paralysis of the Met’s senior management in their reaction to it.
I disagree to a point New Judge, I do think that it was a good move by the Met to introduce ethnic minority officers into the Police Force. This is a multi-cultural society for an ethnic minority Police Officer to wear the uniform is enough to show that minorities are trying to integrate and be accepted. I know a couple - one Police Man over 15 years service and his wife was a special constable, both ethnic minority and both left at different periods because of rascism within their Police Force. All those ethnic minority officers who currently serve should be applauded as much as their 'white' counterparts and all should work towards making the Police Force as equal and as accessible as possible and not a 'rascist institution'.
I agree with you that the blame may lie with the Met's Senior Management who should have acted appropriately in accordance with normal procedure to fraud and criminal conduct instead of fearing the 'colour' issue. But as you say this individual is a 'clever manipulative criminal'.
I agree with you that the blame may lie with the Met's Senior Management who should have acted appropriately in accordance with normal procedure to fraud and criminal conduct instead of fearing the 'colour' issue. But as you say this individual is a 'clever manipulative criminal'.
It may be New Judge doesn't disagree that the Met had institutionalised racism but complains at the way the Met responded to the finding. It certainly was, as anyone whose work involved dealing with them soon came to realise,sadly.
The problem here lay in the response to the finding.You can't stop entrenched racism by positive discrimination or quotas or any kind of preferential treatment. It requires education as well as screening recruits for deeply held racist beliefs. Any racist soon learns what the 'correct' answers are, so screening is not a perfect solution. And any clever crook like this Commander knows how to work the system to his advantage,effectively bullying his way up.
Note that he was obviously being watched very closely. You can't imagine that every 'assault P C', common assault or abh has police doctors examining the 'victim' to establish whether his injuries were self-inflicted, after an incident like this !
The problem here lay in the response to the finding.You can't stop entrenched racism by positive discrimination or quotas or any kind of preferential treatment. It requires education as well as screening recruits for deeply held racist beliefs. Any racist soon learns what the 'correct' answers are, so screening is not a perfect solution. And any clever crook like this Commander knows how to work the system to his advantage,effectively bullying his way up.
Note that he was obviously being watched very closely. You can't imagine that every 'assault P C', common assault or abh has police doctors examining the 'victim' to establish whether his injuries were self-inflicted, after an incident like this !
Oh,yes, sp. I must stop trying to invent reasonable doubts ! Still, he could, ,just, mean that the report was ludicrous in other ways but not on institutionalised racism, and what he apparently sees as the obiter dictum on that was of persuasive effect and valid ! Over to you New Judge ! (I fear that New Judge never practised in London in those times, both prosecuting and defending)
[Two Part Post]
I made no comment about whether the Met was or was not “Institutionally Racist” (whatever that may mean). I don’t know mainly because I don’t know what the term means (I’d never heard of it pre Macpherson) and even if I did, I know precious little about the Met’s workings pre-1999.
I consider the report is ludicrous mainly because of some of its recommendations. The Met’s reaction to them has led us where we are today (in a position where an officer who has been under suspicion of wrong doing for a decade not only keeps his job, but was promoted to senior rank). And for those who say that “nothing was proved”, that is not a defence for people in other areas of work. People who now need to be vetted by the Independent Safeguarding Authority can be refused permission to work in sensitive posts just by virtue of having an accusation made against them. They don’t even have to have been charged, let alone convicted.
There is no space here to go into Macpherson in great detail, but here’s a taste:
The report said (and I paraphrase for brevity) “...evidence presented to us leads us to believe that Institutional Racism (IR) exists in the MPS, but this does not lead us to conclude that their policies are racist”. But it then went on to define IR in terms that eradicated the distinction between fact and conjecture. It said “...a racist incident is one that is perceived to be racist either by the victim, or any other person.” Before Macpherson it was the investigating officer and the CPS who determined what incidents were racist. Because the police had been labelled IR they could no longer be trusted with that decision and Macpherson opened that determination to anybody, whether involved in the incident or not, present at the incident or not.
If that’s not ludicrous I don’t know what is.
I made no comment about whether the Met was or was not “Institutionally Racist” (whatever that may mean). I don’t know mainly because I don’t know what the term means (I’d never heard of it pre Macpherson) and even if I did, I know precious little about the Met’s workings pre-1999.
I consider the report is ludicrous mainly because of some of its recommendations. The Met’s reaction to them has led us where we are today (in a position where an officer who has been under suspicion of wrong doing for a decade not only keeps his job, but was promoted to senior rank). And for those who say that “nothing was proved”, that is not a defence for people in other areas of work. People who now need to be vetted by the Independent Safeguarding Authority can be refused permission to work in sensitive posts just by virtue of having an accusation made against them. They don’t even have to have been charged, let alone convicted.
There is no space here to go into Macpherson in great detail, but here’s a taste:
The report said (and I paraphrase for brevity) “...evidence presented to us leads us to believe that Institutional Racism (IR) exists in the MPS, but this does not lead us to conclude that their policies are racist”. But it then went on to define IR in terms that eradicated the distinction between fact and conjecture. It said “...a racist incident is one that is perceived to be racist either by the victim, or any other person.” Before Macpherson it was the investigating officer and the CPS who determined what incidents were racist. Because the police had been labelled IR they could no longer be trusted with that decision and Macpherson opened that determination to anybody, whether involved in the incident or not, present at the incident or not.
If that’s not ludicrous I don’t know what is.
Latest Posts
Business & Finance1 min ago
Labour Scraps Doctors' Apprenticeships
News4 mins ago
Crosswords5 mins ago
Shopping & Style7 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.