An interesting report regarding Manchester police in their local paper. They are seeking to have the racial breakdown that more or less reflects the composition of the local force.
Greater Manchester's new chief constable has said the only way to meet targets to recruit black and Asian officers is to give them preferential treatment. Peter Fahy was speaking 10 years to the day after his predecessor David Wilmot said the force was `institutionally racist'. Since then GMP introduced a target of recruiting 7.2 per cent of its 8,142 staff from ethnic minorities. But today the M.E.N. can reveal the force has just 4.25 per cent - 346 police officers - from a black or Asian background, and none among the higher ranks.
Mr Fahy said `affirmative action should be considered' but that it would never happen because of `public mood'. He adds "there is a very strong operational need for us to have a more representative police force to deal with a complex society. Because of the public mood, affirmative action would reduce confidence in the police - politically it will never happen. Minority officers don't wholeheartedly support it because they feel people will think they have got the job because of their race. We are criticised whatever we do."
Well, to me that is good news. I never understood this idea of matching the police make-up to the civil figures. Why is this considered necessary? A black man in Manchester is subject to the same laws as a white man. If a Chinese man commits and offence, do we have to call a Chinese officer? If I, as a white man, commit an offence do I tell the Indian officer who caught me to bugger off an get a white man? Of course not; none of these make sense. So why do we have to have multiracial police officers? If they are there by their own choice and hold office because of their own ability - fine. If one follows the reasoning, there are jobs at Manchester police for lesbian black single mothers with Aids. Just reflecting what is in the community Sir.