Will the Met ever clean it’s act up?

Like most decent people, I am deeply appalled by racism. It is a scourge on our society, and the perpetrators are beneath contempt. I therefore read Nazir Afzal’s excellent article about the actions of the Metropolitan Police, following the murder of Stephen Lawrence, with great interest.

Just suppose for a moment, that six black men made an unprovoked attack on two white men, killing one of them. What would the Met’s response have been? No doubt, the surviving white man would have been treated as a key witness by the police, details of all the attackers would have been duly noted, and the six attackers would have been quickly identified, arrested, questioned, charged, and brought to justice. The surviving man’s witness statement and subsequent testimony in court would have been seen as being crucial to the success of the investigation and subsequent convictions.

Contrast that with what actually happened. Stephen Lawrence, initially, was not considered to be a victim by the Met and he was somehow responsible for what happened. The witness statement provided by Duwayne Brooks with regard to the sixth attacker, Matthew White, who was not only present but allegedly was the man who initiated the attack, was ignored. In fact, Matthew White, rather than being treated as a suspect, was unbelievably treated as a witness. Having charged two of the men and then seen them acquitted in 1996, it took the Met another 16 years to bring two more of the attackers to justice.

Despite continued reports which found evidence of institutional racism in the Met, and despite statistics that show that black people are disproportionally targeted by the Met police in stop-and-search activities, the current police commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, has publicly stated that he does not believe that the force is institutionally racist.

What hope is there that this deplorable and shameful aspect of the Met will ever be cleaned up?

Richard Barlow

Gloucestershire

Eleanor Monbiot’s empathetic and knowledgeable article is entirely correct. The horror of displacement and all that entails is something we, hopefully, might never have to face. But that shouldn’t make us complacent. Rather, it should encourage us to walk in other people’s shoes and appreciate the distance that they travel mentally, and indeed physically, each and every day.

She paints such a disturbing picture of men, women, and children who, through no fault of their own, have to make arduous journeys, often with no realistic sanctuary in sight. They are “othered” as illegal immigrants, who by virtue of their journeys seemingly negate all compassion and empathy, except the kindness of some strangers and dedicated charities.

These refugees don’t make hazardous journeys for the sheer fun of it, they literally have no choice, and the strain on their mental health, as Monibot rightly states, must be catastrophic. I sometimes wonder if we Britons could contemplate leaving our homes for a completely unknowable future in another, less-than-benevolent country.

I admire Monbiot for recognising refugees’ often parlous mental health and the many ways we can ameliorate their mental health fractures, especially in the case of child refugees. But until we see refugees as disenfranchised people, who just want safe and helping hands, their pitiless state will continue ad infinitum.

Judith A Daniels

Norfolk

The Home Office’s own economic impact assessment of Suella Braverman’s Illegal Migration Bill, currently going through parliament, has calculated the gross cost of relocating an individual to Rwanda to be £169,000. That’s £63,000 more than it costs to keep them safe in the UK.

The Tories have already spent £140m building accommodation – a project Braverman admits she “obsesses” over and “dreams” of sending refugees to.

And the Tories are likely to spend even more money over the next two years, building the infrastructure – barges, camps, processing areas – to continue to treat asylum-seekers like criminals. It’s the Tories who are the criminals, not asylum-seekers.

The government pleads that they have “no money” when it comes to paying doctors, nurses, teachers, and other key workers a living wage but seem to have unlimited money when it comes to funding their inhuman, anti-refugee policies.

Sasha Simic

London

I see reports emerging that Boris Johnson taking a new job as a Daily Mail columnist was a “clear and unambiguous breach” of the rules and, frankly, I’m shocked. This is not the sort of behaviour that I would expect ever to see from our former prime minister.

Indeed, I’ve racked my brains and I can think of no other occasion when Johnson has been clear and unambiguous about anything.

Julian Self

Milton Keynes

Following the coverage surrounding festivalgoers at Glastonbury visiting the dentist there because they can’t get an appointment at home – I find this a shocking and disappointing sign of the times.

It’s been well documented that it’s becoming harder and harder to see the dentist so it is understandable that people heading to Glastonbury would get an emergency appointment there – but it doesn’t make it right.

Many British people have seen NHS practices close near them, and often have to wait months to arrange an appointment. This is not good enough at all and the weekend’s events display the state of UK dentistry right now. When you have festivalgoers turning up early simply to see a dentist, you know there is a problem.

We must do better otherwise the waits will only get longer, and more people will be in more pain.

Dr Deepak Aulak  

Dentist and co-founder of Toothfairy