By Gabriel Princewill-
The Head of News at The Home Office communication department is today exposed for deception, and the deplorable conduct of one of his employees who angrily dropped the phone on two occasions late in 2022, after reacting indefensibly badly to an investigation into why racist police officers are not referred to the CPS for potential prosecution in consistence with the law, by rudely dropping the phone.
This publication was at the time examining the role of The Home Office in addressing institutional racism in the police force, as well as the widespread level of corrupt serving officers in the force.
An angry Home Office incapable of explaining why the Home Office was failing to stand up to the perpetual level of racism and misconduct displayed by numerous unsavoury police officers in the force did the foolish thing of hanging up twice in the middle of our inquiry, because he didn’t like the reference to institutional racism in the police force.
The unscrupulous employee refused to identify himself, despite being asked to do so a number of times. He understandably foresaw the likelihood of being openly shamed for his embarrassing conduct.
Yet, as an official representative of an important arm of government like the Home Office, the press office employee was expected to do the honourable thing by identifying himself without any need for persuasion. He was promptly reported to his boss, Craig Saunders, who was expected to act like a leader, and address the issue competently.
However, instead of reprimanding his indecorous colleague, and providing an unreserved apology to this publication, the man’s cheeky and unscrupulous boss, Craig Saunders, sent an email from the Home Office’s public inquiry mail box in an attempt to undermine this publication, falsely arguing that the Home Office does not usually respond to blogs or thinktanks that are not independently regulated.
Saunders violated prescribed codes and conduct expressly outlined for press officers in the Home Office to follow, invariably displaying a reprehensible level of deceit, and exposing his ineptitude for a post he is for the first time exposed of being unfit to occupy.
His conduct was avowedly directed at undermining our resolve to hold him to account, as we were always going to do, though we decided to patiently go through a complaint procedure to test the professionalism and integrity of the Home Office’s press office in the process. That process was in the form of a complaint to the Home Secretary Suella Braverman and the Director of Communications, Mr. Robert Hall
He is now unarguably revealed as a press leader with limited substance and integrity who shamelessly lied that he was not required to respond to us, even though we have for many years received official responses from the Home Office press department before this occasion.
Offence
Mr Saunder’s irresponsible press staff in the Home Office’s press office had taken offence to our assertion last October that the police is institutionally racist, during an investigation which began following the revelation that one of the Home Office’s former staff had circulated racist whassap messages to one of his colleagues last year. The story of the whassap circulation was well publicised in the media at the time.
Rob Lewis, who was a Home Office official at the time, was arrested for offences under the Communications Act and misconduct in public office, after he circulated racist whassap messages to his colleagues.
The press officer in the Home Office fumed in response to a simple question: ”why are does the Home Office not direct the police to present clear cases of racism in the public committed by police officers to the CPS for consideration?
He responded: ‘that’s for the police to decide which cases they believe should be passed on to the CPS”
‘But how can it be left to the discretion of the police since they have in the past been found to be institutionally racist’?
He replied: ”well if you are going to say the police is institutionally racist I won’t continue this conversation”. The he dropped the phone.
A call back was dropped again by the same man. A third call was picked up by a woman who also slammed the phone. Here, we had two Home Office officials acting like louts in government office over a legitimate reference to institutional racism established years ago, and re-affirmed by the damning report of Baroness Casey.
It was shocking that matters had spiralled out of control following the suggestion that institutional racism in the force might explain the disinclination of the police force to recommend cases of racism by police officers to the CPS to consider whether they meet the threshold of prosecution.
The Eye Of Media.Com asked the Home Office press department following the report by Baroness Casey whether they now agreed that the Met Police is institutionally racist in light of our clash with their irresponsible press officer last October. Unsurprisingly, there was no response, though they must have been left red faced. It was decided not to publish this article even then, as timely as it would have otherwise seemed, to allow more time for a response from the Home Office in relation to our complaint.
Six months had been the agreed stipulated time to allow for any possible internal investigation and response, as unlikely as one seemed.
Craig Saunders,(pictured) head of the Home Office press department, who once worked for The Daily Star as a journalist, was shameful in his level of unprofessionalism when handling this complaint, and brought his role in the governmental communications to disrepute last October.
The Home Office’s misconduct has been brought into sharp focus following the Baroness Caseys’ report that the Met Police is institutionally racist, misogynistic and homophobic.
The unknown Home Office press representative in our experience had cited the conventional expectation that the responsibility was for the police to refer offences that met the threshold for prosecution to the Crown Prosecution Service to establish criminal charges.
The Ministry Of Justice the same day confirmed that apart from the Police Commissioner, matters pertaining to the proposal of changes in the police force, fall under the jurisdiction of the Home Office.
It has not been established exactly why the mentioning of the Mcpherson report that the British police are institutionally racist led the imprudent home office representative to be so upset as to dropping the phone.
”The press officer’s action either amounted to a blissful ignorance about the facts, or misplaced sentiments in hearing the truth about a malady in the force he and his colleagues are too incompetent to remotely address”, said former researcher, Joshua Hoopwood.
Complaint Procedure
The matter first underwent the procedure of lodging a complaint to the Home Office itself, with one also sent to Home Secretary Suella Braverman. A subsequent complaint was also made to the Home Office’s Director of Communications, Rob Lewis. Neither of the two responded. It was a simple question of accountability, but not one Home Office representatives were prepared for.
Mr Saunders worked in The Daily Star for five years as a journalist, before quitting and deciding to join the communications department in The Home Office. It is not known why he left journalism after a short stint of five years in the profession. Somehow, he found his way to the Home Office’s press department where his indiscretion would eventually show him up not to be very honourable, as it has now done.
The Daily Star ‘s Human Resources team, when contacted by this publication today did not immediately comment on our findings in relation to his discreditable conduct, or provide any comments supporting his professionalism or competence as a journalist with their news publication when we asked for one to potentially balance this article. The publication said it would look into it by contacting Saunder’s former line manager.
Lied
Mr Saunders lied to this publication that codes and conduct of The Home Office prevented the governmental department from corresponding with blogs or thinktanks is observable through the facts. He highlighted The Civil Service Code and the Government Communication Service Propriety Guidance as his justification for not responding to our query.
When told that no aspect of the Code expressly or impliedly made reference to his claims, he did not respond.
He avowedly used this deceptive smokescreen as an attempt to cover his colleagues missteps, which he had already apologised for, yet flagrantly ruined the empty apology by his immature conduct.
Mr. Saunder’s written response at the time read: ”The Home Office Press Office responds to requests from bona fide members of the media, for example those regulated by independent regulators. We may not respond to organisations like think tanks or blogs, and may ask these groups to correspond with the department through our Public Enquiries email.
‘We do so in line with our obligations under the Civil Service Code and the Government Communication Service Propriety Guidance.
‘On your specific question on why police officers have not been prosecuted for a variety of reasons, while the Home Office is responsible for policing policy, it would not be responsible for individual prosecutions.
”More broadly, under the Government Communication Service Propriety Guidance, our communication should be relevant to our responsibility. He failed in all the aforementioned respects.
‘This would be a matter for individual police forces or the Crown Prosecution Service.
In regards to our staff, I regret you feel a member of staff did not act in the appropriate
manner. We expect the highest standards from all members of staff.
Members of staff are hired in accordance with Civil Service Recruitment Principles and
provided with robust training to do their job’.
Contrary to Mr. Saunder’s dodgy claims, the code he refereed explicitly calls for integrity, elaborating this to be ”putting the obligations of public service above personal interests., and
mentions honesty – ”being truthful and open”
The code additionally states that: ‘you must not deceive or knowingly mislead ministers, Parliament or others be influenced by improper pressures from others or the prospect of personal gain Objectivity
Finally, the code states that Media officers have a duty to abide by the Civil Service Code and to remain objective and impartial, especially when dealing with politically controversial issues.
He failed in all the aforementioned respects.
The man headed with the task of presiding over the Home Office’s press team , appeared to be evading proper scrutiny on the role of the Home Office in enforcing the pursuit of legal procedures wherever police officers found to have circulated racist whassap messages that fall within the ambit of hate crime.
Police Commissioner, Mark Rawley has commendably revealed to shake up the ailing force and get rid of hundreds of corrupt officers who should not be in the force at all. This is a step the Home Office had the power to guide the former Police Commissioner to take, but chose not to.
The Home Office has long been mute on the need to legally address the systemic display of racism within the force which has reached an embarrassing point, ostensibly content with the current internal disciplinary procedures which many offending officers have in the past escaped.
However, Suella Braverman commented publicly following the damning report by Baroness Casey that the Metropolitan Police is institutionally racist, misogynistic and Homophobic.
She rejected the label of institutional racism when Baroness Casey’s report
Ms Braverman told the Commons: “On the topic of institutional racism, Mr. Speaker, I agree with Sir Mark Rowley. It’s not a helpful term to use. It’s an ambiguous, contested and politically charged term that is much misused and risks making it harder for officers to win back the trust of communities.
Calling Sir Mark Rowley the ‘right’ person to lead the force, she said Baroness Casey also found that ‘the vast majority of serving police officers in the Met are decent, law-abiding and uphold the highest standard’.
‘The findings that Louise Casey makes of the instances of misogyny, racism, homophobia are all totally unacceptable and no one’s denying that.’
Exposed
Mr Saunder’s staggering unprofessionalism and lack of professional competence was exposed when he subsequently failed to respond to two questions directly accusing him of lying, and failing to demonstrate any accountability in relation to the misdemeanour of the colleague put under his charge.
Mr Saunders also failed to envisage that the subject of inquiry could shift from it’s original query to his own conduct, without us losing sight of the original topic of interest. His misjudgement is his undoing in this matter.
Saunder’s position as Head Of the Home Office is arguably untenable after such conduct, though it is not within our power to determine his fate at the Home Office.
His lack of professional expertise and inept handling of the matter was a poor reflection of any leadership qualities he would purport to have.
Leaders lead by example, are problem solvers, operate with a necessary level of foresight and expertise. They also set important checks and balances to ensure accountability and prevent a conflict of interest.
Saunders displayed none of the aforementioned qualities, rather his conduct amplified the problem, and he lacked the foresight to envisage how his poor conduct would be held to account.
Police Racist Whassap Messages
Institutional racism in the police force has never been disputed among well informed people, a reality which ofcourse is not a slight on every single police officer out there. Honourable and dignified police officers are not in short supply, but are inadvertently undermined each time bad apples show up in the force.
The question as to why police officers who are racist are not jailed was discussed and analysed with a number of academics, and also with The CPS and The Ministry Of Justice, before being brought back to the Home Office. All pointers were to the Home Office in terms of jurisdiction when it comes to executing and enforcing the powers of the police.
A spokesperson from The Ministry Of Justice told this publication: ”matters relating to the proper functioning of the police ultimately falls within the jurisdiction of the Home Office.
The Home Office is ultimately in charge of all important decisions concerning the implementation of standards in the police force”.
Authority
The Home Office denied having any mandate or authority with respect to directing the operational aspect of policing, especially where disputes arise in that respect.
When the original drama was reported to Mr. Saunders , he apologised for the indiscretion of his arrogant colleague, who was ignorant of the historically established fact of institutional racism in the police force.
However, it was his imprudent efforts to soften the blow with the baseless claim that The Home Office only respond to bonified journalists who are independently regulated, and his action of deceit. that brought his conduct within the scope of further scrutiny.
This was against the backdrop of his ignorance that The Eye Of Media has communicated with The Home Office for years, atop the fact he was attempting to protect his flawed colleague’s shameful stance on the matter.
Mr Saunders was told that amongst our standard function, is journalistic regulation of various organisations and persons of interest ( always on incontrovertible and transparent grounds),including himself and The Home Office, whose communications department over which he presides as head is now being held to account. He was woefully found wanting.
This publication has an internal complaint procedure and is in that sense self regulated. In any event of discontent by a subject of any article we publish , and our handling of an accompanying complaint, we will refer such to Ipso for regulation.
However, we have also held Ipso to account on the few occasions we have objectively found them to be wanting following a comprehensive and through assessment of their any of their investigations.
Thankfully, we have not always found the need to do this.
Response
Mr. Saunder’s written response at the time read: ”The Home Office Press Office responds to requests from bona fide members of the media, for example those regulated by independent regulators. We may not respond to organisations like think tanks or blogs, and may ask these groups to correspond with the department through our Public Enquiries email.
‘We do so in line with our obligations under the Civil Service Code and the Government Communication Service Propriety Guidance.
On your specific question on why police officers have not been prosecuted for a variety of reasons, while the Home Office is responsible for policing policy, it would not be responsible for individual prosecutions. ”More broadly, under the Government Communication Service Propriety Guidance, our communication should be relevant to our responsibility. He failed in all the aforementioned respects.
‘This would be a matter for individual police forces or the Crown Prosecution Service.
In regards to our staff, I regret you feel a member of staff did not act in the appropriate
manner. We expect the highest standards from all members of staff.
Members of staff are hired in accordance with Civil Service Recruitment Principles and
provided with robust training to do their job’.
Contrary to Mr. Saunder’s dodgy claims, the code he referenced explicitly calls for integrity, elaborating this to be ”putting the obligations of public service above personal interests., and
mentions honesty – ”being truthful and open” He failed in all the aforementioned respects.
Mr. Saunders misses the point, that our inquiry was in relation to the Home Office’s jurisdiction of policing power and whether it whether it adequately executes its function.
A careful and thorough examination of the Civil Service Code and the Government Communication Service Propriety Guidance revealed nothing he had claimed in his statement, as there was no reference to his claims. It exposed the so-called Head of Communications of being a liar, and he made no attempts to explain himself when confronted.
Dishonesty
Mr Saunders, who expects the highest standards from his member of staff fell well below those standards himself , by not being dishonest. When confronted with this embarrassing fact, he had no response.
Racist Former Met Officer In Home Office
Saunders ironically has racist Lewis to thank, whose circulated racist whassap and misogynistic messages, which included messages about Meghan Markle sparked this whole unpleasant saga.
Rob Lewis, who was a Home Office official, was eventually arrested for offences under the Communications Act and misconduct in a public office.
Eliminating the scourge of discrimination in the police force is one every decent citizen should be committed to. Indifference or the turning of a blind eye amounts to some degree of complicity in a prohibited act. The prevalence of racism in the police force reflects very badly on the Home Office, more especially as it has had an established racist in their midst.
Reproachable conduct like that of Saunders confirms the need for competent personnel in press offices with proper training and a high level discretion, rather than the employment of seemingly egotistic individuals not capable of effectively managing those under their charge.
The conduct displayed by Home office’s Head of News confirms the intuitive fact that respectable titles are not always synonymous with leadership or quality. Professional settings where the boss is just as immature as his subordinates, makes mockery of the entire institutional structure, invariably questioning how pervasive such cracks may be in the system may be.
The conventional practise in the police force for addressing transgressions of racism is through the protracted framework of the internal tribunal system is below par, and needs to be upstaged. Zero tolerance is the only viable way forward.
Moreover, it is obvious that where officers have escaped even the compromised level of accountability through the tribunal system, it is unsurprising they have escape prosecution.
In many cases, officers who have behaved despicably, and brought the force to disrepute have resigned before action is taken, thereby escaping accountability in every respect. Some have even been promoted.
Threshold For Criminal Prosecution
Not all cases of racist acts necessarily meet the threshold for criminal prosecution. Racism embodied in whassap messages not directed at a victim has been said by lawyers to generally fall below the ambit of a hate crime, but when directed at an individual based on race, or designed to incite hatred, unarguably falls within the confines of inciting hate.
Officers who are toxic and devoid of morals should be unable to penetrate a coherently and efficiently designed framework to counter it.
The disdainful outlook on minorities and women by corrupt officers, and other glaringly reproachable misconduct, has been a set back for the otherwise respectable image of the force. An effective deterrent is yet to be formed and implemented to eradicate these misfits from the force.
More unsurprising is the fact that the British police force has allowed so many deviant officers in their midst.
Criminal Records
One of the disturbing facts that perennially blights the integrity of the police force is the fact the police force recruits criminals in its midst. Its a sad fact very difficult to fartham.
Revelation earlier this year by The Sun Newspaper that individuals with criminal records that include burglary and assault were recruited in the force in 2022 should make every highly placed official in past governments and the police force cringe in painful embarrassment.
Sir Mark Rowley’s announcement to eliminate officers with criminal records in the force is something this publication has asked for multiple times with the Home Office, the Met Police, and most recently in the past month Mark Rowley himself.
The only outstanding issue is the need for the force to institute a credible and fitting punitive for measure for officers caught being racist in a manner that meets the criminal threshold.
In a damning indictment to the collective integrity of the force, and every Mayor of London who has been in power during those times, it begs the question how a police force can confidently function with criminals in their midst, beggars’ belief.
An extensive letter has been sent to Met Police Chief Mark Roland to in this respect, with regards to greater accountability in the police force inn the area of overt racism, and that the law will be tested in the event of a recurrence of such level of racism unmet with the full force of the law for the sake of absolute propriety.”
His representatives said it will be passed unto him.
Police Commissioner: Sir Mark Rowley Image:PA
And in the absence of decisive action to redress the grotesque state of affairs in the police force, it must be taken to be mere rhetoric each time a police commissioner vows to stamp out racism and corruption from the force.
As the saying goes, action speaks louder than words, and empty barrels make the loudest noise.
Home Secretary Communication
Communication was been made to the Home Secretary, Suella Braverman with the special request that it fulfils its duty of stamping out racism in the force, in line with its duty to provide sound oversight over the police force. Also for the sake of the good name of those proficient and honourable police officers out there doing there very best for society.
Close attention will be paid to developments in this area, as discussions around the topic are broadened behind the scenes with some news editors and other politicians to keep tabs on its actions and omissions in this very important and sensitive area of good practise and lw
The matter was also been raised with the office of The Mayor Of London, but all indications appear to be that Sadiq Khan, who has been vocal in raising standards of integrity and accountability in the police force, may be out of his depths when it comes to pushing the boundaries in terms of prosecutions against guilty members of the force.
Khan was interrogated late last year over his handling of former Commissioner, Cressica Dick, which led to her eventual resignation and may lack the resilience to push any further.
Mayor Of London : Sadiq Khan Image:PA
A spokesperson for the Mayor of London told this publication they could very much see our point, and highlighted various measures Mr Khan has taken to improve the quality of the police force.
”I see your point on this issue and there are many steps the Mayor has taken in combating corruption in the Met”, he said. There was no direct reference to instructing the enforcement of legal statute.
There has been no official comment addressing this issue or providing a coherent explanation as to why the present state of affairs must remain the way it currently is.
Mr Khan’s remit encompasses acting in the best interest of Londoners to ensure equal treatment and the upholding of the rule of law at all times.
The lack of compliance with statutory laws in any sphere of society is an automatic slight on the individual or organization refusing to comply.
Which is why this publication will campaign for holistic change in the police force right from top to bottom, and ensure a collective accountability every time a clear case of racism or misogyny is not presented for prosecution without a satisfactory explanation.
Lawyers have offered the alternative of this publication privately pursuing prosecutions any future cases of arguable racism in the force brought to the public domain, in order to test the force of law in real practical situations.
The Home Office was contacted for comment.