Vote Sundip Meghani – Labour’s best qualified choice for Leicestershire PCC

Dear Labour Party Member,

Selection of Labour candidate to serve as Leicestershire’s next Police and Crime Commissioner

You should by now have received the ‘Summer Elections 2019’ voting email from Labour HQ with a link on how to vote for your preferred candidate.

Thank you to everyone who has voted already in this important contest. Whether you voted for me – or for one of my Labour comrades – thank you for participating in our Party democracy.

All Labour members, including those who haven’t yet voted, will have noticed that this is certainly a hotly contested race! You’ve had emails, leaflets and texts from candidates all vying for your attention. And this is as it should be.

As Party members it is right that you decide not only who has the best credentials to do the job, but also who has the best chance of winning the 2020 election. A candidate who doesn’t just appeal to decent Labour folk like us, but someone who can reach out and convince Tories, Lib Dems, non-voters and independents to come out and vote Labour.

I strongly believe these two elements are linked. The best way to convince floating voters to support us – in addition to compiling a solid manifesto – is to nominate a candidate like me who has extensive and relevant work experience in law, justice, policing, and police regulation.

As referred to in my previous mailing, my cumulative experience stacks up exceptionally well against the Tory PCC candidate. He’s a former author who wrote ghost stories, a failed MEP, and a hardline Brexiteer with a visceral hatred of the EU.

Contrast this with my background:

  1. Solicitor – Legal Aid defence lawyer, helping the most vulnerable in society; experienced in taking actions against the police, as well as defending officers.
  2. City Councillor – Here’s a blog on what I achieved for my constituents and the city-at-large during my four years as a Beaumont Leys Councillor: http://tiny.cc/B-Leys.
  3. Leicestershire Police Authority Member – Experienced in doing the work that the PCC now undertakes; I previously led efforts to save more than 200 policing jobs in Leicestershire.
  4. Parliamentary Candidate – We came second in Harborough in 2015, our best result since 1979! Read here about the campaign that I ran: http://tiny.cc/Harborough.
  5. Independent Custody Visitor – For four years in my spare time I visited police stations unannounced, to make sure detainees in custody were being treated fairly, and in accordance with the law.
  6. Lead Investigator – In my job at the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) I hold the police accountable and investigate serious alleged misconduct and criminality.
  7. Trade union leader – National head of our PCS Union branch at the IOPC; I don’t just preach trade union values – I practice them – and I’ve saved dozens of jobs.
  8. Values – Passionately pro-European and a Labour activist for more than 18 years; working hard to elect a Labour government and get Jeremy Corbyn into Number 10!

Quite apart from my own family history, and a career of fighting injustice – as well as my previous experience of having done the work that the PCC actually does – for me this is more than just a job opportunity. It’s a chance to serve my home county, and the people of Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland, by putting my Labour values into practice. A chance to shape the future of part of our criminal justice system, shifting the focus even further onto long-term rehabilitation and the prevention of criminal offending.

And the chance to visibly demonstrate our commitment to diversity, not just by selecting a minority ethnic PCC candidate, but because I would as a minimum – if elected – seek to introduce a requirement that at least one of the top four Leicestershire Police leadership roles was filled by a suitably competent BAME officer. It’s high time we stopped talking about involving black and Asian people in our teams – and let’s have them lead the team – front and centre.

If selected as your Labour nominee I would campaign on:

• Working to reduce crime and championing rehabilitation;

• Improving police numbers, pay and performance;

• Focusing on diversity with positive action;

• Protecting vulnerable people and putting victims first;

• Tackling domestic violence and improving youth justice;

• Being tougher on low-level antisocial behaviour.

If elected I would keep a healthy and professional distance between the Force and the Office of Police and Crime Commissioner. I would also seek to strengthen the Police and Crime Panel, which holds the PCC to account. Everyone in a position of power should be robustly scrutinised and kept in check by the people they serve.

My selection letter is attached. You can read more about my background here: http://tiny.cc/SMbackground. 

I hope I have managed to set out sufficient evidence of my years of dedicated hard work – focused on upholding the rule of law, fighting injustice, championing diversity, and delivering effective policing.

I hope that you will vote for me as your first preference candidate. Please do contact me if there is anything you would like to raise or share.

Yours sincerely,

 

 

 

Sundip Meghani

 

Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/Sundip

Web & Email: http://www.sundipmeghani.com/contact

Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/cllr.sundip.Meghani

An open letter to Labour Party members in Leicestershire

Dear Labour Party Member

Selection of Labour candidate to serve as Leicestershire’s next Police and Crime Commissioner

I am writing to ask for your support in this selection contest. I’d like to set out my case for earning your vote. I must start by telling you I’m humbled to have the privilege of standing as a candidate. You see, someone like me doesn’t usually get to be a serious contender for such an important and powerful job of overseeing our Police Service.

As a British Asian, the son of refugees – raised on a Leicester council estate and educated at the local comprehensive on free school meals – I was never destined to achieve a professional career, let alone serve as a Labour politician. But this is the kind of country our Party has created. The kind of society we have shaped with our shared Labour values.

We believe every person irrespective of background should have an equal opportunity to work hard and get ahead. We believe in protecting the most vulnerable amongst us and investing in public services such as the police. We believe in upholding the rule of law and protecting the rights of minorities, just as we believe in fighting to reduce crime and gang violence, and in putting victims first. We believe in the long-term benefits of rehabilitation; in the need to eradicate domestic violence; in the promise of young people and the importance of expanding youth justice; and in the need to take a tougher approach to low-level antisocial behaviour, including noise pollution and vandalism.

Above all we believe in holding powerful people to account, fighting hate crime, and safeguarding all of our rights and freedoms in our great democracy; something that is more important than ever, as a wave of populist fascism sweeps across the globe. These are the priorities I would champion as your Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC).

I’d like to give you eight reasons to vote me as your Labour candidate.

1. As a City Councillor, and Leicestershire Police Authority (LPA) board member, I did the work the PCC now does. We held the force to account, set the policing plan and annual budget, and dealt with complaints and oversight problems. I also learnt to understand the policing issues still affecting our diverse communities.

2. Track record of delivering results and working collaboratively. On the LPA in 2011, I led efforts to increase the precept by 2.5% and save more than 200 local policing jobs. I also led on many other projects, such as successfully addressing the force’s disproportionate targeting of young black men with the use of Stop and Search.

3. Loyal team player; working hard to improve people’s lives. I served as a Leicester Labour Councillor and worked hard for my constituents, achieving many great results along the way in partnership with my Labour colleagues.

4. Campaigner who knows how to fight elections. In addition to organising my 2011 and 2018 Council runs in Beaumont Leys and Harborne respectively, I delivered a high-impact campaign as Labour’s 2015 General Election candidate in the Tory safe seat of Harborough, focusing our efforts on helping Labour colleagues win in nearby marginal seats.

5. Qualified solicitor experienced in prosecuting and defending the police. My experience of taking actions against the police, as well as defending officers, shows that I can understand issues from both the public and the police perspective. I would adopt an evidence-led approach to the role of PCC and deliver good robust oversight.

6. Working in police regulation at the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC). At the IOPC I hold the police to account, conduct complex investigations, deal with major incidents, and arrest / interview officers under caution. I’m also the national head of our PCS trade union branch, protecting hundreds of jobs across the country.

7. High regard for responsible policing and public safety. I served for four years as an Independent Custody Visitor. I visited police stations unannounced to check on the welfare of detained persons and safeguard their rights.

8. Championing diversity and winning the 2020 election. Leicestershire is one of the most diverse counties in the country. The Asian vote in the city and surrounding suburbs is very high. Quite apart from visibly demonstrating that ours is the only Party willing and prepared to elect a PCC from a minority ethnic background – for only the second time in British history – I would galvanise this key demographic to turn out, and help us win the election. Leicestershire is a marginal county seat and we need a candidate with the knowledge and expertise to win. My 2020 Vision manifesto and 14-point election campaign plan will ensure that we keep Leicestershire Labour red!

If I could, I’d call or visit every single Party member in Leicestershire, but there are more than 6,000 of us! I hope this letter has instead served to illustrate why I am the most qualified, most experienced, and best placed candidate to be your nominee – to win the 2020 election – and then do an excellent job as Labour’s Police and Crime Commissioner for Leicestershire.

I hope you will vote for me. Email and postal ballots will begin to arrive from late July. If you would like to get in touch with me I would be delighted to hear from you.

Yours sincerely,

 

 

 

Sundip Meghani

 

Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/Sundip

Web & Email: http://www.sundipmeghani.com/contact

Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/cllr.sundip.Meghani

The End of the Independent Police Complaints Commission (April 2004 – January 2018)

Oversight of policing in England and Wales

On Monday 8 January 2018 the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) will cease to exist. In its place the new Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) will be established.

For my part I had planned to celebrate this momentous occasion by taking a much-needed week off work and heading to New York for a series of educational visits, lectures, receptions and social events, as a guest of my old law school (De Montfort University).

Sadly, Mother Nature had other plans! So after spending two days enjoying the sights and sounds of Heathrow Airport, here I am: back to reality and blogging about my employer on a Sunday. Life is good!

In all seriousness, I am very proud to be employed by such an important and reputable organisation, and I work alongside some of the finest people I have ever had the pleasure to call my colleagues.

Indeed I pay tribute to the incredibly dedicated people I work with, who, like most public servants in our country, are overworked and underpaid for what they do. The smooth running of our society is reliant on hardworking and patriotic public servants and civil servants, who go above and beyond their call of duty every single day.

I have written this blog as a kind of personal tribute and potted history of the organisation that employed me. It is written solely in a private capacity. I do not speak for my employer and nobody should assume otherwise. I do, however, speak for myself, and my right to do so – as well as yours – is enshrined in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as incorporated into the Human Rights Act 1998.

In this blog I shall talk about:

  • My current role and previous work around policing
  • The Police Complaints Board (PCB) and the Police Complaints Authority (PCA)
  • The murder of Stephen Lawrence and the Macpherson Report
  • Founding of the Independent Police Complaint Commission (IPCC)
  • The IPCC’s size and structure, its scope and operations, and its impact
  • IPCC investigations and criticism of its work
  • The new Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC)

Within my organisation I currently have a dual role: leading investigations into potential or alleged police wrongdoing; and heading up our national PCS Union branch, which means I lead a team of trade union officials, working to protect the jobs and interests of hundreds of union members. I also lead national pay negotiations for all staff annually; an incredibly difficult and frustrating task whilst we have a government that does not value public sector workers.

Interestingly my career keeps bringing me back to policing in some form or another, although I have never actually served as a police officer.

When I was younger I did four years voluntary service as an Independent Custody Visitor in Leicester, where – as a member of the public – I would visit police stations randomly to check on the welfare of detained persons.

As a solicitor I have both taken actions against the police, and also worked on behalf of the Police Federation, to defend police officers. As a Labour Councillor in Leicester I served on the Board of the Leicestershire Police Authority, where my biggest achievement was leading efforts to help save more than 200 local policing jobs. And then in late 2014 I accepted a job offer with the IPCC.

I think it’s fair to say most people will have heard of the Independent Police Complaints Commission and most people would have some idea of the high level role it played in the police complaints system.

On reflection I suppose it was the organisation’s unique and important function that appealed to me and made me to want to work for it.

I consider myself to have a healthy mistrust of authority. That is to say, I believe everyone in a position of power – be it police, politicians, the press, or any other professional for that matter – should be answerable for the way they work and exercise power, especially when it comes to affecting peoples’ lives.

There must be robust and transparent scrutiny of what powerful people do, especially if and when something goes wrong. Indeed, it is part and parcel of living in a functioning modern democracy, right up there with upholding the rule of law and having a free press.

In terms of the IPCC’s background there were two main predecessor organisations.

In the mid-1970s, following a series of scandals involving the Metropolitan Police – and a perceived lack of independence in the police complaints system – the Police (Complaints) Act of 1976 was passed, and on 1 June 1977 the Police Complaints Board was established.

Until the creation of this body, complaints against police forces were handled directly by forces themselves, although the Home Secretary could refer serious complaints to alternate forces.

The Brixton riots in 1981, and the subsequent Scarman report – which investigated allegations of police racism – increased societal pressure to reform the Police Complaints Board.

The Police and Criminal Evidence Act of 1984 abolished the PCB and, in its place, the Police Complaints Authority (PCA) was established a year later, with increased powers to actively supervise internal investigations being run by police forces.

The logo of the Independent Police Complaints Commission

What these organisations lacked however – both the PCB and later the PCA – was the clout to robustly scrutinise police complaints, or even carry out independent investigations.

The Police Complaints Authority was replaced by the Independent Police Complaints Commission, which was formally created in 2004. In-fact it was established on April Fools’ Day to be precise! (No comment.)

The chain of events, which ultimately saw the creation of the IPCC, was arguably put into motion some 11 years earlier on the evening of Thursday 22 April 1993.

On that fateful night Stephen Lawrence, an 18-year-old black man from Lewisham, was attacked – along with his friend Duwayne Brooks – in what was a racially motivated act of violence, as they waited at a bus stop.

Stephen was stabbed twice, in the right collar bone and the left shoulder, and he sadly died of his injuries from massive blood loss. Following a catalogue of perceived failings by the Metropolitan Police, and as well as vocal public anger and political uproar, the then Home Secretary Jack Straw ordered an inquiry led by Sir William Macpherson.

The Macpherson Report, published in 1999, branded the Metropolitan Police Service as “institutionally racist”. The report made 70 recommendations and this included the setting up of a new ‘Independent Police Complaints Commission’.

It is fair to say then, that the IPCC was conceived in an atmosphere of societal discord and political wrangling. But it is also the case that big changes often have a contentious backstory. Something serious usually goes wrong for people to agree that something needs to change.

The key differences between the IPCC and its predecessor bodies were its size and structure, the scope of what it did, the way it operated, and its impact on policing. I’ll now expand a little in each of these areas.

In my opinion the best way to explain the structure of the outgoing IPCC is to think about it in the same way you would a school. In most schools there are two professional groups of people working alongside each other: teachers and governors.

In a similar way the IPCC had an operational structure, with staff members who ran the organisation and did the frontline work, just like teachers. It also had Commissioners – about a dozen or so – who were the public-facing administrators of the IPCC: holding the leadership to account and setting the direction of travel, not too dissimilar to school governors.

The only glitch with that analogy is that, unlike school governors, IPCC Commissioners were actively involved in making key decisions in investigations and appeals. And, if we were to expand the analogy somewhat, this was akin to school governors going into classrooms to teach lessons from time-to-time.

These blurred working practices within the IPCC perhaps serve to explain why, at least in part, the organisation had to undergo a major revamp.

Overall, the organisation – or at least its constituent parts, which shall continue working in the new structure – has surprisingly few staff for the important role that it plays throughout England and Wales. There are only about a thousand employees located across seven sites, with a Head Office in London, and then six further offices in Birmingham, Cardiff, Croydon, Sale, Wakefield and Warrington.

The core business of the IPCC insofar as the public is concerned – as well as policing professionals, politicians and the press – has been to oversee the police complaints system in England and Wales, and to increase public confidence in policing.

Referrals to the IPCC took a number of forms and, whilst members of the public sometimes got in touch directly, usually it was police forces which routinely referred themselves for scrutiny.

These were either voluntary referrals or mandatory referrals, depending on the seriousness of the matter. For example, all death and serious injury cases involving the police in any way required a mandatory referral.

Building on the remit of its predecessor organisation, the IPCC could choose to either supervise or manage a force’s internal investigation into its own officers or staff. Complainants also had the right to appeal to the IPCC in order to have the outcome of their complaint reconsidered.

Perhaps the broadest new power given to the IPCC, upon its founding some 14 years ago, was that of carrying out independent investigations – run entirely by the organisation itself – and using its own investigators.

For ease of reference, and in simple terms, it’s best to imagine the system as a four-layered pyramid. The bottom layer was local investigations. These were low-level complaints that were investigated by forces themselves.

The second layer was supervised investigations. These were carried out by police forces themselves as well, but in accordance with the terms of reference set down by the IPCC.

The third layer was managed investigations. These were carried out by police forces, but under the direction and control of the IPCC. And finally, at the top of the pyramid, there were independent investigations carried out by the IPCC.

The vast majority of independent investigations were serious and sensitive cases and usually fell into one of three different categories: 1) serious complaints; 2) serious conduct cases – so for police officers this meant potential breaches of the Standards of Professional Behaviour (contained in the Police Conduct Regulations); and 3) serious injury and / or death, either involving the police or following police contact.

When an independent investigation was declared, and once the parameters were clearly defined, the IPCC and its investigators had ownership and jurisdiction.

Arguably in some ways the IPCC was a bit like a law enforcement agency, with its own set of powers, fully trained investigators and support staff, equipment and resources, interview rooms, fleet vehicles etc.

But in reality it only ever functioned as a civilian oversight body: monitoring the police complaints system at arm’s length from government, and run entirely independently of all police forces and law enforcement agencies.

I have always felt that the organisation’s leadership and staff were pretty well-grounded, taking their roles and responsibilities very seriously. I also believe that the IPCC has operated as a pre-eminent public body, keeping an eye on the state, and providing a tangible check-and-balance on the way that police power was exercised when dealing with citizens.

Of course the IPCC was not perfect. No organisation ever is. But it did have a set of core values by which the organisation and its people were meant to abide. These were: justice and human rights; independence; valuing diversity; integrity; and openness – indeed it is in the spirit of openness that I have written this article!

Despite its good intentions however, the IPCC sometimes came in for criticism when things went wrong, or if its own staff overstepped the mark.

The organisation clearly had its wings clipped in the famous 2014 case of the IPCC v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (and others). In that judgement, the Court of Appeal held that contrary to how the IPCC had been operating, it could no longer express conclusive findings on whether or not a police officer’s conduct had been unlawful and / or unreasonable.

So instead, the IPCC – and Lead Investigators like me – had to confine ourselves to stating only whether an officer had a case to answer for misconduct, or if a CPS referral needed to be made, rather than appearing to pass any sort of judgement.

Here we have an example of where a body that had been tasked with keeping the police in-check, also itself had to be kept in-check, by an independent judiciary upholding the rule of law.

In my view this merely serves to illustrate that any person or public body exercising power and authority has the potential to overstep the mark and exceed its remit, sometimes even unintentionally, which further proves my earlier point.

Now as we acknowledge the passing of the institution known as the IPCC, let’s look briefly at the future of the organisation, and the changes that lie ahead.

Firstly, as we have seen from the inception of the PCB in 1977, to the PCA in 1985, and then later the IPCC in 2004: the trend is steadily upwards when it comes to increased public scrutiny of state power – as personified by the police.

The new Independent Office for Police Conduct will have greater powers and a bigger remit than the outgoing IPCC. This is not entirely surprising bearing in mind the expanding size of the state, catering to an ever-increasing and diverse population.

In 2017, another small organisation was incorporated into the organisation’s remit, in that the IPCC began regulating the Gangmasters Licensing Authority.

This was in addition to the IPCC’s existing role in investigating serious complaints against HM Revenue and Customs, the National Crime Agency, Police and Crime Commissioners, and Home Office special enforcement staff, not to mention the 43 police force areas of England and Wales, and other specialist police forces also.

The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) shall come into existence on Monday 8 January 2018. The IOPC will have a range of new powers, including the power to present cases at disciplinary hearings, and the power to proactively call-in matters that it wants to investigate, rather than just waiting for matters to be referred in.

One of the other big changes taking place in the new IOPC will be the removal of all Commissioners – the aforementioned public-facing governors – and the move towards a single operating structure and line of accountability.

Incorporated into the IOPC operating model will be new Regional Directors for every English region and a Director for Wales, and as well a new Director General instead of a Chief Executive.

So it’s clear there are many big changes in the pipeline.

Some 40 years after the first public body was established, to look into complaints against the police, we are set to see a bigger, emboldened, more powerful and proactive regulatory agency, scrutinising the work of the police, and other public bodies.

This is what Parliament voted for, in the public interest, and I think it is a good thing.

In-fact, I would go further and say that in addition to the general public, all policing professionals should want to see a new regulator like the IOPC. It is in the interests of decent hardworking people, of every background, to want to have high quality, transparent and constructive oversight of their profession.

As a solicitor by background myself, I always welcomed seeing the Solicitors Regulations Authority stepping in to root out solicitors who had unlawfully taken client monies, or completely failed to adhere to client instructions. I suspect most police officers and staff would take a similar view in respect of their own profession.

In closing, I wanted to take a moment to mention a particular police officer who really stood out to me over the last year, and no doubt to countless others.

His name was PC Keith Palmer and he was a 48-year-old police constable serving with the Metropolitan Police Service. He had a wife, named Michelle, and a 5-year-old daughter.

In April 2016 PC Palmer was assigned to the Parliamentary and Diplomatic Protection Group. Less than a year later, on 22 March 2017, as PC Palmer stood guard protecting the parliamentary estate – the very heart of our democracy – a fascist Islamist with warped beliefs went on a rampage, killing four pedestrians whilst driving a vehicle at high speed along Westminster Bridge.

The terrorist crashed his car into the parliamentary perimeter fence, before abandoning it, and running into New Palace Yard, attempting to access Westminster Palace itself.

As most people understandably ran from the danger, PC Palmer stood up to it, taking the brunt of the violence. PC Palmer lost his life that day, but his heroic efforts slowed down the attacker, and almost certainly saved the lives of other people.

We owe a huge debt of gratitude to PC Palmer, and countless other men and women like him – both civilian and military – without whom we would not be able to enjoy the rights and freedoms that we have.

I think it is incumbent on us all never to take those freedoms for granted, and never to lose sight of the fundamental pillars that make up British democracy, such as the rule of law – and holding power accountable in the public interest.

Leicester people condemn vandalism of Gandhi statue

Statue of Mahatma Gandhi in LeicesterMany Leicester people were appalled and disgusted on Saturday (7 June 2014), when photos emerged on social media showing that the statue of Mahatma Gandhi on Belgrave Road had been defaced.

Rupal Rajani from BBC Leicester originally tweeted the photos from her personal account, which had been sent to her by local businessman Vinod Popat.

The graffiti on the statue is an attempt to draw attention to the awful 1984 massacre of Sikhs in Amritsar, a major controversy involving the Indian Prime Minister at the time, Mrs Indira Gandhi.

However it would seem that the culprit who committed this vandalism isn’t very bright. Either they did not know that Mahatma Gandhi and Indira Gandhi were two very different people and completely unrelated. Or they did know the difference, and they did it anyway, in a bid to stir up tensions in the community. In any event, they have failed.

The statue of Mahatma Gandhi in LeicesterThis act only serves to unify Leicester people from all backgrounds and communities, who recognise that it is not a legitimate political protest: it is simply a cowardly act of criminal damage.

Many of my Leicester Labour colleagues were quick to condemn this pathetic behaviour.

Cllr Vijay Singh Riyait of Abbey tweeted: “we need to be clear that this kind of thing is totally unacceptable”. And Assistant Mayor Cllr Manjula Sood of Latimer telephoned me and told me that “this is entirely wrong and goes against the teachings of Sikhism”. She also agreed to inform the police.

Keith Vaz, Labour MP for Leicester East, tweeted: “Shocked that the Gandhi statue in Belgrave has been defaced. A foolish act of vandalism. Let’s stay united and strong to honour the great man”. His comments were later retweeted by journalists from the BBC and Leicester Mercury.

Having noticed the photos on Twitter fairly earlier on I had immediately emailed them over to City Mayor Sir Peter Soulsby. The City Mayor and his Cabinet colleague Cllr Sarah Russell were very quick to respond, confirming within hours that Council officers would be out cleaning the graffiti on Sunday morning.

The statue of Mahatma Gandhi in LeicesterIt is great to see that Leicester’s political leaders have taken this seriously. We are also very lucky to have such dedicated Council officers, promptly agreeing to carry out the cleaning work on a Sunday.

Some people have questioned why this is such a big issue. Others have even made light of it or tried to justify the sentiments being expressed.

For the avoidance of doubt let me be very clear. The graffiti applied to Mahatma Gandhi’s statue is not a legitimate political protest and it absolutely must not be justified under any circumstances.

The definition of terrorism is “the unauthorised use of violence or intimidation in the pursuit of political aims”. The desecration of this statue was unauthorised; it was an act of intimidation aimed at the mainly British Indian community living in Belgrave; and the purpose was wholly political.

It could be argued therefore that this act of vandalism also amounts to an act of terrorism. An act that was perpetrated by the same kind of closed-minded people who go on to commit far more dangerous acts, because they already have a blatant disregard for the rule of law. These people don’t want to convince us of their political beliefs; they want to force us into accepting them, and they’re prepared to break the law to do it.

The statue of Mahatma Gandhi in LeicesterWe are lucky to live in a civilised western society built on the rule of law, human rights, freedom and democracy. Any transgression of these principles is an attack on all of us and our way of life. We must never justify any attempt to influence public discourse through the use violence, force or intimidation.

Thankfully I believe that this was an isolated incident and that these kinds of acts are very rare in Leicester. However we must always be prepared to stand together – people of all faiths and those of none – united against criminals and terrorists seeking to take the law into their own hands to advance their political beliefs.

Mahatma GandhiUltimately we have this statue of Mahatma Gandhi in Leicester for the same reason that we have Nelson Mandela Park and may soon have – thanks to Cllr Adam Clarke of Aylestone – a statue of Alice Hawkins: We choose to honour great people and inspire the next generation.

We will not be intimidated by stupid cowards who break the law.

Cllr Sundip Meghani

UPDATE: The statue of Mahatma Gandhi has now been cleaned. This was done within 24 hours by Leicester City Council officers. Photo credit: Emily Anderson, BBC News. Leicestershire Police are investigating and two arrests were made on 11 June 2014. Anyone with any information should contact Leicestershire Police on 0116 222 22 22.

The statute of Mahatma Gandhi in Leicester