UK Think Tank Says Muslim Police Staff Networks Raise Impartiality Concerns

By yourNEWS Media Newsroom.

A British think tank is calling for sweeping restrictions on police staff networks after concluding that some groups created to support officers have expanded into contentious political, religious and operational debates that risk undermining public confidence in police impartiality.

Policy Exchange’s newly released report, Mixed Messages: Police Impartiality & the National Association of Muslim Police, recommends a new “Police Impartiality Act” covering chief constables, police officers, civilian staff, staff networks and other policing organizations. It also recommends abolishing police staff networks outright — or, if they remain, restricting them through tighter governance rules to internal support functions.

The report focuses heavily on the National Association of Muslim Police, or NAMP, although the broader issue extends across British policing. An earlier inspection by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services identified 11 national staff networks and more than 200 local networks across police forces in England and Wales. Those organizations cover characteristics and interests including race, gender, sexuality, religion and, in some cases, groups organized around interests such as veganism.

Policy Exchange argues that NAMP illustrates how such organizations can move beyond providing workplace assistance.

The think tank says NAMP was supposedly intended to “support” Muslim officers but that its “activities and partnerships” now “range across a far wider policy agenda and are clearly highly contentious.”

At least 20 regional police forces also have local Muslim police associations, according to the report, while NAMP has affiliations across numerous forces.

The findings were highlighted Thursday in a Breitbart News report.

Central to Policy Exchange’s concerns is a 2025 document titled From Past Prejudices to Present Policies: Confronting anti-Muslim hatred and Promoting Human Rights. The paper was written by Khaldoun Kabbani, who at the time was chairman of the Scottish Police Muslim Association and vice president of NAMP, and appeared on NAMP’s official website.

The paper described Zionism as a manifestation of “anti-Muslim hatred, stripping Muslims of their humanity” and referred to the Israel Defense Forces among what it called “Zionist terrorist groups,” according to Policy Exchange’s examination of the document. It also drew comparisons between Israel’s military campaign in Gaza and the Holocaust.

The document’s treatment of the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas-led attack on Israel generated particular criticism.

It referred to “alarming and unverified stories about acts of violence,” including reports of beheadings, while arguing that such accounts increased hostility toward Muslims. The document also accused media coverage of “falsely insinuating that [Palestinians] perpetrate atrocities against innocents” and disputed reports that children had been murdered during the attack.

Subsequent documentation contradicts the assertion that no children were killed.

Amnesty International reported in 2025 that approximately 1,200 people were killed in the Oct. 7 attacks, including more than 800 civilians and 36 children. The organization concluded after reviewing evidence that Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups carried out a widespread and systematic assault against civilians and committed crimes against humanity.

Amnesty has also separately accused Israel of grave violations in Gaza and concluded that Israel is committing genocide there — a conclusion Israel has rejected — underscoring that its findings concerning the Oct. 7 killings did not stem from an organization generally aligned with the Israeli government’s position.

NAMP has strongly rejected the characterization that the 2025 paper represented its organizational position.

In a June statement, the association said the document had been written by a former vice president, had not been commissioned by NAMP and did not constitute official policy or guidance. NAMP said the author had left both policing and the organization and that the document was removed from its website after leadership became aware of it.

NAMP also explicitly rejected allegations that it supports Hamas.

“NAMP categorically does not ‘defend’ Hamas or any other proscribed organisation. We condemn all forms of terrorism and extremism,” the organization said.

It said its longstanding concern has instead been that terminology connecting Islam with terrorism can stigmatize Muslim communities.

The National Police Chiefs’ Council nevertheless said some content in the paper was unacceptable.

“Some of the views described in that paper are deeply concerning and do not reflect the values, standards or operational position of British policing,” Assistant Chief Constable Jon McAdam said in June.

McAdam said there was “no question in my mind that some of the paper’s content is antisemitic and downplays extremist ideologies,” while acknowledging NAMP’s statement that the paper was not its official position. The NPCC said complaints concerning the material were being advanced through formal processes.

Policy Exchange’s criticism extends beyond that document.

NAMP has for years sought changes to terminology used in counterterrorism policing, including objections to the word “Islamist.”

A 2023 NAMP response to the government’s independent review of the Prevent counterterrorism program argued that such terminology could reinforce “Islamophobia” by creating a “higher risk of Extreme Right-Wing radicalisation” while spreading a “narrative that makes an association between Islam and terrorism, creating a greater risk of radicalisation amongst vulnerable Muslims.”

NAMP has proposed alternatives such as “Anti-Western Extremism” for groups including ISIS, al-Qaida and Boko Haram, arguing that such wording better separates violent ideology from the Islamic faith. Its policy material says this approach would both improve the accuracy of counterterrorism terminology and reduce hostility toward Muslims.

Policy Exchange views that advocacy as an example of a staff association attempting to influence operational and government policy rather than remaining focused on employee welfare.

Another NAMP-produced paper cited “negative coverage in the media” and “negative feelings towards Muslim immigration or communities” as examples of “Anti-Muslim hatred.” It also described possible “microaggressions” as including a “non-Muslim person telling a Muslim person that ‘racism and Islamophobia aren’t an issue in today’s society’.”

The think tank argues that such definitions enter contested political territory and risk having staff organizations exert influence over how police understand speech, extremism and community relations.

NAMP’s own website, however, describes policy influence as one of its stated functions alongside recruitment, retention, career development, religious welfare and community cohesion. The organization identifies itself as the representative body for Muslims working in British policing and says it works to improve the treatment of Muslim officers and relationships between police and communities.

Policy Exchange also linked its concerns about staff networks to the controversy surrounding West Midlands Police’s handling of Israeli soccer supporters.

Maccabi Tel Aviv fans were barred from attending their team’s Europa League match against Aston Villa in Birmingham in November 2025 after the local Safety Advisory Group acted on advice from West Midlands Police.

A subsequent review found multiple errors in the intelligence used to support that recommendation, including an invented match between Maccabi Tel Aviv and West Ham that had been generated by Microsoft’s Copilot AI system. Investigators also found that the force overstated the threat associated with Maccabi supporters while understating dangers Israeli fans could face in Birmingham.

A parliamentary inquiry later concluded that Birmingham politicians had enjoyed a “disproportionate opportunity to exert influence,” raising questions about whether political pressure affected the process. The inquiry did not establish that Muslim police staff networks themselves caused the ban.

West Midlands Police’s handling of the matter had significant consequences. Then-Chief Constable Craig Guildford retired after Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood said she had lost confidence in his leadership, and the Independent Office for Police Conduct later opened misconduct investigations involving Guildford and several other officers or staff members.

Policy Exchange cites the episode as part of its broader argument that police decision-making must be insulated from political, ideological and community-group pressure.

Former Metropolitan Police inspector and firearms commander Chris Donaldson, a founding member of the National Black Police Association, endorsed the report’s concerns.

“staff Networks have crept far from the role they were created for – that of providing internal support to their members,” Donaldson said.

“When Staff Networks in policing publicly involve themselves in matters of policy, which are rightly the preserve of elected governments and ministers, those networks and their leaders are going way over the line.”

Baroness Falkner of Margravine, former chair of Britain’s Equality and Human Rights Commission, also backed the report.

She raised concerns about “the impartiality of our public services and, in this case specifically, the police. Too often, as this paper shows, we see staff networks straying into contested ideological, religious or political territory.”

“If the public no longer believe they can trust that the police will always operate according to that most fundamental of principles – to act without fear or favour – we would see risks to the rule of law itself.”

Those concerns are not limited to Policy Exchange. Britain’s policing inspectorate previously acknowledged that staff networks can perform an important role in recruiting, retaining and supporting officers from different backgrounds while also warning that their involvement in public policy could create questions about impartiality.

Policy Exchange’s position goes further, arguing that existing safeguards are insufficient.

Its preferred solution is the abolition of staff networks throughout policing. If the government rejects that approach, the think tank wants legally enforceable standards that confine the organizations primarily to internal support and prevent them from operating as political pressure groups.

NAMP maintains that it is an apolitical association committed to combating discrimination and supporting Muslim police employees and has expressly condemned terrorism and extremism. The NPCC has likewise stressed that controversial views contained in the former vice president’s document do not represent the operational position of British policing.

The dispute therefore centers not only on the content of one controversial paper, but on a broader institutional question: how far organizations representing groups of police employees should be permitted to influence contested public policy while serving inside institutions expected to enforce the law “without fear or favour.”