Chronology where we love him and then they used to work for.
He's now professor of Global City Policing at UCL and the Jill Dando Institute.
And today he's going to be talking to us about public trust and police legitimacy plates.
Thanks very much for inviting me back. It's a pleasure to be here.
I've actually got this written down, so I'm going to read it out.
But you can't see that, can you? If I see it right in the middle. It's my last time.
And before I start, I suppose to provide as I thought I would mention,
I'm going to spend a lot of time today talking about the experiences of immigrants in the UK, perhaps in Europe as well.
And when we're seeing in contexts like this, because of the amazing work that Marin border families have done,
we tend to think of immigrants in a very particular way. Those are not the immigrants I'm talking about today.
I'm talking about the great mass of immigrants who don't have those kinds of experiences.
So actually, some of the things that we talk about might lead into some of those experiences, but they are yet to happen to the people.
I'm talking about that.
And the other thing is a useful proviso at the beginning is I'm going to say lots of things about group X, things Y on each and every single occasion.
What I actually mean is, on average, people from Group X are more likely to think Y than said.
I can't say that every time I say to people. So that's that's why I mean, because this is all based on statistics.
So it's all about probabilities of having a particular view or whatever it is.
Okay. So there are two provisos.
So what I want to talk about today, as Mary said, is this trust in legitimacy in the context of policing in the UK and much more widely as well.
So the questions I'm interested in today are things like why do people trust the police or not?
What does legitimacy mean in this context and where can we find it?
What role does our place and community society play in generating or undermining both trust and legitimacy?
How do the ways in which people experience not just policing also their wider social, cultural, economic environment,
the location of police and policed and within structures of power, authority in effect shape judgements of this foundational state institution.
And what does all this mean for policing in a global city like London, which is sort of the stuff of gravity that's wrong?
And these are important questions. We don't need to say a lot of this, but it's my introduction.
So I'm going to say and these are important questions for three interrelated sets of reasons.
First, there's a large amount of evidence, some of which I'll discuss later, linking trust and legitimacy to cooperation, deference and compliance.
People invest, trust in and grant legitimacy to the police, more likely to report crimes of suspicion, suspicious activities,
more likely to defer to officers at moments of need, and probably more likely to comply with the law that trust the legitimacy.
The job of the police, as we eventually envision in the UK would essentially be impossible.
Second, the presence or absence of trust and legitimacy in a particular person or within a
specific group or community is often intimately linked to feelings of belonging,
status and dignity, or conversely, exclusion, denigration and humiliation.
The processes which build and sustain public support for the police are bound up with inter and intra group relations.
How people see themselves as individuals and group members in relation to the police and the groups the police represent is a key part of this story.
We'll see later.
Police activity can be an important factor shaping subjective and objective forms of social, economic and cultural inclusion or exclusion.
Third, the police are not existing through isolation,
but rather part of and experienced by the police by us as part of a much wider set of interlinked state and social institutions.
The criminal justice system, most obviously, but also more ephemeral systems of social ordering and control.
What we think about police confirms what we think about states and society and
when we think about the condition of society and performance of governance.
Government can shape what we think about police, and that's a pretty big set of claims.
But at the title of the lecture, Sujet suggests the voice moves on from it.
I want to contextualise the discussion in a very particular way the diversity of London and of course the UK as a whole.
I think that doing so could help us ground these claims in a specific context and hence understand them better.
Essential question is what this diversity can tell us about how trust and legitimacy are generated and reproduced,
and what can happen when they are undermined or lost. Ethnic, religious and social that I see are, of course,
of a number among the challenges facing police in the 21st century alongside cybercrime, terrorism and austerity.
The increase in diversity brought about by immigration and globalisation certainly does raise a number of issues for police in a global city land.
And by the way, the global city thing is a way that the police in London like to refer to themselves
because policing global cities becomes a unique set of challenges is unlike policing.
And where else? Which is not true, of course. I've lost my place now, so I just, um.
A number of issues for police in a global city such as London.
There are practical concerns, such as the challenge of tracking offenders moving into and out of the UK.
The difficulties for police tasked with responding to the distinction, the alleged distinction between legal and illegal migrants,
and a more mundane level of the question of how largely monolingual police organisations can serve profoundly monolingual populations.
But my motivation for organising this discussion around the question of diversity and particularly immigration,
relates and arguably deepest concerns the idea that diversity undermines a social
cohesion and shared more shared norms upon which the criminal justice system relies.
Norms concerning, for example, the desirability of cooperating with the police.
Well, my primary concern is the issues of trust, legitimacy and identity, that is.
Along the way, I want to tackle what is, to my mind at least the widespread view that immigrants and diversity are inevitably problems for both the
police and the wider activity of policing activity oriented towards the reproduction of normative social order,
and the equally widespread view that immigrants themselves almost inevitably experience problematic relationships with the police.
These viewpoints by many and varied expression in our social and public discourse, the extremes of the far right and Islamophobia, certainly,
but also elements of left liberal thinking that stress the allegedly negative
effects of mass immigration on group and value based forms of solidarity.
David Good. I'm looking at you on this lesser account. The diversity engendered by immigration poses significant risks to social solidarity,
our shared sense of responsibility, and our collective will to address social problems.
I think such ideas are premised on a correct understanding of process, but not outcome.
People's relations with place, relations with police are embedded in norms and values.
Not only are trust and legitimacy founded, most importantly on judgements about the way the police should behave,
norms that might be expected to vary significantly across cultures.
But trust, and particularly legitimacy, can be that can themselves be seen as normative.
We grant the police legitimacy in part because we have been brought up to do so, because others around us do the same.
As a result, we feel a certain social pressure to follow suit.
Hence, the pressure. Legitimacy is in these terms exactly the sort of social norm that value diversity is fought to undermine as our show.
This is not at all show. This is not actually what transpires.
In fact, it's almost the reverse of what we can find in data drawn from a wide variety of sources.
The association between Immigration,
Diversity and Social Cohesion is obviously a hugely contentious area of debate and not one in which I wish to stray too far.
Though we can get into that later if you want, but I think we can use immigration.
The experience of immigrants as tools for understanding what trust and legitimacy are,
the way they are formed and reproduced, and what happens when they are lost, as I said earlier.
And perhaps we can address some of these other concerns too along the way.
Discussion will proceed from here as follows My introduction being out of the way after outlining
what I mean by trust and legitimacy and what we know about the factors underpinning them,
we move on to explore immigration.
The increasing diversity might mean for the relationship between police and public, drawing on empirical data collected in London and elsewhere.
I present evidence that demonstrates there is nothing inevitably problematic and the relationship between police
and communities and indeed the immigration might actually be a positive influence on trust and legitimacy.
Two factors are central to explaining this or several clients. I'm going to tell you my results.
First, what people want for the police is remarkably similar across multiple social and political contexts fairness,
engagement with that community, and a baseline level of effectiveness and efficiency to the extent that police demonstrate these behaviours.
Positively. Positive relations with communities of all types should be forthcoming.
Second, because they represent social order and indeed society,
people's relations with the police are conditioned by their wider views and experiences, such as, for example,
the change in perspective brought about by moving from a country of a corrupt and inefficient criminal
justice system to one where corruption is relatively low and the police and courts effectively managed,
relatively effectively match the experience of many immigrants. Of course, on virus protection.
The final part of the lecture will shift from immigrants to the language of immigrants to the language of minorities.
Here, the story changes. There can be less without. The relationship between police and many minority communities is problematic and often deeply sad.
In particular, people from some minority communities often not composed of recent immigrants,
but rather those of a long standing presence in the UK, do not see police as very engaged or indeed effective.
This undermines their connections not only with police, but also of society as a whole, further accelerating processes of distancing and tension.
I will close by considering the implications of all this in terms of the only place on the place to manage these relationships better,
and so to recognising the wider structural forces in play and then hence the limits of what police on their own can reasonably be expected to achieve.
So the. Question is what are trust and legitimacy?
These are used words, used liberally in connection with a place along with confidence, which tree is synonymous with trust.
For our purposes today, like many search terms they may are social science terms.
Their meaning is fuzzy, contested and often able to find is therefore worth spending.
A lot of time, I think, defining what I mean by these words for the rest of the conversation.
Tony, for us to trust recent academic work seems to be coalescing around the idea that trust is a willingness to
be vulnerable to another standard in place one has to set in their current and likely future behaviours.
We can say that individual trust, a person or institution when they willingly place valued outcomes, for example,
their security or their freedom in the hands of that act or institution on the basis of a belief that they
are its have the right intentions and a competence perform relative and relevant due to their actions.
So elaborate slightly.
As I know Rene or many others have argued, what we might think is competency or efficacy as a core component of trustworthiness.
People tend as much or more to honesty, openness, respect, reliability, and interestingly, in the current context,
an ability to show vulnerability by which I think she may mean and I think other people certainly do
me a willingness to show a basic shared human condition with the person you are asking to trust you,
something that the police aren't very good at. We might therefore say that trust in a place is premised on beliefs.
The officers and institution are effective in the task set them are well-intentioned and will continue to be so in the
future and crystallised and a willing sectors of the police role in securing outcomes such as security itself safety,
justice and freedom. Seen in these terms, trust is based in part on direct and indirect experiences of the behaviour of police officers.
These are important moments in which the beliefs that constitute trust are formed is also based on generalised motivations to trust.
Individuals may or may not have. In particular, people will be motivated to trust when they feel they shared group membership,
the police, when they have a sense that they and the police are in some way on the same side.
And when police are located within appropriate value bearing narratives, stories or cultural,
social, cultural stories about the values, officers and institution enact, represents and embody.
Finally, as Anthony Giddens and I believe argues, trust in institutions always in the final analysis involves a leap of faith.
People cannot truly know that police are effective and well-intentioned,
but many are willing to indicate that they believe these things to be true and behave in a commensurate manner.
Legitimacy is in many ways a part, and a concept of trust, not least as much as it too is fuzzy, contested and often ill defined.
However, I can draw here and what I've been doing with John Jackson might have and a number of us have recent years to provide what is,
I hope, becoming a fairly widely accepted definition, at least within bits of academic chronology.
It's important to note this is an empirical concept of legitimacy.
We're concerned with the judgements people make of the police and the reasons for those judgements.
We are not concerned for today, at least with the appropriate appropriateness of the rules of government,
police work and the extent to which police adhere to these rules.
We should define a normative account of legitimacy and a fundamental level of its empirical legitimacy.
Concerns about the justification of power. Do we believe that those who governance have the right to do so and obedience?
Do we believe that those who governance have the right to command us?
Scholars concern replacing arbitrary justice institutions typically identify create constituent components,
drawing on the work of David Beef and others of legitimacy.
Three separate components of legitimacy judgements that map closely to this general schema.
The first is normative appropriateness certainly defines legitimacy as,
and I quote, a perceptual assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable,
proper or appropriate within some socially constructed systems of norms, values, beliefs and definitions.
On this account, legitimacy is premised on a fundamental accord between rulers and ruled, is founded in shared norms and values,
and is established by what Vivus as labelling is termed the moral performance of power applied to the police.
This process involves the implicit and explicit claims that police make.
Police officers make to be representatives a morally appropriate institution.
People judge officer behaviour against specific norms of conduct,
a view of how the police should behave generally as to generating a sense of normalcy, alignment of police or not,
depending on the judgement they reject,
and they draw lessons from such judgements about how they themselves should behave in relation to the police and others.
The second component of legitimacy is usually considered to be legality.
People ask themselves what the police are following the rules intended to govern their behaviour or leave us to unsafe state.
Not least because I think we're increasingly of the opinion that this component of legitimacy is in fact subsumed towards appropriateness.
The third component of legitimacy is an internalised sense of consent.
Two authority structures. Do we believe we have a duty to obey the instructions of, in this case, police officers duty to a base in these terms?
That because Weber's insight that power is transferred into authority when it is seen to be legitimate.
When one recognises the authority of the police,
one feels intuitively granted obligation to obey officers instructions and the rules operative within the space governed by the police.
Implicit here is the idea that institutional normativity grants the right to dictate appropriate behaviour in certain prescribed circumstances.
The form providing basis for the latter. Not trusting that just as plainly related to one another.
But how well a trust represents people's positive expectations in evaluations regarding police intentions and capabilities.
Legitimacy is the property of policy possessing rightful power and the subsequent acceptance of and willing deference to authority.
One possibility is to consider trusses, evaluations and express expectations regarding normatively appropriate behaviour.
So I have already kind of set that aside in states and I quote to say We trust you means we believe
you have the right intentions towards us and that you are competent to do what we trust you to do.
Which are of course normative judgements they relate to. Protect our understanding of how the police should behave.
Legitimacy emerge with subordinates as US team, the power holders tend to act in more to the appropriate ways.
So when the former trusts the latter, there is an important sense to it, therefore, in which trust flows into or forms a precondition of legitimacy.
Empirically, this amounts to saying that there there was one. There is very often, although not always the other, trust,
the legitimacy are therefore embedded in set of norms and values concerning intentions, abilities and moral appropriateness.
What norms and which values? The research conducted within the perceived justice paradigm tends to suggest that the most salient issue is fairness.
People believe, for example, the officers should make decisions in an objective and neutral fashion, treat people with dignity,
respect, and be open and honest in their decision making processes and they make judgements about them.
Threats to the police, largely on the basis of such behaviours,
acted in a procedurally just manner, indicates that the police have the right intentions,
so they have in mind the interests of those they serve, that they are trustworthy, and then they operate according to an appropriate moral framework.
Procedural injustice, of course, communicates precisely the opposite.
Naturally, other norms and values are likely to be at stake in people's judgements of police.
These include, but are not limited to effectiveness.
An ineffective, inefficient police force seems unlikely to live up to expectations about how the police should behave.
The idea that the actions of authority should be restrained within certain limits.
The pattern of the police should respect the boundaries of their rightful authority and a wider set of concerns about the nature of order,
society and the types of behaviours needed to assert it.
This latter point opens up the possibility, indeed the inevitability,
that many other factors contribute to trust and legitimacy from people's psychological preferences,
the need for order and hierarchy, for example, to their social, cultural and economic position within a particular context.
But come on to some of these issues shortly.
Finally, the idea that legitimacy is closely related to identity and shared group membership is a consistent theme in research in this area.
On some accounts, the moral performance of power is central to convincing the public that the police
share group membership with them or a valid partners within an intergroup relationship.
Feeling that one has a legitimate relationship with police service to persuade that this is the appropriate authority to deal with crime disorder,
misfortune and or disaster. Even in a party, even in a particular situation or in some more general sense,
other accounts of some level of secret membership as a given and stress,
the extent to which shared social identities mediate the link between fairness, judgements, trust and legitimacy.
The idea here is that police represent social identities,
their failure to many people and women within which they recognise the figure of the police officer as an in-group,
important group representative, something that chimes very well with such logical research and accounts,
a position place as representative, nation, state and community.
This makes people highly attuned to the identity relevant aspects of officer behaviour,
to their ability to say in essence you belong or you do not belong.
Experience and procedure. Just policing strengthens the bonds between individual and group.
It generates and encourages and or enhances a sense of inclusion and value within this group and
promotes identification with the authority figure concerned and with the values it represents.
And hence the legitimacy, cooperation and compliance.
And the role of social identity in pursuit of justice provides one important reason why the trust magistracy
judgements of immigrants might be different to those of non-immigrants and a wide variety of possible ways.
For example, let's put it bluntly if some immigrants, particularly the recently arrived,
are unclear about their status in relation to social categories defined by national identity and citizenship.
Then the fairness of police activity may be less salient in their judgements.
In particular, if one does not feel one yet belongs. Perhaps that one will never belong.
The behaviour of police officers may be less identity relevant and therefore a less important predictor of trust and or legitimacy.
On the other hand, it might be that police activity, especially personal contact with officers, could be more salient than only evidence,
precisely because they are uncertain about their status in their new home and about the nature of their relationship with its institutions.
Status uncertainty may may make them more attuned to the identity relevant messages encoded in police activity.
There are, of course, other reasons why the views,
immigrants and the ways they think they've come to form these views may differ from those of non-immigrants.
I just want to address just one here today. The question of what immigrants bring with them from their country of origin.
In particular, the change in institutional frameworks people experience upon migration may shape their views of police.
When moving to a new country, they may view the state institutions of a new home as equivalent, the same as those in their country of origin.
Alternatively, their view of the institutions of their destination country may predictive by the quality of
those institutions in comparison to equivalent institutions they lived with prior to migrating.
In other words, people in different countries and have already said people who moved from countries with corrupt, inefficient justice systems.
They continue to view the justice systems in their new home as corrupt and inefficient because they have been socialised to do so.
But then they compare the institutions of any unfavourably with those who have experienced before.
So the lens that people use to view police in particular may also relate to the wider ability of the state to protect and properly service citizens.
And because, indeed because they are not merely part of the state apparatus is also represented in embodied form.
Police legitimacy are likely to be influenced by wider perceptions of state performance and the general condition of society.
This idea of trying to research and predict as a public appears of policing perceptions of the general level of corruption in the country,
for example, have been linked to views of the police have as our perceptions of government performance on a more local visceral level.
Local neighbourhood conditions. The extent of low level disorder.
The strength of community cohesion. A strong predictors of trust and legitimacy when local order seems well established and strong.
The police representatives of that order gained public trust and legitimacy.
The key point here, I think, has been made by John planning much better than I could set.
And I quote, police officers are not handmaidens of justice or order in a vacuum.
They are members of a particular social, political community and agents of state, state power.
And some extent they legitimately do justice to their activities will be a function
of the legitimacy of the larger structures and groupings of which they are part.
There is much to suggest then that the views of immigrants and non-immigrants will differ within the likely direction.
Extent of this difference is unclear and David might conclude from the discussion so far.
The claim here is essentially the views of immigrants must be different because they are immigrants,
but we're not entirely clear why we think that might be the case. What then do the data say?
For reasons of privacy, I draw on very particular surveys, actually for surveys.
They suggest different aspects of discussion thus far.
The first three will be looking at the relationship between trust, immigration and the crime serving in Wales.
The effect of change of frames, of reference on legitimacy.
Judgements that immigrants in the European Social Survey and a survey from London conducted by the MAX,
they explored the views of young people from minority ethnic groups.
Disclaimer Here is the way I think much of this data is a few years old to the extent I think I
am talking about the basic functioning of social groups marked by imbalances in power authority.
The process I would describe should be independent of short to medium term political change.
However, Brexit in the so-called hostile environment for migrants, a development we might expect to alter certainly in the long term.
Some of the basic functions, particularly their outcomes, return to this discussion.
In conclusion, and I have got some more up to date data from another survey later.
So the first question is Trust the Migrant Immigration and the Crime Survey of England, Wales,
CCW is our best national source on public attitudes towards a place where at least it was until I took out.
Those are the really interesting questions, and it used to contain a set of questions that combined to produce an excellent measure
of trust with particular emphasis on measures of fairness and good intentions.
So there are questions such as the police would treat you with respect if you had contact with them.
Also, efficacy such as the police can be relied upon to deal with minor crimes.
Survey also records whether respondents is an immigrant and when they first moved to the UK.
This chart, if you can see it, shows the correlation between immigration status and trust.
What we find is that trust in the police was an average higher among immigrants to the UK than among the UK board population.
So these people here, people have been in the country less than five years.
These are people being in the country over 40 years.
And these are people who were born in the UK. On average, immigrants have high levels of trust.
And you have this kind of slightly odd curvilinear effect, which I'll come back to some of this difference was due to a lack of experience,
particularly bad experience of police among the recent recently arrived immigrants.
Overall, immigrants are less likely to have contact with the police, not immigrants.
One reason being that they commit less crime, perhaps more personally.
Six. Only 6% of those arrived in the UK in the last five years reported having ever been annoyed with
the police as an indicator of annoyance with the police and with lots of other stuff as well,
compared with 14% of immigrants who arrived more than 30 years ago and 26% of
people born in the UK once this contact experience was taken into account.
The difference between immigrants and immigrants shrank. But there was a persistent positive association between immigrant status and trust
among those who had migrated as it was not explained away by other variables.
By contrast, those who arrived as children had essentially the same views on average as their UK born counterparts.
This Curvilinear Association between yes since first arrival and trust, which again persisted.
Once other variables were taken into account, is, I think, really interesting.
Why immigrants have been in the UK for 21 to 40 years. These people have less trusting in place than those who arrived before or after
1/17 suggesting these are people who arrived in the UK in the 1970s and 1980s,
but still a difficult time for British policing. That's simply an understated understatement.
The area of the Brixton riots and many other riots beside the miners strike here was a stadium disaster and many other policing scandals.
We can only speculate, of course.
They may be that people arrive into a climate where the relationship between police and public was particular particularly strained.
Carried forward their first perceptions formed at this time.
And a voice has a legitimacy. There's a history to legitimacy which we need to consider.
It's also worth noting that this effect is largely independent of ethnicity.
This chart shows the interaction between ethnicity, variability measures and immigrant status as predictors of trust.
The basic pattern we saw in the previous slide is repeated.
So what's going on here? I think the overall picture is of Giddens leap of faith.
Immigrants seem more inclined than others to indicate a belief that police have right intentions and are competent in the roles assigned to them.
Of course, they, like everyone else, can't know for sure whether these things are true.
But I think the key point here is that believing that they are making the leap of faith to trust is socially useful for individuals concerned,
particularly perhaps those who've moved to a new country. Get in this position,
trust as a as a characteristic of individuals that enables them to bracket out the complexity of the modern world and experience it as understandable,
coherent and manageable. Placing trust in police specifically reassures or may reassure and may enable action
because it motivates a sense that help and support can be invoked if needed.
And as David Smetters argues, we're motivated to make the leap of faith to trust, since again, a quote,
We want to believe that we live in a society where most people trust the police because
society in which most people trust the police will be far more secure than any other.
What might motivate immigrants to make a slave face? Why should they be more likely to make this leap of faith and others?
One possibility is that British policing has a strong brand image of an arguably worldwide reach,
its image wrapped up with Scotland Yard, the bobby on the beat.
If you're my mother in law, Midsomer Murders and notions of fairness and equity may provide people who recently
moved to the UK with a heuristic on which to base their trust judgements.
It's easier to make a leap of faith if one thinks one believes one already knows something about positive, about the object of trust.
What though of the effect of immigration on the already restive population?
After all, a key argument of the straw man I set up earlier might be that immigration damages trust in the place among the native born.
That's because native born population, because it undermines social cohesion and collective efficacy,
which much research has shown are key predictors of such trust.
And it's certainly the case that when people experience a neighbourhood or community as cohesive,
as containing trustworthy people, as efficacious in maintaining order,
the police, almost inevitably linked to the processes of formal and informal social control, appear effective and well intentioned.
Now, this question is, statistically speaking, really difficult to answer because the highly complicated social process is behind it and
of always people moving into and out of areas and the reasons why they're moving up,
it's not that serious. What happens? The population that's left, etc., etc. is a dynamic process that we're trying to capture with snapshot data.
We can glean some evidence from the crime survey. Respondents in the survey can be grouped at a variety of levels of geographical aggregation.
One of the sources, which is the romantically entitled lower super output area.
This is a census based unit with a population of between one and 3000 people.
And because of the 2011 census, we know exactly how many immigrants were living in each area in the dataset.
So this figure shows the interaction between response.
His own status as an immigrant or not, and proportionally immigrants living in their area as predictors of trust in place.
And they have a range of individual and area level control variables.
We find that among both immigrant and non-immigrant groups, Trust in the Police is higher in areas with greater portions of non-UK born residents.
Levels of trust diminish as a portion of UK born residents increases.
In other words, even among the UK born population, trust in the place is higher on average in areas where there are more immigrants.
I would stress that this find is indicative rather than conclusive,
but it does again suggest that what seems to be a common commonsense view about the effects of immigration on trust can often be wrong.
Moving on to the question of immigrants frames of reference. A reference data here comes from the pan-European European Social Survey.
Fifth, over this survey, 2010 11 include a set of questions on trust,
legitimacy and related constructs on whether respondent was an immigrant and crucially,
the country that emigrated from the dataset used as a sample size of over 60,000 people there only 5,001st immigration immigrants in that sample.
They lived in 27 European countries and they held from a social of 166 countries of origin.
This allows us to explore how the change in institutional context that occurs with the
acts of migration might shape immigrants legitimacy judgements in the destination country.
What we find is that people moved from more countries where the rule of law was weaker to less corrupt,
countries where the rule of law is stronger, at least according to the World Bank.
Measures of these things tended to feel more normatively along with the police.
So, for example, they were more likely to agree with questions such as the police generally have the same sense of right and wrong
as I do those who have moved from poorer to richer countries in terms of GDP per capita for more normatively,
a lawless place and a stronger sense of duty to obey.
So more likely to agree to questions. It was a duty to do what the police tell you, even if you don't understand or agree with the reasons.
It seems on this basis that immigration immigrants do not tend to import negative views of state institutions formed in their countries of origin,
but are more likely to react positively to a new, better institutional framework in a country destination.
And across Europe, of course, immigrants tend to move from poorer countries with weaker institutions to richer countries with stronger institutions.
On this admittedly limited basis, one might argue that immigration is on average a positive for police legitimacy.
But the main point, perhaps, is to underline the diversity, the sheer breadth of the factors that can do shape the legitimacy of the police.
So immigrants, at least in the UK, therefore seem more inclined to trust the police.
And any concerns that negative views inculcated in countries of origin are imported into destination countries seem misplaced,
at least in some overall sense. What though? The role of identity in all this?
If questions of group membership and identification of 33 trust and legitimacy.
Does this play out differently depending on who you are and where you came from?
The Met conducted a survey in 2010 that allows us to explore some of these questions as put 1000 and a few more young ethnic minority
men for invited comment in a London boroughs and asked them a range of questions about their experiences of police and policing.
Using this data, we can trace the links between perceived or justice, identity, legitimacy.
Explore how these vary between those who indicated they were British citizens and those who indicated they were not.
Which, of course, nice to say not the same as immigrant non-immigrant, but it's close enough for today.
This figure summarises the analysis. Now, the final variable here is cooperation.
So moving on to what procedural justice or legitimacy do in terms of people's relations with police?
What we find is this. This is slightly complicated. So I, I get it right.
First, the both the UK and non-UK citizens procedural justice was very strongly associated with legitimacy.
Second, but the UK, non-UK citizens procedural justice was associated with a feeling of identification with their area,
London and the UK as a whole to belonging perhaps.
And this association was stronger for the non UK group.
Third, in the UK group, the path from the state of justice runs through legitimacy to a cooperation,
i.e. people born in people who are UK citizens were more likely to cooperate with police when they granted legitimacy.
Fourth, and by contrast, in the non-UK group, the path from pursuit of justice cooperation runs through identity.
People in this group more like to cooperate with police when they felt they belonged.
What does this mean?
One important idea here is that what the police do, the procedure justice to their activity is associated with people's sense of belonging.
And this association is stronger for people who are not UK citizens.
Fair policing, we might conclude, can encourage people to feel like long and of course vice versa.
Equally important, though, is that for both groups,
procedural justice was a strong predictor of legitimacy and cooperation, even if the precise pass through the.
Model varied. It fits well with a wider body of research in pursuit of justice, which finds that almost well, almost wherever you look,
you can find a perceived justice fact the norms and values most consistently important
people when thinking about police which underpin their legitimacy judgements.
And in this case they really just cooperate with police are across multiple contexts, groups, social relationships.
Those are fairness, have dignity, consistency, respect, openness, engagement, inclusion and voice.
The way of the evidence is therefore that immigrants do not have inevitably problematic relations with police,
and b they tend to think about policing in ways that are very similar to non-immigrants.
It is important not to overinterpret this as much. We don't know.
I've been talking aggressively a very high level of abstraction, but at the very least, we have no reason to suggest that immigrants have different,
more negative views of the police because they are immigrants,
because they come from countries with different values, shifts, want different things to the police and so on.
Now, that's not the story we're used to hearing, quite frankly.
And one of the reasons for this, I think, becomes clear when we switch from the language of immigrant to that of minority.
Well, there's a need for caution here in our languages.
One reason I'm reading this out is unlike the category of immigrant, the category of minority is very diffuse.
There can be no lack, but there can be no doubt that some ethnic and other minority communities do have problematic relations with police.
And the most obvious example be in London being large sections of the black population.
To the extent that ethnic and religious minorities are immigrant communities and U.K., of course many are not.
This raises the immediate question of why if immigrants baseline views of the police are
at least no different from and may even be more positive than those of non-immigrants,
what if some minorities have such difficult relations with police?
One answer lies, of course, in the intersection of immigrant status and race.
Few would claim that experience of London workers from Italy and Spain are the same as those from Nepal, as our colleagues from Nigeria or Ghana.
And this opens up a set of issues that, again, speak directly to questions of trust, legitimacy and identity.
On the one hand, the history of police minority relations in London and indeed the UK as a whole tell us that contacts at
all levels between police and members of those communities are of central importance in marking the shift,
if you like, from immigrant to minority, immigrant from Israel and to the UK with relatively positive views of the police.
But in the past they've been sorely let down interactions of officers that did not meet their expectations and which were unfair,
aggressive, violent and this labelling, denigrating and exclusionary.
Well, things have reinforced, improved. We often forget that, but they have improved in recent years.
These types of encounters are also still all too common, and we can pick up their effects in the Met's Public Attitudes survey.
And this is also bringing us up to date. This is data from 20 1568.
This figure shows variation in overall trust and confidence,
proportion of people thinking that local police do an excellent or good job between the white British group,
which is the red line, and some of the key minority groups living in the capital.
While some minority groups have less favourable opinions of the police,
notably and fairly obviously black Caribbean and mixed black white groups have more favourable opinions.
These guys. Okay. This figure shows what happens if you include only those born in the UK and worse non-immigrants.
Here, every minority group has less positive views in the white British group.
In other words, when it comes to trust in the police,
the presence of immigrants within many ethnic minority communities seems to act something as a protective factor.
If you like, take them out of the equation. And relationships with the police and minority groups suddenly look quite a bit worse.
Accumulated negative experiences within minority communities,
individual and group levels is of course a highly plausible explanation for this quite striking pattern.
Just toggle back between those. I find that amazing. Anyway, we need to be careful here.
The group level difference is represented in the chart.
A large, for example, 67% of UK born white British people said their local police did an excellent or good job,
but just 42% of their black Caribbean counterparts felt the same way.
But do not think this is entirely the fault of the police.
As we saw in the case of changing institutional frames, immigrants, a much wider set of social,
cultural and economic factors come together to shape people's views and understandings of police and policing.
When whites argues that police minority relationships are influenced not only by contact with police officers,
but also by the extent to which minority groups are incorporated into white society.
The manner and extent to which a particular group is incorporated or socially included,
if you like, would have important implications for relations with police,
not least, of course, because the police represent the dominant social order and reflect back to people their status and value within it.
This implies that the objective characteristics of social groups. It's an location within cultural, political and economic hierarchies.
Shaped views of the police group position would influence how group members conceive of institutions for social and political ordering.
People will feel an affinity with institutions that serve their interests.
Members of groups that do well out of current arrangements would tend to support the agencies tasked with maintaining those arrangements.
People from socially excluded or marginalised groups, on the other hand, will have less positive views.
The legitimacy of police may suffer when people feel the system doesn't work, doesn't work for them, and may even be working against them.
This could be seen very clearly in the SS and many other datasets beside across Europe the unemployed,
those struggling financially, those living in deprived neighbourhoods,
those disengaged from political activity, those who experience discrimination and from wider society or tend to trust the
police less and grant less legitimacy independent of their experiences of policing.
And of course, many immigrants, and particularly minority group members,
find themselves in exactly these types of social, cultural and economic positions.
This is not, of course, to let the police and the wider criminal justice system off the hook.
What they do or fail to do continues to be important despite the wider structural forces in play.
I think Benjamin Justice and Tracy Letts work on the curricula of criminal justice
provides an insightful way of framing some of what I've been saying this afternoon.
Starting from the assumption that the criminal justice system is a central way through which the state communicates with its members,
they say citizens, which is a slightly problematic word in this context.
But I'm going to start saying citizens because that's the language they use.
The current system is a central way for which the state communicates with its citizens and indeed
it seeks to educate them in what it means to be a citizen just as a major or an educational ferry.
To suggest that this process has both overt and hidden aspects, they focus in particular on what they call the core of the educational process.
The curriculum, the curriculum or curricula of criminal justice, they argue,
can be found in the interactions people have with criminal justice agencies and the
processes through which they move into and within criminal justice institutions.
As I note, the word curriculum comes from the Latin for race course, something we move on towards a destination.
These curricula constitute ways through which people learn about the values and meaning of citizenship
and their status as inside or outside the social and administrative administrative categories concerned.
The overt curriculum is concerned with values of legality, participation, service to others, and engagement with society and community values.
That is, of course, seizure, justice, trustworthy legitimacy and equality of worth.
It can be found in code in the formal procedures, processes, rules and laws which govern the activity of criminal justice.
Institution matters, and particularly probably the wider social and cultural images and ideas that surround the institution of,
in our case, the police.
The hidden curriculum, by contrast, can be found not in official rules and procedures, nor in the mainstream image of British policing,
but in backstage areas and in real life interactions between police officers and individuals.
It is encoded in as mundane, quotidian practices of place that premised on unstated rather than explicit norms,
rules and beliefs in policing as it has on the streets, not in the books.
Now, justice and stress on many occasions are to correct that operate in tandem and reinforce one another in the message they transmit to citizens.
The actual activity of many police officers can and does follow explicit rules and the ideology,
ideology of policing, communicating justice, trustworthiness, inclusion, and the legitimacy legitimate use of power.
The all too often the hidden curriculum of policing constitutes the inversion of the over.
In particular, through procedural injustice.
It can undermine values of trust, legitimacy, inclusion, providing an education in what justice may as core anti citizenship.
The hidden curriculum socialises those receiving it in quite different ways.
That is intended by overt trick. So what both curricular and operation at the same time will expose to them to some degree?
I do not think it's too much of a stretch to claim many first generation immigrants respond more to the over and to the hidden.
As I mentioned, despite complex assumptions, they have lower levels of personal contact with police about themselves, crimes and crime.
So in a basic sense,
they are less exposed to the hidden curriculum and as much they may be comparing British police favourably with other police organisations.
They may have experienced the overt aspects of the curriculum, may be more salient to them.
They are more likely another responder is to the public image rather than the reality of British policing.
And part reason they trust it because they buy in the overt curriculum and what it represents.
By contrast, second generation immigrants and beyond, particularly those from visible minority groups,
seem prima facie more likely to be exposed to the hidden curriculum, and for such tried and tested means, stop the search.
Their experiences will tend towards a negative.
This has implications not only, of course, for their views of the trustworthiness and legitimacy of the police,
which are undermined by sense of injustice, but also in terms of a wider course in anti citizenship through their interaction with police.
Too many people learn to quote just justice and this anti-democratic behaviours, manufactured failure and alienation.
So to conclude there are and then I've claimed multiple factors and forces in play.
When we think about trust and the legitimacy and legitimacy in the context of policing.
Some of these are performance and behaviour related, but many are not.
I think the experience of immigrants again offers an important lesson discussion about that here.
So I do think this is true and my suspicion is that in some general sense we are drawing the boundary
of we very widely that are socially and culturally predisposed to trust the legitimacy the police.
So one could think, for example, of the legal sexualisation of children, the cultural aura surrounds the British police,
or our basic need for security in a complex and sometimes bordering world.
These factors and others point overall towards support for the police and police institutions.
Trust in. Firstly therefore provide an already existing resource for police that can be drawn upon in all the familiar ways cooperation,
compliance, deference and so on.
The all too often the resources squandered, sometimes the result of police malpractice, but sometimes also by social and economic policies,
entrench inequality in poverty and which as a result, deform and undermine people's relations,
not just with police, but with the wider state and society.
So to close a tight race of thoughts on policy and very, very broadly defined,
which also I think can easily summarise some of the preceding discussion and tie it back to the global city.
So what are some of the challenges, what I've been saying for the police operating in a city such as London?
The first of these is quite mundane,
but I think it's worth saying police are often tasked with meeting performance targets relating to public opinion polls,
and I think this is a fool's errand. Such targets are often put in place.
Last London mayors 20 2020 target regime.
One of those twenties was a police trust incompetence by 20 percentage points on a measure.
But I've provided provided here some small insight into the depth and breadth of factors which
shape public opinion of the police tasking police with improving something that is affected by it.
To give an extreme example, global migration flows seems unfair, to say the least.
Knowing what's going on, for example, through the survey data, which I showed you is absolutely vital,
which makes these surveys a really interesting tool, but they're not tools that should be linked to performance target regimes.
Second point is this just as we need to think about the way the police are integrated with other services in organisational and operational terms,
we also need to consider what people experience,
that people experience policing not just as a one off delivery of service or sanction, but as part of a larger whole.
This is certainly true in terms of their personal security history for the police, but it's also the case that at some level of people,
many people see police as part of the general machinery of state and they read across when they reach
judgements and draw conclusions about the different parts of this machine and the outcomes it delivers.
When thinking about trust in the police, it might also that it is also worth thinking about trust in government, in councils, in schools,
etc. particularly given, of course, the extent to which these agencies,
agencies are increasingly seeking to deliver services jointly, at least in theory.
The third point, and despite this,
is that contact between individual police officers and members of the public matters even more than is often recognised.
So we might claim, for example,
the first contact with police for an imminent person or a child is an absolutely key moment in association in their socialisation,
in case they're learning to live in love.
And there is much to be done here in relation to training of police officers, not just in procedural justice,
in terms of sensitising to the extent of the power vested in them and the
sensitivity of all those with whom they interact to the extent of that power.
So a particular challenge and fourth point,
a particular challenge is how to do this so very well to cite police training as some kind of panacea to solving these problems.
This seems rather hard to do in reality. And isn't it much more research and activity needs to go on around police training and some of these issues.
And part of this is a need for much closer relationships between police and academics and
not just us telling them what they should do and not just and telling us we can't do that,
but working together to try and address some of these problems.
But I think also we need to think much bigger than this.
I think there's a danger in placing too much emphasis on the behaviour of individual police officers response in them, if you like,
when we also need to think about what police organisations are doing and the policy
climates within which they operate gives us one particularly salient example.
There's a need to take a long term view of likely downstream effects of new policies and interventions,
even when the timescales seem very long for police,
policymakers and senior police officers exist because policing done right can have
long term crime reducing properties a become beyond deterrence and incapacitation.
But policing gone wrong can be effectively actively criminal anyway, because as I claimed here,
police activity can change the way people think about themselves and their place and role in society.
Finally related, I'd like to just reiterate a long running standard for much before.
I'm not saying anything lawful here.
We need to think much more about the extent to which policing is an engine of social inclusion or exclusion and or exclusion.
If, as a prevent strategy states, this is what it says.
Support for terrorism is associated with rejection of a cohesive, integrated, multi-faith society and a parliamentary democracy.
We need to consider how everyday policing, not just specialist units and tailor strategies,
is experienced, but based across people across the socio economic political spectrum.
All police activity influences how people are in themselves towards society and justice group position.
Economically, socially, culturally seems to be an important factor shaping relations with police.
Then police activity can be an important factor shaping group position.
Every decision made by officers to symbolically or materially locate people,
in particular social and cultural positions, potentially significant effects for their future behaviours.
Thinking about trust and legitimacy as we do this afternoon therefore opens up space for a much wider
conversation about what policing is for and the type of things we expect from one police to achieve.
Thank you very much. We now have about a five minute.