Muslim Associations Accused of Undermining UK Police Impartiality

Policy Exchange Report Targets NAMP and Force-Level Networks

According to a Policy Exchange report titled ‘Mixed Messages? Police Impartiality and the National Association of Muslim Police’, staff networks should strictly restrict their scope to internal workforce support rather than publicly campaigning on controversial operations or political disputes. The authors point to several high-profile incidents involving Muslim police staff groups to illustrate how neutrality has been compromised. These include a 2024 annual general meeting held by the Metropolitan Police’s Association of Muslim Police, which featured an address by Husam Zomlot, who was then the Palestinian head of mission in the UK.

Superintendent Hasson Shigdar, a senior officer with West Midlands Police and vice-chair of the West Midlands Association of Muslim Police, is also scrutinized in the findings. According to Policy Exchange, Shigdar—who also serves as head of Prevent for the West Midlands Counter Terrorism Unit—has shared online material from organisations commenting on moral and legal questions, and has reposted content associated with preacher Bilal Philips.

Controversial Documents and High-Profile Speaking Engagements

Further scrutiny is directed at NAMP’s 2026 annual general meeting, held at Greater Manchester Police premises. Speakers at the event included a representative of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) and Majid Iqbal, chief executive of the Islamophobia Response Unit. Following the July 2024 Manchester Airport incident—during which a female officer suffered a broken nose and Mohammed Fahir Amaaz was subsequently sentenced to three and a half years in prison for assault—both the MCB and Iqbal had previously spoken out against Greater Manchester Police.

The Policy Exchange analysis also brings attention to an earlier NAMP policy paper authored by the association’s then-vice-president Khaldoun Kabbani. According to the think-tank and reporting by the Daily Mail, the 39-page document—titled ‘Confronting Anti-Muslim Hatred and Promoting Human Rights’—complained of unverified stories about acts of violence by Hamas during the October 7 terror attacks, described the Israel Defence Forces as a “Zionist terrorist group”, and compared Israel’s treatment of Palestinians to the Holocaust. The Jewish Leadership Council described the publication as “grossly offensive” when its contents were revealed by The Spectator magazine in June. NAMP subsequently dropped the document from its website, noting that the views expressed belonged to Mr Kabbani, who had since left the association.

Official Responses and Demands for Regulatory Reform

The revelations have drawn sharp rebukes from senior policing figures and oversight bodies. Assistant Chief Constable Jon McAdam, the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) lead for staff support networks, stated: “Some of the views expressed are deeply concerning and do not reflect the values, standards or operational position of British policing.” McAdam added: “We recognise the shock this has caused and are supporting the appropriate formal processes for complaints about its content.”

Addressing the broader question of institutional neutrality, McAdam further noted: “The National Police Chiefs’ Council is clear that policing must be, and be seen to be, impartial, with decisions based on law, evidence, risk and harm rather than the views of any individual, organisation or staff network.” He defended ongoing administrative efforts, explaining: “The role of national staff support networks is to support members of the police workforce and provide valuable insight and challenge, but they do not determine operational policing decisions or policy.” McAdam also stated: “Those proposals are intended to provide clearer structures and safeguards, not weaken impartiality requirements, and reflect wider recommendations made by HMICFRS regarding consistency and public confidence.”

Critics of the current system, however, argue that proposed NPCC rules governing national staff networks were previously weakened following pushback from the networks themselves. Policy Exchange has recommended the establishment of a statutory duty of police impartiality via legislation, offering options that include the outright abolition of all police staff networks. If networks are permitted to survive, the think-tank proposes rigorous governance requirements, such as restricting their mandates exclusively to internal support, ending public funding and police-duty time for their activities, and mandating the publication of their constitutions, accounts, and meeting minutes.

Prominent figures have added weight to these warnings. Baroness Kishwer Falkner, former chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, stated that staff networks should not stray into contested ideological, religious, or political territory, warning that public trust in the rule of law is at stake if officers are perceived as acting without neutrality. Similarly, former Metropolitan Police counter-terrorism chief Peter Clarke noted that the Policy Exchange report raised critical questions regarding the influence these networks exert on policing policy. While the debate centres heavily on Muslim staff associations, the report’s authors observe that the issue spans more than 200 police staff networks across the UK representing various demographics, highlighting an urgent need for robust oversight across the entire service.