
Police officer asked colleague to play ‘snog, marry, avoid' game using sex worker and suspect images
Police officers played a game of 'snog, marry, avoid' using photos of suspects and sex workers, a tribunal has heard.
A female constable from Derbyshire Police showed colleagues photos of women of mixed race and colour and asked her Asian colleague whether he liked them.
The game was 'crass and inappropriate' and cast no one from Pear Tree station in Derby who participated in it in a good light, the tribunal members said.
Shafarat Mohammed, who quit as a police constable after just 10 months, tried to sue Derbyshire police for discrimination and harassment over the game and other incidences, making a string of claims he said were based on his race and religion.
The tribunal dismissed his claims, saying they did not amount to religious discrimination and his written evidence had a tendency towards exaggeration and was 'quite vague' in respect of many of his claims.
The panel members added in their written judgement: 'We found that the claimant rowed back on several of the strong assertions that he made in his witness statement when under cross-examination.'
They said Mr Mohammed, who was of Pakistani heritage, exaggerated events 'to put a retrospective discriminatory spin on them'.
The claimant said that in May or June 2023, he was asked by a female PC, Kate Northridge, to look at photographs of 'black female suspects' and comment on whether he liked them.
'The claimant was offended and embarrassed by the conversation and alleges the line of questioning was inappropriate and racially motivated,' the tribunal said.
Members said the polite name of the game was 'snog, marry, avoid'.
But it was agreed that PC Northridge showed photographs of female sex workers of various ethnicities – Black, Asian, and white.
The claimant alleged that PC Northridge asked questions about one specific photograph, asking him what he liked about her.
The panel concluded: 'The 'game' was crass and inappropriate. It casts no one who participated in it in a good light.'
It was possible that the conduct could constitute harassment of a sexual nature but no such claim was made, they said.
'We find that the claimant's inconsistency on the colour of the sex workers whose pictures he was shown (he alleged they were all black, only to agree that they were of mixed race and colour) undermines his credibility on the point about being directed to a picture of a Black sex worker and asked a question about her.
'We find that that part of the claimant's allegation is not credible,' the tribunal ruled, but members agreed that the questions were inappropriate.
Mr Mohammed's other claims included another female colleague, Abigail Lynam, saying: 'Shaf, you're s***.'
The panel agreed that witnesses for the police force said that PC Lynam could be abrupt with colleagues, irrespective of their colour, ethnicity, or other protected characteristics.
He also claimed he was excluded from social events and sandwich runs. But his evidence was inconsistent, the members said.
'As with many of the claimant's allegations, there was an element of truth in the allegation that quickly evaporated under cross-examination and/or the more credible evidence of the respondent's witnesses,' the tribunal concluded.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


BBC News
20 minutes ago
- BBC News
Peterborough flat drugs raid sees two people arrested
Two people have been arrested following an early morning drugs raid in a city Police officers forced their way in to the property on Oxford Road in Millfield, Peterborough, on Friday, and found money and wraps of class A drugs. The raid was carried out after concerns of drug dealing were raised by residents.A man and a woman, in their 20s, were arrested on suspicion of being concerned in the supply of class A drugs, the force confirmed. Follow Peterborough news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.


The Sun
22 minutes ago
- The Sun
Fears grow for schoolboy, 15, not seen in 3 months as grandma begs ‘take a close look at his photo'
COPS are becoming "increasingly concerned" about a missing teenager who vanished three months ago. The family of Prince Watson have urged people not to "think twice" about getting in contact with any information. 1 Releasing a photo of the 15-year-old from Ealing in West London, his grandmother said: "We are so worried about him." Prince was last seen at around 4pm on Saturday, March 15 in Friern Barnet. Cops said he may have been seen by friends in Hanwell since then. The teenager also has links to The Hyde, Colindale, Southall and Romford. He is 5"5 and slim, last seen wearing a black jacket with grey joggers. Prince's grandmother said: 'We love and miss Prince dearly and are so worried about him. "Please take a close look at the photo we are making public today, and don't think twice about getting in touch if you have any information.' PC Ben Norris, from the Met 's West Area Missing Persons unit, added: 'We are growing increasingly concerned about Prince's wellbeing. "Although we have been carrying out a number of enquiries in an effort to find him, we now need the public's support in bringing him home.' If you see Prince, please call 999 and quote the reference 2409/07JUNE. Alternatively, information can be reported to Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111.


Telegraph
35 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Commuters who appeal against penalty fares risk criminal record
Yet those who formally dispute an inspector's view of the notoriously complex web of British train ticketing rules could now find themselves with a criminal record if they stand up for what they believe is right. Paul Goldspring, the Chief Magistrate, said in a written ruling dated February 21, which has not previously been published: 'I rule that criminal prosecutions can be brought following a penalty fare appeal being dismissed…' The judge said he had been given 'an undertaking that all [Department for Transport Train Operating Companies] will follow the guidance given by the court'. Fines of up to £1,000 and, for repeat offenders, prison sentences of up to three months can result from a conviction for failing to produce a ticket or travelling with intent to avoid payment. A conviction under the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 will appear on DBS background checks, potentially affecting someone's job prospects. Campaigners fear that Judge Goldspring's ruling has given train companies a green light to threaten honest but mistaken commuters with a criminal record as the price of challenging ticket inspectors. 'Sham of an appeal system' Christian Waters, 47, of Leeds, who was targeted for prosecution in 2022 after having his penalty fare appeal rejected, said: 'Why was this ruling not published, given it affects the protection that hundreds of thousands of passengers would assume they had from the regulations? Mr Waters, whose case was dropped after he realised that Northern, the government-owned rail company, had broken the rules by trying to haul him in front of a judge, said: 'I do feel like they are saying I got off on a technicality now. I still dispute that I did anything wrong; their machine was not working!' 'No one has any protection at all, a sham of an appeal system and then money [is] demanded backed up by criminal law,' he continued. The unpublicised Westminster magistrates' court ruling came about after another government-owned train company, Southeastern, asked the court if a number of previous prosecutions it brought were lawful. The exact number was not revealed in the judgment. 'It is clearly irrational that a person who brought an unmeritorious appeal could not be prosecuted, whereas someone who did not appeal could be,' ruled Judge Goldspring. While an out-of-court appeals process exists for penalty fares, Parliament never intended commuters to be criminalised when it created the scheme some 35 years ago. Introducing the 1988 law that created penalty fares, Tory peer Lord Marshall of Leeds told Parliament: 'If, however, a passenger on a train is not in possession of a ticket, he is not to be treated as a criminal under this Bill. He is simply asked to pay a penalty fare, which is a civil penalty and not a criminal one.' Today, Regulation 11(3) of the Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations 2018 says that prosecution is only allowed where the penalty has been cancelled by the train company before the appeal panel has decided the outcome. Yet in his February 2025 ruling, Judge Goldspring said: 'The prosecutor obviously should not bring a prosecution if it is excluded,' but added: 'There is no obligation on the court to investigate whether the defendant has a defence.' 'This must be dealt with in a balanced manner' Penalty fare appeals are decided by a private company called Appeal Services, which is a contractor paid by train companies to decide penalty fare appeals. According to Appeal Services' website, in the last 28 days, its assessors rejected 80 per cent of first-stage appeals. A Department for Transport spokesperson said: 'Deliberate fare-dodging costs the taxpayer up to £400 million annually – money which could be better spent on improving passenger experience. 'This must be dealt with in a balanced manner, which is why Great British Railways will bring operators together to establish oversight and better standardise practices, putting an end to inconsistent prosecutions and making sure passengers are treated fairly. 'We're working at pace to simplify ticketing as part of our rail reforms, to alleviate confusion and make it easier for people to buy the right fare.'