What is claimed we have is a situation where:
* the police are ignoring their responsibilities - making their job harder to do, less likely to result in prosecution and justice less likely to be done - by deliberately using language that is designed to obfuscate
* police let certain racial or religious groups get away with certain quite nasty crimes, like rape, for the purposes of social cohesion
* this specific case, claiming somebody had a tanned skin, was yet another example of this happening
My questions would be:
1) how does it help social cohesion to allow one group to get away with offences targeted at a second group?
2) same question, when both groups know for a fact this is taking place - how is that supposed to help social cohesion?
3) in this specific case, an arrest has been made despite the use of the word "tanned" - so in what sense are the police avoiding their duty to bring perpetrators to justice and does this arrest harm or help social cohesion?
The logic doesn't stack up.
It's claimed to help social cohesion but it would clearly do the exact opposite of that, especially if and when it became common knowledge, as it apparently already has.
It's claimed that the police used "tanned" to make their job harder, but they've still managed to make an arrest and the arrested is still a member of one of the groups that is apparently being let off.
What it's actually all about is the creation, dissemination and perpetuation of distrust in our police.