I was at a New Statesman-sponsored meeting at the Institute of Contemporary Arts in London, yet another attempt to make good the hugely flawed Runnymede Trust report on the future of multi-ethnic Britain. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, John Grieve (who heads the force's racial and violent crimes task force), the Daily Telegraph reporter Minette Marin and yours truly addressed questions of diversity.

The audience was tiny, with a couple of Asian women and a single West Indian male. Marin continued where the Daily Telegraph's trouncing of the report had left off. Not for a long time had I heard such opprobrium heaped on a public document. It was racist, dishonest, ill-conceived nonsense, she said.

I must have read the wrong report. It was a public intervention, a rather second-rate one as far as these documents go, and certainly not worth such ill-considered hostility. I was out of the country when the brouhaha descended on the general public. I had not a clue about the extent of the vitriol that this intellectually slight document had produced. I have always found this multiracial, diversity, anti-racist business difficult to swallow, I said. I'd rather not be here, I thought to myself. Racial issues badly judged will always result in squalid brawls. I questioned the report's definition of culture. This is a hugely advanced, industrial civilisation. Millions are socialised in huge factories; even larger numbers are disciplined in service industries. A vast transport system takes people to work daily. A modern police force seeks to contain these people within a system of law and order. Secularism has stamped itself on the body politic, defines the relationship between government and people. We are taught in a modern, reasonably organised education system. We have more in common than we have differences. Those of us who live and work here have imbibed these certainties much more than some are willing to admit.

For example, it is part of Islam that sharia law is the only perfect system; all else is haram. Forget it, I argued - no chance of its implementation here. More than that, the specialised expression of the east will not interfere with the main cultural strands established here over centuries. I made the point that, while on holiday in Grenada, I could easily spot those who were native and those who were visitors from England. It seemed that we had supped from the British cup and approached life differently.

We have made some impact on the English, Scots and Welsh by living alongside them. We have, as West Indians, lost much of our African-ness, and have mastered the tools of British civilisation. I put no value on these changes. It is just a bald historical process.

The issue before us is the development of a new England. There are difficulties on race. The ambitions of a new caste in the black and Asian communities are running wild; they have the support of their white counterparts, and I strongly suspect that the statements of cultural difference are a vehicle for self-enhancement. The general working population has greater problems to deal with.

John Grieve represents a powerful section of the state as far as blacks and Asians are concerned, given that police malpractice has, until now, had a repressive impact on the ordinary immigrant. Grieve spoke of "justice for all". The Stephen Lawrence issue was at the centre of his preoccupation. He has his own unique historical approach to the society into which he was born. He draws from moments of English tolerance, generosity and a sense of fair play. His was a breath of fresh air, balanced and unmoved by the Daily Telegraph's opprobrium.

I made a huge mistake in the question and answer session. I held the view that no more could come out of the Lawrence issue, that no prosecution could succeed because the matter had been so widely aired. Grieve was rather disappointed, hurt even. I was wrong. He was certain, as the day is long, that those responsible would be prosecuted and he would win. I was convinced and apologised profusely.