Trevor Phillips loses bogus knighthood
An international campaign led by the BBC, British Council, Guardian/Observer, Daily Mirror, NUT, North Yorkshire Police Authority the South African Sunday Times and Parliament’s Joint Committee On Human Rights to surreptitiously upgrade the title of the ambitious chair of the Commission for Racial Equality from humble OBE to knight has been thwarted by British civil liberties campaigning group Liberty and Law.
Following its investigation it challenged The Guardian, which lost its nerve on 19 August and came clean about their man in Corrections and Clarifications. The campaign looks now to run into the sand.
It is thought that Phillips for whom only a peerage serves any practical purpose is annoyed by the clumsiness of his cheerleaders.
A google search for “Sir Trevor Phillips” now gives 66 results
Monday, August 15, 2005
Commission for Racial Equality in cover up of its employment records
Just 76 of the 204 staff [37.3%] of the Commission for Racial Equality [CRE] are revealed to be ‘White’ in the latest annual report of the £20million quango. This continues a history of their gross under-representation in the organisation. For over ten years the CRE has failed to adopt ‘targets’ to make itself representative of the broad population it serves, remaining determinedly institutionally racist. 77 of its staff are ‘Black or Black British’, 30 ‘Asian or Asian British’, while only one of its staff is recorded as of ‘Mixed background’.
The CRE’s race and gender record keeping is also unacceptable. Despite its obsessive monitoring the latest annual report does not account for the racial identity of nine [4.4%] of its staff whose sex and grade is however known. It is nonetheless a substantial improvement on its 2001 annual report, which without any explanation failed to account for the race, sex or grade of 39 [18.3%] of its then 213 staff.
Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup stated: “We should have the right to expect that our equal opportunities bodies are competent and practice what they preach. Parliament now needs to look critically at their activities and provide them with appropriate direction. Recommendations and investigations by the CRE cannot be taken seriously until it starts to put its own house in order”
The CRE has revealed that there is “under representation from certain ethnic groups” within its staff but will not voluntarily answer the straightforward question: which ethnic groups and by how much. Such an answer would provide a helpful guide to London employers about the racial profile they should aim for and would enable the CRE to be judged in the same way as the bodies that it investigates.
The CRE revealed minimal information to Liberty and Law Journal [LLJ] when asked on 25 July a straightforward question: The 2003 [Annual] Report also reveals "under-representation from certain ethnic groups" in employment at the CRE. Which are these under-represented groups? How under-represented are each of these groups according to CRE employment figures on which the conclusion of under-representation was reached? Your reply should allow me to see what the shortfall in numbers of each of these ethnic groups is and what their proportion of the total workforce should be.
The answer, which was came on 12 August was evasive. It said: The CRE uses Census 2001 - ethnicity and religion in England and Wales as well as the regional breakdowns to assess representation by ethnic group in our workforce. This information is available on the ONS website for you to compare with the CRE staffing numbers, which includes a breakdown by ethnicity, made available in our annual reports.
LLJ is now forced to use the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act to uncover this basic information that the CRE will not otherwise provide.
Ends
CRE’s three-year review: pages 10,11
http://www.cre.gov.uk/downloads/cre_res_functions_policies_assessment_2005.pdf
CRE Annual Report 2004, see pages 48-50 http://www.cre.gov.uk/downloads/AR04main.pdf
Just 76 of the 204 staff [37.3%] of the Commission for Racial Equality [CRE] are revealed to be ‘White’ in the latest annual report of the £20million quango. This continues a history of their gross under-representation in the organisation. For over ten years the CRE has failed to adopt ‘targets’ to make itself representative of the broad population it serves, remaining determinedly institutionally racist. 77 of its staff are ‘Black or Black British’, 30 ‘Asian or Asian British’, while only one of its staff is recorded as of ‘Mixed background’.
The CRE’s race and gender record keeping is also unacceptable. Despite its obsessive monitoring the latest annual report does not account for the racial identity of nine [4.4%] of its staff whose sex and grade is however known. It is nonetheless a substantial improvement on its 2001 annual report, which without any explanation failed to account for the race, sex or grade of 39 [18.3%] of its then 213 staff.
Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup stated: “We should have the right to expect that our equal opportunities bodies are competent and practice what they preach. Parliament now needs to look critically at their activities and provide them with appropriate direction. Recommendations and investigations by the CRE cannot be taken seriously until it starts to put its own house in order”
The CRE has revealed that there is “under representation from certain ethnic groups” within its staff but will not voluntarily answer the straightforward question: which ethnic groups and by how much. Such an answer would provide a helpful guide to London employers about the racial profile they should aim for and would enable the CRE to be judged in the same way as the bodies that it investigates.
The CRE revealed minimal information to Liberty and Law Journal [LLJ] when asked on 25 July a straightforward question: The 2003 [Annual] Report also reveals "under-representation from certain ethnic groups" in employment at the CRE. Which are these under-represented groups? How under-represented are each of these groups according to CRE employment figures on which the conclusion of under-representation was reached? Your reply should allow me to see what the shortfall in numbers of each of these ethnic groups is and what their proportion of the total workforce should be.
The answer, which was came on 12 August was evasive. It said: The CRE uses Census 2001 - ethnicity and religion in England and Wales as well as the regional breakdowns to assess representation by ethnic group in our workforce. This information is available on the ONS website for you to compare with the CRE staffing numbers, which includes a breakdown by ethnicity, made available in our annual reports.
LLJ is now forced to use the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act to uncover this basic information that the CRE will not otherwise provide.
Ends
CRE’s three-year review: pages 10,11
http://www.cre.gov.uk/downloads/cre_res_functions_policies_assessment_2005.pdf
CRE Annual Report 2004, see pages 48-50 http://www.cre.gov.uk/downloads/AR04main.pdf
Friday, August 12, 2005
Green ribbons gimmick no substitute for catching hate criminals
Civil rights group Liberty and Law has condemned the decision by Nottinghamshire police chief Steve Green to ask his officers to wear green ribbons, the traditional colour of Islam, in his bid to show solidarity with Muslims suffering harassment after the London bomb attacks.
Director Gerald Hartup stated: ”The chief constable has let his heart rule his head. His vocation may very well be as a pressure group organiser but his profession is still that of a police officer. He has no business pressurising his officers to make political statements. He should concentrate instead on catching hate crime perpetrators not grandstanding. We would expect ACPO to join with our political representatives in urging him to drop this ill thought out politically correct and counterproductive gimmick.”
In the Chief Constable’s press release he claims that wearing the ribbons is a way of showing “that not everyone is prejudiced or bigoted”.
Mr Hartup added: “Police officers and the public will not appreciate his lack of confidence in the organisation he leads. Serving officers should not expect to have to wear badges and ribbons to prove to the public and to Mr Green that they are absolutely committed to protecting everyone from evil-doers.”
Following the Chief constable’s misguided initiative there will obviously now be two categories of police officer in Nottinghamshire: those who put on the green ribbons and those who do not. What consequences flow from this? Police officers who fail to wear the ribbons may now be thought by sections of the Muslim community to be at the very least unsympathetic to the problems they face and unprepared to make a simple gesture of sympathy and support. If such officers are a substantial number it may even be claimed as illustrating the racism of the police service. How long before a ribbon count and ribbon targets? Police officers may be asked in the street why they are not wearing the ribbon. Their response will be either to say it is a personal matter inviting the conclusion that they are off hand or to engage in what would be a political discussion in which they would need to express their political opposition to such initiatives. Has the Chief constable even considered this?
Not to wear the green ribbon will indicate at the very least a lack of support for the Chief Constable’s initiative and even judgment. This may reasonably be expected to put unacceptable pressure on officers, especially senior officers, to toe the line. Will their careers be blighted by their independence?
Wearing of the ribbons by Nottinghamshire police may damage race relations in another way. They may easily be misunderstood as the politically correct favouring of Muslims compared to non-Muslims when dealing with claims of inter- community crime engendering the very backlash he is so clumsily seeking to oppose.
Ends
Further information: Gerald Hartup tel: 020 7928 7325 fax: 020 7207 3425
email gerald.hartup@btopenworld.com
Civil rights group Liberty and Law has condemned the decision by Nottinghamshire police chief Steve Green to ask his officers to wear green ribbons, the traditional colour of Islam, in his bid to show solidarity with Muslims suffering harassment after the London bomb attacks.
Director Gerald Hartup stated: ”The chief constable has let his heart rule his head. His vocation may very well be as a pressure group organiser but his profession is still that of a police officer. He has no business pressurising his officers to make political statements. He should concentrate instead on catching hate crime perpetrators not grandstanding. We would expect ACPO to join with our political representatives in urging him to drop this ill thought out politically correct and counterproductive gimmick.”
In the Chief Constable’s press release he claims that wearing the ribbons is a way of showing “that not everyone is prejudiced or bigoted”.
Mr Hartup added: “Police officers and the public will not appreciate his lack of confidence in the organisation he leads. Serving officers should not expect to have to wear badges and ribbons to prove to the public and to Mr Green that they are absolutely committed to protecting everyone from evil-doers.”
Following the Chief constable’s misguided initiative there will obviously now be two categories of police officer in Nottinghamshire: those who put on the green ribbons and those who do not. What consequences flow from this? Police officers who fail to wear the ribbons may now be thought by sections of the Muslim community to be at the very least unsympathetic to the problems they face and unprepared to make a simple gesture of sympathy and support. If such officers are a substantial number it may even be claimed as illustrating the racism of the police service. How long before a ribbon count and ribbon targets? Police officers may be asked in the street why they are not wearing the ribbon. Their response will be either to say it is a personal matter inviting the conclusion that they are off hand or to engage in what would be a political discussion in which they would need to express their political opposition to such initiatives. Has the Chief constable even considered this?
Not to wear the green ribbon will indicate at the very least a lack of support for the Chief Constable’s initiative and even judgment. This may reasonably be expected to put unacceptable pressure on officers, especially senior officers, to toe the line. Will their careers be blighted by their independence?
Wearing of the ribbons by Nottinghamshire police may damage race relations in another way. They may easily be misunderstood as the politically correct favouring of Muslims compared to non-Muslims when dealing with claims of inter- community crime engendering the very backlash he is so clumsily seeking to oppose.
Ends
Further information: Gerald Hartup tel: 020 7928 7325 fax: 020 7207 3425
email gerald.hartup@btopenworld.com
Thursday, August 11, 2005
Equal Opportunities Commission corrects the record about late publication of the gender make-up of its staff
Following Liberty and Law Journal’s reports of 24 July and 2 August exposing the institutional sexism of the Equal Opportunities Commission [EOC] we have been asked by them to correct the record. The EOC states:
1. Your article suggests we are unable to provide up-to-date information on the gender make-up of our staff – or at least unsure where the public can find it. The EOC is very happy to provide this information, and it is available in the public domain and on our website – your article suggests otherwise.
We reply: The EOC’s annual report was published on 21 July without this information. We requested this information by telephone on 24 July but were not able to get it. We requested information about the gender and racial makeup again on 26 July and again on 29 July. Finally on 1 August the data relating to gender but not race makeup was provided to us by email. This information was used in our report of 2 August.
Unknown to us the EOC eventually published this information [as they confirm on10 August] on their website on 2 August. Clearly the information was not in the public domain until this date. We can agree with the EOC that it became in the public domain some 12 days after we requested it. We reported quite correctly that the EOC believed the information was in the public domain. As it turns out their belief was misplaced although our reporting was accurate.
Our report of 24 July stated: The EOC was unable to provide any up to date figures today but believed that these figures were in the public domain. It is not known at present whether failure to publish these figures in its annual report puts the EOC in breach of the Race Relations Act or the Sex Discrimination Act.
And on 2 August our report stated:
According to figures obtained on 1 August by human rights group Liberty and Law, which monitors the work of Britain’s equality bodies, the Equal Opportunities Commission [EOC] increased the proportion of its male staff last year by over 16%. Now almost one in five [19.3%] of its staff is men.
The data is not carried in its annual report published on 21 July but was provided by the EOC within nine days of a request for it.
2004-2005 Analysis of Equal Opportunities Commission staff by gender
Gender: Female 117,Male 28,Total 145
The EOC also ask us to make the following correction. They state:
2. We are not in violation of the Race Relations Act or the Sex Discrimination Act.
We reply: Liberty and Law Journal did not say that the EOC was in violation of these acts. We wrote: “It is not known at present whether failure to publish these figures in its annual report puts the EOC in breach of the Race Relations Act or the Sex Discrimination Act.”
We are happy to report that the EOC believes that it is not in breach of either of these acts. The EOC, however, does not have a 100% record in its legal observations, most notoriously advising the Labour Party before the 1997 election that all women shortlists were legal.
Following Liberty and Law Journal’s reports of 24 July and 2 August exposing the institutional sexism of the Equal Opportunities Commission [EOC] we have been asked by them to correct the record. The EOC states:
1. Your article suggests we are unable to provide up-to-date information on the gender make-up of our staff – or at least unsure where the public can find it. The EOC is very happy to provide this information, and it is available in the public domain and on our website – your article suggests otherwise.
We reply: The EOC’s annual report was published on 21 July without this information. We requested this information by telephone on 24 July but were not able to get it. We requested information about the gender and racial makeup again on 26 July and again on 29 July. Finally on 1 August the data relating to gender but not race makeup was provided to us by email. This information was used in our report of 2 August.
Unknown to us the EOC eventually published this information [as they confirm on10 August] on their website on 2 August. Clearly the information was not in the public domain until this date. We can agree with the EOC that it became in the public domain some 12 days after we requested it. We reported quite correctly that the EOC believed the information was in the public domain. As it turns out their belief was misplaced although our reporting was accurate.
Our report of 24 July stated: The EOC was unable to provide any up to date figures today but believed that these figures were in the public domain. It is not known at present whether failure to publish these figures in its annual report puts the EOC in breach of the Race Relations Act or the Sex Discrimination Act.
And on 2 August our report stated:
According to figures obtained on 1 August by human rights group Liberty and Law, which monitors the work of Britain’s equality bodies, the Equal Opportunities Commission [EOC] increased the proportion of its male staff last year by over 16%. Now almost one in five [19.3%] of its staff is men.
The data is not carried in its annual report published on 21 July but was provided by the EOC within nine days of a request for it.
2004-2005 Analysis of Equal Opportunities Commission staff by gender
Gender: Female 117,Male 28,Total 145
The EOC also ask us to make the following correction. They state:
2. We are not in violation of the Race Relations Act or the Sex Discrimination Act.
We reply: Liberty and Law Journal did not say that the EOC was in violation of these acts. We wrote: “It is not known at present whether failure to publish these figures in its annual report puts the EOC in breach of the Race Relations Act or the Sex Discrimination Act.”
We are happy to report that the EOC believes that it is not in breach of either of these acts. The EOC, however, does not have a 100% record in its legal observations, most notoriously advising the Labour Party before the 1997 election that all women shortlists were legal.
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
BNP’s very own Nuremberg Laws promulgated
In a news story of 1 August Taxpayers financed London bombers the British National Party’s website carries its proposals to counter terrorism. They eerily resonate with the Nuremberg Laws promulgated seventy years ago in Hitler’s Germany.
Jews of course were the internal enemies of the National Socialists in 1935 and in a Supplementary Decree of November 14 1935 they were to be dismissed from all public offices.
Muslims now appear to fulfil this role for our domestic national socialists having partially replaced Jews in their pantheon of hate. Here is what they have to say.
“..the BNP's proposals to safeguard Britain from further terrorist attack include the banning of any further immigration from Pakistan and similar Islamic countries, the removal of Muslims from sensitive employment (such as in water treatment plants and chemistry and biology laboratories in universities), and the confiscation of the passports of all male Muslims living in Britain between the ages of 15 - 40 in order to stop them travelling to religious indoctrination schools and terrorist training camps in Islamic countries, as an estimated 3,000 have already done.”
Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup commented: “The mainstream media generally content themselves with condemning the BNP as “racist” without making clear what they actually stand for. We need to inform the electorate of exactly how nasty they are.”
Notes
Taxpayers financed London bombers
http://www.bnp.org.uk/news_detail.php?newsId=431
Liberty and Law defends the civil rights of members of the BNP including the right not to be dismissed from employment on the grounds of their membership of the party. It advocates intense political opposition to its policies.
In a news story of 1 August Taxpayers financed London bombers the British National Party’s website carries its proposals to counter terrorism. They eerily resonate with the Nuremberg Laws promulgated seventy years ago in Hitler’s Germany.
Jews of course were the internal enemies of the National Socialists in 1935 and in a Supplementary Decree of November 14 1935 they were to be dismissed from all public offices.
Muslims now appear to fulfil this role for our domestic national socialists having partially replaced Jews in their pantheon of hate. Here is what they have to say.
“..the BNP's proposals to safeguard Britain from further terrorist attack include the banning of any further immigration from Pakistan and similar Islamic countries, the removal of Muslims from sensitive employment (such as in water treatment plants and chemistry and biology laboratories in universities), and the confiscation of the passports of all male Muslims living in Britain between the ages of 15 - 40 in order to stop them travelling to religious indoctrination schools and terrorist training camps in Islamic countries, as an estimated 3,000 have already done.”
Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup commented: “The mainstream media generally content themselves with condemning the BNP as “racist” without making clear what they actually stand for. We need to inform the electorate of exactly how nasty they are.”
Notes
Taxpayers financed London bombers
http://www.bnp.org.uk/news_detail.php?newsId=431
Liberty and Law defends the civil rights of members of the BNP including the right not to be dismissed from employment on the grounds of their membership of the party. It advocates intense political opposition to its policies.
Tuesday, August 02, 2005
Equal Opportunities Commission’s jobs for the boys
According to figures obtained on 1 August by human rights group Liberty and Law, which monitors the work of Britain’s equality bodies, the Equal Opportunities Commission [EOC] increased the proportion of its male staff last year by over 16%. Now almost one in five [19.3%] of its staff is men.
The data is not carried in its annual report published on 21 July but was provided by the EOC within nine days of a request for it.
2004-2005 Analysis of Equal Opportunities Commission staff by gender
Gender: Female 117,Male 28,Total 145
The EOC’s 2003/2004 Annual Report, unfortunately no longer on the EOC’s website, revealed that male representation had dropped to what Liberty and Law believes to be a historic low of 16.4%.
Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup stated: “After the disastrous figures posted in 2004 EOC commissioners are thought to be delighted with this improvement demonstrating a shift from the institutional sexism that has plagued their organisation since its inception. Unfortunately their concern only comes after their closure date has been announced. We will, however, learn from their failure.”
End
Note to editors:
The EOC’s Annual Report can be found on http://www.eoc.org.uk/EOCeng/EOCcs/AboutEOC/annual_report_2004_05.pdf
According to figures obtained on 1 August by human rights group Liberty and Law, which monitors the work of Britain’s equality bodies, the Equal Opportunities Commission [EOC] increased the proportion of its male staff last year by over 16%. Now almost one in five [19.3%] of its staff is men.
The data is not carried in its annual report published on 21 July but was provided by the EOC within nine days of a request for it.
2004-2005 Analysis of Equal Opportunities Commission staff by gender
Gender: Female 117,Male 28,Total 145
The EOC’s 2003/2004 Annual Report, unfortunately no longer on the EOC’s website, revealed that male representation had dropped to what Liberty and Law believes to be a historic low of 16.4%.
Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup stated: “After the disastrous figures posted in 2004 EOC commissioners are thought to be delighted with this improvement demonstrating a shift from the institutional sexism that has plagued their organisation since its inception. Unfortunately their concern only comes after their closure date has been announced. We will, however, learn from their failure.”
End
Note to editors:
The EOC’s Annual Report can be found on http://www.eoc.org.uk/EOCeng/EOCcs/AboutEOC/annual_report_2004_05.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)