Does Freedom Association’s attack on Tories presage first skirmish of party civil war?
Freedom Association chairman, anti federalist campaigner and former Conservative MP Christopher Gill [Ludlow 1987-2001] is to join Ukip. His action reflects the struggle for the soul of the Conservative party. The Freedom Association’s governing Council contains senior Tory MPs Christopher Chope, Gerald Howarth and Andrew Rosindell, influential MEP Daniel Hannan as well as effective Commons newcomer Philip Davies while its magazine Freedom Today enjoys a regular column by John Redwood.
In a statement reported on Ukip’s website Mr Gill stated: “Mr Cameron’s new, forward looking Conservative Party seems to have brought back many of the disastrous has-beens from the Major administration: Maude, Gummer, Heseltine and Clarke, to name but a few, dinosaur Europhiles all.
“It is clear that no argument will move the Conservative Party’s official position on Europe, despite many of their MPs privately agreeing with UKIP.”
Friday, April 14, 2006
Standards Board gives Mayor Livingstone all clear over “chiselling little crook“ jibe about American ambassador
Responding to the complaint by Liberty and Law of 28 March the Standards Board for England’s decision made on 5 April and sent to the parties on 6 April was:
"It was noted that the Mayor of London Mr Livingstone has a political platform that he can use to draw attention to matters of public importance. Whilst it was considered that Mr Livingstone’s choice of language could potentially amount to a failure to comply with the Code of Conduct, in particular the obligation to treat others with respect, on balance it was not considered that the allegation is sufficiently serious to warrant referral for investigation and any consequent action."
The Mayor’s office issued a press release on 7 April in which its Notes to Editors cut the decision to “ on balance it was not considered that the allegation is sufficiently serious to warrant referral for investigation and any consequent action”.
The Standards Board was not asked to adjudicate on Mr Livingstone’s later elaboration of his initial insult to the American ambassador speaking on 2 April to Andrew Marr [BBC 1 Sunday AM] "A chiselling little crook. And that's actually quite an interesting parallel because when we find someone who consistently doesn't pay the congestion charge we usually find the police want them for other things as well, minor crimes in some cases armed robbery, so there is a clear pattern –"
Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup stated: “Complaints to the Standards Board and its decisions allow local politicians covered by its rules to have a better understanding of what they are or are not permitted to say in our now regulated democracy. The term ‘chiselling little crook’ and similar terms may now enliven political debate following the Board’s admirably speedy decision.”
Responding to the complaint by Liberty and Law of 28 March the Standards Board for England’s decision made on 5 April and sent to the parties on 6 April was:
"It was noted that the Mayor of London Mr Livingstone has a political platform that he can use to draw attention to matters of public importance. Whilst it was considered that Mr Livingstone’s choice of language could potentially amount to a failure to comply with the Code of Conduct, in particular the obligation to treat others with respect, on balance it was not considered that the allegation is sufficiently serious to warrant referral for investigation and any consequent action."
The Mayor’s office issued a press release on 7 April in which its Notes to Editors cut the decision to “ on balance it was not considered that the allegation is sufficiently serious to warrant referral for investigation and any consequent action”.
The Standards Board was not asked to adjudicate on Mr Livingstone’s later elaboration of his initial insult to the American ambassador speaking on 2 April to Andrew Marr [BBC 1 Sunday AM] "A chiselling little crook. And that's actually quite an interesting parallel because when we find someone who consistently doesn't pay the congestion charge we usually find the police want them for other things as well, minor crimes in some cases armed robbery, so there is a clear pattern –"
Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup stated: “Complaints to the Standards Board and its decisions allow local politicians covered by its rules to have a better understanding of what they are or are not permitted to say in our now regulated democracy. The term ‘chiselling little crook’ and similar terms may now enliven political debate following the Board’s admirably speedy decision.”
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
Colour and sex bar constabulary now seeks white male cops
Gloucestershire Constabulary has written to 108 white male candidates whose applications were controversially rejected in January on the grounds of their race and sex inviting them to a new assessment stage beginning 21 August.
Civil liberties group Liberty and Law who reported the constabulary to both the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission welcome the development but remain disturbed by the Constabulary’s handling of the situation and the institutional inertia of the CRE and EOC in failing to act with any sense of urgency. Gloucestershire Constabulary are still waiting for a decision by both the CRE and EOC.
The constabulary states that it has not completed its recruitment requirements for 2006/2007 and 2007/8.
Recruitment officer Anthea Barrett explains in her letter of 7 April to the men: “I recognise that you will have been disappointed not to have been invited to attend the Assessment Centre held in February. The number of candidates who attained the score required to pass the CBQ1 stage significantly exceeded the number of places we were able to offer at the February Assessment Centre and therefore you were not offered a place.”
Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup stated:“ The Constabulary just cannot come clean about what it has done. It carefully avoids admitting that these applicants had been lied to in January. They were told then that they had been “randomly deselected” because too many applicants had passed the paper test. The truth was they had been specially selected for rejection on the grounds of their colour and sex and that the “confidential”2 Equal Opportunities page of their application form in which their racial origin could be found was used to discriminate against them. Only those white males who obtained the highest marks were allowed through unlike their minority ethnic and female competitors for whom a bare pass was sufficient.”
Rejected white male applicants have been advised that they should take their cases to an employment tribunal but those still seeking a career with Gloucestershire Constabulary are put off because they fear that such action would harm their chances of selection. They are prepared to settle for being discriminated against for the sake of their potential long- term careers.
Some failed candidates simply believe that the letter from the Constabulary is an attempt to dissuade victims of the constabulary’s positive discrimination selection process from applying to an employment tribunal within the time limits allowed.
Ends
1 CBQ Competency Based Questionnaire
2 “The information on this form is for monitoring purposes only and will not be made available to those assessing our application. The information supplied will be treated in the strictest confidence and will not affect your job application in any way. …. This information forms no part of the recruitment process. It will be detached from your application on receipt.”
Background:
Gloucestershire Constabulary Statement on Police Officer Recruitment, 10 April
http://www.gloucestershire.police.uk/news/555.html
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Gloucestershire Police reported to CRE and EOC over blacklisting white male recruits
Tuesday, 7 March 2006
Police drop race and sexually discriminatory recruitment scheme after three months pressure by civil liberties group
http://www.libertyandlaw.co.uk/page.php?domain_name=libertyandlaw.co.uk&viewpage=news
Gloucestershire Constabulary has written to 108 white male candidates whose applications were controversially rejected in January on the grounds of their race and sex inviting them to a new assessment stage beginning 21 August.
Civil liberties group Liberty and Law who reported the constabulary to both the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission welcome the development but remain disturbed by the Constabulary’s handling of the situation and the institutional inertia of the CRE and EOC in failing to act with any sense of urgency. Gloucestershire Constabulary are still waiting for a decision by both the CRE and EOC.
The constabulary states that it has not completed its recruitment requirements for 2006/2007 and 2007/8.
Recruitment officer Anthea Barrett explains in her letter of 7 April to the men: “I recognise that you will have been disappointed not to have been invited to attend the Assessment Centre held in February. The number of candidates who attained the score required to pass the CBQ1 stage significantly exceeded the number of places we were able to offer at the February Assessment Centre and therefore you were not offered a place.”
Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup stated:“ The Constabulary just cannot come clean about what it has done. It carefully avoids admitting that these applicants had been lied to in January. They were told then that they had been “randomly deselected” because too many applicants had passed the paper test. The truth was they had been specially selected for rejection on the grounds of their colour and sex and that the “confidential”2 Equal Opportunities page of their application form in which their racial origin could be found was used to discriminate against them. Only those white males who obtained the highest marks were allowed through unlike their minority ethnic and female competitors for whom a bare pass was sufficient.”
Rejected white male applicants have been advised that they should take their cases to an employment tribunal but those still seeking a career with Gloucestershire Constabulary are put off because they fear that such action would harm their chances of selection. They are prepared to settle for being discriminated against for the sake of their potential long- term careers.
Some failed candidates simply believe that the letter from the Constabulary is an attempt to dissuade victims of the constabulary’s positive discrimination selection process from applying to an employment tribunal within the time limits allowed.
Ends
1 CBQ Competency Based Questionnaire
2 “The information on this form is for monitoring purposes only and will not be made available to those assessing our application. The information supplied will be treated in the strictest confidence and will not affect your job application in any way. …. This information forms no part of the recruitment process. It will be detached from your application on receipt.”
Background:
Gloucestershire Constabulary Statement on Police Officer Recruitment, 10 April
http://www.gloucestershire.police.uk/news/555.html
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Gloucestershire Police reported to CRE and EOC over blacklisting white male recruits
Tuesday, 7 March 2006
Police drop race and sexually discriminatory recruitment scheme after three months pressure by civil liberties group
http://www.libertyandlaw.co.uk/page.php?domain_name=libertyandlaw.co.uk&viewpage=news
Sunday, April 02, 2006
Livingstone insults Britain’s dead soldiers in spat with US ambassador
London mayor Ken Livingstone puts his customary spin on a New York Times editorial agreeing with his view that the American embassy should pay the congestion charge.
What he neglected to tell Londoners on his taxpayer funded website was that the New York Times shared the view of most observers that his behaviour was utterly inappropriate for someone in his office.
This is what it said: “The London mayor, Ken Livingstone, needs to work on editing what comes out of his mouth (this week he called the American ambassador a "chiseling little crook" and he is currently appealing a suspension from his duties for comparing a Jewish journalist to a guard at a concentration camp). He poked further fun at the ambassador for his previous job, which - unfortunately, in light of the debate - was owning a large car dealership.”
His behaviour has become even more obnoxious elaborating even more offensively on his earlier remarks about American ambassador Robert Tuttle in today’s interview with political journalist Andrew Marr [BBC 1 Sunday AM]
Livingstone: A chiselling little crook. And that's actually quite an interesting parallel because when we find someone who consistently doesn't pay the congestion charge we usually find the police want them for other things as well, minor crimes in some cases armed robbery, so there is a clear pattern -
Andrew Marr: ... ambassador ...
Livingstone: No, no but there is a clear pattern of those people who they consistently don't pay their fines and that they're wanted for other ... of the police."
After that outburst he continues: "I have to say I do think it is completely and utterly unacceptable that the American ambassador turns up, having made his billions selling cars, and they stop [paying] particularly at a time when we're basically the only serious ally that America's got and our young people are putting their lives on the line for George Bush's foreign policy every day. I think it stinks that he's weaselling his way out of paying his fair share to London because it makes Londoners have to pay more if he's not paying his whack."
So what is Livingstone now saying? By “we” in the “only serious ally” he certainly doesn’t mean “him”. Our young people are putting their lives on the line for our government’s foreign policy not the mayor’s. Livingstone’s jibe exploits both our dead and serving military as if their lives can be equated with a motoring tax and used as a bargaining chip in his vulgar argument with the American ambassador.
Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup commented: “Mr Livingstone’s cheeky chappie mask is slipping and we are seeing something altogether more unpleasant.”
Further information:
New York Times urges US Embassy to pay congestion charge 31 March 2006
http://www.london.gov.uk/view_press_release.jsp?releaseid=7732
Mayor defends US toll payment row 2 April 2006
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/4869588.stm
Andrew Marr interview
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/sunday_am/4869690.stm
London mayor Ken Livingstone puts his customary spin on a New York Times editorial agreeing with his view that the American embassy should pay the congestion charge.
What he neglected to tell Londoners on his taxpayer funded website was that the New York Times shared the view of most observers that his behaviour was utterly inappropriate for someone in his office.
This is what it said: “The London mayor, Ken Livingstone, needs to work on editing what comes out of his mouth (this week he called the American ambassador a "chiseling little crook" and he is currently appealing a suspension from his duties for comparing a Jewish journalist to a guard at a concentration camp). He poked further fun at the ambassador for his previous job, which - unfortunately, in light of the debate - was owning a large car dealership.”
His behaviour has become even more obnoxious elaborating even more offensively on his earlier remarks about American ambassador Robert Tuttle in today’s interview with political journalist Andrew Marr [BBC 1 Sunday AM]
Livingstone: A chiselling little crook. And that's actually quite an interesting parallel because when we find someone who consistently doesn't pay the congestion charge we usually find the police want them for other things as well, minor crimes in some cases armed robbery, so there is a clear pattern -
Andrew Marr: ... ambassador ...
Livingstone: No, no but there is a clear pattern of those people who they consistently don't pay their fines and that they're wanted for other ... of the police."
After that outburst he continues: "I have to say I do think it is completely and utterly unacceptable that the American ambassador turns up, having made his billions selling cars, and they stop [paying] particularly at a time when we're basically the only serious ally that America's got and our young people are putting their lives on the line for George Bush's foreign policy every day. I think it stinks that he's weaselling his way out of paying his fair share to London because it makes Londoners have to pay more if he's not paying his whack."
So what is Livingstone now saying? By “we” in the “only serious ally” he certainly doesn’t mean “him”. Our young people are putting their lives on the line for our government’s foreign policy not the mayor’s. Livingstone’s jibe exploits both our dead and serving military as if their lives can be equated with a motoring tax and used as a bargaining chip in his vulgar argument with the American ambassador.
Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup commented: “Mr Livingstone’s cheeky chappie mask is slipping and we are seeing something altogether more unpleasant.”
Further information:
New York Times urges US Embassy to pay congestion charge 31 March 2006
http://www.london.gov.uk/view_press_release.jsp?releaseid=7732
Mayor defends US toll payment row 2 April 2006
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/4869588.stm
Andrew Marr interview
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/sunday_am/4869690.stm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)