Does Britain need a Libertarian Party?

Maybe, or maybe not. The argument bubbles up regularly in the forums and now the Libertarian Alliance makes it the subject of the first £1000 Chris R Tame Memorial Prize.

Dr Tame was the dynamic founder of the Libertarian Alliance whose contribution to British politics and political thought was not fully appreciated until his premature death last year. It is now and in his honour The PROMIS Unit of Primary Care has established a major yearly £1,000 essay prize.

It is open to everybody. The deadline for receipt of essays is 1 October 2007.

Details of the prize can be found here.

European Commission updates offensive Tintin cartoons

The European Commission has had on its website now for almost seven years offensive images of African European young people. The artist for the publication "What me a racist?", Sergio Selma, illustrates "sympathetically" a black mother and her son with the same enormous mouths used by Hergé in his 1931 book Tintin in the Congo that has now been reported to the British police.

The most offensive illustration in the ezine is a cartoon showing a middle aged white couple looking fondly at a little black boy and girl with enormous offensively caricatured mouths stating: "Aren't they cute? They're just gorgeous at that age." with the reply "Pity they have to grow up."

The cartoon magazine crassly designed to combat racism can still be seen on the European Commission's website.

Civil liberties group Liberty and Law has reported the website to the Commission for Racial Equality asking it to use its good offices and European contacts to get the European Commission to take it off the website and to pulp all remaining copies of the document published in all the official European Union languages.

The European Commission in a forward to the document claims that "it is determined to combat discrimination based on sex, race, ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability , age or sexual orientation". It goes on to claim that "the humorously written and informative pamphlet has been designed for teachers to use when addressing the subject of racism with young people".

Liberty and law director Gerald Hartup commented: "It is astonishing that this comic has circulated so widely for so long without any action being taken especially given the sheer size of the race relations industry in Europe. We are contacting the European Commission directly to have it taken off its website."

What me a racist? can be seen here.

The modalities of an offer from Europe too good to refuse

Rt Hon David Miliband MP
Secretary of State.
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA),
Nobel House
17 Smith Square
London SW1P 3JR
16 May 2007

Dear Secretary of State,

My friend, who is in farming at the moment, recently received a cheque for £3,000 from the Rural Payments Agency for not rearing pigs. I would now like to join the "not rearing pigs" business.

In your opinion, what is the best kind of farm not to rear pigs on, and which is the best breed of pigs not to rear? I want to be sure I approach this endeavour in keeping with all government policies, as dictated by the EU under the Common Agricultural Policy. I would prefer not to rear bacon pigs, but if this is not the type you want not rearing, I will just as gladly not rear porkers. Are there any advantages in not rearing rare breeds such as Saddlebacks or Gloucester Old Spots, or are there too many people already not rearing these?

As I see it, the hardest part of this programme will be keeping an accurate record of how many pigs I haven't reared. Are there any Government or Local Authority courses on this?

My friend is very satisfied with this business. He has been rearing pigs for forty years or so, and the best he ever made on them was £1,422 in 1968. That is - until this year, when he received a cheque for not rearing any.

If I get £3,000 for not rearing 50 pigs, will I get £6,000 for not rearing 100?
I plan to operate on a small scale at first, holding myself down to about 4,000 pigs not raised. which will mean about £240,000 for the first year? As I become more expert in not rearing pigs, I plan to be more ambitious, perhaps increasing to, say, 40,000 pigs not reared in my second year, for which I should expect about £2.4 million from your department.

Incidentally, I wonder if I would be eligible to receive tradable carbon credits for all these pigs not producing harmful and polluting methane gases.

Another point: These pigs that I plan not to rear will not eat 2,000 tonnes of cereals. I understand that you also pay farmers for not growing crops. Will I qualify for payments for not growing cereals to not feed the pigs I don't rear?

I am also considering the "not milking cows" business, so please send any information you have on that too. Please could you also include the current Defra advice on set aside fields? Can this be done on an e-commerce basis with virtual fields (of which I seem to have several thousand hectares)?

In view of the above you will realise that I will be totally unemployed, and will therefore qualify for unemployment benefits.

I shall of course be voting for your party at the next general election.

Yours faithfully,




This genuine letter on not rearing pigs was sent to Eurorealist by Cyril Randle, the Walsall Pensioner who was almost prosecuted by Walsall MBC for not throwing chewing gum out of a car window he could not open at the time.

NB In the latest reshuffle Mr Miliband has been promoted to Foreign Secretary

The modalities of an offer from Africa too good to miss

Dear,
How are you and your present health condition I hope all is well with you?
I am Mr Asumugah Weah. I am from Liberia in West Africa but I am residing at Dakar Senegal at the moment. I am contacting you on this business venture that I would like to associate with you, My late father Dr George Weah Deposited some capital valued at US$15.5 million dollars that was deposited in bank of Senegal by my late father and the statement of account is with me please I would require your urgent concern on this matter because, the Senegalese bank, has issued me a notice to claim the money or have the fund confiscated within the next twenty Official working days, please my current statue now does not permit me to have full access to the money or to deal with the bank to claim the money, So I will be needing your urgent assistance please to recover the money from the bank, and for you to help me start up a good investment in your country with the money.

Therefore, on receipt of your positive response, we shall then discuss the sharing ratio and modalities for transfer. I have all necessary information and legal documents needed to back you up for the claim. All I require from you is your honest cooperation to enable us see this transaction through. I guarantee that this will be executed under a legitimate arrangement that will protect both of us from any breach of the law.
NOTE: On your request the Senegalese bank will released all the details of the account for your verifications.
Awaiting to hear from you in earnest.
Best Regards,
Asumugah weah
00221-3901542.

Inbox cluttered with junk? Clean up with Yahoo! Mail.

asumugah weah asumugahweah1983@yahoo.co.uk

How many Shami Chakrabatis does it take to change a light bulb?

Liberty has come up with a super idea to protect citizens from terrorism in the UK. With their experience they should really be handed the job of security if the paying public want to really feel safe.

As a spokeswoman put it: "If stop and search powers are applied even-handedly, without racial profiling, they will have the support of Liberty and, hopefully, the whole community."

Just the ticket. Under no circumstances use other than hard intelligence to stop and search unless done on a random basis. That means stopping 90 white people for every 10 minority ethnic people. And make sure you get a fair share of kids playing on the swings too.

This may take a little longer to get results. But, hey, better safe than sorry, surely?

The Scotsman 3 July 2007 Terror, bomb scares, arrests - and births at the Alexandria http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=1033292007

Is it really time to sack smokers?

If you want to know about employment matters log on to Personnel Today. They have a very good selection of informative articles on smoking in the workforce and smoking by members of the workforce.

On 6 May they ran an article Smoking is not the only addiction that must be tackled in the workplace in which the following mainstream advice was given to employers: "…you should adopt a robust approach to your recruitment strategy and find out at an early stage whether a candidate is a smoker, or likes more than a glass of shandy after work. If so, reject them - unless you are prepared to spend the time tackling future issues that may arise."

These major issues are productivity and absentee losses associated with smoking and alcohol related accidents in the workplace.

This is already being done by some employers. A Sunday Times October 3, 2004 Job vacant ... but not for smokers explained: "BRITISH companies have started to refuse to employ smokers, even if they promise not to indulge their habit during working hours." It reports Kalamazoo-UCS of Northfield, Birmingham that employs 400 people and Kershen-Fairfax, a London accountancy firm as leaders."

Using google "smoking sacking" gives a good introduction to such trends.

Personnel Today’s Employment law: smoking ban special 26 June is cautious about sacking existing smokers "Sacking someone because they smoke in their spare time would be an unfair dismissal…" but as they go on to point out of the United States "… twenty states give employers the right to sack employees who smoke away from work in their own time."

The European Commission provides no protection for smokers. According to Commission equal opportunities spokesperson Katharina von Schnurbein "The Commission can legislate on age, disability, sexual orientation, religion, race and gender . For all other areas, it's the member state's responsibility."

Under these circumstances civil liberties group Liberty and Law is asking the Commission for Racial Equality [CRE] and the Equal Opportunities Commission [EOC] to investigate any companies who refuse to employ smokers as well as any recruitment companies or media outlets that accept advertisements proclaiming such discriminatory intent.

Companies refusing to take on smokers are certain to be indirectly sexually and racially discriminatory because of the differential smoking patterns related to the sex and race of Britain’s workforce. The penalties for such discrimination are potentially massive and trade unions can be expected to support affected members at employment tribunals.

Action on Smoking and Health, ASH provides evidence of widely differential smoking patterns by race and sex. It shows that Bangladeshi men for example under a no smoking regime will be turned down almost twice as frequently as Chinese men. Irish women will be turned down 13 times more frequently than Bangladeshi women.

Liberty and Law is contacting recruitment companies to check that they have not and will not accept commissions from companies that refuse to hire people who smoke outside working hours and that they will report such companies to the CRE and the EOC.

It will also directly report companies advertising their intention to exclude smokers to the CRE the EOC and libertarian smoking rights group Forest.

http://www.forestonline.org/output/page209.asp

Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup stated: “We must have zero tolerance of businesses that would indulge in repressive bullying. Their hectoring intolerance must be stubbed out. If necessary they need to suffer the consequences of their anti-social pretensions in the courts or in other ways that affect their bottom lines.”

Do you really want to know how they dumbed down A-level maths?

Education think tank Campaign for Real Education published a short document in 2004 summarising what has happened. You can find it on http://www.cre.org.uk/maths1.pdf

It shows exactly what was ripped out of the syllabus and the disastrous results for students taking university courses with a substantial mathematical content.

Mayor’s action over Fire Authority appointments reported to race and sex watchdogs

London mayor Ken Livingstone has blocked the appointment of every Conservative and Liberal Democrat white male nominated to the governing body of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority. He has acted claiming that their nominations failed to tackle the under representation of women, black, Asian and ethnic minority Londoners. He has asked these parties to reconsider their nominations except for one Conservative female councillor acceptable to him.

At a press conference on Tuesday he confirmed that he had not sought advice from either the Equal Opportunities Commission or the Commission for Racial Equality and that there were contradictory legal views of his powers in this area.

These appointments are well paying with a basic allowance of £7,206 a year to every borough representative. Special responsibility allowances bumped up the average payment to over £11,000 in 2005/2006.

By discriminating in favour of Conservative Cllr Rebekah Gilbert in her appointment and against her white male colleagues it is thought that Mr Livingstone may be in breach of both the Sex Discrimination Act and the Race Relations Act.

Civil rights group Liberty and Law has asked the EOC and the CRE to investigate urgently the action of the Mayor to determine whether it conforms with equal opportunity legislation.

Director Gerald Hartup said:“ This is not just a quarrel between the Mayor and the political parties. It raises important issues about the nature of our democracy. It is too important to be just left to them to sort out".“

The mayor argues in a press release of 15 June: "It is crucial that important public bodies such as the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority represent London’s diverse communities. This year’s nominations offered a real chance to improve the profile of the authority and address the serious under-representation of women and black and ethnic minority Londoners but sadly this has not been acted on.

‘The nominations that have been made by groups within London Councils and the London Assembly are unrepresentative of London’s diverse communities.

"I just do not believe that it is impossible to find more black and Asian people to serve on the fire authority, or that there are not more women who wish to participate.

"It is unacceptable that when there are 1,861 councillors in London, of which 555 are women and 293 from Black, Asian and Ethnic Minority groups, all seven Conservative nominees to the fire authority are white and include only one woman, and all three Liberal Democrat nominees are white men.

"To fulfill my duty to promote genuine equality I have decided not to accept these unrepresentative nominees for the fire authority and to ask those who are making these nominations to ensure that they reflect London as it really is.

"I have written to the Chair of London Councils, Cllr Merrick Cockell, Conservative Assembly leader Angie Bray AM and Liberal Democrat Assembly leader Mike Tuffrey AM to ask them to reconsider their nominations.

"It is absolutely crucial that the body which runs the third largest firefighting organisation in the world is far more representative of the people it serves and I will use all the powers of my office to promote equality and tackle under-representation.”

Merrick Cockell Tory chairman of London Councils (formerly the Association of London Government) responded : "It is disappointing that the Mayor has rejected two pensioners, an openly gay councillor and a councillor under 30 as being 'unrepresentative' of London's diverse communities. The fact remains these councillors were democratically elected by London's diverse communities."

Lib Dem leader of the London Assembly Mike Tuffrey raises the fundamental question to be answered:"It is not for the Mayor to dictate to the other parties who they appoint."

This remains to be seen.

Chancellor reported to race watchdog over jobs for Brits speech

Following Gordon Brown's speech to the GMB union on 5 June in which he indicated that he wanted a claimed 200,000 new jobs to go to what he called "British workers" civil liberties group Liberty and Law has reported him to the Commission for Racial Equality [CRE].

It has asked the CRE to make a statement explaining that any job discrimination based on nationality is against the Race Relations Act and to investigate the policy of the government to ensure that its employment policy is not designed to privilege British job seekers over any other people entitled to seek work in this country.

It has also asked the CRE to obtain a statement from Mr Brown clearly indicating that nothing he has said was intended to suggest that British workers were to be given any priority whatsoever in obtaining employment over foreigners seeking the same work.

Headlines in the media showed clearly Mr Brown's message.

British workers for British jobs, Daily Telegraph
Brown pledges ‘British workers for British jobs’ Daily Mail
Get British jobless doing British jobs Daily Mirror
Brown to put British workers first in jobs queue The Herald
Brown promises Britons first refusal on jobs The Independent

Colin Brown of the Independent explained: “Gordon Brown promised his union backers for the leadership of the Labour Party that as Prime Minister he will ensure British people get first refusal of jobs in Britain.”

Oonagh Blackman of the Daily Mirror summarised his position as:"Gordon Brown yesterday pledged to give jobs to British workers ahead of migrants.”

These headlines were eerily similar to a British National Party campaign posted by its South West Correspondent a few days earlier on 26 May.

"A new leaflet sized poster is starting to “mysteriously” appear on works notice boards in a growing number of Somerset factories - particularly those increasingly employing migrant labour in preference to local people. The posters have the basic design as shown in the example below - but are “customised” by the addition of Party contact details and a strap line depending upon location - such as “British jobs for British workers at Bloggs Foods".

Mr Brown's policy would seem to be similar to that of the BNP. He has given the clear impression that employers can and should discriminate in recruitment between British people and people who are not British but have come to Britain to work and live either permanently or temporarily.

Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup stated "He must be aware that non- British citizens from the European union have an absolute right to live and work in this country without being subject to discrimination by employers. His speech appears to be xenophobic and gives reason for foreigners to fear for their safety in this country as well as for their employment rights, apparently facing a government under his leadership that will attempt to discriminate against them. The BNP website does not yet contain an article trumpeting the fact that the government is now belatedly following its lead. No doubt it will. Mr Brown is doing its job for it."

Prison Service Directorate colour bar sinks Corby

Liberty and Law Journal has now been provided with the Prison Service’s delayed draft Race Impact Assessment on the controversial proposed move of 65 jobs from the struggling town of Corby to Peat House, Leicester.

The document claims “the setting up of a Joint Midlands Procurement Service Unit is expected to result in efficiency gains in excess of £700k.” It will “try and assist as many staff as possible to relocate to the new property in Leicester through the provision of excess fares and possibly a coach service.”

Apart from the logistical advantages claimed for the move it makes clear the reason why Corby had to be disqualified as a contender from the start and has caused such outrage in the town among staff, residents, councillors, local MPs and Northants Race Equality Council.

The document boldly states: “Crown House is unable to meet Directorate (13%) or HMPS (6%) Race/Ethnicity targets. Race/Ethnicity targets to contribute to meeting HMPS’ Race Equality Duty. This is a ministerial requirement.”

It adds: “Leicester provides good recruitment prospects and in time (existing staff are likely to transfer) is likely to assist HMPS in meeting its staff race/ethnicity targets.”

Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup commented: "It looks hopeless for Corby. It seems there is nothing the town can do to persuade the Prison Service to stay. The demographics are against them. They are a black spot to be avoided by employers with government racial targets to meet."

Time to end charitable status of schools and state interference

According to Geraldine Hackett's report ['Poor law' comes to public schools, The Guardian 26 October 2003] charitable status was worth £82 m a year in tax relief to independent schools. Since then it has apparently escalated to be worth £100 millions.

I use Ms Hackett’s report simply to show how the government uses gradualism as a means of taking control of every aspect of our lives. The government is determined to interfere in their running as a condition for keeping this tax advantage.

In 2003 I calculated on the back of an envelope that with 600,000 children in the independent sector the charitable tax break was worth just £137 a year for each pupil. According to the Independent Schools Council “the UK independent sector as a whole educates 620,000 children in around 2,500 independent schools”. My revised back of the envelope calculation makes the tax break now worth £161.29 per pupil. [Let’s go for spurious accuracy. We are talking education after all.]

Parents in the independent sector subsidized the the state in 2003 by the £1.7 billion it would otherwise have cost to educate their children. No doubt given the investment in state education since then the figure has risen considerably.[ A Daily Telegraph editorial puts it at £2.2 billion: Johnson's threats lack both charity and sense, 27 May 2007 and one of its published letters on 28 May puts it at almost $3 billion.] But pretending it has not for a moment another back of the envelope calculation shows that the Education Secretary takes in a cool £2741.94 from each of these children. [At £2.2 billion we are talking £3548 and at £3 billion £4839.]

Parents whose children are educated independently should demand that their schools should deregister as charities and pay the extra 44p a day necessary to get the government and its bureacrats off their backs. Their schools can still carry on making some of their facilities available to children forced to go to state schools . It would no longer be charitable of course but an independent gesture of social solidarity untainted by the state.

David Cameron’s ‘no platform] group wins campus ban on BNP

Ken Livingstone’s group Unite against Fascism successfully stopped British National Party chair Nick Griffin from speaking at Bath University next Monday . Together with the University and Colleges Union [UCU] and the National Union of Students they argued for the ‘no platform’ policy to be extended to the university.

Currently the most prominent parliamentary UAF supporter is Conservative leader David Cameron. He is joined by his shadow Home Office minister Edward Garnier, QC MP.

Historically the Conservative party has argued in favour of free speech and against the ‘no platform’ policy of the National Union of Students that in the past was used to prevent Conservative cabinet ministers from speaking.

Bath University had originally given permission for the meeting to go ahead as the BNP was a lawful political party and to conform to its freedom of speech code.

The university only reversed its stance on 10 May following a campaign launched by the ‘no platform’ groups that made the university fear for the safety of staff and students. It also had “fears of disruption to examinations given the likely scale of protests on the day."

Weyman Bennett, Joint National Secretary of Unite Against Fascism explained his stance: “The racist, homophobic, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic politics of the BNP pose a danger to many of the staff and students who make up the diversity of the university.”

Sally Hunt, UCU joint general secretary said: “Allowing the BNP to speak would have compromised the safety of staff and students and sent out a very worrying message about Bath University’s commitment to diversity.”/


Let’s give them a warm welcome 4 May 2007
http://bristol.indymedia.org/newswire.php?story_id=26246

University in row over BNP invite 10 May 7.34a
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/6641407.stm

University halts BNP speech plan 10 May 2007 17.55
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/6644117.stm

Fascist BNP leader stopped from speaking at Bath University
Protest cancelled 10 May 2007
http://www.uaf.org.uk/news.asp?choice=70510

Legal aid cuts need race equality impact assessment first

The UK Parliament’s Constitutional Affairs Committee has woken up to the fact that the government’s proposals to reform legal aid payments to “save” £100 million pounds a year could breach statutory duties under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000. These regulations now force businesses to carry out a race relations impact assessment when making changes to their business practices that could have an unequal impact on different racial groups.

The government’s scheme has been opposed by Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and the Law Society.

The Law Society Gazette reported last week that the Society of Asian Lawyers (SAL) and the Black Solicitors Network (BSN) had sent the legal Services commission a letter before action challenging its failure to carry out the assessment.

The “best value” competitive tendering sought by the LSC these groups argue would have a disproportionate effect on small firms which themselves disproportionately employ minority ethnic staff.

Liberty and Law believes that SAL, BSN and the Law Society have a very good case. It also believes that the legal profession should be able to pick up massive fees in litigation certain to take place across British industry as a result of the legislation. Trade union lawyers should be on to a winner.

Already the Prison Service has been challenged over its proposed move from Corby to Leicester over the disproportionate effect that would have on the employment of its existing white staff.

MPs say legal aid changes could breach race laws
http://uk.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUKL3032764720070430

National Black Police Association poll rejects ACPO's Affirmative Action bid

The decision by the Association of Chief Police officers [ACPO] to campaign for the right to discriminate against the hiring of white males has met opposition from the National Black Police Association. Its website poll shows that 55.6% of 520 respondents strongly disagree with Affirmative Action. They outnumber those who strongly agree [28.1%] by 2:1. A further 13.1% agree "with conditions".

National Black Police Association
http://www.nbpa.co.uk/index.php?option=com_poll&task=results&id=16&mosmsg=Thanks+for+your+vote%21

Police colour bar puts Trevor Phillips at odds with CRE

The decision by ACPO to campaign to racially and sexually discriminate against white males in order to meet government employment targets has revealed a split between Trevor Phillips the newly appointed boss of the Commission for Equality and Human Rights (CEHR). and his old organisation the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE).

A spokeswoman for the CRE told The Guardian: "The CRE doesn't support positive discrimination and affirmative action," and that "these forms of 'reverse discrimination' could actually increase community tensions, rather than ease them.
"In many areas forces are struggling to recruit people from diverse backgrounds because of people's negative perceptions and experiences. This is the real problem that needs to be addressed."
In the CRE’s view: "The police ought to stop hiding behind the smokescreen of 'affirmative action' and start looking at the real reasons why ethnic minorities are not applying to become police officers."

Mr Phillips has argued for a change in the law since he was first appointed chair of the CRE . In an early and important interview with The Guardian [March 17 2004] his views were revealed:"Phillips wants the body that will succeed the CRE, which goes under the working title of the Commission for Equality and Human Rights (CEHR), to be given powers to apply to the secretary of state to suspend race and sex discrimination laws so that, in "extreme" cases, numbers of ethnic minorities may be fast-tracked into the force. Once the organisation had boosted its ethnic recruitment, the exemption would be lifted, and recruitment would continue normally."

He went on in the interview to express his alarm that he might be compelled to act against a police force for jumping the gun."A woman or a white man or a man might come along to us and say, 'They're fast-tracking ethnic minorities or they're fast-tracking women; that means I am being deprived of the possibility of two years' salary as a police officer', and under the law we would have to support their case."

Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup said: “ACPO have got the man for the job. Since Mr Phillips in his new job will once again be responsible for policing the police we can have no confidence whatsoever that they will not go ahead with discriminatory schemes even without any change in the law. The law seems to be for the little people. I had never thought that I could possibly regret the passing of the CRE but now I do.”

Call for corporal punishment in schools

Lynette Burrows is a journalist who argues for the traditional family values overturned and outlawed by the British establishment. She does so with wit and style.

Speaking on 23 April at a conference organised by PARITY and the Royal Society of Medecine she claimed that the abolition of the cane twenty years ago created a culture of violence and anarchy in schools.

She argued that corporal punishment should be reintroduced to restore order in the classroom and teach boys the difference between right and wrong.

PARITY has campaigned for equal rights for men and women since 1986 with some success. Its current objectives are:

· equal liability of men and women over 60 in respect of National Insurance contributions (NICs);

· mitigation, and no further aggravation, of the present inequality as between men and women in state pension provision due to the continuing unequal state pension ages (lasting until, year 2020);

· substantially equal public funding for medical research into and treatment of male and female specific diseases;

· funding for research into the reasons for and means of reducing the persistent difference in life expectancy between men and women;

· equal status for separated parents and more rigorous enforcement of child contact and ofmaintenance orders;

· equal treatment of victims of domestic violence, both male and female, and their children;

· effective Government policies to encourage a more even balance between men and women in primary school teaching;

· equal anonymity for defendants and complainants in sex offence cases until conviction;

· equal provisions for men and women in all statutory and public policies and benefits.

PARITY http://www.parity-uk.org/

Police chiefs to advocate race and sex discrimination

ACPO, the Association of Chief Police Officers, is expected later this month to back a scheme to fast track women and ethnic minorities into police services throughout the country.

A report by the Daily Express 13 April states that ACPO wants to institute “affirmative action” to meet the diversity targets set by the government. It has been drawn up by Suzette Davenport, Assistant Chief Constable of Staffordshire police and vice-chair of the British Association for Women in Policing.

The proposal is opposed by the Police Federation and the Daily Express reports that a spokesman for the Department for Communities and Local government stated: “We have no intention of changing the law.”

The News of the World, however, [15 April] claims that the scheme is being backed by Home Secretary John Reid.

They report the ACPO plan “as being similar to that used in Northern Ireland which has a 50:50 intake of catholics and protestants.”

The most prominent supporter of a change in the law to allow fast track recruitment of racial minorities is Trevor Phillips. In an early and important interview with The Guardian [March 17 2004] his views were revealed:"Phillips wants the body that will succeed the CRE, which goes under the working title of the Commission for Equality and Human Rights (CEHR), to be given powers to apply to the secretary of state to suspend race and sex discrimination laws so that, in "extreme" cases, numbers of ethnic minorities may be fast-tracked into the force. Once the organisation had boosted its ethnic recruitment, the exemption would be lifted, and recruitment would continue normally."

He went on in the interview to express his alarm that he might be compelled to act against a police force for jumping the gun.
"A woman or a white man or a man might come along to us and say, 'They're fast-tracking ethnic minorities or they're fast-tracking women; that means I am being deprived of the possibility of two years' salary as a police officer', and under the law we would have to support their case."

Liberty and Law asked Mr Phillips to investigate the Metropolitan Police Service who operated this system but under his leadership the CRE refused to act. It is not at present known how many white males have been discriminated against by the Met since the policy was adopted. Simon Marshall, Director of Recruitment at the Met has admitted “It is true that some white males had to wait up to three years before they were allocated an intake date at Hendon.”

Other police forces have just ignored the rules to favour ethnic minorities and women. Gloucestershire and Avon and Somerset Police Services misused the ethnic monitoring forms on candidates’ applications that assured applicants that under no circumstances would the information be used as part of the selection process. In fact they used it to discriminate against white males, either by selectively and secretly discarding their applications or by demanding higher standards.

The CRE [and the Equal Opportunities Commission] could have halted the racially and sexually discriminatory recruitment process having been asked by Liberty and law to do so but allowed the scam to be successfully concluded before eventually asking the two forces not to do it again.

Mr Phillips’ attitude to his responsibilities to act evenhandedly was revealed on 19 June 2006 in a speech to the Social Policy Forum .
“For example we recently had to order one police force - Somerset and Avon - to stop a programme to fast track some minority applicants into the force, because we thought a court might say that it was unfair to white applicants. Yet they were clear that they only brought in the scheme for operational reasons, not political or social reasons. I don't think it can be right that we have drifted into a situation where the CRE has to stand in the way of moderate measures to increase diversity in the police force - something which Scarman recommended twenty-five years ago, Macpherson more recently, and the Chief Police Officers are desperate to do so they can do their job better.”

Race against time, Saba Salman and Patrick Butler, The Guardian Wednesday March 17, 2004 http://politics.guardian.co.uk/publicservices/story/0,,1171077,00.html

Quotas plan will favour ethnic cop, News of the World, Ian Kirby 15 April 2007

Our PC police force, Daily Express Tom Whitehead 13 April 2007 http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/4322

Corby victim of Prison Service Alice in Wonderland justice

The Commission for Racial Equality’s investigation into the decision by the Prison Service to move jobs from Corby to Leicester based at least partially on the unsuitable racial demographics of the Northamptonshire town has been delayed because of the failure of the Prison Service to complete a compulsory race equality impact assessment. According to the Commission for Racial Equality it is not now due to be completed until early May.

Civil rights group Liberty and Law that instigated the CRE investigation has asked Prison Service boss Phil Wheatley to invite not only the trade union but also the local MPs and Northamptonshire Race Equality Council to participate in an assessment vital not only to the town of Corby but to good race relations.

Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup commented: “We live in a sinister Alice in Wonderland world where decisions are taken first and only then followed by investigation and consultation. For whoever turns out to be the Queen of Hearts in this unpleasant fiasco there can only be one judgment: “Off with her head!” - or at least an administrative rebuke.”

BBC mocks over sixties Tories as white, middle class and hearing impaired

The Today Programme BBC Radio 4’s flagship news and current affairs programme ran an item on the speaking appearance of California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger at the Autumn conference of the Conservative party.

Its presenter offered political correspondent Robin Brandt a full toss to exercise his campaigning skills: “How is it going to go down with the Tory faithful?” he asked.

Mr Brandt took up the challenge. “Huh, huh! Most of them are over sixty. They’re white, they’re middle class. I was thinking earlier perhaps half of them can’t hear without the aid of something mechanical.”

Attempts to reach the Today studio to obtain a retraction during the course of the programme were of course futile.

It is quite possible that Mr Brandt is expressing the corporate view of the BBC and that they consider no apology appropriate or necessary.

Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup has warned Governor Schwarzenegger of the BBC’s attitude to age, race, class and disability. He commented: “Arnold Schwarzenegger will of course be over sixty when he addresses this particular audience. Perhaps on the occasion of the Governor's speech in Blackpool BBC correspondents will, referring to his open-heart surgery, opine that speaker, audience and seaside town match one another perfectly. That would seem to be par for the course.”

Liberty and Law has asked chairman of the Disability Rights Commission Sir Bert Massie and chair of the Commission for Equality and Human Rights Trevor Phillips to take this up with the BBC following its failed attempt to contact the Today programme.