Prison Service deadline of 3 April to respond to race watchdog over contested move
The Commission for Racial Equality [CRE] has written to the Director General of the Prison Service Phil Wheatley about a proposed move by the Service from offices in Corby for which one of the criteria publicly provided was the unsatisfactory racial make up of the town’s inhabitants - it being too white.
Writing to local MP Philip Hollobone [Kettering] on 29 March the CRE confirmed that it expected a response from the Prison Service by Tuesday 3 April.
Civil rights group Liberty and Law had formally complained about the matter to CRE chair Professor Kay Hampton on 6 March. The CRE confirmed to it on 15 March that as a reponse to allegations of racial discrimination by the Prison Service it had written to them about any race equality impact assessment they had undertaken over the decision to relocate offices from Corby to Leicester.
Britain’s prison service has been heavily criticized for deciding to move one of its locations from Corby in Northamptonshire to the city of Leicester on racial grounds. Its reasons were disclosed in a leaked letter as being partially on the grounds of the racial profile of Corby, which at 93.7% white was considered to be not sufficiently diverse compared to Leicester’s more favourable 59.6%.
Leicester’s racial profile, the Prison Service believes will allow it to attract a more diverse workforce.Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup in urging the CRE to investigate the legality of Prison service plan stated “The CRE has a responsibility where the actions of public bodies fuel resentment and do enormous damage to race relations to investigate their strict adherence to the law and to report back to the people."
Liberty and Law last year successfully challenged the racially and sexually discriminatory recruitment procedure of Avon and Somerset and Gloucestershire Police Services.
The Prison Service’s proposed move to Leicester is clearly impractical for the majority of the white staff but any reduction in their numbers will create vacancies to allow the Prison Service to more effectively chase government race targets.
Northants Evening Telegraph report that Mr Wheatley has written to Corby Council chief executive Chris Mallender and council leader Pat Fawcett: “I am sorry the decision to relocate our office from Corby to Leicester has been portrayed in such a negative fashion in the media.“The press has chosen to focus on our desire to be able to recruit a well-educated, diverse workforce. I make no apology for including the impact on diversity as one of the key determining business factors of the decision. I want you to understand that we wanted to be sure that we could recruit the right calibre of workforce. These requirements were not catalysts for us moving from Corby – this
decision was based on business need and our desire to save the taxpayer unnecessary costs. Most of the staff will be relocating with us.”
Northants Evening Telegraph continued: Corby Council leaders were angry that it took the Prison Service more than two weeks to respond to its original letter. Council chief executive Chris Mallender said: “The service is in denial. We know directly from the workforce that the majority of the people in Crown House do not want to travel to Leicester.“The service is clearly looking to sweep this under the carpet, but we and the workforce are not prepared to let the issue go.”
Newspaper reports have been universally hostile: The town branded too white and too British; Corby ‘penalized for having the wrong kind of immigrants’; Ordered to discriminate; Outraged town hits back, Prison service ‘in jobs denial’
The response of the public on websites and blogs has been overwhelmingly hostile to the social engineering adopted by a government that works on the principle that people are just ‘human resources’ to be manipulated by their mandarinate.
Northamptonshire Race Equality Council has condemned the action of the Prison Service.
Despite the criticism the Home Office has so far been firm in its backing for a Prison Service that is following government orders to increase the percentage of ethnic minorities on the government pay roll.
A glance at the website of the CRE explains how the Corby situation has come about taking politicians by surprise at the results of their legislative follies. Factoring racial equality into relocation explains it all. The CRE’s successor the Commission for Equality and Human Rights (CEHR) under Trevor Phillips argues for an even more extreme change in legislation to allow companies to discriminate directly on grounds of race to attain racially balanced workforces.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
UCAS application form slammed by top lawyers
Liberty and Law’s challenge to UCAS’ proposal to provide information about the racial background of college applicants to Admissions Officers has been backed by top lawyers in the field of education and human rights.
The Sunday Telegraph reports [Legal challenge to degree admissions, 25 March 2007] leading education and human rights solicitor Jaswinder Gill concluding that the data raised a “real risk of prejudice” and that it breaches Article 14 of the Human Rights Act.
Nick Saunders of Eversheds, a legal firm specialising in services to further and higher education, providers warned that UCAS’ policy would have legal consequences.
Data protection specialist Susan Singleton also saw major difficulties with the policy warning that its operation could lead to criminal offences under the Data protection Act 1998.
Liberty and Law’s challenge to UCAS’ proposal to provide information about the racial background of college applicants to Admissions Officers has been backed by top lawyers in the field of education and human rights.
The Sunday Telegraph reports [Legal challenge to degree admissions, 25 March 2007] leading education and human rights solicitor Jaswinder Gill concluding that the data raised a “real risk of prejudice” and that it breaches Article 14 of the Human Rights Act.
Nick Saunders of Eversheds, a legal firm specialising in services to further and higher education, providers warned that UCAS’ policy would have legal consequences.
Data protection specialist Susan Singleton also saw major difficulties with the policy warning that its operation could lead to criminal offences under the Data protection Act 1998.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
UCAS challenged over proposed new application form
A civil liberties group has asked the Commission for Racial Equality [CRE] to intervene over the University and Colleges Admissions Service’s [UCAS] proposal to provide data about potential students’ ethnicity to Admissions Officers before rather than after the selection process is complete.
Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup has written to CRE chair Professor Kay Hampton complaining about the proposal on the grounds that it would be in blatant breach of good equal opportunities practice propounded by the CRE over many years.
Monitoring forms the CRE has always argued should be anonymous, kept separate from any application form and from the entire selection process.
Where they are not this can and does allow ruthless discrimination at the selection process. This was evidenced notoriously by the use of equal opportunities data about their race being used last year to reject 289 white male applicants from consideration with Avon and Somerset and Gloucestershire Police Services.
Mr Hartup stated: “We must learn our lesson. We cannot trust Chief Constables with confidential information but they were at least breaking the law. How can we possibly allow the careers of students to depend upon the self denying integrity of Admissions Officers under pressure to come up with the results necessary to achieve maximum funding.”
“Should UCAS go ahead with their misguided policy they must expect legal action by students who can never be sure that the reason for their failure to obtain a place at their preferred institution was because their race did not fit the Education Secretary’s matrix.”
Liberty and law has written to UCAS Chief Executive Anthony McClaren urging him to drop the scheme. It has also written to OFFA [Office for fair Access] that has “a role in identifying and disseminating good practice and advice connected with access to higher education.”
End
A civil liberties group has asked the Commission for Racial Equality [CRE] to intervene over the University and Colleges Admissions Service’s [UCAS] proposal to provide data about potential students’ ethnicity to Admissions Officers before rather than after the selection process is complete.
Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup has written to CRE chair Professor Kay Hampton complaining about the proposal on the grounds that it would be in blatant breach of good equal opportunities practice propounded by the CRE over many years.
Monitoring forms the CRE has always argued should be anonymous, kept separate from any application form and from the entire selection process.
Where they are not this can and does allow ruthless discrimination at the selection process. This was evidenced notoriously by the use of equal opportunities data about their race being used last year to reject 289 white male applicants from consideration with Avon and Somerset and Gloucestershire Police Services.
Mr Hartup stated: “We must learn our lesson. We cannot trust Chief Constables with confidential information but they were at least breaking the law. How can we possibly allow the careers of students to depend upon the self denying integrity of Admissions Officers under pressure to come up with the results necessary to achieve maximum funding.”
“Should UCAS go ahead with their misguided policy they must expect legal action by students who can never be sure that the reason for their failure to obtain a place at their preferred institution was because their race did not fit the Education Secretary’s matrix.”
Liberty and law has written to UCAS Chief Executive Anthony McClaren urging him to drop the scheme. It has also written to OFFA [Office for fair Access] that has “a role in identifying and disseminating good practice and advice connected with access to higher education.”
End
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
MEP asks Scotland Yard to investigate BBC relations with EU
The Metropolitan Police have today (13 March) received a bundle of papers from Ashley Mote MEP, Independent, SE England, detailing the tens of millions of euros received by the BBC over recent years.
He has invited Deputy Assistant Commissioner John Yates, Director of Intelligence at Scotland Yard, to review the BBC's sources and application of funds, excluding the licence fee. The police have been asked to examine the evidence linking the EU as a source of these funds with the BBC’s open support of the EU in its editorial coverage, contrary to its obligations under the Royal Charter.
Recent correspondence between the BBC’s management in Brussels and the MEP has revealed a prima facie case for investigation, Mr Mote claims. The documents show that the BBC’s senior management has, over many years, accepted money from the EU and its institutions in exchange for which they have enforced an editorial policy of positive support of the EU, contrary to both the spirit and the letter of the charter.
The BBC’s Royal Charter has the force of law. It requires balance in the reporting of news and current affairs. All strands of opinion on political matters must be given a fair hearing and roughly equal air time.
Solid proof exists that this is not the case, Mr Mote says. He has told Scotland Yard that evidence of bias has been collected by professional media analysts for Lord Pearson of Rannoch, who has funded research into BBC coverage of the EU for many years.
“My focus has been on the money”, Mr Mote says. “We now know that the BBC has in recent years borrowed tens of millions of euros from the European Investment Bank, an institution of the European Union. The correspondence shows that the BBC gained these large sums of public money from the EIB on terms that would never have been available commercially. It also acquired funding from other parts of the EU’s web of institutions, again on less than transparent terms and – sometimes – for the vaguest of reasons.
“The purpose of these soft loans and other funding is clearly intended to further the cause of EU federalism – in effect to ‘buy’ BBC support. Some might argue that it is bribery and corruption, others that it is fraud. At the very least I suggest malfeasance – a deliberate act knowingly undertaken against the public interest”, he wrote to DAC Yates.
The full text of the letter from Ashley Mote MEP to DAC John Yates at New Scotland Yard follows:
BBC Malfeasance – A Case for Investigation?
You will recall my letter of 20 February offering to provide you with evidence of the BBC’s commercial and editorial activities which conflict directly with the Corporation’s legal obligations under the Royal Charter. There appears to be a prima facie case of malfeasance.
This letter and the enclosures represent the evidence accumulated in recent months. If, having considered it, you need any further information I will of course attempt to provide it.
In a nutshell, the case is this: the BBC’s senior management has, over many years, accepted money from the EU and its institutions in exchange for which they have enforced an editorial policy of positive support of the EU, contrary to both the spirit and the letter of the Royal Charter.
The Charter, which has the force of law, requires balance in the reporting of news and current affairs, although it has to be admitted that the obligations to maintain balance set out in the present document are much watered down from those in the original of some 80 years ago.
Nonetheless, even the present Royal Charter makes it clear that all strands of opinion on political matters must be given a fair hearing and roughly equal air time.
Solid proof exists that this is not the case. That evidence can be obtained from Lord Pearson of Rannoch, who has funded research into BBC coverage of the EU over many years. I have no doubt he will gladly make it available to you, together with any other relevant evidence you might find helpful.
You might also find a recently published book instructive - Can We Trust the BBC? by Robin Aitken. Mr Aitken worked for the Corporation for 25 years. His book describes numerous horror stories of bias and political prejudice, many of them quietly buried by past generations of BBC management.
This letter and enclosures concern themselves mainly with the other side of the coin – to be precise, the provision of substantial sums of EU money on less than commercial terms and for questionable motives.
I have also taken the liberty of enclosing background reading – for example the BBC’s internal attempt to put right an acknowledged lack of balance in EU editorial policy.
The BBC receives an annual funding of approximately £2.7 billion from the public through the licence fee system. This obliges members of the public to finance the BBC simply because they own a TV set.
As this is a legally enforceable poll tax, the public can expect the BBC to comply scrupulously with the terms of its Royal Charter. The governors have a duty to satisfy themselves that all activities of the BBC are carried out in accordance with the highest standards of public accountability.
It is arguable that they have not complied with such obligations. When reporting on the EU, the BBC routinely demonstrates a commitment to UK membership which at times amounts to little more than pro-EU propaganda.
Furthermore, the BBC has openly admitted that their reporting of EU activities is biased. Why else have they taken steps to redress the balance by appointing internal investigations and commissioning reports on the subject?
Some brief points from the evidence follow, specifically:
a) Article 7(1)(e) of the Royal Charter requires the governors "to ensure that any comments, proposals and complaints made by viewers and listeners of the Home Services are given due consideration and are properly handled by the Corporation". Lord Hutton's report on the death of Dr David Kelly clearly showed that the BBC did not comply with this Article when dealing with complaints from Alistair Campbell.
Furthermore, the BBC has on numerous occasions refused to consider complaints from viewers and listeners about coverage of EU affairs, despite the Charter obligation for complaints to be given due consideration. Refusing to accept complaints is not an option, and unlawful.
b) Article 7(1)(f) requires the governors "to ensure the treatment of controversial subjects with due accuracy and impartiality". The BBC clearly supports Britain’s membership of the EU and the abolition of the £ sterling in favour of the euro. The statistical and documentary evidence is overwhelming and readily available, as mentioned above. Much of the statistical evidence has been gathered for Lord Pearson by Minotaur Media, an independent monitoring organisation.
Some Minotaur Media research findings have been reported on the Global Britain web site. Other websites also support the view that the BBC has its own agenda, particularly on the EU. In addition, scores of anecdotal newspaper articles have pointed out the BBC's bias towards the EU.
Despite all this powerful evidence to the contrary, and its own internal enquiries, the BBC continually refutes complaints about its lack of balance in reporting EU news and current affairs. At times its denials border on calling black ‘white’, or insisting that the Emperor really is wearing clothes.
c) Rod Liddle (ex Editor, Radio 4’s Today programme) wrote an article about the Welsh National Assembly and the Scottish Parliament in The Spectator of 10 May 2003. He stated that the BBC's attitude was…
"the result of institutionalised political correctness, every bit as corrupting as institutionalised racism. It is result of seminars and workshops (I remember them well) where journalists are instructed time and time again that the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly are bloody important and don’t you dare suggest they aren’t".
Such editorial ‘guidance’ in the reporting of these institutions meant that the BBC was directly and specifically supporting the EU's policy of breaking up the UK into regions which could be more effectively controlled by Brussels. Such a policy was contrary to the BBC’s obligations under the Charter, and its implementation more propaganda than news.
d) The BBC's governors recently set up a review body under the chairmanship of Lord Taylor to examine whether or not the BBC was biased in favour of the EU. Their main finding was that the BBC was biased in favour of the EU “but that this bias was not deliberate”. The report confirmed that bias existed in the BBC, again contrary to its obligations under the Charter.
But to claim that it was not deliberate was an absurd conclusion bearing in mind the overwhelming contradictory evidence. Since when, for example, was the setting up and management of the seminars referred to above not "deliberate"? Since when were such events "accidental"?
e) The BBC has in recent years borrowed tens of millions of euros from the European Investment Bank, an institution of the European Union. These borrowings and other funding are detailed in the enclosed correspondence with the BBC’s team which is permanently based in Brussels (next door to the European Parliament building).
The correspondence also shows that the BBC gained these large sums of public money from the European Investment Bank on terms that would never have been available commercially. It also acquired funding from other parts of the EU’s web of institutions, again on less than transparent terms and – sometimes – for the vaguest of reasons. Indeed, as you will see, transparency in all of these dealings is notable by its absence.
The purpose of these soft loans and other funding is clearly intended to further the cause of EU federalism – in effect to ‘buy’ BBC support. Some might argue that it is bribery and corruption, others that it is fraud. At the very least I suggest malfeasance – a deliberate act knowingly undertaken against the public interest.
I write, therefore, to invite the Metropolitan Police to review the BBC's sources and application of funds, excluding the licence fee. Further, to examine the evidence linking the EU as a source of these funds with the BBC’s open support of the EU in its editorial coverage, contrary to its legal obligations under the Royal Charter.
Ashley Mote can be contacted at ashley.mote@btconnect.com
www.ashleymote.co.uk
The Metropolitan Police have today (13 March) received a bundle of papers from Ashley Mote MEP, Independent, SE England, detailing the tens of millions of euros received by the BBC over recent years.
He has invited Deputy Assistant Commissioner John Yates, Director of Intelligence at Scotland Yard, to review the BBC's sources and application of funds, excluding the licence fee. The police have been asked to examine the evidence linking the EU as a source of these funds with the BBC’s open support of the EU in its editorial coverage, contrary to its obligations under the Royal Charter.
Recent correspondence between the BBC’s management in Brussels and the MEP has revealed a prima facie case for investigation, Mr Mote claims. The documents show that the BBC’s senior management has, over many years, accepted money from the EU and its institutions in exchange for which they have enforced an editorial policy of positive support of the EU, contrary to both the spirit and the letter of the charter.
The BBC’s Royal Charter has the force of law. It requires balance in the reporting of news and current affairs. All strands of opinion on political matters must be given a fair hearing and roughly equal air time.
Solid proof exists that this is not the case, Mr Mote says. He has told Scotland Yard that evidence of bias has been collected by professional media analysts for Lord Pearson of Rannoch, who has funded research into BBC coverage of the EU for many years.
“My focus has been on the money”, Mr Mote says. “We now know that the BBC has in recent years borrowed tens of millions of euros from the European Investment Bank, an institution of the European Union. The correspondence shows that the BBC gained these large sums of public money from the EIB on terms that would never have been available commercially. It also acquired funding from other parts of the EU’s web of institutions, again on less than transparent terms and – sometimes – for the vaguest of reasons.
“The purpose of these soft loans and other funding is clearly intended to further the cause of EU federalism – in effect to ‘buy’ BBC support. Some might argue that it is bribery and corruption, others that it is fraud. At the very least I suggest malfeasance – a deliberate act knowingly undertaken against the public interest”, he wrote to DAC Yates.
The full text of the letter from Ashley Mote MEP to DAC John Yates at New Scotland Yard follows:
BBC Malfeasance – A Case for Investigation?
You will recall my letter of 20 February offering to provide you with evidence of the BBC’s commercial and editorial activities which conflict directly with the Corporation’s legal obligations under the Royal Charter. There appears to be a prima facie case of malfeasance.
This letter and the enclosures represent the evidence accumulated in recent months. If, having considered it, you need any further information I will of course attempt to provide it.
In a nutshell, the case is this: the BBC’s senior management has, over many years, accepted money from the EU and its institutions in exchange for which they have enforced an editorial policy of positive support of the EU, contrary to both the spirit and the letter of the Royal Charter.
The Charter, which has the force of law, requires balance in the reporting of news and current affairs, although it has to be admitted that the obligations to maintain balance set out in the present document are much watered down from those in the original of some 80 years ago.
Nonetheless, even the present Royal Charter makes it clear that all strands of opinion on political matters must be given a fair hearing and roughly equal air time.
Solid proof exists that this is not the case. That evidence can be obtained from Lord Pearson of Rannoch, who has funded research into BBC coverage of the EU over many years. I have no doubt he will gladly make it available to you, together with any other relevant evidence you might find helpful.
You might also find a recently published book instructive - Can We Trust the BBC? by Robin Aitken. Mr Aitken worked for the Corporation for 25 years. His book describes numerous horror stories of bias and political prejudice, many of them quietly buried by past generations of BBC management.
This letter and enclosures concern themselves mainly with the other side of the coin – to be precise, the provision of substantial sums of EU money on less than commercial terms and for questionable motives.
I have also taken the liberty of enclosing background reading – for example the BBC’s internal attempt to put right an acknowledged lack of balance in EU editorial policy.
The BBC receives an annual funding of approximately £2.7 billion from the public through the licence fee system. This obliges members of the public to finance the BBC simply because they own a TV set.
As this is a legally enforceable poll tax, the public can expect the BBC to comply scrupulously with the terms of its Royal Charter. The governors have a duty to satisfy themselves that all activities of the BBC are carried out in accordance with the highest standards of public accountability.
It is arguable that they have not complied with such obligations. When reporting on the EU, the BBC routinely demonstrates a commitment to UK membership which at times amounts to little more than pro-EU propaganda.
Furthermore, the BBC has openly admitted that their reporting of EU activities is biased. Why else have they taken steps to redress the balance by appointing internal investigations and commissioning reports on the subject?
Some brief points from the evidence follow, specifically:
a) Article 7(1)(e) of the Royal Charter requires the governors "to ensure that any comments, proposals and complaints made by viewers and listeners of the Home Services are given due consideration and are properly handled by the Corporation". Lord Hutton's report on the death of Dr David Kelly clearly showed that the BBC did not comply with this Article when dealing with complaints from Alistair Campbell.
Furthermore, the BBC has on numerous occasions refused to consider complaints from viewers and listeners about coverage of EU affairs, despite the Charter obligation for complaints to be given due consideration. Refusing to accept complaints is not an option, and unlawful.
b) Article 7(1)(f) requires the governors "to ensure the treatment of controversial subjects with due accuracy and impartiality". The BBC clearly supports Britain’s membership of the EU and the abolition of the £ sterling in favour of the euro. The statistical and documentary evidence is overwhelming and readily available, as mentioned above. Much of the statistical evidence has been gathered for Lord Pearson by Minotaur Media, an independent monitoring organisation.
Some Minotaur Media research findings have been reported on the Global Britain web site. Other websites also support the view that the BBC has its own agenda, particularly on the EU. In addition, scores of anecdotal newspaper articles have pointed out the BBC's bias towards the EU.
Despite all this powerful evidence to the contrary, and its own internal enquiries, the BBC continually refutes complaints about its lack of balance in reporting EU news and current affairs. At times its denials border on calling black ‘white’, or insisting that the Emperor really is wearing clothes.
c) Rod Liddle (ex Editor, Radio 4’s Today programme) wrote an article about the Welsh National Assembly and the Scottish Parliament in The Spectator of 10 May 2003. He stated that the BBC's attitude was…
"the result of institutionalised political correctness, every bit as corrupting as institutionalised racism. It is result of seminars and workshops (I remember them well) where journalists are instructed time and time again that the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly are bloody important and don’t you dare suggest they aren’t".
Such editorial ‘guidance’ in the reporting of these institutions meant that the BBC was directly and specifically supporting the EU's policy of breaking up the UK into regions which could be more effectively controlled by Brussels. Such a policy was contrary to the BBC’s obligations under the Charter, and its implementation more propaganda than news.
d) The BBC's governors recently set up a review body under the chairmanship of Lord Taylor to examine whether or not the BBC was biased in favour of the EU. Their main finding was that the BBC was biased in favour of the EU “but that this bias was not deliberate”. The report confirmed that bias existed in the BBC, again contrary to its obligations under the Charter.
But to claim that it was not deliberate was an absurd conclusion bearing in mind the overwhelming contradictory evidence. Since when, for example, was the setting up and management of the seminars referred to above not "deliberate"? Since when were such events "accidental"?
e) The BBC has in recent years borrowed tens of millions of euros from the European Investment Bank, an institution of the European Union. These borrowings and other funding are detailed in the enclosed correspondence with the BBC’s team which is permanently based in Brussels (next door to the European Parliament building).
The correspondence also shows that the BBC gained these large sums of public money from the European Investment Bank on terms that would never have been available commercially. It also acquired funding from other parts of the EU’s web of institutions, again on less than transparent terms and – sometimes – for the vaguest of reasons. Indeed, as you will see, transparency in all of these dealings is notable by its absence.
The purpose of these soft loans and other funding is clearly intended to further the cause of EU federalism – in effect to ‘buy’ BBC support. Some might argue that it is bribery and corruption, others that it is fraud. At the very least I suggest malfeasance – a deliberate act knowingly undertaken against the public interest.
I write, therefore, to invite the Metropolitan Police to review the BBC's sources and application of funds, excluding the licence fee. Further, to examine the evidence linking the EU as a source of these funds with the BBC’s open support of the EU in its editorial coverage, contrary to its legal obligations under the Royal Charter.
Ashley Mote can be contacted at ashley.mote@btconnect.com
www.ashleymote.co.uk
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Prison Service reported to Commission for Racial Equality over relocation racial discrimination
Britain’s prison service has been heavily criticized for deciding to move one of its locations from Corby in Northamptonshire to the city of Leicester on racial grounds. Its reasons were disclosed in a leaked letter as being partially on the grounds of the racial profile of Corby, which at 93.7% white was considered to be not sufficiently diverse compared to Leicester’s more favourable 59.6%. Leicester’s racial profile, the Prison Service believes will allow it to attract a more diverse workforce.
Civil rights group Liberty and Law has reported the Prison Service to the
Commission for Racial Equality [CRE]asking them to investigate the legality of its racially discriminatory action. Director Gerald Hartup states “The CRE has a responsibility where the actions of public bodies fuel resentment and do enormous damage to race relations to investigate their strict adherence to the law and to report back to the people. ”
Liberty and Law last year successfully challenged the racially and sexually discriminatory recruitment procedure of Avon and Somerset and Gloucestershire Police Services.
The move to Leicester is clearly impractical for the majority of the white staff and their clearance will create vacancies to allow the Prison Service to more effectively chase government race targets.
Newspaper reports had headlines such as: The town branded too white and too British; Corby ‘penalized for having the wrong kind of immigrants’; Ordered to discriminate; Outraged town hits back.
The response of the public on websites and blogs has been overwhelmingly hostile to the social engineering adopted by a government that works on the principle that people are just ‘human resources’ to be manipulated by their mandarinate.
Northamptonshire Race Equality Council has condemned the action of the Prison Service together with the Conservative MP for neighbouring Kettering Philip Hollobone.
Despite the criticism the Home Office has been firm in its backing for a Prison Service that is following government orders to increase the percentage of ethnic minorities on the government pay roll.
A glance at the website of the CRE explains how the Corby situation has come about taking politicians by surprise at the results of their legislative follies. Factoring racial equality into relocation explains it all. The CRE’s successor the Commission for Equality and Human Rights (CEHR) under Trevor Phillips argues for even more extreme change in legislation to allow companies to discriminate directly on grounds of race to attain racially balanced workforces.
Britain’s prison service has been heavily criticized for deciding to move one of its locations from Corby in Northamptonshire to the city of Leicester on racial grounds. Its reasons were disclosed in a leaked letter as being partially on the grounds of the racial profile of Corby, which at 93.7% white was considered to be not sufficiently diverse compared to Leicester’s more favourable 59.6%. Leicester’s racial profile, the Prison Service believes will allow it to attract a more diverse workforce.
Civil rights group Liberty and Law has reported the Prison Service to the
Commission for Racial Equality [CRE]asking them to investigate the legality of its racially discriminatory action. Director Gerald Hartup states “The CRE has a responsibility where the actions of public bodies fuel resentment and do enormous damage to race relations to investigate their strict adherence to the law and to report back to the people. ”
Liberty and Law last year successfully challenged the racially and sexually discriminatory recruitment procedure of Avon and Somerset and Gloucestershire Police Services.
The move to Leicester is clearly impractical for the majority of the white staff and their clearance will create vacancies to allow the Prison Service to more effectively chase government race targets.
Newspaper reports had headlines such as: The town branded too white and too British; Corby ‘penalized for having the wrong kind of immigrants’; Ordered to discriminate; Outraged town hits back.
The response of the public on websites and blogs has been overwhelmingly hostile to the social engineering adopted by a government that works on the principle that people are just ‘human resources’ to be manipulated by their mandarinate.
Northamptonshire Race Equality Council has condemned the action of the Prison Service together with the Conservative MP for neighbouring Kettering Philip Hollobone.
Despite the criticism the Home Office has been firm in its backing for a Prison Service that is following government orders to increase the percentage of ethnic minorities on the government pay roll.
A glance at the website of the CRE explains how the Corby situation has come about taking politicians by surprise at the results of their legislative follies. Factoring racial equality into relocation explains it all. The CRE’s successor the Commission for Equality and Human Rights (CEHR) under Trevor Phillips argues for even more extreme change in legislation to allow companies to discriminate directly on grounds of race to attain racially balanced workforces.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)