Race watchdog’s race hate reporting code could be ready soon
Following his decision to report Robert Kilroy Silk to the police for a potential breach of the Public Order Act, Commission for Racial Equality chair Trevor Phillips followed this up with a wider ranging initiative.
On 27 January 2004 he press released his intention to draw up a code of conduct for referring material to the police under the incitement to racial hatred provisions of the Public Order Act.
On 1 September 2005 the CRE was able to reveal progress made on this code exclusively to Liberty and Law Journal in answer to its 16 August query following the return from vacation of a key CRE staffer. A spokesperson explained that the “document has been drafted and is currently awaiting approval” although perhaps disappointingly no date for this approval is yet available.
In announcing the scheme just nineteen months earlier CRE Chair Trevor Phillips, said: “I think that the public has every right to expect consistency and transparency in the exercise of my judgement in these matters. I am therefore taking three steps to ensure that my conduct is clear, and that my powers are exercised fairly.First have asked the distinguished lawyer Robin Allen QC to review the way in which the Chair of the CRE intervenes in such cases and to advise me on my legal responsibilities. Second, on receiving Mr Allen's opinion the Commission will draw up a code for my own conduct in these matters, after consultation with our colleagues at the Press Complaints Commission, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Attorney General. Third, I will publish that code, so that everyone who chooses can be guided as to why we at the Commission do what we do.”
CRE plans new code of conduct for referring race hate material to the police
http://www.cre.gov.uk/Default.aspx.LocID-0hgnew011.RefLocID-0hg00900c001002.Lang-EN.htm
Saturday, August 20, 2005
Trevor Phillips loses bogus knighthood
An international campaign led by the BBC, British Council, Guardian/Observer, Daily Mirror, NUT, North Yorkshire Police Authority the South African Sunday Times and Parliament’s Joint Committee On Human Rights to surreptitiously upgrade the title of the ambitious chair of the Commission for Racial Equality from humble OBE to knight has been thwarted by British civil liberties campaigning group Liberty and Law.
Following its investigation it challenged The Guardian, which lost its nerve on 19 August and came clean about their man in Corrections and Clarifications. The campaign looks now to run into the sand.
It is thought that Phillips for whom only a peerage serves any practical purpose is annoyed by the clumsiness of his cheerleaders.
A google search for “Sir Trevor Phillips” now gives 66 results
An international campaign led by the BBC, British Council, Guardian/Observer, Daily Mirror, NUT, North Yorkshire Police Authority the South African Sunday Times and Parliament’s Joint Committee On Human Rights to surreptitiously upgrade the title of the ambitious chair of the Commission for Racial Equality from humble OBE to knight has been thwarted by British civil liberties campaigning group Liberty and Law.
Following its investigation it challenged The Guardian, which lost its nerve on 19 August and came clean about their man in Corrections and Clarifications. The campaign looks now to run into the sand.
It is thought that Phillips for whom only a peerage serves any practical purpose is annoyed by the clumsiness of his cheerleaders.
A google search for “Sir Trevor Phillips” now gives 66 results
Monday, August 15, 2005
Commission for Racial Equality in cover up of its employment records
Just 76 of the 204 staff [37.3%] of the Commission for Racial Equality [CRE] are revealed to be ‘White’ in the latest annual report of the £20million quango. This continues a history of their gross under-representation in the organisation. For over ten years the CRE has failed to adopt ‘targets’ to make itself representative of the broad population it serves, remaining determinedly institutionally racist. 77 of its staff are ‘Black or Black British’, 30 ‘Asian or Asian British’, while only one of its staff is recorded as of ‘Mixed background’.
The CRE’s race and gender record keeping is also unacceptable. Despite its obsessive monitoring the latest annual report does not account for the racial identity of nine [4.4%] of its staff whose sex and grade is however known. It is nonetheless a substantial improvement on its 2001 annual report, which without any explanation failed to account for the race, sex or grade of 39 [18.3%] of its then 213 staff.
Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup stated: “We should have the right to expect that our equal opportunities bodies are competent and practice what they preach. Parliament now needs to look critically at their activities and provide them with appropriate direction. Recommendations and investigations by the CRE cannot be taken seriously until it starts to put its own house in order”
The CRE has revealed that there is “under representation from certain ethnic groups” within its staff but will not voluntarily answer the straightforward question: which ethnic groups and by how much. Such an answer would provide a helpful guide to London employers about the racial profile they should aim for and would enable the CRE to be judged in the same way as the bodies that it investigates.
The CRE revealed minimal information to Liberty and Law Journal [LLJ] when asked on 25 July a straightforward question: The 2003 [Annual] Report also reveals "under-representation from certain ethnic groups" in employment at the CRE. Which are these under-represented groups? How under-represented are each of these groups according to CRE employment figures on which the conclusion of under-representation was reached? Your reply should allow me to see what the shortfall in numbers of each of these ethnic groups is and what their proportion of the total workforce should be.
The answer, which was came on 12 August was evasive. It said: The CRE uses Census 2001 - ethnicity and religion in England and Wales as well as the regional breakdowns to assess representation by ethnic group in our workforce. This information is available on the ONS website for you to compare with the CRE staffing numbers, which includes a breakdown by ethnicity, made available in our annual reports.
LLJ is now forced to use the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act to uncover this basic information that the CRE will not otherwise provide.
Ends
CRE’s three-year review: pages 10,11
http://www.cre.gov.uk/downloads/cre_res_functions_policies_assessment_2005.pdf
CRE Annual Report 2004, see pages 48-50 http://www.cre.gov.uk/downloads/AR04main.pdf
Just 76 of the 204 staff [37.3%] of the Commission for Racial Equality [CRE] are revealed to be ‘White’ in the latest annual report of the £20million quango. This continues a history of their gross under-representation in the organisation. For over ten years the CRE has failed to adopt ‘targets’ to make itself representative of the broad population it serves, remaining determinedly institutionally racist. 77 of its staff are ‘Black or Black British’, 30 ‘Asian or Asian British’, while only one of its staff is recorded as of ‘Mixed background’.
The CRE’s race and gender record keeping is also unacceptable. Despite its obsessive monitoring the latest annual report does not account for the racial identity of nine [4.4%] of its staff whose sex and grade is however known. It is nonetheless a substantial improvement on its 2001 annual report, which without any explanation failed to account for the race, sex or grade of 39 [18.3%] of its then 213 staff.
Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup stated: “We should have the right to expect that our equal opportunities bodies are competent and practice what they preach. Parliament now needs to look critically at their activities and provide them with appropriate direction. Recommendations and investigations by the CRE cannot be taken seriously until it starts to put its own house in order”
The CRE has revealed that there is “under representation from certain ethnic groups” within its staff but will not voluntarily answer the straightforward question: which ethnic groups and by how much. Such an answer would provide a helpful guide to London employers about the racial profile they should aim for and would enable the CRE to be judged in the same way as the bodies that it investigates.
The CRE revealed minimal information to Liberty and Law Journal [LLJ] when asked on 25 July a straightforward question: The 2003 [Annual] Report also reveals "under-representation from certain ethnic groups" in employment at the CRE. Which are these under-represented groups? How under-represented are each of these groups according to CRE employment figures on which the conclusion of under-representation was reached? Your reply should allow me to see what the shortfall in numbers of each of these ethnic groups is and what their proportion of the total workforce should be.
The answer, which was came on 12 August was evasive. It said: The CRE uses Census 2001 - ethnicity and religion in England and Wales as well as the regional breakdowns to assess representation by ethnic group in our workforce. This information is available on the ONS website for you to compare with the CRE staffing numbers, which includes a breakdown by ethnicity, made available in our annual reports.
LLJ is now forced to use the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act to uncover this basic information that the CRE will not otherwise provide.
Ends
CRE’s three-year review: pages 10,11
http://www.cre.gov.uk/downloads/cre_res_functions_policies_assessment_2005.pdf
CRE Annual Report 2004, see pages 48-50 http://www.cre.gov.uk/downloads/AR04main.pdf
Friday, August 12, 2005
Green ribbons gimmick no substitute for catching hate criminals
Civil rights group Liberty and Law has condemned the decision by Nottinghamshire police chief Steve Green to ask his officers to wear green ribbons, the traditional colour of Islam, in his bid to show solidarity with Muslims suffering harassment after the London bomb attacks.
Director Gerald Hartup stated: ”The chief constable has let his heart rule his head. His vocation may very well be as a pressure group organiser but his profession is still that of a police officer. He has no business pressurising his officers to make political statements. He should concentrate instead on catching hate crime perpetrators not grandstanding. We would expect ACPO to join with our political representatives in urging him to drop this ill thought out politically correct and counterproductive gimmick.”
In the Chief Constable’s press release he claims that wearing the ribbons is a way of showing “that not everyone is prejudiced or bigoted”.
Mr Hartup added: “Police officers and the public will not appreciate his lack of confidence in the organisation he leads. Serving officers should not expect to have to wear badges and ribbons to prove to the public and to Mr Green that they are absolutely committed to protecting everyone from evil-doers.”
Following the Chief constable’s misguided initiative there will obviously now be two categories of police officer in Nottinghamshire: those who put on the green ribbons and those who do not. What consequences flow from this? Police officers who fail to wear the ribbons may now be thought by sections of the Muslim community to be at the very least unsympathetic to the problems they face and unprepared to make a simple gesture of sympathy and support. If such officers are a substantial number it may even be claimed as illustrating the racism of the police service. How long before a ribbon count and ribbon targets? Police officers may be asked in the street why they are not wearing the ribbon. Their response will be either to say it is a personal matter inviting the conclusion that they are off hand or to engage in what would be a political discussion in which they would need to express their political opposition to such initiatives. Has the Chief constable even considered this?
Not to wear the green ribbon will indicate at the very least a lack of support for the Chief Constable’s initiative and even judgment. This may reasonably be expected to put unacceptable pressure on officers, especially senior officers, to toe the line. Will their careers be blighted by their independence?
Wearing of the ribbons by Nottinghamshire police may damage race relations in another way. They may easily be misunderstood as the politically correct favouring of Muslims compared to non-Muslims when dealing with claims of inter- community crime engendering the very backlash he is so clumsily seeking to oppose.
Ends
Further information: Gerald Hartup tel: 020 7928 7325 fax: 020 7207 3425
email gerald.hartup@btopenworld.com
Civil rights group Liberty and Law has condemned the decision by Nottinghamshire police chief Steve Green to ask his officers to wear green ribbons, the traditional colour of Islam, in his bid to show solidarity with Muslims suffering harassment after the London bomb attacks.
Director Gerald Hartup stated: ”The chief constable has let his heart rule his head. His vocation may very well be as a pressure group organiser but his profession is still that of a police officer. He has no business pressurising his officers to make political statements. He should concentrate instead on catching hate crime perpetrators not grandstanding. We would expect ACPO to join with our political representatives in urging him to drop this ill thought out politically correct and counterproductive gimmick.”
In the Chief Constable’s press release he claims that wearing the ribbons is a way of showing “that not everyone is prejudiced or bigoted”.
Mr Hartup added: “Police officers and the public will not appreciate his lack of confidence in the organisation he leads. Serving officers should not expect to have to wear badges and ribbons to prove to the public and to Mr Green that they are absolutely committed to protecting everyone from evil-doers.”
Following the Chief constable’s misguided initiative there will obviously now be two categories of police officer in Nottinghamshire: those who put on the green ribbons and those who do not. What consequences flow from this? Police officers who fail to wear the ribbons may now be thought by sections of the Muslim community to be at the very least unsympathetic to the problems they face and unprepared to make a simple gesture of sympathy and support. If such officers are a substantial number it may even be claimed as illustrating the racism of the police service. How long before a ribbon count and ribbon targets? Police officers may be asked in the street why they are not wearing the ribbon. Their response will be either to say it is a personal matter inviting the conclusion that they are off hand or to engage in what would be a political discussion in which they would need to express their political opposition to such initiatives. Has the Chief constable even considered this?
Not to wear the green ribbon will indicate at the very least a lack of support for the Chief Constable’s initiative and even judgment. This may reasonably be expected to put unacceptable pressure on officers, especially senior officers, to toe the line. Will their careers be blighted by their independence?
Wearing of the ribbons by Nottinghamshire police may damage race relations in another way. They may easily be misunderstood as the politically correct favouring of Muslims compared to non-Muslims when dealing with claims of inter- community crime engendering the very backlash he is so clumsily seeking to oppose.
Ends
Further information: Gerald Hartup tel: 020 7928 7325 fax: 020 7207 3425
email gerald.hartup@btopenworld.com
Thursday, August 11, 2005
Equal Opportunities Commission corrects the record about late publication of the gender make-up of its staff
Following Liberty and Law Journal’s reports of 24 July and 2 August exposing the institutional sexism of the Equal Opportunities Commission [EOC] we have been asked by them to correct the record. The EOC states:
1. Your article suggests we are unable to provide up-to-date information on the gender make-up of our staff – or at least unsure where the public can find it. The EOC is very happy to provide this information, and it is available in the public domain and on our website – your article suggests otherwise.
We reply: The EOC’s annual report was published on 21 July without this information. We requested this information by telephone on 24 July but were not able to get it. We requested information about the gender and racial makeup again on 26 July and again on 29 July. Finally on 1 August the data relating to gender but not race makeup was provided to us by email. This information was used in our report of 2 August.
Unknown to us the EOC eventually published this information [as they confirm on10 August] on their website on 2 August. Clearly the information was not in the public domain until this date. We can agree with the EOC that it became in the public domain some 12 days after we requested it. We reported quite correctly that the EOC believed the information was in the public domain. As it turns out their belief was misplaced although our reporting was accurate.
Our report of 24 July stated: The EOC was unable to provide any up to date figures today but believed that these figures were in the public domain. It is not known at present whether failure to publish these figures in its annual report puts the EOC in breach of the Race Relations Act or the Sex Discrimination Act.
And on 2 August our report stated:
According to figures obtained on 1 August by human rights group Liberty and Law, which monitors the work of Britain’s equality bodies, the Equal Opportunities Commission [EOC] increased the proportion of its male staff last year by over 16%. Now almost one in five [19.3%] of its staff is men.
The data is not carried in its annual report published on 21 July but was provided by the EOC within nine days of a request for it.
2004-2005 Analysis of Equal Opportunities Commission staff by gender
Gender: Female 117,Male 28,Total 145
The EOC also ask us to make the following correction. They state:
2. We are not in violation of the Race Relations Act or the Sex Discrimination Act.
We reply: Liberty and Law Journal did not say that the EOC was in violation of these acts. We wrote: “It is not known at present whether failure to publish these figures in its annual report puts the EOC in breach of the Race Relations Act or the Sex Discrimination Act.”
We are happy to report that the EOC believes that it is not in breach of either of these acts. The EOC, however, does not have a 100% record in its legal observations, most notoriously advising the Labour Party before the 1997 election that all women shortlists were legal.
Following Liberty and Law Journal’s reports of 24 July and 2 August exposing the institutional sexism of the Equal Opportunities Commission [EOC] we have been asked by them to correct the record. The EOC states:
1. Your article suggests we are unable to provide up-to-date information on the gender make-up of our staff – or at least unsure where the public can find it. The EOC is very happy to provide this information, and it is available in the public domain and on our website – your article suggests otherwise.
We reply: The EOC’s annual report was published on 21 July without this information. We requested this information by telephone on 24 July but were not able to get it. We requested information about the gender and racial makeup again on 26 July and again on 29 July. Finally on 1 August the data relating to gender but not race makeup was provided to us by email. This information was used in our report of 2 August.
Unknown to us the EOC eventually published this information [as they confirm on10 August] on their website on 2 August. Clearly the information was not in the public domain until this date. We can agree with the EOC that it became in the public domain some 12 days after we requested it. We reported quite correctly that the EOC believed the information was in the public domain. As it turns out their belief was misplaced although our reporting was accurate.
Our report of 24 July stated: The EOC was unable to provide any up to date figures today but believed that these figures were in the public domain. It is not known at present whether failure to publish these figures in its annual report puts the EOC in breach of the Race Relations Act or the Sex Discrimination Act.
And on 2 August our report stated:
According to figures obtained on 1 August by human rights group Liberty and Law, which monitors the work of Britain’s equality bodies, the Equal Opportunities Commission [EOC] increased the proportion of its male staff last year by over 16%. Now almost one in five [19.3%] of its staff is men.
The data is not carried in its annual report published on 21 July but was provided by the EOC within nine days of a request for it.
2004-2005 Analysis of Equal Opportunities Commission staff by gender
Gender: Female 117,Male 28,Total 145
The EOC also ask us to make the following correction. They state:
2. We are not in violation of the Race Relations Act or the Sex Discrimination Act.
We reply: Liberty and Law Journal did not say that the EOC was in violation of these acts. We wrote: “It is not known at present whether failure to publish these figures in its annual report puts the EOC in breach of the Race Relations Act or the Sex Discrimination Act.”
We are happy to report that the EOC believes that it is not in breach of either of these acts. The EOC, however, does not have a 100% record in its legal observations, most notoriously advising the Labour Party before the 1997 election that all women shortlists were legal.
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
BNP’s very own Nuremberg Laws promulgated
In a news story of 1 August Taxpayers financed London bombers the British National Party’s website carries its proposals to counter terrorism. They eerily resonate with the Nuremberg Laws promulgated seventy years ago in Hitler’s Germany.
Jews of course were the internal enemies of the National Socialists in 1935 and in a Supplementary Decree of November 14 1935 they were to be dismissed from all public offices.
Muslims now appear to fulfil this role for our domestic national socialists having partially replaced Jews in their pantheon of hate. Here is what they have to say.
“..the BNP's proposals to safeguard Britain from further terrorist attack include the banning of any further immigration from Pakistan and similar Islamic countries, the removal of Muslims from sensitive employment (such as in water treatment plants and chemistry and biology laboratories in universities), and the confiscation of the passports of all male Muslims living in Britain between the ages of 15 - 40 in order to stop them travelling to religious indoctrination schools and terrorist training camps in Islamic countries, as an estimated 3,000 have already done.”
Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup commented: “The mainstream media generally content themselves with condemning the BNP as “racist” without making clear what they actually stand for. We need to inform the electorate of exactly how nasty they are.”
Notes
Taxpayers financed London bombers
http://www.bnp.org.uk/news_detail.php?newsId=431
Liberty and Law defends the civil rights of members of the BNP including the right not to be dismissed from employment on the grounds of their membership of the party. It advocates intense political opposition to its policies.
In a news story of 1 August Taxpayers financed London bombers the British National Party’s website carries its proposals to counter terrorism. They eerily resonate with the Nuremberg Laws promulgated seventy years ago in Hitler’s Germany.
Jews of course were the internal enemies of the National Socialists in 1935 and in a Supplementary Decree of November 14 1935 they were to be dismissed from all public offices.
Muslims now appear to fulfil this role for our domestic national socialists having partially replaced Jews in their pantheon of hate. Here is what they have to say.
“..the BNP's proposals to safeguard Britain from further terrorist attack include the banning of any further immigration from Pakistan and similar Islamic countries, the removal of Muslims from sensitive employment (such as in water treatment plants and chemistry and biology laboratories in universities), and the confiscation of the passports of all male Muslims living in Britain between the ages of 15 - 40 in order to stop them travelling to religious indoctrination schools and terrorist training camps in Islamic countries, as an estimated 3,000 have already done.”
Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup commented: “The mainstream media generally content themselves with condemning the BNP as “racist” without making clear what they actually stand for. We need to inform the electorate of exactly how nasty they are.”
Notes
Taxpayers financed London bombers
http://www.bnp.org.uk/news_detail.php?newsId=431
Liberty and Law defends the civil rights of members of the BNP including the right not to be dismissed from employment on the grounds of their membership of the party. It advocates intense political opposition to its policies.
Tuesday, August 02, 2005
Equal Opportunities Commission’s jobs for the boys
According to figures obtained on 1 August by human rights group Liberty and Law, which monitors the work of Britain’s equality bodies, the Equal Opportunities Commission [EOC] increased the proportion of its male staff last year by over 16%. Now almost one in five [19.3%] of its staff is men.
The data is not carried in its annual report published on 21 July but was provided by the EOC within nine days of a request for it.
2004-2005 Analysis of Equal Opportunities Commission staff by gender
Gender: Female 117,Male 28,Total 145
The EOC’s 2003/2004 Annual Report, unfortunately no longer on the EOC’s website, revealed that male representation had dropped to what Liberty and Law believes to be a historic low of 16.4%.
Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup stated: “After the disastrous figures posted in 2004 EOC commissioners are thought to be delighted with this improvement demonstrating a shift from the institutional sexism that has plagued their organisation since its inception. Unfortunately their concern only comes after their closure date has been announced. We will, however, learn from their failure.”
End
Note to editors:
The EOC’s Annual Report can be found on http://www.eoc.org.uk/EOCeng/EOCcs/AboutEOC/annual_report_2004_05.pdf
According to figures obtained on 1 August by human rights group Liberty and Law, which monitors the work of Britain’s equality bodies, the Equal Opportunities Commission [EOC] increased the proportion of its male staff last year by over 16%. Now almost one in five [19.3%] of its staff is men.
The data is not carried in its annual report published on 21 July but was provided by the EOC within nine days of a request for it.
2004-2005 Analysis of Equal Opportunities Commission staff by gender
Gender: Female 117,Male 28,Total 145
The EOC’s 2003/2004 Annual Report, unfortunately no longer on the EOC’s website, revealed that male representation had dropped to what Liberty and Law believes to be a historic low of 16.4%.
Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup stated: “After the disastrous figures posted in 2004 EOC commissioners are thought to be delighted with this improvement demonstrating a shift from the institutional sexism that has plagued their organisation since its inception. Unfortunately their concern only comes after their closure date has been announced. We will, however, learn from their failure.”
End
Note to editors:
The EOC’s Annual Report can be found on http://www.eoc.org.uk/EOCeng/EOCcs/AboutEOC/annual_report_2004_05.pdf
Saturday, July 30, 2005
Yasmin Alibhai-Brown apologises for Rod Liddle smear
In her Evening Standard column of 25 July anti-racist campaigner Yasmin Alibhai-Brown claimed that Rod Liddle “ on Radio 4’s Start the Week, complained bitterly that too many middle-class Asian women have infiltrated the media (we are everywhere apparently).”
She now realises, having listened again to the Radio 4 programme that this was an appalling misrepresentation of what Mr Liddle had to say. The text of the conversation of Liddle with Andrew Marr follows.
Rod Liddle: What the corporation seems to me to have done and you don’t blame them for this because the intent is good – is you set up units in order to impose diversity on the great massive behemoth of an organisation - and what happens in the end is that instead you get less diversity in a way and what comes through, particularly at the BBC, you have perhaps an overrepresentation of middle class Asian women because they do their jobs very well etcetera but you have a shortage of African Caribbean men. You particularly have a shortage of working class African Caribbean men and so you have this sort of edifice imposed upon the BBC, which the BBC imposes upon itself which actually militates against diversity…
Andrew Marr: and also by the way an extraordinary lack of Chinese people almost everywhere in public life …
Rod Liddle …a total lack of Chinese people
Ms Alibhai-Brown linked Rod Liddle with Jeremy Clarkson in the story insultingly entitled “A pair of charmers who prefer people like them” and Liddle’s picture appeared with the subheading Liddle: media infiltration.
There is no direct evidence, or indeed any evidence at all, that Ms Alibhai-Brown has actually apologised, but what the hell, let's join Yasmin in the touchy feely New Journalism.
In her Evening Standard column of 25 July anti-racist campaigner Yasmin Alibhai-Brown claimed that Rod Liddle “ on Radio 4’s Start the Week, complained bitterly that too many middle-class Asian women have infiltrated the media (we are everywhere apparently).”
She now realises, having listened again to the Radio 4 programme that this was an appalling misrepresentation of what Mr Liddle had to say. The text of the conversation of Liddle with Andrew Marr follows.
Rod Liddle: What the corporation seems to me to have done and you don’t blame them for this because the intent is good – is you set up units in order to impose diversity on the great massive behemoth of an organisation - and what happens in the end is that instead you get less diversity in a way and what comes through, particularly at the BBC, you have perhaps an overrepresentation of middle class Asian women because they do their jobs very well etcetera but you have a shortage of African Caribbean men. You particularly have a shortage of working class African Caribbean men and so you have this sort of edifice imposed upon the BBC, which the BBC imposes upon itself which actually militates against diversity…
Andrew Marr: and also by the way an extraordinary lack of Chinese people almost everywhere in public life …
Rod Liddle …a total lack of Chinese people
Ms Alibhai-Brown linked Rod Liddle with Jeremy Clarkson in the story insultingly entitled “A pair of charmers who prefer people like them” and Liddle’s picture appeared with the subheading Liddle: media infiltration.
There is no direct evidence, or indeed any evidence at all, that Ms Alibhai-Brown has actually apologised, but what the hell, let's join Yasmin in the touchy feely New Journalism.
Sunday, July 24, 2005
Still no jobs for the boys at Equal Opportunities Commission?
The Equal Opportunities Commission's [EOC] 2004-2005 annual report released to the House of Commons on 21 July excludes information about the sex or race of its staff.
Male representation at the EOC last year had fallen to a new low of 16.4% of its total staff of 152 as revealed in its 2003=2004 annual report.
The EOC was unable to provide any up to date figures today but believed that these figures were in the public domain. It is not known at present whether failure to publish these figures in its annual report puts the EOC in breach of the Race Relations Act or the Sex Discrimination Act.
The EOC describes itself as “the leading agency set up to tackle sex discrimination” and that “it is committed to challenging discrimination in all its forms and at all levels of society”.
Civil rights group Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup contests this view. He claims the £9.5million quango [£8.1million 2003-2004] has refused to commit itself to a target to overcome the institutional sexism that has characterised it since its inception.
Mr Hartup said: “How can business and human resources professionals take seriously a body whose own arrangements put it at the bottom of the equal opportunities league? The EOC unfortunately illustrates perfectly the problem it purports to solve.”
Ends
Note to editors
EOC Annual Report 2003-2004 pp 20,21 This appears to be the best link available
http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:MPxY0iq4uGEJ:www.eoc.org.uk/cseng/abouteoc/annualreport2004.pdf+EOC+Annual+Report+2003-2004&hl=en
EOC Annual Report 2004-2005
http://www.eoc.org.uk/EOCeng/EOCcs/AboutEOC/annual_report_2004_05.pdf
The Equal Opportunities Commission's [EOC] 2004-2005 annual report released to the House of Commons on 21 July excludes information about the sex or race of its staff.
Male representation at the EOC last year had fallen to a new low of 16.4% of its total staff of 152 as revealed in its 2003=2004 annual report.
The EOC was unable to provide any up to date figures today but believed that these figures were in the public domain. It is not known at present whether failure to publish these figures in its annual report puts the EOC in breach of the Race Relations Act or the Sex Discrimination Act.
The EOC describes itself as “the leading agency set up to tackle sex discrimination” and that “it is committed to challenging discrimination in all its forms and at all levels of society”.
Civil rights group Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup contests this view. He claims the £9.5million quango [£8.1million 2003-2004] has refused to commit itself to a target to overcome the institutional sexism that has characterised it since its inception.
Mr Hartup said: “How can business and human resources professionals take seriously a body whose own arrangements put it at the bottom of the equal opportunities league? The EOC unfortunately illustrates perfectly the problem it purports to solve.”
Ends
Note to editors
EOC Annual Report 2003-2004 pp 20,21 This appears to be the best link available
http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:MPxY0iq4uGEJ:www.eoc.org.uk/cseng/abouteoc/annualreport2004.pdf+EOC+Annual+Report+2003-2004&hl=en
EOC Annual Report 2004-2005
http://www.eoc.org.uk/EOCeng/EOCcs/AboutEOC/annual_report_2004_05.pdf
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
Circulating circulation disinformation
Daily Telegraph readers who took their Maths ‘O’ level some time ago will gain confidence from the paper’s front page report [19 July] on its battle with The Times for circulation supremacy. A bar chart shows their paper represented by a 2.7cm column compared to a derisory 1.1cm for The Times. This is achieved by the classic statistical trick of not starting sales from zero but from 500,000.
The text does point out that circulation of The Times is 683,495 compared to the Telegraph’s 910,743. The Times circulation is therefore 75% of that of the Daily Telegraph while the Telegraph chart manages to make it look like just 41%.
As they say: “A picture is worth a thousand words.”
Daily Telegraph readers who took their Maths ‘O’ level some time ago will gain confidence from the paper’s front page report [19 July] on its battle with The Times for circulation supremacy. A bar chart shows their paper represented by a 2.7cm column compared to a derisory 1.1cm for The Times. This is achieved by the classic statistical trick of not starting sales from zero but from 500,000.
The text does point out that circulation of The Times is 683,495 compared to the Telegraph’s 910,743. The Times circulation is therefore 75% of that of the Daily Telegraph while the Telegraph chart manages to make it look like just 41%.
As they say: “A picture is worth a thousand words.”
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
How the BBC responds to fucking criticism
According to the Daily Star the BBC was forced to apologise for the use of the word ‘fucking’ by Madonna and other Live 8 stars at the London venue before the 9pm watershed after which swearing is allowed. The ‘apology’ is a minor classic of its kind. Here it is with a translation of what it really means.
“We do apologise if anyone was offended. What a drag these people are, but let’s go through the motions anyway. All the artists were told before they went on stage that it was live and to be mindful of their language. We covered ourselves, what more do these idiots expect us to do? Obviously the excitement and occasion got to people, but how can you tell Madonna off? For Christ’s sake these people are big, big names. We’re not going to mess with them. We received just over 350 complaints about swearing. Considering the billions watching that is not much. Just the regular oddballs, see. No one else gave a toss. To put it in context if EastEnders [a British soap] starts five minutes late we get over 500 complaints. Now do you understand how unrepresentative these jokers are. People have the right to complain but this is a live event and there is not much we can do. I suppose we have to say this but let’s make it absolutely clear that we are not going to do anything as a result of their whingeing. ”
The BBC enjoys a monopoly and anyone who watches television is compelled to pay a non income related poll tax to fund its operation.
According to the Daily Star the BBC was forced to apologise for the use of the word ‘fucking’ by Madonna and other Live 8 stars at the London venue before the 9pm watershed after which swearing is allowed. The ‘apology’ is a minor classic of its kind. Here it is with a translation of what it really means.
“We do apologise if anyone was offended. What a drag these people are, but let’s go through the motions anyway. All the artists were told before they went on stage that it was live and to be mindful of their language. We covered ourselves, what more do these idiots expect us to do? Obviously the excitement and occasion got to people, but how can you tell Madonna off? For Christ’s sake these people are big, big names. We’re not going to mess with them. We received just over 350 complaints about swearing. Considering the billions watching that is not much. Just the regular oddballs, see. No one else gave a toss. To put it in context if EastEnders [a British soap] starts five minutes late we get over 500 complaints. Now do you understand how unrepresentative these jokers are. People have the right to complain but this is a live event and there is not much we can do. I suppose we have to say this but let’s make it absolutely clear that we are not going to do anything as a result of their whingeing. ”
The BBC enjoys a monopoly and anyone who watches television is compelled to pay a non income related poll tax to fund its operation.
Thursday, June 02, 2005
Leylandii disputes to grow unintended consequences
Householders upset by the fees to be charged by local authorities for enforcing the regulations relating to the height of these fast growing trees may not have considered an even greater hidden cost involved in exercising their new rights.
What will be recorded as a neighbour dispute will have to be revealed when either of the householders wishes to sell his property. Legal action or the threat of it may be more expensive than both neighbours ever dreamed. Bad neighbours reduce the value of properties rather more than a scruffy kitchen. Indeed they may make them unsaleable.
The moral must be, if not “Love thy neighbour as thyself” at least “Do unto him only that which you would have done to you”.
Householders upset by the fees to be charged by local authorities for enforcing the regulations relating to the height of these fast growing trees may not have considered an even greater hidden cost involved in exercising their new rights.
What will be recorded as a neighbour dispute will have to be revealed when either of the householders wishes to sell his property. Legal action or the threat of it may be more expensive than both neighbours ever dreamed. Bad neighbours reduce the value of properties rather more than a scruffy kitchen. Indeed they may make them unsaleable.
The moral must be, if not “Love thy neighbour as thyself” at least “Do unto him only that which you would have done to you”.
Monday, May 30, 2005
Standards Board investigates bid to sack BNP care worker
Following civil liberties group Liberty and Law reporting a senior Leeds councillor to the Standards Board for England over a campaign to dismiss a BNP care worker from her job because of her party affiliation the watchdog has confirmed [19 April] that it is holding an investigation under Section 58 of the Local Government Act 2000 by referring it to an Ethical Standards Officer.
Liberty and Law had asked the Board to investigate whether Councillor Keith Wakefield the leader of the Labour group failed in his duty to:(a) promote equality by not discriminating unlawfully against any person;(b) treat others with respect; and(c) not do anything which compromises or which is likely to compromise the impartiality of those who work for, or on behalf of, the authority as required by the Board’s code of practice.
Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup explained: “The BNP is an extremely unpleasant political party whose views are rejected by the vast majority of British people. It is however a lawful political party which people are entitled to join, stand for in elections and to vote for under our system of democracy. It is appropriate to condemn their policies and their actions and to challenge these as forcefully as necessary to ensure they remain marginal to British political life.
“BNP supporters however have the same rights to protection from harassment as the most upstanding and meritorious citizens amongst us. Among these rights are the same rights to employment as everyone else in the absence of any evidence that they present a threat to the people they work with or work for. To attempt remove those rights in the absence of a clear and present danger is an affront to freedom both theirs and ours.”
The case involves care worker, Mrs Julie Day who works for a company providing community care to Leeds City Council. Mrs Day is a BNP activist who is standing for election in the Leeds West constituency. As a result of complaints about her employment with Allied Healthcare, the parent company of Yorkshire Careline, which provides services for Leeds City Council, a special audit of her work was carried out. Leeds Council's executive board member for social services Cllr Peter Harrand told the Yorkshire Post Today: ”As we requested, Allied Healthcare sent out questionnaires to all the service users and they are content with the service they are receiving. There have been no complaints - everybody is satisfied with the service they have received from this lady. Until there is anything to the contrary, things will continue as they are. On that basis, we will not be taking any further action."
There appears to have been no justification whatsoever for the extraordinary audit of Mrs Day’s work other than her association with the British National Party. Mrs Day claims to have been doing this work and similar work for sixteen years. However, even after the audit found a positive response to the work of this woman Councillor Keith Wakefield the leader of the Labour Party opposition group is quoted in Yorkshire Post Today [electronic version 18 March] stating, "I am very disappointed, indeed angry that the ruling administration does not appear to have taken this issue very seriously. As I have said before, I have grave concerns that someone with such extreme political views is working with some of the most vulnerable members of society. Surely, if the individual concerned is not in the direct employment of the council, discussions could have been held with the agency to find her a less frontline role. I will be raising this matter with the leader of the council as a matter of urgency."
Liberty and Law believes that Cllr Wakefield’s intervention could possibly allow Mrs Day’s employer to sack her on grounds similar to that used to sack Bradford BNP councillor Arthur Redfearn who was legally sacked by West Yorkshire Transport Services on health and safety grounds. The company argued successfully that it feared there might be attacks on its buses or on Cllr Redfearn himself once the association with the far-right party was known.
In an earlier report [10 May Yorkshire Post Today electronic version] Cllr Wakefield is reported as “shocked that Mrs Day was working on a Leeds City Council contract and demanded every pressure was put on the company to end her employment.” He is quoted in the article as saying, "I have very strong reservations about this. If she's working in the care area with her political views I would want council officers to look at the contract to see if there is something we can do to make sure people like this are not employed. I find it staggering she's working in care with her political views. I want every pressure to be put on this company as it is totally inappropriate that someone responsible for care in the community should employ someone who has those kind of views towards different races and ethnic groups."
Liberty and Law believes Cllr Wakefield’s continued intervention in her employment with the publicity that has resulted puts Mrs Day’s continued employment and her personal safety at risk and that his action may constitute unlawful harassment of this woman.
The Standards Board is satisfied that the allegation falls within its legal jurisdiction and considers the matter should be investigated. This does not mean that the allegation is necessarily true. The Board aims to complete 90% of investigations withing six months.
Ends
Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup prevented the use of a colour bar in the appointment of a curator at Bristol art gallery Arnolfini in 2004, advising the Commission for Racial Equality on the correct application of the law. The Arnolfini experience helped the CRE revise its advice to companies contained in its magazine Connexions.·
He initiated the prosecution of Cheltenham racist Bill Galbraith in 1990 over his harassment of black parliamentary candidate John [subsequently Lord] Taylor.·
The website www.libertyandlawjournal.blogspot.com is a vital resource for journalists dealing with race relations in the United Kingdom.
Yorkshire Post Today linkshttp://www.ypn.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=55&ArticleID=967084http://www.ypn.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=55&ArticleID=974980
www.standardsboard.co.uk
Following civil liberties group Liberty and Law reporting a senior Leeds councillor to the Standards Board for England over a campaign to dismiss a BNP care worker from her job because of her party affiliation the watchdog has confirmed [19 April] that it is holding an investigation under Section 58 of the Local Government Act 2000 by referring it to an Ethical Standards Officer.
Liberty and Law had asked the Board to investigate whether Councillor Keith Wakefield the leader of the Labour group failed in his duty to:(a) promote equality by not discriminating unlawfully against any person;(b) treat others with respect; and(c) not do anything which compromises or which is likely to compromise the impartiality of those who work for, or on behalf of, the authority as required by the Board’s code of practice.
Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup explained: “The BNP is an extremely unpleasant political party whose views are rejected by the vast majority of British people. It is however a lawful political party which people are entitled to join, stand for in elections and to vote for under our system of democracy. It is appropriate to condemn their policies and their actions and to challenge these as forcefully as necessary to ensure they remain marginal to British political life.
“BNP supporters however have the same rights to protection from harassment as the most upstanding and meritorious citizens amongst us. Among these rights are the same rights to employment as everyone else in the absence of any evidence that they present a threat to the people they work with or work for. To attempt remove those rights in the absence of a clear and present danger is an affront to freedom both theirs and ours.”
The case involves care worker, Mrs Julie Day who works for a company providing community care to Leeds City Council. Mrs Day is a BNP activist who is standing for election in the Leeds West constituency. As a result of complaints about her employment with Allied Healthcare, the parent company of Yorkshire Careline, which provides services for Leeds City Council, a special audit of her work was carried out. Leeds Council's executive board member for social services Cllr Peter Harrand told the Yorkshire Post Today: ”As we requested, Allied Healthcare sent out questionnaires to all the service users and they are content with the service they are receiving. There have been no complaints - everybody is satisfied with the service they have received from this lady. Until there is anything to the contrary, things will continue as they are. On that basis, we will not be taking any further action."
There appears to have been no justification whatsoever for the extraordinary audit of Mrs Day’s work other than her association with the British National Party. Mrs Day claims to have been doing this work and similar work for sixteen years. However, even after the audit found a positive response to the work of this woman Councillor Keith Wakefield the leader of the Labour Party opposition group is quoted in Yorkshire Post Today [electronic version 18 March] stating, "I am very disappointed, indeed angry that the ruling administration does not appear to have taken this issue very seriously. As I have said before, I have grave concerns that someone with such extreme political views is working with some of the most vulnerable members of society. Surely, if the individual concerned is not in the direct employment of the council, discussions could have been held with the agency to find her a less frontline role. I will be raising this matter with the leader of the council as a matter of urgency."
Liberty and Law believes that Cllr Wakefield’s intervention could possibly allow Mrs Day’s employer to sack her on grounds similar to that used to sack Bradford BNP councillor Arthur Redfearn who was legally sacked by West Yorkshire Transport Services on health and safety grounds. The company argued successfully that it feared there might be attacks on its buses or on Cllr Redfearn himself once the association with the far-right party was known.
In an earlier report [10 May Yorkshire Post Today electronic version] Cllr Wakefield is reported as “shocked that Mrs Day was working on a Leeds City Council contract and demanded every pressure was put on the company to end her employment.” He is quoted in the article as saying, "I have very strong reservations about this. If she's working in the care area with her political views I would want council officers to look at the contract to see if there is something we can do to make sure people like this are not employed. I find it staggering she's working in care with her political views. I want every pressure to be put on this company as it is totally inappropriate that someone responsible for care in the community should employ someone who has those kind of views towards different races and ethnic groups."
Liberty and Law believes Cllr Wakefield’s continued intervention in her employment with the publicity that has resulted puts Mrs Day’s continued employment and her personal safety at risk and that his action may constitute unlawful harassment of this woman.
The Standards Board is satisfied that the allegation falls within its legal jurisdiction and considers the matter should be investigated. This does not mean that the allegation is necessarily true. The Board aims to complete 90% of investigations withing six months.
Ends
Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup prevented the use of a colour bar in the appointment of a curator at Bristol art gallery Arnolfini in 2004, advising the Commission for Racial Equality on the correct application of the law. The Arnolfini experience helped the CRE revise its advice to companies contained in its magazine Connexions.·
He initiated the prosecution of Cheltenham racist Bill Galbraith in 1990 over his harassment of black parliamentary candidate John [subsequently Lord] Taylor.·
The website www.libertyandlawjournal.blogspot.com is a vital resource for journalists dealing with race relations in the United Kingdom.
Yorkshire Post Today linkshttp://www.ypn.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=55&ArticleID=967084http://www.ypn.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=55&ArticleID=974980
www.standardsboard.co.uk
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
Trevor Phillips snubs gypsies and travellers
The Commission for Racial Equality has junked its campaign with the Gypsy Council to make political parties and the media use capital G and capital T when writing about gypsies and travellers. Its chair Trevor Phillips is revealed as himself indifferent to breaching the CRE’s own guidelines when writing for the media or quoted in major interviews and refuses to even advise police services and the Labour Party when they ignore CRE guidelines.
The Gypsy Council states: “The Gypsy people are a recognised ethnic group and when writing about us, please show us the same respect as other ethnic and racial groups by spelling our name with a capital not a small g.”
The CRE’s website nominally backs this campaign. In its ‘guidance’ it hectors journalists with the ‘do as I say not do as I do’ admonition: Listen to the people you are writing about
and continues: “This is particularly important when it comes to the terms and language you use. … The terms Traveller(s), Gypsy or Irish Traveller should be used with initial capital letters.”
But in The Observer of 28 March Mr Phillips’ own article used a lower case to refer to travellers and in the course of an extensive interview with The Times on 12 April he was quoted using a lower case g and t.
The CRE refused to state whether the politically incorrect use in The Observer was originated by Mr Phillips or the result of an editorial decision by the newspaper but did insist they were too busy to get a correction published by its Reader’s Editor.
In his major Times interview of 12 April Mr Phillips refers to ‘gypsies’ and ‘travellers’ despite being put on alert by Liberty and Law about the correct use of language and the presence of his press officer Colleen Harris. The CRE confirmed that they would not be asking The Times to make any correction on this occasion either.
Trevor Phillips’ use of language unacceptable to the Gypsy Council mirrors the Labour Party’s election website that contains releases quoting Tony Blair, John Prescott and Margaret Beckett doing exactly the same. Informed by Liberty and Law of its offensiveness to the Gypsy Council and its flouting of CRE guidelines the Labour Party has nevertheless since 21 March stuck to its use of ‘gypsy’ and ‘traveller’ taking encouragement from the CRE chair’s own use of the language.
The CRE’s dismissal of the Gypsy Council’s concerns was illustrated by their point blank refusal to even telephone Cambridgeshire Police over this Authority’s use of the ‘institutionally racist’ lower case in its press release POLICE REACH OUT TO TRAVELLERS. The CRE claimed to lack the resources even for this simple task.
It was left to civil liberties group Liberty and Law to ensure that they conformed to the politically correct model by amending the press release and promising henceforth to use always the upper case G and T.
Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup commented: “One can see why Trevor Phillips and the CRE can’t make time for a couple of phone calls. They have different priorities. They have just advertised for a new international public relations officer and a head of international communications to promote Mr Phillips on a global scale. Money is bound to be tight for domestic work. The best idea for gypsies and travellers might be to make a call from abroad or even lobby him in Brussels or Strasbourg. ”
Mr Hartup added: “Of course the campaign is misguided. Liberty and Law like Trevor Phillips, the Labour Party, most journalists and the police [before they are corrected] uses the lower case to describe gypsies and travellers. Liberty and Law does so however not out of ignorance or lack of respect. It demands the same rights for people adopting these lifestyles as for everyone else but rejects the use of coercive language designed to consolidate the creation of bogus racially privileged groups. Language is being used [sometimes] by the CRE to attempt to dictate the terms of political debate. Tony Blair, John Prescott and Margaret Beckett may have instinctively understood this and be challenging political correctness. It could of course be simple ignorance or bigotry on their part. There can now be no excuse for the media or politicians. It is not a question of reaching for the style guide. It is a question of conforming with the demands of the language police or taking them on. It would be helpful to know where the Labour Party and the other parties stand on this issue.”
Ends
Further information Gerald Hartup
Liberty and Law
Unit 384, 78 Marylebone High Street, London W1U 5APTel: 020 7928 7325 Fax: 020 7207 3425 gerald.hartup@btopenworld.com
Gypsy Council http://www.thegypsycouncil.org/ under the heading RespectCommission for Racial Equality Guidance for Journalists http://www.cre.gov.uk/media/guidetj.htmlTony Blair highlights the Tories' opportunistic campaign 21 March 2005
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:kLnFbHYhr1cJ:www.labour.org.uk/ac2004news%3Fux_news_id%3Dtbcamp+Tony+Blair+highlights+the+Tories%27+opportunistic+campaign+&hl=en
Beckett attacks "opportunistic Howard" 21 March 2005
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:g8VaD7AhpygJ:www.labour.org.uk/ac2004news%3Fux_news_id%3Dopportunistichoward+Beckett+attacks+%22opportunistic+Howard%22+&hl=en
Tony Blair is a man of judgment. Michael Howard is an opportunist http://www.labour.org.uk/index.php?id=news2005&ux_news%5Bid%5D=prescott35years&cHash=f607e5c456
It's bad - but real solutions can be found, Trevor Phillips, Observer Sunday March 27, 2005 http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,1446437,00.html
Parties warned against inflaming race tension, The Times 12 April, Tom Baldwin, Philip Webster and Sam Coates
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,171-1565686,00.html
The Commission for Racial Equality has junked its campaign with the Gypsy Council to make political parties and the media use capital G and capital T when writing about gypsies and travellers. Its chair Trevor Phillips is revealed as himself indifferent to breaching the CRE’s own guidelines when writing for the media or quoted in major interviews and refuses to even advise police services and the Labour Party when they ignore CRE guidelines.
The Gypsy Council states: “The Gypsy people are a recognised ethnic group and when writing about us, please show us the same respect as other ethnic and racial groups by spelling our name with a capital not a small g.”
The CRE’s website nominally backs this campaign. In its ‘guidance’ it hectors journalists with the ‘do as I say not do as I do’ admonition: Listen to the people you are writing about
and continues: “This is particularly important when it comes to the terms and language you use. … The terms Traveller(s), Gypsy or Irish Traveller should be used with initial capital letters.”
But in The Observer of 28 March Mr Phillips’ own article used a lower case to refer to travellers and in the course of an extensive interview with The Times on 12 April he was quoted using a lower case g and t.
The CRE refused to state whether the politically incorrect use in The Observer was originated by Mr Phillips or the result of an editorial decision by the newspaper but did insist they were too busy to get a correction published by its Reader’s Editor.
In his major Times interview of 12 April Mr Phillips refers to ‘gypsies’ and ‘travellers’ despite being put on alert by Liberty and Law about the correct use of language and the presence of his press officer Colleen Harris. The CRE confirmed that they would not be asking The Times to make any correction on this occasion either.
Trevor Phillips’ use of language unacceptable to the Gypsy Council mirrors the Labour Party’s election website that contains releases quoting Tony Blair, John Prescott and Margaret Beckett doing exactly the same. Informed by Liberty and Law of its offensiveness to the Gypsy Council and its flouting of CRE guidelines the Labour Party has nevertheless since 21 March stuck to its use of ‘gypsy’ and ‘traveller’ taking encouragement from the CRE chair’s own use of the language.
The CRE’s dismissal of the Gypsy Council’s concerns was illustrated by their point blank refusal to even telephone Cambridgeshire Police over this Authority’s use of the ‘institutionally racist’ lower case in its press release POLICE REACH OUT TO TRAVELLERS. The CRE claimed to lack the resources even for this simple task.
It was left to civil liberties group Liberty and Law to ensure that they conformed to the politically correct model by amending the press release and promising henceforth to use always the upper case G and T.
Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup commented: “One can see why Trevor Phillips and the CRE can’t make time for a couple of phone calls. They have different priorities. They have just advertised for a new international public relations officer and a head of international communications to promote Mr Phillips on a global scale. Money is bound to be tight for domestic work. The best idea for gypsies and travellers might be to make a call from abroad or even lobby him in Brussels or Strasbourg. ”
Mr Hartup added: “Of course the campaign is misguided. Liberty and Law like Trevor Phillips, the Labour Party, most journalists and the police [before they are corrected] uses the lower case to describe gypsies and travellers. Liberty and Law does so however not out of ignorance or lack of respect. It demands the same rights for people adopting these lifestyles as for everyone else but rejects the use of coercive language designed to consolidate the creation of bogus racially privileged groups. Language is being used [sometimes] by the CRE to attempt to dictate the terms of political debate. Tony Blair, John Prescott and Margaret Beckett may have instinctively understood this and be challenging political correctness. It could of course be simple ignorance or bigotry on their part. There can now be no excuse for the media or politicians. It is not a question of reaching for the style guide. It is a question of conforming with the demands of the language police or taking them on. It would be helpful to know where the Labour Party and the other parties stand on this issue.”
Ends
Further information Gerald Hartup
Liberty and Law
Unit 384, 78 Marylebone High Street, London W1U 5APTel: 020 7928 7325 Fax: 020 7207 3425 gerald.hartup@btopenworld.com
Gypsy Council http://www.thegypsycouncil.org/ under the heading RespectCommission for Racial Equality Guidance for Journalists http://www.cre.gov.uk/media/guidetj.htmlTony Blair highlights the Tories' opportunistic campaign 21 March 2005
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:kLnFbHYhr1cJ:www.labour.org.uk/ac2004news%3Fux_news_id%3Dtbcamp+Tony+Blair+highlights+the+Tories%27+opportunistic+campaign+&hl=en
Beckett attacks "opportunistic Howard" 21 March 2005
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:g8VaD7AhpygJ:www.labour.org.uk/ac2004news%3Fux_news_id%3Dopportunistichoward+Beckett+attacks+%22opportunistic+Howard%22+&hl=en
Tony Blair is a man of judgment. Michael Howard is an opportunist http://www.labour.org.uk/index.php?id=news2005&ux_news%5Bid%5D=prescott35years&cHash=f607e5c456
It's bad - but real solutions can be found, Trevor Phillips, Observer Sunday March 27, 2005 http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,1446437,00.html
Parties warned against inflaming race tension, The Times 12 April, Tom Baldwin, Philip Webster and Sam Coates
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,171-1565686,00.html
Tuesday, March 29, 2005
What rights should the BNP possess in a free society?
A Sunday Telegraph scoop [27 March 2004] revealed the name and location of the company that prints the British National Party’s newspaper The Voice of Freedom. The reporting raises fundamental issues about the nature of political freedom tentatively addressed at the conclusion of this article.
The company turns out to be Satellite Graphics Ltd in Barking, Essex, a subsidiary of Asharq Al-Aswat Ltd whose parent company is the Saudi Research and Publishing Company.
The article argued that given the BNP’s notorious hostility towards Islam its use of such a company ‘will stun even its own members’ and ‘is evidence of the BNP’s hypocrisy’. This is reflected in the article’s headline: Guess who prints the BNP’s ‘anti-Muslim’ newspaper…a firm owned by Muslims
The article also suggests that Satellite Graphics’ behaviour is strange given that it specialises in printing Arab, Muslim and Asian newspapers. Newspapers seen on display at the company’s plant included The Sikh Times, The Daily Nation, a daily Urdu newspaper and Asharq Al-Awsat, a London based Arabic newspaper.
A company manager told the undercover reporter: “We do print the Voice of Freedom. They run 16 pages. Most of the publications we do are Asian or Arabic, but we can do anything for you.”
The article reported the hostility shown to Islam by the BNP reminding readers of exposés of the BNP on television and the arrests and criminal convictions of some of its key members. It also gave a condensed summary of the oppressive nature of the Saudi regime founded on Wahhabi Islam, pointing out that its followers have been key recruits for Osama bin Laden.
Seeking to maximise the impact of its story it sought comment from the BNP, Asharq Al-Awsat and the Saudi embassy. Only the BNP replied: “If you would like to go and get a wholly owned British firm that would print our newspaper, fair enough. Islam is not compatible with Western Christian values in Britain but it is not their printing works that are dangerous to our way of life, it is the other things they do.”
What will the result of this article be? What if anything was its intended result? Was it just a very good story or was the Sunday Telegraph engaging in campaigning journalism? One may now assume that intense pressure will be put upon the printing company to end its contract with the BNP through the Saudi embassy as well as pressure by the company’s other horrified customers. It would be reasonable to bet that such pressure will quickly be successful. If not it can be expected that there will be demonstrations outside the print company demanding that The Voice of Freedom should not be produced.
In short it looks as if the article will precipitate the BNP having to find another printer soon.
Pressure has already been successful in denying the BNP a bank account in the UK and has ensured that their website can only be hosted in the USA although its substantial content has not brought about any prosecutions under hate crime legislation.
The article was also illustrated by a picture of a demonstration whose centrepiece was a banner that proclaimed “Shut down all Mosques in Britain”. This was a rally by the National Front, now the BNP’s mortal enemy. The strap line immediately beneath the picture, however, read “Members of the British National Party are hostile to Islam yet the party’s newspaper is printed by Satellite Graphics Ltd a company staffed entirely by Muslims”. This gave the clear impression that it was a BNP demo and that their policy was to demand the closure of all mosques. The BNP indignantly deny this on their website and state that they are reporting the paper to the Press Complaints Commission.
The other main picture used to illustrate the article consists of a Voice of Freedom front page with the headline “Why we must beware of Islam”. This appears oddly similar in its approach to that of a series of articles by Will Cummins published by the Sunday Telegraph in 2004 for which its editor Dominic Lawson drew the wrath of Muslims and for which his sacking was demanded [unsuccessfully] by them.
In a pretty desperate piece of perhaps calculated sycophancy, nonetheless expressing government policy, the BNP defends its association with the Saudis, ignoring its espousal of the most extreme form of Islam. “The BNP is mature enough to be able to differentiate between moderate Islam and Islamic fundamentalism. We respect and are prepared to work with moderate Muslims but we are totally opposed to Islamic fundamentalism. Saudi Arabia is a long established trading partner of the UK government, the European Union and the US. Saudi Arabia is viewed by these countries and institutions as a vital ally in the War Against Terror. We are not against Islam or Muslims but only against the minority of fundamentalist Islamists that terrorise us and moderate Muslims alike.”
The politically important question to be considered is what is the attitude of the Sunday Telegraph to the BNP. Does it believe that the BNP should be denied by public pressure the right to print its material? Does it believe that the BNP has the right to publish on the Internet? Does it believe that the BNP has the right to have a bank account in the UK? Does it believe that BNP members should be sacked from their jobs? Does it believe that the BNP should be banned, full stop?
These are questions that concern us all not just the Sunday Telegraph? What should our attitude be? Where do the main political parties stand? Who would want to take the BNP’s shilling as a printer, bank or web-hosting organisation? Who given the choice would wish to employ a member of the BNP? Who would wish to legally represent them?
Liberty and Law has drawn a line at BNP members being sacked from their jobs for their membership of this party. It explains why it has done so elsewhere on this site. Labour leader reported to Standards Board over bid to sack BNP care worker Sunday, March 20, 2005.
Guess who prints the BNP's 'anti-muslim' newspaper...a firm ownedby Muslims, 27 March 2005
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/03/27/nbnp27.xml
Surviving in a repressive state, 27 March 2005 http://www.bnp.org.uk/news_detail.php?newsId=246
A Sunday Telegraph scoop [27 March 2004] revealed the name and location of the company that prints the British National Party’s newspaper The Voice of Freedom. The reporting raises fundamental issues about the nature of political freedom tentatively addressed at the conclusion of this article.
The company turns out to be Satellite Graphics Ltd in Barking, Essex, a subsidiary of Asharq Al-Aswat Ltd whose parent company is the Saudi Research and Publishing Company.
The article argued that given the BNP’s notorious hostility towards Islam its use of such a company ‘will stun even its own members’ and ‘is evidence of the BNP’s hypocrisy’. This is reflected in the article’s headline: Guess who prints the BNP’s ‘anti-Muslim’ newspaper…a firm owned by Muslims
The article also suggests that Satellite Graphics’ behaviour is strange given that it specialises in printing Arab, Muslim and Asian newspapers. Newspapers seen on display at the company’s plant included The Sikh Times, The Daily Nation, a daily Urdu newspaper and Asharq Al-Awsat, a London based Arabic newspaper.
A company manager told the undercover reporter: “We do print the Voice of Freedom. They run 16 pages. Most of the publications we do are Asian or Arabic, but we can do anything for you.”
The article reported the hostility shown to Islam by the BNP reminding readers of exposés of the BNP on television and the arrests and criminal convictions of some of its key members. It also gave a condensed summary of the oppressive nature of the Saudi regime founded on Wahhabi Islam, pointing out that its followers have been key recruits for Osama bin Laden.
Seeking to maximise the impact of its story it sought comment from the BNP, Asharq Al-Awsat and the Saudi embassy. Only the BNP replied: “If you would like to go and get a wholly owned British firm that would print our newspaper, fair enough. Islam is not compatible with Western Christian values in Britain but it is not their printing works that are dangerous to our way of life, it is the other things they do.”
What will the result of this article be? What if anything was its intended result? Was it just a very good story or was the Sunday Telegraph engaging in campaigning journalism? One may now assume that intense pressure will be put upon the printing company to end its contract with the BNP through the Saudi embassy as well as pressure by the company’s other horrified customers. It would be reasonable to bet that such pressure will quickly be successful. If not it can be expected that there will be demonstrations outside the print company demanding that The Voice of Freedom should not be produced.
In short it looks as if the article will precipitate the BNP having to find another printer soon.
Pressure has already been successful in denying the BNP a bank account in the UK and has ensured that their website can only be hosted in the USA although its substantial content has not brought about any prosecutions under hate crime legislation.
The article was also illustrated by a picture of a demonstration whose centrepiece was a banner that proclaimed “Shut down all Mosques in Britain”. This was a rally by the National Front, now the BNP’s mortal enemy. The strap line immediately beneath the picture, however, read “Members of the British National Party are hostile to Islam yet the party’s newspaper is printed by Satellite Graphics Ltd a company staffed entirely by Muslims”. This gave the clear impression that it was a BNP demo and that their policy was to demand the closure of all mosques. The BNP indignantly deny this on their website and state that they are reporting the paper to the Press Complaints Commission.
The other main picture used to illustrate the article consists of a Voice of Freedom front page with the headline “Why we must beware of Islam”. This appears oddly similar in its approach to that of a series of articles by Will Cummins published by the Sunday Telegraph in 2004 for which its editor Dominic Lawson drew the wrath of Muslims and for which his sacking was demanded [unsuccessfully] by them.
In a pretty desperate piece of perhaps calculated sycophancy, nonetheless expressing government policy, the BNP defends its association with the Saudis, ignoring its espousal of the most extreme form of Islam. “The BNP is mature enough to be able to differentiate between moderate Islam and Islamic fundamentalism. We respect and are prepared to work with moderate Muslims but we are totally opposed to Islamic fundamentalism. Saudi Arabia is a long established trading partner of the UK government, the European Union and the US. Saudi Arabia is viewed by these countries and institutions as a vital ally in the War Against Terror. We are not against Islam or Muslims but only against the minority of fundamentalist Islamists that terrorise us and moderate Muslims alike.”
The politically important question to be considered is what is the attitude of the Sunday Telegraph to the BNP. Does it believe that the BNP should be denied by public pressure the right to print its material? Does it believe that the BNP has the right to publish on the Internet? Does it believe that the BNP has the right to have a bank account in the UK? Does it believe that BNP members should be sacked from their jobs? Does it believe that the BNP should be banned, full stop?
These are questions that concern us all not just the Sunday Telegraph? What should our attitude be? Where do the main political parties stand? Who would want to take the BNP’s shilling as a printer, bank or web-hosting organisation? Who given the choice would wish to employ a member of the BNP? Who would wish to legally represent them?
Liberty and Law has drawn a line at BNP members being sacked from their jobs for their membership of this party. It explains why it has done so elsewhere on this site. Labour leader reported to Standards Board over bid to sack BNP care worker Sunday, March 20, 2005.
Guess who prints the BNP's 'anti-muslim' newspaper...a firm ownedby Muslims, 27 March 2005
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/03/27/nbnp27.xml
Surviving in a repressive state, 27 March 2005 http://www.bnp.org.uk/news_detail.php?newsId=246
Thursday, March 24, 2005
Blair and Beckett campaign material lacks respect for Gypsies
In two of its latest election press releases Tony Blair and Margaret Beckett have shown an alleged lack of respect to gypsies by using the lower case “gypsies” to refer to them despite the pleas of the Gypsy Council and the Commission for Racial Equality’s guidance “Listen to the people you are writing about”.
The Gypsy Council states: “The Gypsy people are a recognised ethnic group and when writing about us, please show us the same respect as other ethnic and racial groups by spelling our name with a capital not a small g.”
The CRE states: “The terms Traveller(s), Gypsy or Irish Traveller should be used with initial capital letters.”
Both press releases were put out on Monday 21 March. After being informed of their perceived offensiveness the next day by civil liberties group Liberty and Law the Labour Party website has not corrected the language used.
Labour’s use of the terminology came in two attacks on Conservative party leader Michael Howard for raising the issue of gypsies in his campaign in what they argued was an opportunistic manner.
Tony Blair and Margaret Beckett are not alone in their continued use of the lower case. Hansard ignores the CRE advice in its reports as does the Press Association and newspapers such as the Daily Mirror, Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph. The Guardian and Observer consistently use the upper case. The Independent uses an upper case for gypsies and a lower case for travellers, as do the Liberal Democrats.
Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup commented: “This is not just a linguistic spat. Language is used to dictate the terms of political debate. The otherwise perfectly reasonable use of upper case bolsters the maintenance of racial divisiveness. The continued use by mainstream politicians and journalists of the lower case helps to limit this development in an already polarised society of fragmenting ‘communities’. Tony Blair and Margaret Beckett may have instinctively understood this but political correctness demands that they fall in line with the language police. How long before everyone is compelled to do so?“
Ends
Gypsy Council http://www.thegypsycouncil.org/ under Respect
Commission for Racial Equality Guidance for Journalists http://www.cre.gov.uk/media/guidetj.html
Tony Blair highlights the Tories' opportunistic campaign 21 March 2005
http://www.labour.org.uk/ac2004news?ux_news_id=tbcamp
Beckett attacks "opportunistic Howard" 21 March 2005
http://www.labour.org.uk/ac2004news?ux_news_id=opportunistichoward
Note to editors:
The website http://www.libertyandlawjournal.blogspot.com/ is a vital resource for journalists dealing with race relations in the United Kingdom. This material can also be found on http://www.libertyandlaw.co.uk/
In two of its latest election press releases Tony Blair and Margaret Beckett have shown an alleged lack of respect to gypsies by using the lower case “gypsies” to refer to them despite the pleas of the Gypsy Council and the Commission for Racial Equality’s guidance “Listen to the people you are writing about”.
The Gypsy Council states: “The Gypsy people are a recognised ethnic group and when writing about us, please show us the same respect as other ethnic and racial groups by spelling our name with a capital not a small g.”
The CRE states: “The terms Traveller(s), Gypsy or Irish Traveller should be used with initial capital letters.”
Both press releases were put out on Monday 21 March. After being informed of their perceived offensiveness the next day by civil liberties group Liberty and Law the Labour Party website has not corrected the language used.
Labour’s use of the terminology came in two attacks on Conservative party leader Michael Howard for raising the issue of gypsies in his campaign in what they argued was an opportunistic manner.
Tony Blair and Margaret Beckett are not alone in their continued use of the lower case. Hansard ignores the CRE advice in its reports as does the Press Association and newspapers such as the Daily Mirror, Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph. The Guardian and Observer consistently use the upper case. The Independent uses an upper case for gypsies and a lower case for travellers, as do the Liberal Democrats.
Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup commented: “This is not just a linguistic spat. Language is used to dictate the terms of political debate. The otherwise perfectly reasonable use of upper case bolsters the maintenance of racial divisiveness. The continued use by mainstream politicians and journalists of the lower case helps to limit this development in an already polarised society of fragmenting ‘communities’. Tony Blair and Margaret Beckett may have instinctively understood this but political correctness demands that they fall in line with the language police. How long before everyone is compelled to do so?“
Ends
Gypsy Council http://www.thegypsycouncil.org/ under Respect
Commission for Racial Equality Guidance for Journalists http://www.cre.gov.uk/media/guidetj.html
Tony Blair highlights the Tories' opportunistic campaign 21 March 2005
http://www.labour.org.uk/ac2004news?ux_news_id=tbcamp
Beckett attacks "opportunistic Howard" 21 March 2005
http://www.labour.org.uk/ac2004news?ux_news_id=opportunistichoward
Note to editors:
The website http://www.libertyandlawjournal.blogspot.com/ is a vital resource for journalists dealing with race relations in the United Kingdom. This material can also be found on http://www.libertyandlaw.co.uk/
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
School exclusions: the real story and the hidden agenda
Gerald Hartup
The Daily Telegraph ran a story, Some schools ‘institutionally racist’ [21 March 2005], reporting yet another government funded account revealing black Caribbean pupils excluded from schools at over three times the rate of white pupils; a hardy misleading perennial from the race relations boys.
The report could have revealed white students are respectively six times, and four times more likely to be excluded than Chinese and Indian youngsters, twice as likely as Bangladeshis, 50% more than Pakistani pupils and equally as likely as Black Africans.
It could have shown that black Caribbean youngsters were six times more likely to be excluded than Bangladeshis, twelve times more likely than Indian pupils and a whopping 18 times more likely than Chinese. But the comparison had to be made with white students and white students only because otherwise grave doubts would inevitably be raised about the very existence of ‘institutional racism’; a notion the report was clearly designed to buttress.
The study Minority ethnic exclusions and the Race Relations [Amendment] Act 2000, despite its title, concentrated entirely on black exclusions ignoring the comparatively favourable experience of other minorities. This let it avoid a fact clearly unpalatable to the government and the race relations industry that all our other main ethnic minorities have a better exclusion record than white pupils and that if institutional racism exists whites are victims too.
The academics involved in the research could not ignore these inconvenient facts entirely but did manage to ward them off until page 35 of their main report and keep them out of the six page summary that busy journalists could be expected to read.
Should white parents be worried about the ‘institutional racism’ that the data reveals? Of course not. It merely reflects the bad behaviour of a tiny minority of white children [12 per thousand] compared to an even tinier minority of ethnic minority children. Black Caribbean parents whose children have an exclusion rate of 37 per thousand should take a similar view. Incidentally, Black African children at 12 per thousand do no worse than white children. Behaviour is the problem.
Black parents should not be conned by the politically correct into making schools a discipline and so learning free area. It is their children who disproportionately suffer the consequences of racially obsessed educational researchers and activists. They should understand that the politicians responsible for enforcing their theories, whether black or white, always get their children into good schools.
All voters however should be concerned with the discriminatory genesis of this research study. According to its authors the Race Relations Amendment Act [2000] places “duties on organisations as from April 2002, to examine their practice and consider adjusting them if they had negative effects on minority ethnic groups.” In fact the Act itself is not racially discriminatory and whites are theoretically protected by it too but the authors’ understanding of the Act describes accurately the approach taken to it by them, by LEAs and by the government. Any ‘negative effects’ on whites can be safely ignored. After all who will dare protest?
If they were genuinely to take the concept of ‘institutional racism’ of schools seriously the authors would be recommending urgent action to allow white pupils to perform as well as, say, Indian youngsters. If they were successful total permanent exclusions of 9,270 in England and Wales of which white children make up 6,880 could be cut to just 4,110. But would that approach win any contracts? Would that approach fit in with the ideology enforced on teachers by our political commissars?
gerald.hartup@btopenworld.com
Some schools ‘institutionally racist’ Daily Telegraph, 21 March 2005 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/03/21/nrace21.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/03/21/ixportal.html
Minority ethnic exclusions and the Race Relations [Amendment] Act 2000, February 2005 Brief No: RB616 http://www.dfes.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RB616.pdf
Minority ethnic exclusions and the Race Relations [Amendment] Act 2000, February 2005 Report No: RB616 http://www.dfes.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RR616.pdf
Number of Permanent Exclusions by Ethnic Group 2002/03
By Ethnic Group, Number of exclusions, % of the ethnic group
White 6,880 0.12, White British 6,690 0.12, Irish 30 0.1,
Traveller of Irish heritage 20 , 0.51, Gypsy/Roma 20 0.36, Any other White background 130 0.09, Mixed 380 0.22, White and Black Caribbean 180 0.29, White and Black African 40 0.26, White and Asian 40 0.11, Any other Mixed background 120 0.2, Asian 250 0.06, Indian 50 0.03, Pakistani 130 0.08, Bangladeshi 40 0.06, Any other Asian background 20 0.04, Black 590 0.25,
Black Caribbean 360 0.37, Black African 130 0.12, Any other Black background 90 0.32,
Chinese 0.02, Any other ethnic group 70 0.12, Unclassified 1110, All pupils 9270 0.13
Source: Table 4.1 Minority ethnic exclusions and the Race Relations [Amendment] Act 2000, Report No: RB616
Gerald Hartup
The Daily Telegraph ran a story, Some schools ‘institutionally racist’ [21 March 2005], reporting yet another government funded account revealing black Caribbean pupils excluded from schools at over three times the rate of white pupils; a hardy misleading perennial from the race relations boys.
The report could have revealed white students are respectively six times, and four times more likely to be excluded than Chinese and Indian youngsters, twice as likely as Bangladeshis, 50% more than Pakistani pupils and equally as likely as Black Africans.
It could have shown that black Caribbean youngsters were six times more likely to be excluded than Bangladeshis, twelve times more likely than Indian pupils and a whopping 18 times more likely than Chinese. But the comparison had to be made with white students and white students only because otherwise grave doubts would inevitably be raised about the very existence of ‘institutional racism’; a notion the report was clearly designed to buttress.
The study Minority ethnic exclusions and the Race Relations [Amendment] Act 2000, despite its title, concentrated entirely on black exclusions ignoring the comparatively favourable experience of other minorities. This let it avoid a fact clearly unpalatable to the government and the race relations industry that all our other main ethnic minorities have a better exclusion record than white pupils and that if institutional racism exists whites are victims too.
The academics involved in the research could not ignore these inconvenient facts entirely but did manage to ward them off until page 35 of their main report and keep them out of the six page summary that busy journalists could be expected to read.
Should white parents be worried about the ‘institutional racism’ that the data reveals? Of course not. It merely reflects the bad behaviour of a tiny minority of white children [12 per thousand] compared to an even tinier minority of ethnic minority children. Black Caribbean parents whose children have an exclusion rate of 37 per thousand should take a similar view. Incidentally, Black African children at 12 per thousand do no worse than white children. Behaviour is the problem.
Black parents should not be conned by the politically correct into making schools a discipline and so learning free area. It is their children who disproportionately suffer the consequences of racially obsessed educational researchers and activists. They should understand that the politicians responsible for enforcing their theories, whether black or white, always get their children into good schools.
All voters however should be concerned with the discriminatory genesis of this research study. According to its authors the Race Relations Amendment Act [2000] places “duties on organisations as from April 2002, to examine their practice and consider adjusting them if they had negative effects on minority ethnic groups.” In fact the Act itself is not racially discriminatory and whites are theoretically protected by it too but the authors’ understanding of the Act describes accurately the approach taken to it by them, by LEAs and by the government. Any ‘negative effects’ on whites can be safely ignored. After all who will dare protest?
If they were genuinely to take the concept of ‘institutional racism’ of schools seriously the authors would be recommending urgent action to allow white pupils to perform as well as, say, Indian youngsters. If they were successful total permanent exclusions of 9,270 in England and Wales of which white children make up 6,880 could be cut to just 4,110. But would that approach win any contracts? Would that approach fit in with the ideology enforced on teachers by our political commissars?
gerald.hartup@btopenworld.com
Some schools ‘institutionally racist’ Daily Telegraph, 21 March 2005 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/03/21/nrace21.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/03/21/ixportal.html
Minority ethnic exclusions and the Race Relations [Amendment] Act 2000, February 2005 Brief No: RB616 http://www.dfes.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RB616.pdf
Minority ethnic exclusions and the Race Relations [Amendment] Act 2000, February 2005 Report No: RB616 http://www.dfes.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RR616.pdf
Number of Permanent Exclusions by Ethnic Group 2002/03
By Ethnic Group, Number of exclusions, % of the ethnic group
White 6,880 0.12, White British 6,690 0.12, Irish 30 0.1,
Traveller of Irish heritage 20 , 0.51, Gypsy/Roma 20 0.36, Any other White background 130 0.09, Mixed 380 0.22, White and Black Caribbean 180 0.29, White and Black African 40 0.26, White and Asian 40 0.11, Any other Mixed background 120 0.2, Asian 250 0.06, Indian 50 0.03, Pakistani 130 0.08, Bangladeshi 40 0.06, Any other Asian background 20 0.04, Black 590 0.25,
Black Caribbean 360 0.37, Black African 130 0.12, Any other Black background 90 0.32,
Chinese 0.02, Any other ethnic group 70 0.12, Unclassified 1110, All pupils 9270 0.13
Source: Table 4.1 Minority ethnic exclusions and the Race Relations [Amendment] Act 2000, Report No: RB616
Sunday, March 20, 2005
Labour leader reported to Standards Board over bid to sack BNP care worker
Civil liberties group Liberty and Law has reported a senior Leeds councillor to the Standards Board for England over a campaign to dismiss a BNP care worker from her job because of her party affiliation.
Liberty and Law has asked the Board to investigate whether the Councillor Keith Wakefield the leader of the Labour group has failed in his duty to:
(a) promote equality by not discriminating unlawfully against any person;(b) treat others with respect; and(c) not do anything which compromises or which is likely to compromise the impartiality of those who work for, or on behalf of, the authority.
as required by the Board’s code of practice.
Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup explained :“The BNP is an extremely unpleasant political party whose views are rejected by the vast majority of British people. It is however a lawful political party which people are entitled to join, stand for in elections and to vote for under our system of democracy. It is appropriate to condemn their policies and their actions and to challenge these as forcefully as necessary to ensure they remain marginal to British political life.
“BNP supporters however have the same rights to protection from harassment as the most upstanding and meritorious citizens amongst us. Among these rights are the same rights to employment as everyone else in the absence of any evidence that they present a threat to the people they work with or work for. To attempt remove those rights in the absence of a clear and present danger is an affront to freedom both theirs and ours.”
The case involves care worker, Mrs Julie Day who works for a company providing community care to Leeds City Council. Mrs Day is a BNP activist who is standing for election in the Leeds West constituency.
As a result of complaints about her employment with Allied Healthcare, the parent company of Yorkshire Careline, which provides services for Leeds City Council, a special audit of her work was carried out. Leeds Council's executive board member for social services Cllr Peter Harrand told the Yorkshire Post Today: ”As we requested, Allied Healthcare sent out questionnaires to all the service users and they are content with the service they are receiving. There have been no complaints - everybody is satisfied with the service they have received from this lady. Until there is anything to the contrary, things will continue as they are. On that basis, we will not be taking any further action."
There appears to have been no justification whatsoever for the extraordinary audit of Mrs Day’s work other than her association with the British National Party. Mrs Day claims to have been doing this work and similar work for sixteen years.
However, even after the audit found a positive response to the work of this woman Councillor Keith Wakefield the leader of the Labour Party opposition group is quoted in Yorkshire Post Today [electronic version 18 March] stating, "I am very disappointed, indeed angry that the ruling administration does not appear to have taken this issue very seriously. As I have said before, I have grave concerns that someone with such extreme political views is working with some of the most vulnerable members of society. Surely, if the individual concerned is not in the direct employment of the council, discussions could have been held with the agency to find her a less frontline role. I will be raising this matter with the leader of the council as a matter of urgency."
Liberty and Law believes that Cllr Wakefield’s intervention could possibly allow Mrs Day’s employer to sack her on grounds similar to that used to sack Bradford BNP councillor Arthur Redfearn who was legally sacked by West Yorkshire Transport Services on health and safety grounds. The company argued successfully that it feared there might be attacks on its buses or on Cllr Redfearn himself once the association with the far-right party was known.
In an earlier report 10 May Yorkshire Post Today [electronic version] Cllr Wakefield is reported as “shocked that Mrs Day was working on a Leeds City Council contract and demanded every pressure was put on the company to end her employment.” He is quoted in the article as saying, "I have very strong reservations about this. If she's working in the care area with her political views I would want council officers to look at the contract to see if there is something we can do to make sure people like this are not employed. I find it staggering she's working in care with her political views. I want every pressure to be put on this company as it is totally inappropriate that someone responsible for care in the community should employ someone who has those kind of views towards different races and ethnic groups."
Liberty and Law believes Cllr Wakefield’s continued intervention in her employment with the publicity that has resulted puts Mrs Day’s continued employment and her personal safety at risk and that his action may constitute unlawful harassment of this woman.
Ends
· Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup prevented the use of a colour bar in the appointment of a curator at Bristol art gallery Arnolfini in 2004, advising the Commission for Racial Equality on the correct application of the law. The Arnolfini experience helped the CRE revise its advice to companies contained in the current edition of its magazine Connexions.
· He initiated the prosecution of Cheltenham racist Bill Galbraith in 1990 over his harassment of black parliamentary candidate John [subsequently Lord] Taylor.
· The website www.libertyandlawjournal.blogspot.com is a vital resource for journalists dealing with race relations in the United Kingdom. This material can also be found on www.libertyandlaw.co.uk
Yorkshire Post Today links
http://www.ypn.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=55&ArticleID=967084
http://www.ypn.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=55&ArticleID=974980
Civil liberties group Liberty and Law has reported a senior Leeds councillor to the Standards Board for England over a campaign to dismiss a BNP care worker from her job because of her party affiliation.
Liberty and Law has asked the Board to investigate whether the Councillor Keith Wakefield the leader of the Labour group has failed in his duty to:
(a) promote equality by not discriminating unlawfully against any person;(b) treat others with respect; and(c) not do anything which compromises or which is likely to compromise the impartiality of those who work for, or on behalf of, the authority.
as required by the Board’s code of practice.
Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup explained :“The BNP is an extremely unpleasant political party whose views are rejected by the vast majority of British people. It is however a lawful political party which people are entitled to join, stand for in elections and to vote for under our system of democracy. It is appropriate to condemn their policies and their actions and to challenge these as forcefully as necessary to ensure they remain marginal to British political life.
“BNP supporters however have the same rights to protection from harassment as the most upstanding and meritorious citizens amongst us. Among these rights are the same rights to employment as everyone else in the absence of any evidence that they present a threat to the people they work with or work for. To attempt remove those rights in the absence of a clear and present danger is an affront to freedom both theirs and ours.”
The case involves care worker, Mrs Julie Day who works for a company providing community care to Leeds City Council. Mrs Day is a BNP activist who is standing for election in the Leeds West constituency.
As a result of complaints about her employment with Allied Healthcare, the parent company of Yorkshire Careline, which provides services for Leeds City Council, a special audit of her work was carried out. Leeds Council's executive board member for social services Cllr Peter Harrand told the Yorkshire Post Today: ”As we requested, Allied Healthcare sent out questionnaires to all the service users and they are content with the service they are receiving. There have been no complaints - everybody is satisfied with the service they have received from this lady. Until there is anything to the contrary, things will continue as they are. On that basis, we will not be taking any further action."
There appears to have been no justification whatsoever for the extraordinary audit of Mrs Day’s work other than her association with the British National Party. Mrs Day claims to have been doing this work and similar work for sixteen years.
However, even after the audit found a positive response to the work of this woman Councillor Keith Wakefield the leader of the Labour Party opposition group is quoted in Yorkshire Post Today [electronic version 18 March] stating, "I am very disappointed, indeed angry that the ruling administration does not appear to have taken this issue very seriously. As I have said before, I have grave concerns that someone with such extreme political views is working with some of the most vulnerable members of society. Surely, if the individual concerned is not in the direct employment of the council, discussions could have been held with the agency to find her a less frontline role. I will be raising this matter with the leader of the council as a matter of urgency."
Liberty and Law believes that Cllr Wakefield’s intervention could possibly allow Mrs Day’s employer to sack her on grounds similar to that used to sack Bradford BNP councillor Arthur Redfearn who was legally sacked by West Yorkshire Transport Services on health and safety grounds. The company argued successfully that it feared there might be attacks on its buses or on Cllr Redfearn himself once the association with the far-right party was known.
In an earlier report 10 May Yorkshire Post Today [electronic version] Cllr Wakefield is reported as “shocked that Mrs Day was working on a Leeds City Council contract and demanded every pressure was put on the company to end her employment.” He is quoted in the article as saying, "I have very strong reservations about this. If she's working in the care area with her political views I would want council officers to look at the contract to see if there is something we can do to make sure people like this are not employed. I find it staggering she's working in care with her political views. I want every pressure to be put on this company as it is totally inappropriate that someone responsible for care in the community should employ someone who has those kind of views towards different races and ethnic groups."
Liberty and Law believes Cllr Wakefield’s continued intervention in her employment with the publicity that has resulted puts Mrs Day’s continued employment and her personal safety at risk and that his action may constitute unlawful harassment of this woman.
Ends
· Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup prevented the use of a colour bar in the appointment of a curator at Bristol art gallery Arnolfini in 2004, advising the Commission for Racial Equality on the correct application of the law. The Arnolfini experience helped the CRE revise its advice to companies contained in the current edition of its magazine Connexions.
· He initiated the prosecution of Cheltenham racist Bill Galbraith in 1990 over his harassment of black parliamentary candidate John [subsequently Lord] Taylor.
· The website www.libertyandlawjournal.blogspot.com is a vital resource for journalists dealing with race relations in the United Kingdom. This material can also be found on www.libertyandlaw.co.uk
Yorkshire Post Today links
http://www.ypn.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=55&ArticleID=967084
http://www.ypn.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=55&ArticleID=974980
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
Operation Black Vote’s colour bar demand for Brent South condemned by civil liberties group
Operation Black Vote’s [OBV] call for the Labour Party to introduce a hybrid Black and Minority Ethnic [BME] and women shortlist at the forthcoming election in Brent South has been roundly condemned by civil liberties group Liberty and Law as a disgraceful attempt to introduce the colour bar into British politics.
OBV’s demand comes with the announcement of Brent South MP and cabinet minister Paul Boateng’s proposed move to South Africa after the general election as Britain’s ambassador.
Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup said: “When Paul Boateng was first elected in 1987 he memorably declared:’Today Brent South. Tomorrow Soweto.’ If OBV have their way history will be reversed with a colour bar introduced to Brent after its dismantling in Soweto.”
Liberty and Law has also criticised Commission for Racial Equality chair Trevor Phillips for his interference in the recent selection process of the Labour candidate for West Ham during which he gave his support for the creation of all black shortlists.
Liberty and Law argues that the action of groups like OBV and the CRE give aid and comfort to the British National Party and is absolutely counter productive to the real interests of Britain’s ethnic minorities.
Liberty and Law condemns the encouragement of communitarianism by self-interested unrepresentative groups which politicians appear frightened to confront but ready to appease.
Liberty and Law will seek the support of Paul Boateng to reject racial selection of his parliamentary successor and ensure that all citizens continue to have the right to compete for every parliamentary seat in the country whatever their colour.
Liberty and Law is also contacting Mayor Livingstone’s office to ask him to make clear his opposition to this latest demand by OBV and for him to explain to them that Londoners will not stand for the imposition of a colour bar.
Ends
Further information: Gerald Hartup
Liberty and Law, Unit 384, 78 Marylebone High Street,
London W1U 5AP Tel: 020 7928 7325 Fax: 020 7207 3425 gerald.hartup@btopenworld.com
http://www.libertyandlaw.co.uk/ http://www.libertyandlawjounal.blogspot.com/
Operation Black Vote’s [OBV] call for the Labour Party to introduce a hybrid Black and Minority Ethnic [BME] and women shortlist at the forthcoming election in Brent South has been roundly condemned by civil liberties group Liberty and Law as a disgraceful attempt to introduce the colour bar into British politics.
OBV’s demand comes with the announcement of Brent South MP and cabinet minister Paul Boateng’s proposed move to South Africa after the general election as Britain’s ambassador.
Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup said: “When Paul Boateng was first elected in 1987 he memorably declared:’Today Brent South. Tomorrow Soweto.’ If OBV have their way history will be reversed with a colour bar introduced to Brent after its dismantling in Soweto.”
Liberty and Law has also criticised Commission for Racial Equality chair Trevor Phillips for his interference in the recent selection process of the Labour candidate for West Ham during which he gave his support for the creation of all black shortlists.
Liberty and Law argues that the action of groups like OBV and the CRE give aid and comfort to the British National Party and is absolutely counter productive to the real interests of Britain’s ethnic minorities.
Liberty and Law condemns the encouragement of communitarianism by self-interested unrepresentative groups which politicians appear frightened to confront but ready to appease.
Liberty and Law will seek the support of Paul Boateng to reject racial selection of his parliamentary successor and ensure that all citizens continue to have the right to compete for every parliamentary seat in the country whatever their colour.
Liberty and Law is also contacting Mayor Livingstone’s office to ask him to make clear his opposition to this latest demand by OBV and for him to explain to them that Londoners will not stand for the imposition of a colour bar.
Ends
Further information: Gerald Hartup
Liberty and Law, Unit 384, 78 Marylebone High Street,
London W1U 5AP Tel: 020 7928 7325 Fax: 020 7207 3425 gerald.hartup@btopenworld.com
http://www.libertyandlaw.co.uk/ http://www.libertyandlawjounal.blogspot.com/
Tuesday, March 08, 2005
CRE still confused and confusing over colour bar
In the current issue of its magazine Connexions the Commission for Racial Equality [CRE] uses the case of an attempted colour bar at Bristol’s Arnolfini Gallery to illustrate the problems of engaging in positive discrimination. [Winter 2004/2005 Take care when being positive]
The CRE’s head of legal policy explains: “In Spring 2004, the Arnolfini Gallery in Bristol advertised a fellowship for a Senior Curator. The post was open only to Black, Asian and Caribbean applicants, and this triggered hostile coverage in some media. It also resulted in complaints to the CRE, even though the advertisement made it clear that the Gallery was taking positive action to tackle the under-representation of these groups among senior curators. On the CRE’s advice, the Gallery withdrew the advertisement and reconsidered the post.”
The CRE told Liberty and Law on 20 July that Arnolfini “has given a signed undertaking to comply with the advertising provisions of the Race Relations Act and have also indicated their intention to review the programme for trainee curators.”
Initially the CRE gave a mistaken interpretation of the law to the media. A spokesman said the advertisement did not appear to breach guidelines set out in the Race Relations Act and that “There are exceptions in the Act for the training and apprenticeship opportunities and I believe that is what the post is offering.”
Fortunately Arnolfini agreed to freeze the position after Liberty and Law contacted them pending a resolution of its complaint to the CRE. This gave the CRE time to correct their original misunderstanding of the law.
The Arnolfini case illustrates two main problems relating to the CRE’s policing of the Race Relations Act
- the CRE fails to recommend that the advertising media always ask for the necessary evidence that the racially discriminatory advertisements are within the law. At a stroke this would force what the CRE calls “well meaning employers and training providers” to provide objective justification for any colour bars they wish to operate. The CRE continues to fail to inform the advertising media of their responsibilities.
- the CRE is responsible for appalling delays between the receipt of complaints and their disposal. In the case of Arnolfini what should have taken 48 hours to resolve was spun out to take over three months. This results in too many cases where the CRE’s delay allows colour bar appointments to be made that are retrospectively determined to be contrary to the Race Relations Act but are not then reversed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)