Livingstone reported to Standards Board over “chiselling little crook” attack on U.S ambassador
Civil liberties group Liberty and Law has reported London mayor Ken Livingstone to the Standards Board [11.00am] for what it believes to be a breach of the code governing the conduct of the Greater London Authority {GLA] over the way he has conducted his dispute with embassies based in London over the Congestion Charge because of their refusal to pay what he calls a "charge" and what they call a tax.
Liberty and Law believes that Mr Livingstone is in breach of the Standard board's code’s requirement that members of the GLA must - treat others with respect; that they should not do anything which compromises or which is likely to compromise the impartiality of those who work for, or on behalf of, the authority; and also that a member must not in his official capacity, or any other circumstance, conduct himself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing his office or authority into disrepute.
In his letter to the Standards Board Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup drew attention to reports in national newspapers about the affair and how it was viewed. The Daily Mirror reports what has happened 28 March as:
Ken Livingstone: Us envoy “A chiseling [sic] little crook
Ken road toll fury at envoy
It started: Ken Livingstone yesterday branded a top American diplomat a “chiseling [sic] little crook for refusing to pay congestion charges.
The Guardian reported the affair 28 March: Livingstone under fire for likening US ambassador to crook
Ken Livingstone's colourful vocabulary landed him in more hot water yesterday when he likened the US ambassador in London to a "chiselling little crook".
The mayor of London criticised Robert Tuttle while bemoaning the US embassy's insistence that its diplomatic staff should not pay the congestion charge because they view it as a tax. Embassies are exempt from all local tax under the 1961 Vienna convention.
The Independent reported jthe event 28 March:
'A little crook': Ken's undiplomatic name for US ambassador
The Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, launched an attack on the US Ambassador yesterday, accusing him of being a "chiselling little crook".
Mr Livingstone, who was spared a suspension last month after being accused of anti-semitism, also likened Robert Tuttle to a car salesman.
... speaking at the unveiling of the new Wembley Park station yesterday, Mr Livingstone queried the motivation for the decision to stop making the payments. He said: "This new ambassador is a car salesman and an ally of President Bush. This is clearly a political decision. When British troops are putting their lives on the line for American foreign policy it would be quite nice if they paid the congestion charge," he said. "We will find a way of getting them into court either here or in America. We are not going to have them evade their responsibilities."
Mr Hartup commented: "Although like Mr Livingstone we believe the Standards Board should be abolished and that electorates should determine the suitability or otherwise of their representatives, until that position is reached it is important to ensure that even the most dignified and progressive of politicians is subject to the same rules as more humble office holders."
Sunday, March 26, 2006
Margaret Hodge blames Commuters for London unemployment
Speaking at Saturday’s packed State of Race Equality in London Conference Minister of State for Employment and Welfare Reform Margaret Hodge provided what may prove for the government an easy solution to London’s unemployment problem. There would be enough jobs for all Londoners she explained except for the out of town commuters who she claimed snap up 3 out of every ten jobs that could otherwise go to London residents.
One of these job snatching out of towners speaking at the conference was Transport for London supremo Peter Hendy, CBE who earns £300,000 a year commuting from Bath. He told Liberty and Law Journal that his salary was “outrageous” but that he would be able to earn more in the private sector [no doubt true]. He may have to under a Hodge regime unless he gets a second home to legitimise his employment in the capital.
A valuable contributor in the morning was Rose Fitzpatrick who explained her role as Deputy Assistant Commissioner was of the Metropolitan Police Service was to make the Metropolitan Police Service an employer of choice for black and minority ethnic people. She reported that minorities in the Service had increased by 82% since 2002 – but from a very low base. BME officers now constituted 7.4% and were targeted to reach 7.7% this year. She explained that support was now being given to BME individuals before, during and after the application stage and that 43% of applications were now coming from minorities.
The Mayor Ken Livingstone gave a typically brilliant speech in which he reprised to an appreciative audience how England’s colonial record in Ireland made them worse than the Nazis and explained how the problems in Ireland could be resolved were it not for Ian Paisley and his knuckleheads.
Conference MC Lee Jasper the GLA’s Director of Equalities and Policing had optimistically told delegates just before lunch “Don’t forget the London Philharmonic Orchestra will play requests for you. They will never have seen so many black people. You can all go out and shock them. Asking for Reggae tunes”. As it happens the orchestra had finished its performance and delegates instead queued stoically for a meal for over an hour because Lee’s catering ran out and he had to send off to Marks and Spencer’s for sandwiches.
In the final session the delegates showed a surprising commitment to ignore equal opportunities by agreeing with a workshop report that the new boss of the Commission for Equalities and Human Rights had to be a black woman.
Speaking at Saturday’s packed State of Race Equality in London Conference Minister of State for Employment and Welfare Reform Margaret Hodge provided what may prove for the government an easy solution to London’s unemployment problem. There would be enough jobs for all Londoners she explained except for the out of town commuters who she claimed snap up 3 out of every ten jobs that could otherwise go to London residents.
One of these job snatching out of towners speaking at the conference was Transport for London supremo Peter Hendy, CBE who earns £300,000 a year commuting from Bath. He told Liberty and Law Journal that his salary was “outrageous” but that he would be able to earn more in the private sector [no doubt true]. He may have to under a Hodge regime unless he gets a second home to legitimise his employment in the capital.
A valuable contributor in the morning was Rose Fitzpatrick who explained her role as Deputy Assistant Commissioner was of the Metropolitan Police Service was to make the Metropolitan Police Service an employer of choice for black and minority ethnic people. She reported that minorities in the Service had increased by 82% since 2002 – but from a very low base. BME officers now constituted 7.4% and were targeted to reach 7.7% this year. She explained that support was now being given to BME individuals before, during and after the application stage and that 43% of applications were now coming from minorities.
The Mayor Ken Livingstone gave a typically brilliant speech in which he reprised to an appreciative audience how England’s colonial record in Ireland made them worse than the Nazis and explained how the problems in Ireland could be resolved were it not for Ian Paisley and his knuckleheads.
Conference MC Lee Jasper the GLA’s Director of Equalities and Policing had optimistically told delegates just before lunch “Don’t forget the London Philharmonic Orchestra will play requests for you. They will never have seen so many black people. You can all go out and shock them. Asking for Reggae tunes”. As it happens the orchestra had finished its performance and delegates instead queued stoically for a meal for over an hour because Lee’s catering ran out and he had to send off to Marks and Spencer’s for sandwiches.
In the final session the delegates showed a surprising commitment to ignore equal opportunities by agreeing with a workshop report that the new boss of the Commission for Equalities and Human Rights had to be a black woman.
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
Police drop race and sexually discriminatory recruitment scheme after three months pressure by civil liberties group
Avon and Somerset Police Service today caved in over their attempt to discriminate against the employment of white males following three months of pressure from civil liberties group Liberty and Law.
Director Gerald Hartup had warned them that their positive action in randomly deselecting white males to bring about a more diverse workforce was in breach of the Race Relations and Sex Discrimination Acts.
He reported the Service to the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission on November 29 and also to the Information Commission.
Mr Hartup commented on the decision:
“I obviously welcome the decision of the Chief Constable to drop the scheme but am disappointed that it took him so long to do so. I am also concerned that he did so without the benefit of any input from either the CRE or the EOC whose investigations have been extremely dilatory.”
“I had asked the Chief Constable to suspend the recruitment process pending the advice of these two bodies but unfortunately he refused to do this. He deserves credit, however, for acting on his own initiative."
“I warned both the CRE and the EOC that it would be outrageous if their investigations took so long that in the event they determined that the policy breached employment law that the racially and sexually discriminatory appointments would stand. I asked them to request that Avon and Somerset suspend the recruitment process pending their investigations but they refused to do so."
“It is of course important that the white male candidates who were rejected on racial grounds are not disadvantaged and this can be achieved provided no appointments have yet been made.”
He continued: “It is important that these equal opportunities bodies get their acts together if they are to have any credibility with the public. We have the right to demand that they now act speedily to investigate and to come to a conclusion about the schemes of the Metropolitan Police Service and Gloucestershire Police Service.”
“The lesson to be learned from this fiasco is that public authorities must trust the public and not try to sneak through their plans. Local newspapers deserve great credit for their determination in reporting this abuse of power.”
A CRE spokesperson commented:
"What this case highlights is the difficulties, employers, like police forces, face when trying to tackle the problem of under-representation within their workforces. There is a need for a public debate that looks at how other measures may be used to help authorities to tackle under representation across all elements of discrimination. In the meantime, we will encourage police forces to use every legal step available to them to improve representation".
An EOC spokeswoman was able to make no comment because its investigation was still ongoing
Avon and Somerset Police Service today caved in over their attempt to discriminate against the employment of white males following three months of pressure from civil liberties group Liberty and Law.
Director Gerald Hartup had warned them that their positive action in randomly deselecting white males to bring about a more diverse workforce was in breach of the Race Relations and Sex Discrimination Acts.
He reported the Service to the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission on November 29 and also to the Information Commission.
Mr Hartup commented on the decision:
“I obviously welcome the decision of the Chief Constable to drop the scheme but am disappointed that it took him so long to do so. I am also concerned that he did so without the benefit of any input from either the CRE or the EOC whose investigations have been extremely dilatory.”
“I had asked the Chief Constable to suspend the recruitment process pending the advice of these two bodies but unfortunately he refused to do this. He deserves credit, however, for acting on his own initiative."
“I warned both the CRE and the EOC that it would be outrageous if their investigations took so long that in the event they determined that the policy breached employment law that the racially and sexually discriminatory appointments would stand. I asked them to request that Avon and Somerset suspend the recruitment process pending their investigations but they refused to do so."
“It is of course important that the white male candidates who were rejected on racial grounds are not disadvantaged and this can be achieved provided no appointments have yet been made.”
He continued: “It is important that these equal opportunities bodies get their acts together if they are to have any credibility with the public. We have the right to demand that they now act speedily to investigate and to come to a conclusion about the schemes of the Metropolitan Police Service and Gloucestershire Police Service.”
“The lesson to be learned from this fiasco is that public authorities must trust the public and not try to sneak through their plans. Local newspapers deserve great credit for their determination in reporting this abuse of power.”
A CRE spokesperson commented:
"What this case highlights is the difficulties, employers, like police forces, face when trying to tackle the problem of under-representation within their workforces. There is a need for a public debate that looks at how other measures may be used to help authorities to tackle under representation across all elements of discrimination. In the meantime, we will encourage police forces to use every legal step available to them to improve representation".
An EOC spokeswoman was able to make no comment because its investigation was still ongoing
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Media campaign to knight Trevor Phillips now looks unstoppable
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 thought to have been thwarted by British civil liberties group Liberty and Law has gained further momentum.
It was thought that The Guardian at least had lost its nerve on 19 August coming clean about their man’s real title in Corrections and Clarifications and that with this setback the campaign would run into the sand.
A Google search In August 2005 for “Sir Trevor Phillips” gave 66 results. During his u-turn on multiculturalism on ITV’s Jonathon Dimbleby programme on 26 February his new title was launched giving it a massive boost. There are now 125 such links and the new title is now firmly entrenched with the BBC, ITN. Channel 4 News, Daily Telegraph, The Times and Scotsman.
The Guardian thought it was safe to return to the campaign on 27 February but its Corrections and Clarifications fought back bravely today reinstating Mr Phillips as a commoner [although it did continue to refer to him as the “chairman” rather than chair of the CRE].
Liberty and Law director Sir Gerald Hartup has now admitted his failure. “It’s no good, I’ve done my best. The position must now be regularized and Mr Phillips given a knighthood.”
It is thought that Mr Phillips, for whom only a peerage serves any practical purpose, is annoyed by the clumsiness of his cheerleaders.
1445 update The BBC's website confirms that it is now seeking to destroy all use of the false title in its reports.
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 thought to have been thwarted by British civil liberties group Liberty and Law has gained further momentum.
It was thought that The Guardian at least had lost its nerve on 19 August coming clean about their man’s real title in Corrections and Clarifications and that with this setback the campaign would run into the sand.
A Google search In August 2005 for “Sir Trevor Phillips” gave 66 results. During his u-turn on multiculturalism on ITV’s Jonathon Dimbleby programme on 26 February his new title was launched giving it a massive boost. There are now 125 such links and the new title is now firmly entrenched with the BBC, ITN. Channel 4 News, Daily Telegraph, The Times and Scotsman.
The Guardian thought it was safe to return to the campaign on 27 February but its Corrections and Clarifications fought back bravely today reinstating Mr Phillips as a commoner [although it did continue to refer to him as the “chairman” rather than chair of the CRE].
Liberty and Law director Sir Gerald Hartup has now admitted his failure. “It’s no good, I’ve done my best. The position must now be regularized and Mr Phillips given a knighthood.”
It is thought that Mr Phillips, for whom only a peerage serves any practical purpose, is annoyed by the clumsiness of his cheerleaders.
1445 update The BBC's website confirms that it is now seeking to destroy all use of the false title in its reports.
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Gloucestershire Police reported to CRE and EOC over blacklisting white male recruits
Civil liberties group Liberty and Law has reported Gloucestershire Police to the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission for what it claims to be breaches of both the Race Relations Act and Sex Discrimination Act.
Gloucestershire Police Service, following its interpretation of these Acts, rejected 109 white male candidates at the second stage of a recruitment drive. This was part of its positive action programme to boost the number of minority ethnic personnel and women in its ranks.
The Gloucestershire Police Service in its document Positive action guidance makes the claim that “it has been approved by both the Commission for Racial Equality and the Race Relations Employment and Advisory Service.”
Liberty and Law argues that the attempt by Gloucestershire Police Service to stretch the clear meaning of legislation so as to enable them to racially and sexually discriminate in the early stages of recruitment providing they are not caught out “discriminating in favour of a certain group at the point of final selection” is an interpretation that has no credibility.
The discovery of Gloucestershire Police Service’s policy follows Somerset and Avon Police Service’s similar action that is currently under investigation by the CRE and EOC following a complaint by Liberty and Law on 29 November last.
Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup has asked both bodies to request that Gloucestershire Police freeze the recruitment process pending their investigation of its legality.
Both bodies have also been asked to check whether similar policies are being rolled out without public debate by other police services.
Mr Hartup stated: “The public must be concerned at the time that our enforcement bodies have taken to come to a conclusion in the Somerset and Avon case. In these circumstances it is important that neither of these two police services should make their final appointments pending speeded up investigations.”
End
Further information: Gerald Hartup 020 7928 7325 or 020 7207 3425
gerald.hartupATbtopenworld.com
Civil liberties group Liberty and Law has reported Gloucestershire Police to the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission for what it claims to be breaches of both the Race Relations Act and Sex Discrimination Act.
Gloucestershire Police Service, following its interpretation of these Acts, rejected 109 white male candidates at the second stage of a recruitment drive. This was part of its positive action programme to boost the number of minority ethnic personnel and women in its ranks.
The Gloucestershire Police Service in its document Positive action guidance makes the claim that “it has been approved by both the Commission for Racial Equality and the Race Relations Employment and Advisory Service.”
Liberty and Law argues that the attempt by Gloucestershire Police Service to stretch the clear meaning of legislation so as to enable them to racially and sexually discriminate in the early stages of recruitment providing they are not caught out “discriminating in favour of a certain group at the point of final selection” is an interpretation that has no credibility.
The discovery of Gloucestershire Police Service’s policy follows Somerset and Avon Police Service’s similar action that is currently under investigation by the CRE and EOC following a complaint by Liberty and Law on 29 November last.
Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup has asked both bodies to request that Gloucestershire Police freeze the recruitment process pending their investigation of its legality.
Both bodies have also been asked to check whether similar policies are being rolled out without public debate by other police services.
Mr Hartup stated: “The public must be concerned at the time that our enforcement bodies have taken to come to a conclusion in the Somerset and Avon case. In these circumstances it is important that neither of these two police services should make their final appointments pending speeded up investigations.”
End
Further information: Gerald Hartup 020 7928 7325 or 020 7207 3425
gerald.hartupATbtopenworld.com
Sunday, January 29, 2006
Race boss plans new code of conduct to refer race hate material to the police
Difficulties about deciding what is or is not a hate crime could now be resolved by Britain’s Commission for Racial Equality [CRE]. Its chair Trevor Phillips has intervened dramatically [27 January] over race hate material by drawing up a code of conduct for him to refer material to the police under the incitement to racial hatred provisions of the Public Order Act.
Mr Phillips explained: “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, I 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.”
Nearly ready now
Substantial progress has been made since Mr Phillips announced the initiative just two years ago [27 January 2004]. On 1 September 2005, following the return from vacation of one of its key officers, the CRE was able to report that the “document has been drafted and is currently awaiting approval”. The exact current state of readiness [29 January 2006] of the document, however, is not known.
Not ‘all mouth and trousers’
Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup who has closely followed the CRE’s initiatives commented: “There are many critics of the CRE who doubt its ability to act expeditiously and who claim that the organisation is “all mouth and no trousers”. This is just one illustration of how a modestly funded organisation with a part-time chair actually delivers the goods.”
http://www.cre.gov.uk/Default.aspx.LocID-0hgnew011.RefLocID-0hg00900c001002.Lang-EN.htm
Difficulties about deciding what is or is not a hate crime could now be resolved by Britain’s Commission for Racial Equality [CRE]. Its chair Trevor Phillips has intervened dramatically [27 January] over race hate material by drawing up a code of conduct for him to refer material to the police under the incitement to racial hatred provisions of the Public Order Act.
Mr Phillips explained: “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, I 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.”
Nearly ready now
Substantial progress has been made since Mr Phillips announced the initiative just two years ago [27 January 2004]. On 1 September 2005, following the return from vacation of one of its key officers, the CRE was able to report that the “document has been drafted and is currently awaiting approval”. The exact current state of readiness [29 January 2006] of the document, however, is not known.
Not ‘all mouth and trousers’
Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup who has closely followed the CRE’s initiatives commented: “There are many critics of the CRE who doubt its ability to act expeditiously and who claim that the organisation is “all mouth and no trousers”. This is just one illustration of how a modestly funded organisation with a part-time chair actually delivers the goods.”
http://www.cre.gov.uk/Default.aspx.LocID-0hgnew011.RefLocID-0hg00900c001002.Lang-EN.htm
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
EOC cooks the books over women’s pay
Every year round about Christmas the Equal Opportunities Commission [EOC], the UK’s “sex equality” body that has successfully kept its male staff down to 20% for 30 years, comes out with phoney statistics about women’s earnings, which generally takes in the media and politicians.
So a typical headline runs Cameron will campaign to end women's pay 'scandal' Daily Telegraph, 29 December 2005.
The ‘scandal’ is created with the bogus concept of “pay gap” defined as the difference in hourly earnings between part-time women and full- time men. This is currently 38.4%. A meaningful comparison would be between part time hourly earnings of both men and women. This shows a mean pay gap of not 38.4% but just 10% and a “pay gap” for median earnings actually 3% in favour of women.
It is no good looking for this in press releases from the EOC. You won't even find there what hourly earnings of part time men are. In a welter of statistics this crucial information has been censored. [Mean £9.81, median £6.50 actually] How can you make a sensational claim if you give people all the facts? Only if you search around a bit does an obscure EOC report acknowledge that “there is no gap between the earnings of female part-time workers and male part-time workers over most of the distribution”.
A genuine equal opportunities body of course would be publicising the plight of low paid men as well as women. Since the EOC reports that “men from black and ethnic minorities are twice as likely to be in part-time employment as white men” could the reason for it marginalising men be attributed to institutional racism as well as its ingrained institutional sexism?
I wonder whether the EOC will be able to pull the same trick next Christmas.
Every year round about Christmas the Equal Opportunities Commission [EOC], the UK’s “sex equality” body that has successfully kept its male staff down to 20% for 30 years, comes out with phoney statistics about women’s earnings, which generally takes in the media and politicians.
So a typical headline runs Cameron will campaign to end women's pay 'scandal' Daily Telegraph, 29 December 2005.
The ‘scandal’ is created with the bogus concept of “pay gap” defined as the difference in hourly earnings between part-time women and full- time men. This is currently 38.4%. A meaningful comparison would be between part time hourly earnings of both men and women. This shows a mean pay gap of not 38.4% but just 10% and a “pay gap” for median earnings actually 3% in favour of women.
It is no good looking for this in press releases from the EOC. You won't even find there what hourly earnings of part time men are. In a welter of statistics this crucial information has been censored. [Mean £9.81, median £6.50 actually] How can you make a sensational claim if you give people all the facts? Only if you search around a bit does an obscure EOC report acknowledge that “there is no gap between the earnings of female part-time workers and male part-time workers over most of the distribution”.
A genuine equal opportunities body of course would be publicising the plight of low paid men as well as women. Since the EOC reports that “men from black and ethnic minorities are twice as likely to be in part-time employment as white men” could the reason for it marginalising men be attributed to institutional racism as well as its ingrained institutional sexism?
I wonder whether the EOC will be able to pull the same trick next Christmas.
Friday, December 30, 2005
Norway moves to National Socialist business controls
Ambrose Evans-Pritchard [Norway makes the most of short shelf life, Daily Telegraph 29 December] in writing about how Norway has managed its oil revenue, writes:
Even the new Left-Socialist finance minister has been a model of restraint since the overthrow of the conservatives in September, though she wants to soak the super-rich a bit harder.
Kristin Halvorsen has reserved her radicalism for gender politics. For starters, firms with fewer than 40pc women on their boards will face closure from January next year. "These companies must be forced to take on qualified women. It doesn't matter how good the men are, they are still not good enough. The men have to step aside," she said.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2005/12/29/ccnorway29.xml
Ambrose Evans-Pritchard [Norway makes the most of short shelf life, Daily Telegraph 29 December] in writing about how Norway has managed its oil revenue, writes:
Even the new Left-Socialist finance minister has been a model of restraint since the overthrow of the conservatives in September, though she wants to soak the super-rich a bit harder.
Kristin Halvorsen has reserved her radicalism for gender politics. For starters, firms with fewer than 40pc women on their boards will face closure from January next year. "These companies must be forced to take on qualified women. It doesn't matter how good the men are, they are still not good enough. The men have to step aside," she said.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2005/12/29/ccnorway29.xml
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Civil liberties group seeks challenge racially and sexually discriminatory police recruitment schemes
Civil liberties group Liberty and Law has today reported both the Metropolitan Police Service and Avon and Somerset Police Service to the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission for their recruitment schemes now blatantly discriminating against the employment of white males. It has asked them both to formally investigate the two police services.
Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup said: “The services have come up with different schemes which they think can sneak by the provisions of the Race Relations Act but they have to be challenged. The Met pretends that by selectively delaying the start of successful candidates according to their race or sex by up to three years they can avoid prosecution. It is now up to the CRE and the EOC to demonstrate that they are not above the law.
“Avon and Somerset think that they can simply randomly deselect unfortunate able bodied white males with a stroke of a felt tip pen and without penalty. Chief Constable Colin Port calls this trying “something different”. The CRE and the EOC should see it as “trying it on” and stamp down on the abuse.
“Meanwhile white males who have been discriminated against should contact the CRE and the EOC to take up their cases at employment tribunals where the Chief Constables can be made to answer for the institutional racism and sexism that they have imposed upon their respective services.”
“The CRE’s Trevor Phillips and the EOC’s Jenny Watson have the opportunity and responsibility of bringing sense and fairness to our police services.”
Ends
Positive action leads to positive results (forcewide) Avon and Somerset press release
http://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/LocalPages/NewsDetails.aspx?nsid=3564&t=4
Civil liberties group Liberty and Law has today reported both the Metropolitan Police Service and Avon and Somerset Police Service to the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission for their recruitment schemes now blatantly discriminating against the employment of white males. It has asked them both to formally investigate the two police services.
Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup said: “The services have come up with different schemes which they think can sneak by the provisions of the Race Relations Act but they have to be challenged. The Met pretends that by selectively delaying the start of successful candidates according to their race or sex by up to three years they can avoid prosecution. It is now up to the CRE and the EOC to demonstrate that they are not above the law.
“Avon and Somerset think that they can simply randomly deselect unfortunate able bodied white males with a stroke of a felt tip pen and without penalty. Chief Constable Colin Port calls this trying “something different”. The CRE and the EOC should see it as “trying it on” and stamp down on the abuse.
“Meanwhile white males who have been discriminated against should contact the CRE and the EOC to take up their cases at employment tribunals where the Chief Constables can be made to answer for the institutional racism and sexism that they have imposed upon their respective services.”
“The CRE’s Trevor Phillips and the EOC’s Jenny Watson have the opportunity and responsibility of bringing sense and fairness to our police services.”
Ends
Positive action leads to positive results (forcewide) Avon and Somerset press release
http://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/LocalPages/NewsDetails.aspx?nsid=3564&t=4
Friday, November 11, 2005
Race hate prosecutions reach record levels -
but the Crown Prosecution Service still don't even know the race of the perpetrators or victims
The Crown Prosecution Service prosecuted 4,660 defendants for racially aggravated offences between April 1, 2004 and March 31 2005 according to their report published today, a rise of 29 per cent over 2003 - 2004.
The information is contained in their Racist Incident Monitoring Scheme Annual Report 2002-2003 and is the fifth of these reports produced under the requirements of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. In none of the reports does the CPS provide data on the racial profile of victims or perpetrators because they still do not keep such basic records.
What a shambles
Asked last year by civil rights group Liberty and Law for information about the racial identity of perpetrators for current and past years CPS confirmed on 31 March 2004 that it "does not have a database which collates the racial identity of defendants prosecuted for racially aggravated crime".
Progress at last?
Following correspondence with and pressure from Liberty and Law the CPS has at last started to put information about the race of perpetrators and victims in their computerised system. A spokesman told Liberty and Law Journal on 11 November 2005 that they hoped this information would be available next year.
Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup commented: "It is outrageous that the CPS does not provide this information and that Home Office has not insisted that they do so. We need to know who does what to whom and where and how this is changing over time to develop an effective strategy to defeat the scourge of racially motivated crime. The CPS has let us down badly. Parliament and people are being denied information that could easily and quickly be extracted from CPS statistics by a clerk working for just a week. What do we pay these people for?”
but the Crown Prosecution Service still don't even know the race of the perpetrators or victims
The Crown Prosecution Service prosecuted 4,660 defendants for racially aggravated offences between April 1, 2004 and March 31 2005 according to their report published today, a rise of 29 per cent over 2003 - 2004.
The information is contained in their Racist Incident Monitoring Scheme Annual Report 2002-2003 and is the fifth of these reports produced under the requirements of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. In none of the reports does the CPS provide data on the racial profile of victims or perpetrators because they still do not keep such basic records.
What a shambles
Asked last year by civil rights group Liberty and Law for information about the racial identity of perpetrators for current and past years CPS confirmed on 31 March 2004 that it "does not have a database which collates the racial identity of defendants prosecuted for racially aggravated crime".
Progress at last?
Following correspondence with and pressure from Liberty and Law the CPS has at last started to put information about the race of perpetrators and victims in their computerised system. A spokesman told Liberty and Law Journal on 11 November 2005 that they hoped this information would be available next year.
Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup commented: "It is outrageous that the CPS does not provide this information and that Home Office has not insisted that they do so. We need to know who does what to whom and where and how this is changing over time to develop an effective strategy to defeat the scourge of racially motivated crime. The CPS has let us down badly. Parliament and people are being denied information that could easily and quickly be extracted from CPS statistics by a clerk working for just a week. What do we pay these people for?”
Sunday, October 30, 2005
European Culture wars
They do things differently in France. Here’s Liberation [17 October] quoting the law passed on 23 February laying down the history of France that has to be taught in its schools.
"Les programmes scolaires reconnaissent en particulier le rôle positif de la présence française outre-mer, notamment en Afrique du Nord, et accordent à l'histoire et aux sacrifices des combattants de l'armée française issus de ces territoires la place éminente à laquelle ils ont droit."
A rough translation:
The school syllabus will recognize in particular the positive role of the French presence overseas, in particular in North Africa, and accord to this history and the sacrifices of soldiers of the French Army in these territories an eminent and deserved place.
So, in France history is what the government says it is. Time to re-read 1984.
I came across a reference to this in No Pasaran
They do things differently in France. Here’s Liberation [17 October] quoting the law passed on 23 February laying down the history of France that has to be taught in its schools.
"Les programmes scolaires reconnaissent en particulier le rôle positif de la présence française outre-mer, notamment en Afrique du Nord, et accordent à l'histoire et aux sacrifices des combattants de l'armée française issus de ces territoires la place éminente à laquelle ils ont droit."
A rough translation:
The school syllabus will recognize in particular the positive role of the French presence overseas, in particular in North Africa, and accord to this history and the sacrifices of soldiers of the French Army in these territories an eminent and deserved place.
So, in France history is what the government says it is. Time to re-read 1984.
I came across a reference to this in No Pasaran
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
Dorset Fire Authority snubs fire chief’s attack on BNP
Dorset Fire Service has rejected an attempt by its chief fire officer to initiate a programme of action that would have resulted in the dismissal of any officers who were members of the British National Party.
“Current legal advice indicates that it is not yet possible to dismiss an employee for being a member of the BNP, ” the rejected statement lamented.
Authority Members yesterday unanimously voted to withdraw this statement which had also attempted to commit the authority to support legislation to have members of the Fire and Rescue service treated in the same way as the Police.
It is not thought that there is a single member of the BNP in the Dorset Fire Service.
Civil liberties group Liberty and Law had lobbied the Authority against the statement arguing that all officers should be judged by their actions and not by their protected political beliefs.
Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup stated: "It’s not much fun when defending freedom means defending the human rights of BNP members but we all have a responsibility to do this. The alternative is a society run by much more dangerous thought crime commissars.”
Ends
The way it is:
Fire Service’s BNP ban goes up in smoke Daily Echo 25 October 2005
The way it was:
BNP members 'not wanted' by fire service news. telegraph 22 October 2005
Dorset Fire Service has rejected an attempt by its chief fire officer to initiate a programme of action that would have resulted in the dismissal of any officers who were members of the British National Party.
“Current legal advice indicates that it is not yet possible to dismiss an employee for being a member of the BNP, ” the rejected statement lamented.
Authority Members yesterday unanimously voted to withdraw this statement which had also attempted to commit the authority to support legislation to have members of the Fire and Rescue service treated in the same way as the Police.
It is not thought that there is a single member of the BNP in the Dorset Fire Service.
Civil liberties group Liberty and Law had lobbied the Authority against the statement arguing that all officers should be judged by their actions and not by their protected political beliefs.
Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup stated: "It’s not much fun when defending freedom means defending the human rights of BNP members but we all have a responsibility to do this. The alternative is a society run by much more dangerous thought crime commissars.”
Ends
The way it is:
Fire Service’s BNP ban goes up in smoke Daily Echo 25 October 2005
The way it was:
BNP members 'not wanted' by fire service news. telegraph 22 October 2005
Sunday, October 23, 2005
BNP reportage pours oil on troubled Handsworth
The British National Party's[BNP] triumphant headline Race riot erupts in Handsworth had in pride of place a burnt out car with the tag Asian driver was burnt alive in this vehicle.
The ‘on the spot’ BNP correspondent Sharon Ebanks reported "in the worst incident of the night, a taxi cab driven by an Asian was surrounded, then set alight with the Black gang cheering as the driver was consumed by the flames.”
Ms Ebanks the failed BNP parliamentary candidate for Birmingham Erdington was no doubt as a responsible community leader trying to pour oil on troubled waters. Her ‘on the spot’ observations were no doubt confirmed for her by the report in The Independent which said “One report said the dead man had been inside a burning taxi, which had possibly been petrol bombed” and another in the Sunday Telegraph stating “Unconfirmed reports said another man also died when a minicab was set alight.”
The BNP boasts that more people look at its website than that of any other political party in the UK. It no doubt took full advantage of this to publish its take on the events in Handsworth on Saturday.
It will be interesting to see how long Ms Ebanks' report is allowed to remain on the BNP website.
October 25 update
BNP sticks to discredited rumours
The BNP has not only continued to stand by their [23 October] claim that an Asian taxi driver had been burnt to death:
“… in the worst incident of the night, a taxi cab driven by an Asian was surrounded, then set alight with the Black gang cheering as the driver was consumed by the flames.”
but has now developed this with a claim [24 October] that there is a conspiracy by the media to hide this from the public.
“… it appears the media are trying to downplay the death of an Asian taxi driver who was petrol bombed in his car on Saturday night by a black mob and burnt to death. This death of the taxi driver was first reported in the Sunday Mercury newspaper which is the main Birmingham weekend newspaper.“
Checking with the Mercury news desk it transpired that in the heat of the action the paper had reported:
"...Meanwhile the Lozells area was awash with rumours that an Asian taxi driver had died after being turned into a human torch in his car after being surrounded by a baying mob.”
This was modified in the report with the cautionary statement
“ Last night West Midlands Police confirmed there had been one fatality but was unable to shed any light on a possible second."
By Sunday it was quite clear to absolutely everyone that these rumours were false. There was no human torch and no dead taxi driver.
The British National Party's[BNP] triumphant headline Race riot erupts in Handsworth had in pride of place a burnt out car with the tag Asian driver was burnt alive in this vehicle.
The ‘on the spot’ BNP correspondent Sharon Ebanks reported "in the worst incident of the night, a taxi cab driven by an Asian was surrounded, then set alight with the Black gang cheering as the driver was consumed by the flames.”
Ms Ebanks the failed BNP parliamentary candidate for Birmingham Erdington was no doubt as a responsible community leader trying to pour oil on troubled waters. Her ‘on the spot’ observations were no doubt confirmed for her by the report in The Independent which said “One report said the dead man had been inside a burning taxi, which had possibly been petrol bombed” and another in the Sunday Telegraph stating “Unconfirmed reports said another man also died when a minicab was set alight.”
The BNP boasts that more people look at its website than that of any other political party in the UK. It no doubt took full advantage of this to publish its take on the events in Handsworth on Saturday.
It will be interesting to see how long Ms Ebanks' report is allowed to remain on the BNP website.
October 25 update
BNP sticks to discredited rumours
The BNP has not only continued to stand by their [23 October] claim that an Asian taxi driver had been burnt to death:
“… in the worst incident of the night, a taxi cab driven by an Asian was surrounded, then set alight with the Black gang cheering as the driver was consumed by the flames.”
but has now developed this with a claim [24 October] that there is a conspiracy by the media to hide this from the public.
“… it appears the media are trying to downplay the death of an Asian taxi driver who was petrol bombed in his car on Saturday night by a black mob and burnt to death. This death of the taxi driver was first reported in the Sunday Mercury newspaper which is the main Birmingham weekend newspaper.“
Checking with the Mercury news desk it transpired that in the heat of the action the paper had reported:
"...Meanwhile the Lozells area was awash with rumours that an Asian taxi driver had died after being turned into a human torch in his car after being surrounded by a baying mob.”
This was modified in the report with the cautionary statement
“ Last night West Midlands Police confirmed there had been one fatality but was unable to shed any light on a possible second."
By Sunday it was quite clear to absolutely everyone that these rumours were false. There was no human torch and no dead taxi driver.
Monday, September 26, 2005
Misreporting racial crime in London
The media continue to misreport the phenomenon of racially motivated crime. One of the most spectacular recent examples was a two-page report in London’s Evening Standard of 23 November 2004 [Minorities face 36 race crimes a day]. It made the damaging mistake of claiming that London’s ethnic minorities were the sole victims of the race crime recorded by the Metropolitan Police.
The newspaper had considered Metropolitan Police figures recording some 13,116 racial crimes in the previous 12 months. This number did indeed, if crudely divided by 365, work out at 36 incidents a day. The Met figures however, gave no indication of the racial identity of either the victims or the perpetrators.
The Evening Standard simply assumed that all the victims were ethnic minorities.
The facts were available to interpret this police data. In March of 2004 the Metropolitan Police provided Liberty and Law Journal with a breakdown of racist notifiable crime for the financial year 2002/2003, The total racial offences for that period were 13,721. The clear up rate was 23.3%. Victims were recorded as: Indian/Pakistani 33.6%, White 28.9%, African/Caribbean 28.4%, Chinese/Japanese 1.5%, Arabic/Egyptian 2.9% and Not Known 4.7%.
These may still be the most up to date figures publicly available.
Of the suspects 68.5% were White, 16.3% African/Caribbean, 9.6% Indian/Pakistani, 0.5% Chinese/Japanese, Arabic/Egyptian 1.3%, Not Known 3.8%.
In the absence of any more recent information it would have been reasonable for the Evening Standard to apply these percentages to the 13,116 recorded by the Met during the year to November 2004. Readers would then have learned that the propensity for racial violence appeared to be no greater among white people in the capital than among ethnic minorities.
For many years commentators, misled by Commission for Racial Equality and BBC publications, have not understood the dynamic of our multi racial society and so have simply assumed that only whites can be guilty of racial aggression. This has been damaging for race relations and has played into the hands of groups like the BNP and the National Front who have claimed with some justification that the media censors racial attacks against whites.
We should understand that relatively small numbers of bad people of all races attack people because of the colour of their skin. The vast majority of people of whatever colour are sick of them and want them caught and severely punished. We rub along pretty well in London, perhaps better than anywhere else in the world.
The media continue to misreport the phenomenon of racially motivated crime. One of the most spectacular recent examples was a two-page report in London’s Evening Standard of 23 November 2004 [Minorities face 36 race crimes a day]. It made the damaging mistake of claiming that London’s ethnic minorities were the sole victims of the race crime recorded by the Metropolitan Police.
The newspaper had considered Metropolitan Police figures recording some 13,116 racial crimes in the previous 12 months. This number did indeed, if crudely divided by 365, work out at 36 incidents a day. The Met figures however, gave no indication of the racial identity of either the victims or the perpetrators.
The Evening Standard simply assumed that all the victims were ethnic minorities.
The facts were available to interpret this police data. In March of 2004 the Metropolitan Police provided Liberty and Law Journal with a breakdown of racist notifiable crime for the financial year 2002/2003, The total racial offences for that period were 13,721. The clear up rate was 23.3%. Victims were recorded as: Indian/Pakistani 33.6%, White 28.9%, African/Caribbean 28.4%, Chinese/Japanese 1.5%, Arabic/Egyptian 2.9% and Not Known 4.7%.
These may still be the most up to date figures publicly available.
Of the suspects 68.5% were White, 16.3% African/Caribbean, 9.6% Indian/Pakistani, 0.5% Chinese/Japanese, Arabic/Egyptian 1.3%, Not Known 3.8%.
In the absence of any more recent information it would have been reasonable for the Evening Standard to apply these percentages to the 13,116 recorded by the Met during the year to November 2004. Readers would then have learned that the propensity for racial violence appeared to be no greater among white people in the capital than among ethnic minorities.
For many years commentators, misled by Commission for Racial Equality and BBC publications, have not understood the dynamic of our multi racial society and so have simply assumed that only whites can be guilty of racial aggression. This has been damaging for race relations and has played into the hands of groups like the BNP and the National Front who have claimed with some justification that the media censors racial attacks against whites.
We should understand that relatively small numbers of bad people of all races attack people because of the colour of their skin. The vast majority of people of whatever colour are sick of them and want them caught and severely punished. We rub along pretty well in London, perhaps better than anywhere else in the world.
Saturday, September 03, 2005
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
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)