National Black Police Association poll rejects ACPO's Affirmative Action bid
The decision by the Association of Chief Police officers [ACPO] to campaign for the right to discriminate against the hiring of white males has met opposition from the National Black Police Association. Its website poll shows that 55.6% of 520 respondents strongly disagree with Affirmative Action. They outnumber those who strongly agree [28.1%] by 2:1. A further 13.1% agree "with conditions".
National Black Police Association
http://www.nbpa.co.uk/index.php?option=com_poll&task=results&id=16&mosmsg=Thanks+for+your+vote%21
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Police colour bar puts Trevor Phillips at odds with CRE
The decision by ACPO to campaign to racially and sexually discriminate against white males in order to meet government employment targets has revealed a split between Trevor Phillips the newly appointed boss of the Commission for Equality and Human Rights (CEHR). and his old organisation the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE).
A spokeswoman for the CRE told The Guardian: "The CRE doesn't support positive discrimination and affirmative action," and that "these forms of 'reverse discrimination' could actually increase community tensions, rather than ease them.
"In many areas forces are struggling to recruit people from diverse backgrounds because of people's negative perceptions and experiences. This is the real problem that needs to be addressed."
In the CRE’s view: "The police ought to stop hiding behind the smokescreen of 'affirmative action' and start looking at the real reasons why ethnic minorities are not applying to become police officers."
Mr Phillips has argued for a change in the law since he was first appointed chair of the CRE . In an early and important interview with The Guardian [March 17 2004] his views were revealed:"Phillips wants the body that will succeed the CRE, which goes under the working title of the Commission for Equality and Human Rights (CEHR), to be given powers to apply to the secretary of state to suspend race and sex discrimination laws so that, in "extreme" cases, numbers of ethnic minorities may be fast-tracked into the force. Once the organisation had boosted its ethnic recruitment, the exemption would be lifted, and recruitment would continue normally."
He went on in the interview to express his alarm that he might be compelled to act against a police force for jumping the gun."A woman or a white man or a man might come along to us and say, 'They're fast-tracking ethnic minorities or they're fast-tracking women; that means I am being deprived of the possibility of two years' salary as a police officer', and under the law we would have to support their case."
Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup said: “ACPO have got the man for the job. Since Mr Phillips in his new job will once again be responsible for policing the police we can have no confidence whatsoever that they will not go ahead with discriminatory schemes even without any change in the law. The law seems to be for the little people. I had never thought that I could possibly regret the passing of the CRE but now I do.”
The decision by ACPO to campaign to racially and sexually discriminate against white males in order to meet government employment targets has revealed a split between Trevor Phillips the newly appointed boss of the Commission for Equality and Human Rights (CEHR). and his old organisation the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE).
A spokeswoman for the CRE told The Guardian: "The CRE doesn't support positive discrimination and affirmative action," and that "these forms of 'reverse discrimination' could actually increase community tensions, rather than ease them.
"In many areas forces are struggling to recruit people from diverse backgrounds because of people's negative perceptions and experiences. This is the real problem that needs to be addressed."
In the CRE’s view: "The police ought to stop hiding behind the smokescreen of 'affirmative action' and start looking at the real reasons why ethnic minorities are not applying to become police officers."
Mr Phillips has argued for a change in the law since he was first appointed chair of the CRE . In an early and important interview with The Guardian [March 17 2004] his views were revealed:"Phillips wants the body that will succeed the CRE, which goes under the working title of the Commission for Equality and Human Rights (CEHR), to be given powers to apply to the secretary of state to suspend race and sex discrimination laws so that, in "extreme" cases, numbers of ethnic minorities may be fast-tracked into the force. Once the organisation had boosted its ethnic recruitment, the exemption would be lifted, and recruitment would continue normally."
He went on in the interview to express his alarm that he might be compelled to act against a police force for jumping the gun."A woman or a white man or a man might come along to us and say, 'They're fast-tracking ethnic minorities or they're fast-tracking women; that means I am being deprived of the possibility of two years' salary as a police officer', and under the law we would have to support their case."
Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup said: “ACPO have got the man for the job. Since Mr Phillips in his new job will once again be responsible for policing the police we can have no confidence whatsoever that they will not go ahead with discriminatory schemes even without any change in the law. The law seems to be for the little people. I had never thought that I could possibly regret the passing of the CRE but now I do.”
Call for corporal punishment in schools
Lynette Burrows is a journalist who argues for the traditional family values overturned and outlawed by the British establishment. She does so with wit and style.
Speaking on 23 April at a conference organised by PARITY and the Royal Society of Medecine she claimed that the abolition of the cane twenty years ago created a culture of violence and anarchy in schools.
She argued that corporal punishment should be reintroduced to restore order in the classroom and teach boys the difference between right and wrong.
PARITY has campaigned for equal rights for men and women since 1986 with some success. Its current objectives are:
· equal liability of men and women over 60 in respect of National Insurance contributions (NICs);
· mitigation, and no further aggravation, of the present inequality as between men and women in state pension provision due to the continuing unequal state pension ages (lasting until, year 2020);
· substantially equal public funding for medical research into and treatment of male and female specific diseases;
· funding for research into the reasons for and means of reducing the persistent difference in life expectancy between men and women;
· equal status for separated parents and more rigorous enforcement of child contact and ofmaintenance orders;
· equal treatment of victims of domestic violence, both male and female, and their children;
· effective Government policies to encourage a more even balance between men and women in primary school teaching;
· equal anonymity for defendants and complainants in sex offence cases until conviction;
· equal provisions for men and women in all statutory and public policies and benefits.
PARITY http://www.parity-uk.org/
Lynette Burrows is a journalist who argues for the traditional family values overturned and outlawed by the British establishment. She does so with wit and style.
Speaking on 23 April at a conference organised by PARITY and the Royal Society of Medecine she claimed that the abolition of the cane twenty years ago created a culture of violence and anarchy in schools.
She argued that corporal punishment should be reintroduced to restore order in the classroom and teach boys the difference between right and wrong.
PARITY has campaigned for equal rights for men and women since 1986 with some success. Its current objectives are:
· equal liability of men and women over 60 in respect of National Insurance contributions (NICs);
· mitigation, and no further aggravation, of the present inequality as between men and women in state pension provision due to the continuing unequal state pension ages (lasting until, year 2020);
· substantially equal public funding for medical research into and treatment of male and female specific diseases;
· funding for research into the reasons for and means of reducing the persistent difference in life expectancy between men and women;
· equal status for separated parents and more rigorous enforcement of child contact and ofmaintenance orders;
· equal treatment of victims of domestic violence, both male and female, and their children;
· effective Government policies to encourage a more even balance between men and women in primary school teaching;
· equal anonymity for defendants and complainants in sex offence cases until conviction;
· equal provisions for men and women in all statutory and public policies and benefits.
PARITY http://www.parity-uk.org/
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Police chiefs to advocate race and sex discrimination
ACPO, the Association of Chief Police Officers, is expected later this month to back a scheme to fast track women and ethnic minorities into police services throughout the country.
A report by the Daily Express 13 April states that ACPO wants to institute “affirmative action” to meet the diversity targets set by the government. It has been drawn up by Suzette Davenport, Assistant Chief Constable of Staffordshire police and vice-chair of the British Association for Women in Policing.
The proposal is opposed by the Police Federation and the Daily Express reports that a spokesman for the Department for Communities and Local government stated: “We have no intention of changing the law.”
The News of the World, however, [15 April] claims that the scheme is being backed by Home Secretary John Reid.
They report the ACPO plan “as being similar to that used in Northern Ireland which has a 50:50 intake of catholics and protestants.”
The most prominent supporter of a change in the law to allow fast track recruitment of racial minorities is Trevor Phillips. In an early and important interview with The Guardian [March 17 2004] his views were revealed:"Phillips wants the body that will succeed the CRE, which goes under the working title of the Commission for Equality and Human Rights (CEHR), to be given powers to apply to the secretary of state to suspend race and sex discrimination laws so that, in "extreme" cases, numbers of ethnic minorities may be fast-tracked into the force. Once the organisation had boosted its ethnic recruitment, the exemption would be lifted, and recruitment would continue normally."
He went on in the interview to express his alarm that he might be compelled to act against a police force for jumping the gun.
"A woman or a white man or a man might come along to us and say, 'They're fast-tracking ethnic minorities or they're fast-tracking women; that means I am being deprived of the possibility of two years' salary as a police officer', and under the law we would have to support their case."
Liberty and Law asked Mr Phillips to investigate the Metropolitan Police Service who operated this system but under his leadership the CRE refused to act. It is not at present known how many white males have been discriminated against by the Met since the policy was adopted. Simon Marshall, Director of Recruitment at the Met has admitted “It is true that some white males had to wait up to three years before they were allocated an intake date at Hendon.”
Other police forces have just ignored the rules to favour ethnic minorities and women. Gloucestershire and Avon and Somerset Police Services misused the ethnic monitoring forms on candidates’ applications that assured applicants that under no circumstances would the information be used as part of the selection process. In fact they used it to discriminate against white males, either by selectively and secretly discarding their applications or by demanding higher standards.
The CRE [and the Equal Opportunities Commission] could have halted the racially and sexually discriminatory recruitment process having been asked by Liberty and law to do so but allowed the scam to be successfully concluded before eventually asking the two forces not to do it again.
Mr Phillips’ attitude to his responsibilities to act evenhandedly was revealed on 19 June 2006 in a speech to the Social Policy Forum .
“For example we recently had to order one police force - Somerset and Avon - to stop a programme to fast track some minority applicants into the force, because we thought a court might say that it was unfair to white applicants. Yet they were clear that they only brought in the scheme for operational reasons, not political or social reasons. I don't think it can be right that we have drifted into a situation where the CRE has to stand in the way of moderate measures to increase diversity in the police force - something which Scarman recommended twenty-five years ago, Macpherson more recently, and the Chief Police Officers are desperate to do so they can do their job better.”
Race against time, Saba Salman and Patrick Butler, The Guardian Wednesday March 17, 2004 http://politics.guardian.co.uk/publicservices/story/0,,1171077,00.html
Quotas plan will favour ethnic cop, News of the World, Ian Kirby 15 April 2007
Our PC police force, Daily Express Tom Whitehead 13 April 2007 http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/4322
ACPO, the Association of Chief Police Officers, is expected later this month to back a scheme to fast track women and ethnic minorities into police services throughout the country.
A report by the Daily Express 13 April states that ACPO wants to institute “affirmative action” to meet the diversity targets set by the government. It has been drawn up by Suzette Davenport, Assistant Chief Constable of Staffordshire police and vice-chair of the British Association for Women in Policing.
The proposal is opposed by the Police Federation and the Daily Express reports that a spokesman for the Department for Communities and Local government stated: “We have no intention of changing the law.”
The News of the World, however, [15 April] claims that the scheme is being backed by Home Secretary John Reid.
They report the ACPO plan “as being similar to that used in Northern Ireland which has a 50:50 intake of catholics and protestants.”
The most prominent supporter of a change in the law to allow fast track recruitment of racial minorities is Trevor Phillips. In an early and important interview with The Guardian [March 17 2004] his views were revealed:"Phillips wants the body that will succeed the CRE, which goes under the working title of the Commission for Equality and Human Rights (CEHR), to be given powers to apply to the secretary of state to suspend race and sex discrimination laws so that, in "extreme" cases, numbers of ethnic minorities may be fast-tracked into the force. Once the organisation had boosted its ethnic recruitment, the exemption would be lifted, and recruitment would continue normally."
He went on in the interview to express his alarm that he might be compelled to act against a police force for jumping the gun.
"A woman or a white man or a man might come along to us and say, 'They're fast-tracking ethnic minorities or they're fast-tracking women; that means I am being deprived of the possibility of two years' salary as a police officer', and under the law we would have to support their case."
Liberty and Law asked Mr Phillips to investigate the Metropolitan Police Service who operated this system but under his leadership the CRE refused to act. It is not at present known how many white males have been discriminated against by the Met since the policy was adopted. Simon Marshall, Director of Recruitment at the Met has admitted “It is true that some white males had to wait up to three years before they were allocated an intake date at Hendon.”
Other police forces have just ignored the rules to favour ethnic minorities and women. Gloucestershire and Avon and Somerset Police Services misused the ethnic monitoring forms on candidates’ applications that assured applicants that under no circumstances would the information be used as part of the selection process. In fact they used it to discriminate against white males, either by selectively and secretly discarding their applications or by demanding higher standards.
The CRE [and the Equal Opportunities Commission] could have halted the racially and sexually discriminatory recruitment process having been asked by Liberty and law to do so but allowed the scam to be successfully concluded before eventually asking the two forces not to do it again.
Mr Phillips’ attitude to his responsibilities to act evenhandedly was revealed on 19 June 2006 in a speech to the Social Policy Forum .
“For example we recently had to order one police force - Somerset and Avon - to stop a programme to fast track some minority applicants into the force, because we thought a court might say that it was unfair to white applicants. Yet they were clear that they only brought in the scheme for operational reasons, not political or social reasons. I don't think it can be right that we have drifted into a situation where the CRE has to stand in the way of moderate measures to increase diversity in the police force - something which Scarman recommended twenty-five years ago, Macpherson more recently, and the Chief Police Officers are desperate to do so they can do their job better.”
Race against time, Saba Salman and Patrick Butler, The Guardian Wednesday March 17, 2004 http://politics.guardian.co.uk/publicservices/story/0,,1171077,00.html
Quotas plan will favour ethnic cop, News of the World, Ian Kirby 15 April 2007
Our PC police force, Daily Express Tom Whitehead 13 April 2007 http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/4322
Friday, April 13, 2007
Corby victim of Prison Service Alice in Wonderland justice
The Commission for Racial Equality’s investigation into the decision by the Prison Service to move jobs from Corby to Leicester based at least partially on the unsuitable racial demographics of the Northamptonshire town has been delayed because of the failure of the Prison Service to complete a compulsory race equality impact assessment. According to the Commission for Racial Equality it is not now due to be completed until early May.
Civil rights group Liberty and Law that instigated the CRE investigation has asked Prison Service boss Phil Wheatley to invite not only the trade union but also the local MPs and Northamptonshire Race Equality Council to participate in an assessment vital not only to the town of Corby but to good race relations.
Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup commented: “We live in a sinister Alice in Wonderland world where decisions are taken first and only then followed by investigation and consultation. For whoever turns out to be the Queen of Hearts in this unpleasant fiasco there can only be one judgment: “Off with her head!” - or at least an administrative rebuke.”
The Commission for Racial Equality’s investigation into the decision by the Prison Service to move jobs from Corby to Leicester based at least partially on the unsuitable racial demographics of the Northamptonshire town has been delayed because of the failure of the Prison Service to complete a compulsory race equality impact assessment. According to the Commission for Racial Equality it is not now due to be completed until early May.
Civil rights group Liberty and Law that instigated the CRE investigation has asked Prison Service boss Phil Wheatley to invite not only the trade union but also the local MPs and Northamptonshire Race Equality Council to participate in an assessment vital not only to the town of Corby but to good race relations.
Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup commented: “We live in a sinister Alice in Wonderland world where decisions are taken first and only then followed by investigation and consultation. For whoever turns out to be the Queen of Hearts in this unpleasant fiasco there can only be one judgment: “Off with her head!” - or at least an administrative rebuke.”
Monday, April 09, 2007
BBC mocks over sixties Tories as white, middle class and hearing impaired
The Today Programme BBC Radio 4’s flagship news and current affairs programme ran an item on the speaking appearance of California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger at the Autumn conference of the Conservative party.
Its presenter offered political correspondent Robin Brandt a full toss to exercise his campaigning skills: “How is it going to go down with the Tory faithful?” he asked.
Mr Brandt took up the challenge. “Huh, huh! Most of them are over sixty. They’re white, they’re middle class. I was thinking earlier perhaps half of them can’t hear without the aid of something mechanical.”
Attempts to reach the Today studio to obtain a retraction during the course of the programme were of course futile.
It is quite possible that Mr Brandt is expressing the corporate view of the BBC and that they consider no apology appropriate or necessary.
Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup has warned Governor Schwarzenegger of the BBC’s attitude to age, race, class and disability. He commented: “Arnold Schwarzenegger will of course be over sixty when he addresses this particular audience. Perhaps on the occasion of the Governor's speech in Blackpool BBC correspondents will, referring to his open-heart surgery, opine that speaker, audience and seaside town match one another perfectly. That would seem to be par for the course.”
Liberty and Law has asked chairman of the Disability Rights Commission Sir Bert Massie and chair of the Commission for Equality and Human Rights Trevor Phillips to take this up with the BBC following its failed attempt to contact the Today programme.
The Today Programme BBC Radio 4’s flagship news and current affairs programme ran an item on the speaking appearance of California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger at the Autumn conference of the Conservative party.
Its presenter offered political correspondent Robin Brandt a full toss to exercise his campaigning skills: “How is it going to go down with the Tory faithful?” he asked.
Mr Brandt took up the challenge. “Huh, huh! Most of them are over sixty. They’re white, they’re middle class. I was thinking earlier perhaps half of them can’t hear without the aid of something mechanical.”
Attempts to reach the Today studio to obtain a retraction during the course of the programme were of course futile.
It is quite possible that Mr Brandt is expressing the corporate view of the BBC and that they consider no apology appropriate or necessary.
Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup has warned Governor Schwarzenegger of the BBC’s attitude to age, race, class and disability. He commented: “Arnold Schwarzenegger will of course be over sixty when he addresses this particular audience. Perhaps on the occasion of the Governor's speech in Blackpool BBC correspondents will, referring to his open-heart surgery, opine that speaker, audience and seaside town match one another perfectly. That would seem to be par for the course.”
Liberty and Law has asked chairman of the Disability Rights Commission Sir Bert Massie and chair of the Commission for Equality and Human Rights Trevor Phillips to take this up with the BBC following its failed attempt to contact the Today programme.
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
Prison Service initial response to race investigation
In the latest development surrounding the proposed racially controversial move of Prison Service jobs from Corby in Northamptonshire to Leicester the Home Office told Liberty and Law Journal that the Prison Service now has a draft race equality impact assessment with its Management Board and that they will be in consultation with their trade union and staff. [Click on “prison service” for background]
The impact assessment is not yet publicly available for consultation or challenge but will be published on the Prison Service’s excellent website. This contains an extremely impressive Annual Staff Ethnicity Review for 2005/2006. It repays study by anyone concerned with the direction of public policy.
The Commission for Racial Equality asked the Prison Service for the race equality impact assessment by 3 April. It was unable to provide this in the time and has been set a new deadline of 5 April.
Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup stated: “There are difficulties facing all racial groups in the Prison Service because it currently operates to the definition of “institutional racism” foisted on public institutions by Macpherson that this is “the collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture or ethnic origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amounts to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance or thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantages minority ethnic people”
"At present the Prison Service rules out by definition that non- minority ethnic people can suffer from its collective failure. This must change. It is time that the public, partners after all, took ownership of the rules of the game. The Prison Service is a good place to begin the necessary dialogue to effect required changes.”
Further information about the Prison Service can be found on its website where the impact assessment will be published in due course. http://www.hmprisonservice.gov.uk/abouttheservice/racediversity/
Readers concerned about the issue can write to the Commission for Racial Equality to keep up with its progress in the investigation. The CRE can be emailed at info@cre.gov.uk.
Corby Prison Service employees and those who support them can contact Northamptonshire Race Equality Council to seek their advice and to discuss with them how best NREC can bring public pressure on the prison Service. Their website is http://www.wellingboroughrec.org.uk/index.asp and their email address info@northamptonshirerec.org.uk
In the latest development surrounding the proposed racially controversial move of Prison Service jobs from Corby in Northamptonshire to Leicester the Home Office told Liberty and Law Journal that the Prison Service now has a draft race equality impact assessment with its Management Board and that they will be in consultation with their trade union and staff. [Click on “prison service” for background]
The impact assessment is not yet publicly available for consultation or challenge but will be published on the Prison Service’s excellent website. This contains an extremely impressive Annual Staff Ethnicity Review for 2005/2006. It repays study by anyone concerned with the direction of public policy.
The Commission for Racial Equality asked the Prison Service for the race equality impact assessment by 3 April. It was unable to provide this in the time and has been set a new deadline of 5 April.
Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup stated: “There are difficulties facing all racial groups in the Prison Service because it currently operates to the definition of “institutional racism” foisted on public institutions by Macpherson that this is “the collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture or ethnic origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amounts to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance or thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantages minority ethnic people”
"At present the Prison Service rules out by definition that non- minority ethnic people can suffer from its collective failure. This must change. It is time that the public, partners after all, took ownership of the rules of the game. The Prison Service is a good place to begin the necessary dialogue to effect required changes.”
Further information about the Prison Service can be found on its website where the impact assessment will be published in due course. http://www.hmprisonservice.gov.uk/abouttheservice/racediversity/
Readers concerned about the issue can write to the Commission for Racial Equality to keep up with its progress in the investigation. The CRE can be emailed at info@cre.gov.uk.
Corby Prison Service employees and those who support them can contact Northamptonshire Race Equality Council to seek their advice and to discuss with them how best NREC can bring public pressure on the prison Service. Their website is http://www.wellingboroughrec.org.uk/index.asp and their email address info@northamptonshirerec.org.uk
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
Nelson Mandela guilty of "unwitting racism"
Nelson Mandela is likely to come under fierce criticism from British racial equality campaigners for finding “quite amusing” Barnet councillor Brian Gordon’s dressing up as him at a fancy dress party to celebrate the Jewish festival of Purim.
After Liberal Democrat press officer Ms Stieve de Lance had taken the trouble to appear on television to denounce Cllr Gordon as a racist, to report him to Barnet council’s director of corporate governance and to the Commission for Racial Equality; after the BBC had door stepped him and Keith Vaz MP, the chair of Labour's ethnic minority taskforce had denounced him, it could only be seen as a betrayal when Mr Mandela failed to see the racism inherent in the councillor’s action.
Mr Mandela's spokeswoman Zelda la Grange said: "We shouldn't be over sensitive about issues of this nature. Mr Mandela thought it was quite funny. We can't find anything derogatory in someone dressing up, in fancy dress, portraying Nelson Mandela."
Clearly Mr Mandela should have taken advice before speaking. His own experience of racism is strictly limited and he is totally unqualified to make a judgment on such matters.
It is not known whether the CRE will report Mr Gordon or Mr Mandela to the police. The Guardian reported on 28 March that a CRE spokesman found Mr Gordon's actions objectionable. He stated: "It is unacceptable for elected representatives to behave in a way that might offend members of their local communities ... Good council leadership is essential in managing the differences in our increasingly diverse communities as councils have a duty to promote good race relations."
Nelson Mandela is likely to come under fierce criticism from British racial equality campaigners for finding “quite amusing” Barnet councillor Brian Gordon’s dressing up as him at a fancy dress party to celebrate the Jewish festival of Purim.
After Liberal Democrat press officer Ms Stieve de Lance had taken the trouble to appear on television to denounce Cllr Gordon as a racist, to report him to Barnet council’s director of corporate governance and to the Commission for Racial Equality; after the BBC had door stepped him and Keith Vaz MP, the chair of Labour's ethnic minority taskforce had denounced him, it could only be seen as a betrayal when Mr Mandela failed to see the racism inherent in the councillor’s action.
Mr Mandela's spokeswoman Zelda la Grange said: "We shouldn't be over sensitive about issues of this nature. Mr Mandela thought it was quite funny. We can't find anything derogatory in someone dressing up, in fancy dress, portraying Nelson Mandela."
Clearly Mr Mandela should have taken advice before speaking. His own experience of racism is strictly limited and he is totally unqualified to make a judgment on such matters.
It is not known whether the CRE will report Mr Gordon or Mr Mandela to the police. The Guardian reported on 28 March that a CRE spokesman found Mr Gordon's actions objectionable. He stated: "It is unacceptable for elected representatives to behave in a way that might offend members of their local communities ... Good council leadership is essential in managing the differences in our increasingly diverse communities as councils have a duty to promote good race relations."
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Prison Service deadline of 3 April to respond to race watchdog over contested move
The Commission for Racial Equality [CRE] has written to the Director General of the Prison Service Phil Wheatley about a proposed move by the Service from offices in Corby for which one of the criteria publicly provided was the unsatisfactory racial make up of the town’s inhabitants - it being too white.
Writing to local MP Philip Hollobone [Kettering] on 29 March the CRE confirmed that it expected a response from the Prison Service by Tuesday 3 April.
Civil rights group Liberty and Law had formally complained about the matter to CRE chair Professor Kay Hampton on 6 March. The CRE confirmed to it on 15 March that as a reponse to allegations of racial discrimination by the Prison Service it had written to them about any race equality impact assessment they had undertaken over the decision to relocate offices from Corby to Leicester.
Britain’s prison service has been heavily criticized for deciding to move one of its locations from Corby in Northamptonshire to the city of Leicester on racial grounds. Its reasons were disclosed in a leaked letter as being partially on the grounds of the racial profile of Corby, which at 93.7% white was considered to be not sufficiently diverse compared to Leicester’s more favourable 59.6%.
Leicester’s racial profile, the Prison Service believes will allow it to attract a more diverse workforce.Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup in urging the CRE to investigate the legality of Prison service plan stated “The CRE has a responsibility where the actions of public bodies fuel resentment and do enormous damage to race relations to investigate their strict adherence to the law and to report back to the people."
Liberty and Law last year successfully challenged the racially and sexually discriminatory recruitment procedure of Avon and Somerset and Gloucestershire Police Services.
The Prison Service’s proposed move to Leicester is clearly impractical for the majority of the white staff but any reduction in their numbers will create vacancies to allow the Prison Service to more effectively chase government race targets.
Northants Evening Telegraph report that Mr Wheatley has written to Corby Council chief executive Chris Mallender and council leader Pat Fawcett: “I am sorry the decision to relocate our office from Corby to Leicester has been portrayed in such a negative fashion in the media.“The press has chosen to focus on our desire to be able to recruit a well-educated, diverse workforce. I make no apology for including the impact on diversity as one of the key determining business factors of the decision. I want you to understand that we wanted to be sure that we could recruit the right calibre of workforce. These requirements were not catalysts for us moving from Corby – this
decision was based on business need and our desire to save the taxpayer unnecessary costs. Most of the staff will be relocating with us.”
Northants Evening Telegraph continued: Corby Council leaders were angry that it took the Prison Service more than two weeks to respond to its original letter. Council chief executive Chris Mallender said: “The service is in denial. We know directly from the workforce that the majority of the people in Crown House do not want to travel to Leicester.“The service is clearly looking to sweep this under the carpet, but we and the workforce are not prepared to let the issue go.”
Newspaper reports have been universally hostile: The town branded too white and too British; Corby ‘penalized for having the wrong kind of immigrants’; Ordered to discriminate; Outraged town hits back, Prison service ‘in jobs denial’
The response of the public on websites and blogs has been overwhelmingly hostile to the social engineering adopted by a government that works on the principle that people are just ‘human resources’ to be manipulated by their mandarinate.
Northamptonshire Race Equality Council has condemned the action of the Prison Service.
Despite the criticism the Home Office has so far been firm in its backing for a Prison Service that is following government orders to increase the percentage of ethnic minorities on the government pay roll.
A glance at the website of the CRE explains how the Corby situation has come about taking politicians by surprise at the results of their legislative follies. Factoring racial equality into relocation explains it all. The CRE’s successor the Commission for Equality and Human Rights (CEHR) under Trevor Phillips argues for an even more extreme change in legislation to allow companies to discriminate directly on grounds of race to attain racially balanced workforces.
The Commission for Racial Equality [CRE] has written to the Director General of the Prison Service Phil Wheatley about a proposed move by the Service from offices in Corby for which one of the criteria publicly provided was the unsatisfactory racial make up of the town’s inhabitants - it being too white.
Writing to local MP Philip Hollobone [Kettering] on 29 March the CRE confirmed that it expected a response from the Prison Service by Tuesday 3 April.
Civil rights group Liberty and Law had formally complained about the matter to CRE chair Professor Kay Hampton on 6 March. The CRE confirmed to it on 15 March that as a reponse to allegations of racial discrimination by the Prison Service it had written to them about any race equality impact assessment they had undertaken over the decision to relocate offices from Corby to Leicester.
Britain’s prison service has been heavily criticized for deciding to move one of its locations from Corby in Northamptonshire to the city of Leicester on racial grounds. Its reasons were disclosed in a leaked letter as being partially on the grounds of the racial profile of Corby, which at 93.7% white was considered to be not sufficiently diverse compared to Leicester’s more favourable 59.6%.
Leicester’s racial profile, the Prison Service believes will allow it to attract a more diverse workforce.Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup in urging the CRE to investigate the legality of Prison service plan stated “The CRE has a responsibility where the actions of public bodies fuel resentment and do enormous damage to race relations to investigate their strict adherence to the law and to report back to the people."
Liberty and Law last year successfully challenged the racially and sexually discriminatory recruitment procedure of Avon and Somerset and Gloucestershire Police Services.
The Prison Service’s proposed move to Leicester is clearly impractical for the majority of the white staff but any reduction in their numbers will create vacancies to allow the Prison Service to more effectively chase government race targets.
Northants Evening Telegraph report that Mr Wheatley has written to Corby Council chief executive Chris Mallender and council leader Pat Fawcett: “I am sorry the decision to relocate our office from Corby to Leicester has been portrayed in such a negative fashion in the media.“The press has chosen to focus on our desire to be able to recruit a well-educated, diverse workforce. I make no apology for including the impact on diversity as one of the key determining business factors of the decision. I want you to understand that we wanted to be sure that we could recruit the right calibre of workforce. These requirements were not catalysts for us moving from Corby – this
decision was based on business need and our desire to save the taxpayer unnecessary costs. Most of the staff will be relocating with us.”
Northants Evening Telegraph continued: Corby Council leaders were angry that it took the Prison Service more than two weeks to respond to its original letter. Council chief executive Chris Mallender said: “The service is in denial. We know directly from the workforce that the majority of the people in Crown House do not want to travel to Leicester.“The service is clearly looking to sweep this under the carpet, but we and the workforce are not prepared to let the issue go.”
Newspaper reports have been universally hostile: The town branded too white and too British; Corby ‘penalized for having the wrong kind of immigrants’; Ordered to discriminate; Outraged town hits back, Prison service ‘in jobs denial’
The response of the public on websites and blogs has been overwhelmingly hostile to the social engineering adopted by a government that works on the principle that people are just ‘human resources’ to be manipulated by their mandarinate.
Northamptonshire Race Equality Council has condemned the action of the Prison Service.
Despite the criticism the Home Office has so far been firm in its backing for a Prison Service that is following government orders to increase the percentage of ethnic minorities on the government pay roll.
A glance at the website of the CRE explains how the Corby situation has come about taking politicians by surprise at the results of their legislative follies. Factoring racial equality into relocation explains it all. The CRE’s successor the Commission for Equality and Human Rights (CEHR) under Trevor Phillips argues for an even more extreme change in legislation to allow companies to discriminate directly on grounds of race to attain racially balanced workforces.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
UCAS application form slammed by top lawyers
Liberty and Law’s challenge to UCAS’ proposal to provide information about the racial background of college applicants to Admissions Officers has been backed by top lawyers in the field of education and human rights.
The Sunday Telegraph reports [Legal challenge to degree admissions, 25 March 2007] leading education and human rights solicitor Jaswinder Gill concluding that the data raised a “real risk of prejudice” and that it breaches Article 14 of the Human Rights Act.
Nick Saunders of Eversheds, a legal firm specialising in services to further and higher education, providers warned that UCAS’ policy would have legal consequences.
Data protection specialist Susan Singleton also saw major difficulties with the policy warning that its operation could lead to criminal offences under the Data protection Act 1998.
Liberty and Law’s challenge to UCAS’ proposal to provide information about the racial background of college applicants to Admissions Officers has been backed by top lawyers in the field of education and human rights.
The Sunday Telegraph reports [Legal challenge to degree admissions, 25 March 2007] leading education and human rights solicitor Jaswinder Gill concluding that the data raised a “real risk of prejudice” and that it breaches Article 14 of the Human Rights Act.
Nick Saunders of Eversheds, a legal firm specialising in services to further and higher education, providers warned that UCAS’ policy would have legal consequences.
Data protection specialist Susan Singleton also saw major difficulties with the policy warning that its operation could lead to criminal offences under the Data protection Act 1998.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
UCAS challenged over proposed new application form
A civil liberties group has asked the Commission for Racial Equality [CRE] to intervene over the University and Colleges Admissions Service’s [UCAS] proposal to provide data about potential students’ ethnicity to Admissions Officers before rather than after the selection process is complete.
Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup has written to CRE chair Professor Kay Hampton complaining about the proposal on the grounds that it would be in blatant breach of good equal opportunities practice propounded by the CRE over many years.
Monitoring forms the CRE has always argued should be anonymous, kept separate from any application form and from the entire selection process.
Where they are not this can and does allow ruthless discrimination at the selection process. This was evidenced notoriously by the use of equal opportunities data about their race being used last year to reject 289 white male applicants from consideration with Avon and Somerset and Gloucestershire Police Services.
Mr Hartup stated: “We must learn our lesson. We cannot trust Chief Constables with confidential information but they were at least breaking the law. How can we possibly allow the careers of students to depend upon the self denying integrity of Admissions Officers under pressure to come up with the results necessary to achieve maximum funding.”
“Should UCAS go ahead with their misguided policy they must expect legal action by students who can never be sure that the reason for their failure to obtain a place at their preferred institution was because their race did not fit the Education Secretary’s matrix.”
Liberty and law has written to UCAS Chief Executive Anthony McClaren urging him to drop the scheme. It has also written to OFFA [Office for fair Access] that has “a role in identifying and disseminating good practice and advice connected with access to higher education.”
End
A civil liberties group has asked the Commission for Racial Equality [CRE] to intervene over the University and Colleges Admissions Service’s [UCAS] proposal to provide data about potential students’ ethnicity to Admissions Officers before rather than after the selection process is complete.
Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup has written to CRE chair Professor Kay Hampton complaining about the proposal on the grounds that it would be in blatant breach of good equal opportunities practice propounded by the CRE over many years.
Monitoring forms the CRE has always argued should be anonymous, kept separate from any application form and from the entire selection process.
Where they are not this can and does allow ruthless discrimination at the selection process. This was evidenced notoriously by the use of equal opportunities data about their race being used last year to reject 289 white male applicants from consideration with Avon and Somerset and Gloucestershire Police Services.
Mr Hartup stated: “We must learn our lesson. We cannot trust Chief Constables with confidential information but they were at least breaking the law. How can we possibly allow the careers of students to depend upon the self denying integrity of Admissions Officers under pressure to come up with the results necessary to achieve maximum funding.”
“Should UCAS go ahead with their misguided policy they must expect legal action by students who can never be sure that the reason for their failure to obtain a place at their preferred institution was because their race did not fit the Education Secretary’s matrix.”
Liberty and law has written to UCAS Chief Executive Anthony McClaren urging him to drop the scheme. It has also written to OFFA [Office for fair Access] that has “a role in identifying and disseminating good practice and advice connected with access to higher education.”
End
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
MEP asks Scotland Yard to investigate BBC relations with EU
The Metropolitan Police have today (13 March) received a bundle of papers from Ashley Mote MEP, Independent, SE England, detailing the tens of millions of euros received by the BBC over recent years.
He has invited Deputy Assistant Commissioner John Yates, Director of Intelligence at Scotland Yard, to review the BBC's sources and application of funds, excluding the licence fee. The police have been asked to examine the evidence linking the EU as a source of these funds with the BBC’s open support of the EU in its editorial coverage, contrary to its obligations under the Royal Charter.
Recent correspondence between the BBC’s management in Brussels and the MEP has revealed a prima facie case for investigation, Mr Mote claims. The documents show that the BBC’s senior management has, over many years, accepted money from the EU and its institutions in exchange for which they have enforced an editorial policy of positive support of the EU, contrary to both the spirit and the letter of the charter.
The BBC’s Royal Charter has the force of law. It requires balance in the reporting of news and current affairs. All strands of opinion on political matters must be given a fair hearing and roughly equal air time.
Solid proof exists that this is not the case, Mr Mote says. He has told Scotland Yard that evidence of bias has been collected by professional media analysts for Lord Pearson of Rannoch, who has funded research into BBC coverage of the EU for many years.
“My focus has been on the money”, Mr Mote says. “We now know that the BBC has in recent years borrowed tens of millions of euros from the European Investment Bank, an institution of the European Union. The correspondence shows that the BBC gained these large sums of public money from the EIB on terms that would never have been available commercially. It also acquired funding from other parts of the EU’s web of institutions, again on less than transparent terms and – sometimes – for the vaguest of reasons.
“The purpose of these soft loans and other funding is clearly intended to further the cause of EU federalism – in effect to ‘buy’ BBC support. Some might argue that it is bribery and corruption, others that it is fraud. At the very least I suggest malfeasance – a deliberate act knowingly undertaken against the public interest”, he wrote to DAC Yates.
The full text of the letter from Ashley Mote MEP to DAC John Yates at New Scotland Yard follows:
BBC Malfeasance – A Case for Investigation?
You will recall my letter of 20 February offering to provide you with evidence of the BBC’s commercial and editorial activities which conflict directly with the Corporation’s legal obligations under the Royal Charter. There appears to be a prima facie case of malfeasance.
This letter and the enclosures represent the evidence accumulated in recent months. If, having considered it, you need any further information I will of course attempt to provide it.
In a nutshell, the case is this: the BBC’s senior management has, over many years, accepted money from the EU and its institutions in exchange for which they have enforced an editorial policy of positive support of the EU, contrary to both the spirit and the letter of the Royal Charter.
The Charter, which has the force of law, requires balance in the reporting of news and current affairs, although it has to be admitted that the obligations to maintain balance set out in the present document are much watered down from those in the original of some 80 years ago.
Nonetheless, even the present Royal Charter makes it clear that all strands of opinion on political matters must be given a fair hearing and roughly equal air time.
Solid proof exists that this is not the case. That evidence can be obtained from Lord Pearson of Rannoch, who has funded research into BBC coverage of the EU over many years. I have no doubt he will gladly make it available to you, together with any other relevant evidence you might find helpful.
You might also find a recently published book instructive - Can We Trust the BBC? by Robin Aitken. Mr Aitken worked for the Corporation for 25 years. His book describes numerous horror stories of bias and political prejudice, many of them quietly buried by past generations of BBC management.
This letter and enclosures concern themselves mainly with the other side of the coin – to be precise, the provision of substantial sums of EU money on less than commercial terms and for questionable motives.
I have also taken the liberty of enclosing background reading – for example the BBC’s internal attempt to put right an acknowledged lack of balance in EU editorial policy.
The BBC receives an annual funding of approximately £2.7 billion from the public through the licence fee system. This obliges members of the public to finance the BBC simply because they own a TV set.
As this is a legally enforceable poll tax, the public can expect the BBC to comply scrupulously with the terms of its Royal Charter. The governors have a duty to satisfy themselves that all activities of the BBC are carried out in accordance with the highest standards of public accountability.
It is arguable that they have not complied with such obligations. When reporting on the EU, the BBC routinely demonstrates a commitment to UK membership which at times amounts to little more than pro-EU propaganda.
Furthermore, the BBC has openly admitted that their reporting of EU activities is biased. Why else have they taken steps to redress the balance by appointing internal investigations and commissioning reports on the subject?
Some brief points from the evidence follow, specifically:
a) Article 7(1)(e) of the Royal Charter requires the governors "to ensure that any comments, proposals and complaints made by viewers and listeners of the Home Services are given due consideration and are properly handled by the Corporation". Lord Hutton's report on the death of Dr David Kelly clearly showed that the BBC did not comply with this Article when dealing with complaints from Alistair Campbell.
Furthermore, the BBC has on numerous occasions refused to consider complaints from viewers and listeners about coverage of EU affairs, despite the Charter obligation for complaints to be given due consideration. Refusing to accept complaints is not an option, and unlawful.
b) Article 7(1)(f) requires the governors "to ensure the treatment of controversial subjects with due accuracy and impartiality". The BBC clearly supports Britain’s membership of the EU and the abolition of the £ sterling in favour of the euro. The statistical and documentary evidence is overwhelming and readily available, as mentioned above. Much of the statistical evidence has been gathered for Lord Pearson by Minotaur Media, an independent monitoring organisation.
Some Minotaur Media research findings have been reported on the Global Britain web site. Other websites also support the view that the BBC has its own agenda, particularly on the EU. In addition, scores of anecdotal newspaper articles have pointed out the BBC's bias towards the EU.
Despite all this powerful evidence to the contrary, and its own internal enquiries, the BBC continually refutes complaints about its lack of balance in reporting EU news and current affairs. At times its denials border on calling black ‘white’, or insisting that the Emperor really is wearing clothes.
c) Rod Liddle (ex Editor, Radio 4’s Today programme) wrote an article about the Welsh National Assembly and the Scottish Parliament in The Spectator of 10 May 2003. He stated that the BBC's attitude was…
"the result of institutionalised political correctness, every bit as corrupting as institutionalised racism. It is result of seminars and workshops (I remember them well) where journalists are instructed time and time again that the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly are bloody important and don’t you dare suggest they aren’t".
Such editorial ‘guidance’ in the reporting of these institutions meant that the BBC was directly and specifically supporting the EU's policy of breaking up the UK into regions which could be more effectively controlled by Brussels. Such a policy was contrary to the BBC’s obligations under the Charter, and its implementation more propaganda than news.
d) The BBC's governors recently set up a review body under the chairmanship of Lord Taylor to examine whether or not the BBC was biased in favour of the EU. Their main finding was that the BBC was biased in favour of the EU “but that this bias was not deliberate”. The report confirmed that bias existed in the BBC, again contrary to its obligations under the Charter.
But to claim that it was not deliberate was an absurd conclusion bearing in mind the overwhelming contradictory evidence. Since when, for example, was the setting up and management of the seminars referred to above not "deliberate"? Since when were such events "accidental"?
e) The BBC has in recent years borrowed tens of millions of euros from the European Investment Bank, an institution of the European Union. These borrowings and other funding are detailed in the enclosed correspondence with the BBC’s team which is permanently based in Brussels (next door to the European Parliament building).
The correspondence also shows that the BBC gained these large sums of public money from the European Investment Bank on terms that would never have been available commercially. It also acquired funding from other parts of the EU’s web of institutions, again on less than transparent terms and – sometimes – for the vaguest of reasons. Indeed, as you will see, transparency in all of these dealings is notable by its absence.
The purpose of these soft loans and other funding is clearly intended to further the cause of EU federalism – in effect to ‘buy’ BBC support. Some might argue that it is bribery and corruption, others that it is fraud. At the very least I suggest malfeasance – a deliberate act knowingly undertaken against the public interest.
I write, therefore, to invite the Metropolitan Police to review the BBC's sources and application of funds, excluding the licence fee. Further, to examine the evidence linking the EU as a source of these funds with the BBC’s open support of the EU in its editorial coverage, contrary to its legal obligations under the Royal Charter.
Ashley Mote can be contacted at ashley.mote@btconnect.com
www.ashleymote.co.uk
The Metropolitan Police have today (13 March) received a bundle of papers from Ashley Mote MEP, Independent, SE England, detailing the tens of millions of euros received by the BBC over recent years.
He has invited Deputy Assistant Commissioner John Yates, Director of Intelligence at Scotland Yard, to review the BBC's sources and application of funds, excluding the licence fee. The police have been asked to examine the evidence linking the EU as a source of these funds with the BBC’s open support of the EU in its editorial coverage, contrary to its obligations under the Royal Charter.
Recent correspondence between the BBC’s management in Brussels and the MEP has revealed a prima facie case for investigation, Mr Mote claims. The documents show that the BBC’s senior management has, over many years, accepted money from the EU and its institutions in exchange for which they have enforced an editorial policy of positive support of the EU, contrary to both the spirit and the letter of the charter.
The BBC’s Royal Charter has the force of law. It requires balance in the reporting of news and current affairs. All strands of opinion on political matters must be given a fair hearing and roughly equal air time.
Solid proof exists that this is not the case, Mr Mote says. He has told Scotland Yard that evidence of bias has been collected by professional media analysts for Lord Pearson of Rannoch, who has funded research into BBC coverage of the EU for many years.
“My focus has been on the money”, Mr Mote says. “We now know that the BBC has in recent years borrowed tens of millions of euros from the European Investment Bank, an institution of the European Union. The correspondence shows that the BBC gained these large sums of public money from the EIB on terms that would never have been available commercially. It also acquired funding from other parts of the EU’s web of institutions, again on less than transparent terms and – sometimes – for the vaguest of reasons.
“The purpose of these soft loans and other funding is clearly intended to further the cause of EU federalism – in effect to ‘buy’ BBC support. Some might argue that it is bribery and corruption, others that it is fraud. At the very least I suggest malfeasance – a deliberate act knowingly undertaken against the public interest”, he wrote to DAC Yates.
The full text of the letter from Ashley Mote MEP to DAC John Yates at New Scotland Yard follows:
BBC Malfeasance – A Case for Investigation?
You will recall my letter of 20 February offering to provide you with evidence of the BBC’s commercial and editorial activities which conflict directly with the Corporation’s legal obligations under the Royal Charter. There appears to be a prima facie case of malfeasance.
This letter and the enclosures represent the evidence accumulated in recent months. If, having considered it, you need any further information I will of course attempt to provide it.
In a nutshell, the case is this: the BBC’s senior management has, over many years, accepted money from the EU and its institutions in exchange for which they have enforced an editorial policy of positive support of the EU, contrary to both the spirit and the letter of the Royal Charter.
The Charter, which has the force of law, requires balance in the reporting of news and current affairs, although it has to be admitted that the obligations to maintain balance set out in the present document are much watered down from those in the original of some 80 years ago.
Nonetheless, even the present Royal Charter makes it clear that all strands of opinion on political matters must be given a fair hearing and roughly equal air time.
Solid proof exists that this is not the case. That evidence can be obtained from Lord Pearson of Rannoch, who has funded research into BBC coverage of the EU over many years. I have no doubt he will gladly make it available to you, together with any other relevant evidence you might find helpful.
You might also find a recently published book instructive - Can We Trust the BBC? by Robin Aitken. Mr Aitken worked for the Corporation for 25 years. His book describes numerous horror stories of bias and political prejudice, many of them quietly buried by past generations of BBC management.
This letter and enclosures concern themselves mainly with the other side of the coin – to be precise, the provision of substantial sums of EU money on less than commercial terms and for questionable motives.
I have also taken the liberty of enclosing background reading – for example the BBC’s internal attempt to put right an acknowledged lack of balance in EU editorial policy.
The BBC receives an annual funding of approximately £2.7 billion from the public through the licence fee system. This obliges members of the public to finance the BBC simply because they own a TV set.
As this is a legally enforceable poll tax, the public can expect the BBC to comply scrupulously with the terms of its Royal Charter. The governors have a duty to satisfy themselves that all activities of the BBC are carried out in accordance with the highest standards of public accountability.
It is arguable that they have not complied with such obligations. When reporting on the EU, the BBC routinely demonstrates a commitment to UK membership which at times amounts to little more than pro-EU propaganda.
Furthermore, the BBC has openly admitted that their reporting of EU activities is biased. Why else have they taken steps to redress the balance by appointing internal investigations and commissioning reports on the subject?
Some brief points from the evidence follow, specifically:
a) Article 7(1)(e) of the Royal Charter requires the governors "to ensure that any comments, proposals and complaints made by viewers and listeners of the Home Services are given due consideration and are properly handled by the Corporation". Lord Hutton's report on the death of Dr David Kelly clearly showed that the BBC did not comply with this Article when dealing with complaints from Alistair Campbell.
Furthermore, the BBC has on numerous occasions refused to consider complaints from viewers and listeners about coverage of EU affairs, despite the Charter obligation for complaints to be given due consideration. Refusing to accept complaints is not an option, and unlawful.
b) Article 7(1)(f) requires the governors "to ensure the treatment of controversial subjects with due accuracy and impartiality". The BBC clearly supports Britain’s membership of the EU and the abolition of the £ sterling in favour of the euro. The statistical and documentary evidence is overwhelming and readily available, as mentioned above. Much of the statistical evidence has been gathered for Lord Pearson by Minotaur Media, an independent monitoring organisation.
Some Minotaur Media research findings have been reported on the Global Britain web site. Other websites also support the view that the BBC has its own agenda, particularly on the EU. In addition, scores of anecdotal newspaper articles have pointed out the BBC's bias towards the EU.
Despite all this powerful evidence to the contrary, and its own internal enquiries, the BBC continually refutes complaints about its lack of balance in reporting EU news and current affairs. At times its denials border on calling black ‘white’, or insisting that the Emperor really is wearing clothes.
c) Rod Liddle (ex Editor, Radio 4’s Today programme) wrote an article about the Welsh National Assembly and the Scottish Parliament in The Spectator of 10 May 2003. He stated that the BBC's attitude was…
"the result of institutionalised political correctness, every bit as corrupting as institutionalised racism. It is result of seminars and workshops (I remember them well) where journalists are instructed time and time again that the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly are bloody important and don’t you dare suggest they aren’t".
Such editorial ‘guidance’ in the reporting of these institutions meant that the BBC was directly and specifically supporting the EU's policy of breaking up the UK into regions which could be more effectively controlled by Brussels. Such a policy was contrary to the BBC’s obligations under the Charter, and its implementation more propaganda than news.
d) The BBC's governors recently set up a review body under the chairmanship of Lord Taylor to examine whether or not the BBC was biased in favour of the EU. Their main finding was that the BBC was biased in favour of the EU “but that this bias was not deliberate”. The report confirmed that bias existed in the BBC, again contrary to its obligations under the Charter.
But to claim that it was not deliberate was an absurd conclusion bearing in mind the overwhelming contradictory evidence. Since when, for example, was the setting up and management of the seminars referred to above not "deliberate"? Since when were such events "accidental"?
e) The BBC has in recent years borrowed tens of millions of euros from the European Investment Bank, an institution of the European Union. These borrowings and other funding are detailed in the enclosed correspondence with the BBC’s team which is permanently based in Brussels (next door to the European Parliament building).
The correspondence also shows that the BBC gained these large sums of public money from the European Investment Bank on terms that would never have been available commercially. It also acquired funding from other parts of the EU’s web of institutions, again on less than transparent terms and – sometimes – for the vaguest of reasons. Indeed, as you will see, transparency in all of these dealings is notable by its absence.
The purpose of these soft loans and other funding is clearly intended to further the cause of EU federalism – in effect to ‘buy’ BBC support. Some might argue that it is bribery and corruption, others that it is fraud. At the very least I suggest malfeasance – a deliberate act knowingly undertaken against the public interest.
I write, therefore, to invite the Metropolitan Police to review the BBC's sources and application of funds, excluding the licence fee. Further, to examine the evidence linking the EU as a source of these funds with the BBC’s open support of the EU in its editorial coverage, contrary to its legal obligations under the Royal Charter.
Ashley Mote can be contacted at ashley.mote@btconnect.com
www.ashleymote.co.uk
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Prison Service reported to Commission for Racial Equality over relocation racial discrimination
Britain’s prison service has been heavily criticized for deciding to move one of its locations from Corby in Northamptonshire to the city of Leicester on racial grounds. Its reasons were disclosed in a leaked letter as being partially on the grounds of the racial profile of Corby, which at 93.7% white was considered to be not sufficiently diverse compared to Leicester’s more favourable 59.6%. Leicester’s racial profile, the Prison Service believes will allow it to attract a more diverse workforce.
Civil rights group Liberty and Law has reported the Prison Service to the
Commission for Racial Equality [CRE]asking them to investigate the legality of its racially discriminatory action. Director Gerald Hartup states “The CRE has a responsibility where the actions of public bodies fuel resentment and do enormous damage to race relations to investigate their strict adherence to the law and to report back to the people. ”
Liberty and Law last year successfully challenged the racially and sexually discriminatory recruitment procedure of Avon and Somerset and Gloucestershire Police Services.
The move to Leicester is clearly impractical for the majority of the white staff and their clearance will create vacancies to allow the Prison Service to more effectively chase government race targets.
Newspaper reports had headlines such as: The town branded too white and too British; Corby ‘penalized for having the wrong kind of immigrants’; Ordered to discriminate; Outraged town hits back.
The response of the public on websites and blogs has been overwhelmingly hostile to the social engineering adopted by a government that works on the principle that people are just ‘human resources’ to be manipulated by their mandarinate.
Northamptonshire Race Equality Council has condemned the action of the Prison Service together with the Conservative MP for neighbouring Kettering Philip Hollobone.
Despite the criticism the Home Office has been firm in its backing for a Prison Service that is following government orders to increase the percentage of ethnic minorities on the government pay roll.
A glance at the website of the CRE explains how the Corby situation has come about taking politicians by surprise at the results of their legislative follies. Factoring racial equality into relocation explains it all. The CRE’s successor the Commission for Equality and Human Rights (CEHR) under Trevor Phillips argues for even more extreme change in legislation to allow companies to discriminate directly on grounds of race to attain racially balanced workforces.
Britain’s prison service has been heavily criticized for deciding to move one of its locations from Corby in Northamptonshire to the city of Leicester on racial grounds. Its reasons were disclosed in a leaked letter as being partially on the grounds of the racial profile of Corby, which at 93.7% white was considered to be not sufficiently diverse compared to Leicester’s more favourable 59.6%. Leicester’s racial profile, the Prison Service believes will allow it to attract a more diverse workforce.
Civil rights group Liberty and Law has reported the Prison Service to the
Commission for Racial Equality [CRE]asking them to investigate the legality of its racially discriminatory action. Director Gerald Hartup states “The CRE has a responsibility where the actions of public bodies fuel resentment and do enormous damage to race relations to investigate their strict adherence to the law and to report back to the people. ”
Liberty and Law last year successfully challenged the racially and sexually discriminatory recruitment procedure of Avon and Somerset and Gloucestershire Police Services.
The move to Leicester is clearly impractical for the majority of the white staff and their clearance will create vacancies to allow the Prison Service to more effectively chase government race targets.
Newspaper reports had headlines such as: The town branded too white and too British; Corby ‘penalized for having the wrong kind of immigrants’; Ordered to discriminate; Outraged town hits back.
The response of the public on websites and blogs has been overwhelmingly hostile to the social engineering adopted by a government that works on the principle that people are just ‘human resources’ to be manipulated by their mandarinate.
Northamptonshire Race Equality Council has condemned the action of the Prison Service together with the Conservative MP for neighbouring Kettering Philip Hollobone.
Despite the criticism the Home Office has been firm in its backing for a Prison Service that is following government orders to increase the percentage of ethnic minorities on the government pay roll.
A glance at the website of the CRE explains how the Corby situation has come about taking politicians by surprise at the results of their legislative follies. Factoring racial equality into relocation explains it all. The CRE’s successor the Commission for Equality and Human Rights (CEHR) under Trevor Phillips argues for even more extreme change in legislation to allow companies to discriminate directly on grounds of race to attain racially balanced workforces.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
How many Al Gores could the earth sustain?
It seems to have taken a few days before it reached the British media. The first mention of it was an article in today’s Guardian. [An inconvenient truth: eco-warrior Al Gore's bloated gas and electricity bills]
Thanks to what the paper describes as “a little-known group based in his home state, the Tennessee Centre for Policy Research” Mr Gore’s consumption of gas and electricity is now in the public domain.
Gore’s electricity and gas bills of almost $30,000 a year were revealed to the Centre under America’s freedom of information rules.
It seems to have taken Gore, his supporters and the director of his film “An inconvenient truth” completely by surprise given their clumsy “shoot the messenger” response to the revelation.
The Centre’s team despite being dissed by the liberal media as having no “official status” is clearly doing a good job.
Tennessee Centre for Policy Research
http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/page.php
It seems to have taken a few days before it reached the British media. The first mention of it was an article in today’s Guardian. [An inconvenient truth: eco-warrior Al Gore's bloated gas and electricity bills]
Thanks to what the paper describes as “a little-known group based in his home state, the Tennessee Centre for Policy Research” Mr Gore’s consumption of gas and electricity is now in the public domain.
Gore’s electricity and gas bills of almost $30,000 a year were revealed to the Centre under America’s freedom of information rules.
It seems to have taken Gore, his supporters and the director of his film “An inconvenient truth” completely by surprise given their clumsy “shoot the messenger” response to the revelation.
The Centre’s team despite being dissed by the liberal media as having no “official status” is clearly doing a good job.
Tennessee Centre for Policy Research
http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/page.php
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Time is running out to save Freedom of Information Act
It’s the last chance to get in your protests about Government plans to neuter the Freedom of Information Act. The Act has been successfully used by journalists across all media to uncover information politicians, corporations and others want to keep secret. Plans by the Government to amend the Act will make it easier for public authorities to turn down legitimate requests on the basis of cost. There are also plans to exempt MPs from the requirements of the Act. The NUJ has joined forces with campaigners and industry bodies to oppose the changes. Make sure your voice is heard before the Government consultation closes on 8 March. Sign up to the Press Gazette petition at http://www.pressgazette.co.uk Tell your MP what you think. Go to http://www.writetothem.co.uk For further information and other campaign tools see http://www.cfoi.org.uk Do it today – before it’s too late!
This is a release from the National Union of Journalists
It’s the last chance to get in your protests about Government plans to neuter the Freedom of Information Act. The Act has been successfully used by journalists across all media to uncover information politicians, corporations and others want to keep secret. Plans by the Government to amend the Act will make it easier for public authorities to turn down legitimate requests on the basis of cost. There are also plans to exempt MPs from the requirements of the Act. The NUJ has joined forces with campaigners and industry bodies to oppose the changes. Make sure your voice is heard before the Government consultation closes on 8 March. Sign up to the Press Gazette petition at http://www.pressgazette.co.uk Tell your MP what you think. Go to http://www.writetothem.co.uk For further information and other campaign tools see http://www.cfoi.org.uk Do it today – before it’s too late!
This is a release from the National Union of Journalists
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Cameron backs BNP ballerina's right to work now
Ken Livingstone’s Unite against Fascism group, currently using David Cameron’s name as a supporter on its website to give credibility to its campaign to have BNP ballerina Simone Clarke sacked now publicly lacks his support.
When questioned by the Daily Telegraph his spokesman stated: “I think it must be a different David Cameron. David doesn't sign petitions and we don't know anything about this. "
The spokesman added: "He thinks the BNP is repugnant but doesn't believe she should be sacked."
Until now leaders of the main political parties have been silent on this key freedom issue.
A mystery still remains. Three other current Conservative MPs are claimed as supporters on the UAF website: Home Office shadow minister Edward Garnier QC, Peter Bottomley MP and Anthony Steen MP.
A spokesperson for civil liberties group Liberty and Law stated: “It is important that these MPs make their position clear and do not allow UAF to exploit their names in a campaign to bully a woman out of her job.”
UAF’s explanation fails to clear up the matter over Mr Cameron: “I'm not sure how long he has been a supporter or how he came to support us. He must have signed up to one of our campaigns in the House of Commons."
Over 50 MPs are on the UAF’s list together with many names of the great and the good. It is not known how many of these wish their names to be associated with UAF or its witch hunt.
It is important for the future of freedom that they should now make their position clear and have their names deleted from this shameful list.
Ken Livingstone’s Unite against Fascism group, currently using David Cameron’s name as a supporter on its website to give credibility to its campaign to have BNP ballerina Simone Clarke sacked now publicly lacks his support.
When questioned by the Daily Telegraph his spokesman stated: “I think it must be a different David Cameron. David doesn't sign petitions and we don't know anything about this. "
The spokesman added: "He thinks the BNP is repugnant but doesn't believe she should be sacked."
Until now leaders of the main political parties have been silent on this key freedom issue.
A mystery still remains. Three other current Conservative MPs are claimed as supporters on the UAF website: Home Office shadow minister Edward Garnier QC, Peter Bottomley MP and Anthony Steen MP.
A spokesperson for civil liberties group Liberty and Law stated: “It is important that these MPs make their position clear and do not allow UAF to exploit their names in a campaign to bully a woman out of her job.”
UAF’s explanation fails to clear up the matter over Mr Cameron: “I'm not sure how long he has been a supporter or how he came to support us. He must have signed up to one of our campaigns in the House of Commons."
Over 50 MPs are on the UAF’s list together with many names of the great and the good. It is not known how many of these wish their names to be associated with UAF or its witch hunt.
It is important for the future of freedom that they should now make their position clear and have their names deleted from this shameful list.
Friday, January 12, 2007
Cameron backing for "anti-racist" group in bid to sack BNP ballerina
David Cameron is listed among a group of prominent politicians and personalities claimed by Unite against Fascism [UAF] as supporters as they demonstrate today outside the English National Ballet calling for the sacking of principal dancer Simone Clarke who was outed as a BNP member following a recent Guardian investigation by a journalist posing as a BNP supporter who gained access to that party’s membership list.
Civil rights group Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup said: “It is now important that Mr Cameron makes his position clear on what rights he believes members of the BNP have in this society. It’s not much fun defending the human rights of BNP members but it comes with the job of politicians who believe in freedom.”
The UAF published supporters list is headed by Ken Livingstone whose race adviser Lee Jasper also chairman of the National Assembly Against Racism initiated the witch-hunt against the ballerina in The Guardian with the words “I think she should be sacked”.
It is not known how many of these prominent individuals will make up the 100 or so demonstrators expected to support the call of Weyman Bennett , the Socialist Workers' Party Joint Secretary of UAF to join in the demonstration.
There are now increasing calls for members of the BNP to be sacked from their jobs. This view has been given support by Trevor Phillips former chair of the Commission for Racial Equality.
The UAF supporters list currently contains over 50 MPs, nine MEPs, fifteen trade union leaders including TUC general secretary Brendan Barber, human rights lawyer Louise Christian and even Institute of Employment Rights director Carolyn Jones. For how long this will remain the case is a matter of some significance.
End
UAF supporters http://www.uaf.org.uk/aboutUAF.asp?choice=4
David Cameron is listed among a group of prominent politicians and personalities claimed by Unite against Fascism [UAF] as supporters as they demonstrate today outside the English National Ballet calling for the sacking of principal dancer Simone Clarke who was outed as a BNP member following a recent Guardian investigation by a journalist posing as a BNP supporter who gained access to that party’s membership list.
Civil rights group Liberty and Law director Gerald Hartup said: “It is now important that Mr Cameron makes his position clear on what rights he believes members of the BNP have in this society. It’s not much fun defending the human rights of BNP members but it comes with the job of politicians who believe in freedom.”
The UAF published supporters list is headed by Ken Livingstone whose race adviser Lee Jasper also chairman of the National Assembly Against Racism initiated the witch-hunt against the ballerina in The Guardian with the words “I think she should be sacked”.
It is not known how many of these prominent individuals will make up the 100 or so demonstrators expected to support the call of Weyman Bennett , the Socialist Workers' Party Joint Secretary of UAF to join in the demonstration.
There are now increasing calls for members of the BNP to be sacked from their jobs. This view has been given support by Trevor Phillips former chair of the Commission for Racial Equality.
The UAF supporters list currently contains over 50 MPs, nine MEPs, fifteen trade union leaders including TUC general secretary Brendan Barber, human rights lawyer Louise Christian and even Institute of Employment Rights director Carolyn Jones. For how long this will remain the case is a matter of some significance.
End
UAF supporters http://www.uaf.org.uk/aboutUAF.asp?choice=4
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
BBC shock research reveals 96% of councillors are men
In an almost casual aside during an interview [2 January 2007] about the pay of councillors Today presenter Sarah Montague informed listeners: “ 96% of councillors I think are men.”
These figures are a shocking deterioration on those provided by the Fawcett Society who state: “Women currently make up only 27% of local councillors.” According to the Equal Opportunities Commission in 2001 men made up 71% of councillors.
In the same segment another surprising but this time reassuring fact was enunciated by Cllr Miranda Grell. She explained that “nobody goes into becoming a local councillor for the pay.” Her own local authority has recently increased the remuneration of councillors to £10,000.
In an almost casual aside during an interview [2 January 2007] about the pay of councillors Today presenter Sarah Montague informed listeners: “ 96% of councillors I think are men.”
These figures are a shocking deterioration on those provided by the Fawcett Society who state: “Women currently make up only 27% of local councillors.” According to the Equal Opportunities Commission in 2001 men made up 71% of councillors.
In the same segment another surprising but this time reassuring fact was enunciated by Cllr Miranda Grell. She explained that “nobody goes into becoming a local councillor for the pay.” Her own local authority has recently increased the remuneration of councillors to £10,000.
Thursday, December 28, 2006
Bogus racial attack on Sikh youngster follows similar claims
On 15 November 2006 the Edinburgh News reported an unnamed 15year old Sikh youngster from Edinburgh as the subject of a vicious racial attack. According to the boy he had his hair cut off, his bandana pulled off and was punched. It was separately reported that he had racist epithets written on his body by four white youths who he was able to comprehensively describe to the local police and that he was kicked to the ground suffering bruising and swelling to his nose and both cheeks as well as soreness to his left shoulder and ribs.
The story was reported all over the world. It promoted an inter-faith vigil on 19 November to promote peace attended by Sikhs from all over the UK.
On 24 December the Observer reported Sikh boy admits his attack lie. Sources told the Observer “that he felt torn between his Sikh values and more westernised ones. They said he had wanted to get his hair cut for some time, but was afraid of the reaction of some members of his family and the Sikh community.”
Source: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1978539,00.html
No action is to be taken against the youngster who has apologised for his action.
Here are two more similar stories from Canada.
BRITISH COLUMBIA -- TEEN FAKED RACIAL ATTACK
Globe and Mail, August 26, 1998
"SURREY, A Sikh teenager faked a racial attack to avoid facing his parents over his desire to look more Western, police said yesterday.
The 18-year-old man reported last month that he was attacked and beaten by three white skinheads who ripped off his turban and cut off his long hair. Police investigating the so-called attack quickly began hearing rumours that it never took place.
The victim has admitted to police that he staged the incident, Staff Sergeant Ross Fisher said. The teenager's wish to adopt a more Western style of appearance didn't sit well with his parents, so he and three friends faked the attack by cutting his hair. Because he and his friends have unblemished records, Staff Sgt. Fisher said, police will try to work with them to avoid laying charges."
Source: http://www.canadianfreespeech.com/human_wrongs/full_article.html
B.C. teen won't face charges over racial attack story
Last Updated: Thursday, June 9, 2005 12:27 PM ET
The RCMP will not lay charges against a B.C. Sikh teenager who made up a story about being the victim of a vicious racial attack.
The 17-year-old Richmond Sikh had told police that five white men in their 20s beat him, cut off his turban and hacked off his hair, which, for religious reasons, had never been cut.
The alleged attack two weeks ago spurred outrage and fear among the Indo-Canadian community.
The teenager later admitted he made up the story, and that he had injured himself and cut off his own hair.
"The RCMP and our partners do not believe it is in the best interest of this young person or society in general to have this incident carry forth through criminal charges," the RCMP said in a statement.
"This incident is not as much about criminality as it is culture, compassion and the emotions of a young person. This is a time that calls for calm understanding and not a time to be thinking about criminal charges."
RCMP Cpl. Peter Thiessen wouldn't say whether the boy made up the story just to explain getting a haircut against his parents wishes.
There are definitely some cultural identity issues and this young person is under an incredible amount of pressure," he said.
Richmond RCMP Supt. Ward Clapham said the teenager will instead face a community justice forum.
"So the victim gets to be heard, the victim gets to feel they're being understood, the victim gets to share the pain the anger and all the emotions and realities they faced," he said.
But some in the Sikh community say the police are going too easy on the teenager.
Balwant Singh Gill, a spokesman for many of B.C.'s Sikh temple societies, said the incident has been an embarrassment to the Sikh community and set back racial harmony in the province.
Gill said he'd rather see the boy face criminal charges and that he's not sure how community leaders are supposed to come up with a suitable punishment.
He added that he's worried that the next time a real hate crime occurs, people will ignore it.
The RCMP said the boy will be held accountable and that in other cases, young offenders have been asked to perform community service, write letters of apology or undergo counselling.
Source: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1978539,00.html
On 15 November 2006 the Edinburgh News reported an unnamed 15year old Sikh youngster from Edinburgh as the subject of a vicious racial attack. According to the boy he had his hair cut off, his bandana pulled off and was punched. It was separately reported that he had racist epithets written on his body by four white youths who he was able to comprehensively describe to the local police and that he was kicked to the ground suffering bruising and swelling to his nose and both cheeks as well as soreness to his left shoulder and ribs.
The story was reported all over the world. It promoted an inter-faith vigil on 19 November to promote peace attended by Sikhs from all over the UK.
On 24 December the Observer reported Sikh boy admits his attack lie. Sources told the Observer “that he felt torn between his Sikh values and more westernised ones. They said he had wanted to get his hair cut for some time, but was afraid of the reaction of some members of his family and the Sikh community.”
Source: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1978539,00.html
No action is to be taken against the youngster who has apologised for his action.
Here are two more similar stories from Canada.
BRITISH COLUMBIA -- TEEN FAKED RACIAL ATTACK
Globe and Mail, August 26, 1998
"SURREY, A Sikh teenager faked a racial attack to avoid facing his parents over his desire to look more Western, police said yesterday.
The 18-year-old man reported last month that he was attacked and beaten by three white skinheads who ripped off his turban and cut off his long hair. Police investigating the so-called attack quickly began hearing rumours that it never took place.
The victim has admitted to police that he staged the incident, Staff Sergeant Ross Fisher said. The teenager's wish to adopt a more Western style of appearance didn't sit well with his parents, so he and three friends faked the attack by cutting his hair. Because he and his friends have unblemished records, Staff Sgt. Fisher said, police will try to work with them to avoid laying charges."
Source: http://www.canadianfreespeech.com/human_wrongs/full_article.html
B.C. teen won't face charges over racial attack story
Last Updated: Thursday, June 9, 2005 12:27 PM ET
The RCMP will not lay charges against a B.C. Sikh teenager who made up a story about being the victim of a vicious racial attack.
The 17-year-old Richmond Sikh had told police that five white men in their 20s beat him, cut off his turban and hacked off his hair, which, for religious reasons, had never been cut.
The alleged attack two weeks ago spurred outrage and fear among the Indo-Canadian community.
The teenager later admitted he made up the story, and that he had injured himself and cut off his own hair.
"The RCMP and our partners do not believe it is in the best interest of this young person or society in general to have this incident carry forth through criminal charges," the RCMP said in a statement.
"This incident is not as much about criminality as it is culture, compassion and the emotions of a young person. This is a time that calls for calm understanding and not a time to be thinking about criminal charges."
RCMP Cpl. Peter Thiessen wouldn't say whether the boy made up the story just to explain getting a haircut against his parents wishes.
There are definitely some cultural identity issues and this young person is under an incredible amount of pressure," he said.
Richmond RCMP Supt. Ward Clapham said the teenager will instead face a community justice forum.
"So the victim gets to be heard, the victim gets to feel they're being understood, the victim gets to share the pain the anger and all the emotions and realities they faced," he said.
But some in the Sikh community say the police are going too easy on the teenager.
Balwant Singh Gill, a spokesman for many of B.C.'s Sikh temple societies, said the incident has been an embarrassment to the Sikh community and set back racial harmony in the province.
Gill said he'd rather see the boy face criminal charges and that he's not sure how community leaders are supposed to come up with a suitable punishment.
He added that he's worried that the next time a real hate crime occurs, people will ignore it.
The RCMP said the boy will be held accountable and that in other cases, young offenders have been asked to perform community service, write letters of apology or undergo counselling.
Source: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1978539,00.html
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Trevor Phillips and the 289 white people he turned his back on
In some of the few words so far directly attributed to Trevor Phillips at the Commission for Racial Equality’s two day conference [27/28 November] he talks of "the racism that smiles to your face just as it's dumping your job application in the bin marked 'not white enough'". [Guardian 27 November 2006]
Let us examine that statement. Trevor Phillips is a wonderful media performer capable of sublime political jujitsu.
If he had replaced “not white enough” with “white” he would have been talking about the biggest race scam for years in which he played a crucial role in facilitating and securing its success.
He aided and abetted the racist exclusion of 289 males this year whose applications to join the police were indeed binned by the chief constables of Avon and Somerset and of Gloucestershire. Mr Phillips was asked by Liberty and Law to intervene in time to reinstate their right to be considered for work. A single telephone call by him or one of his officers could have stopped the vicious colour bar but the CRE let the recruitment go ahead by spinning out its investigations. Mr Phillips knows how not to use the law. He is the soul of charming if diabolical discretion.
Of course, the CRE eventually had to conclude that the chief constables were acting against the law and make the police authorities sign a piece of paper saying they would not do it again. But tempo was important. The white males were successfully shafted and the job completed and with no penalty. The police got away with their [and his] racist recruitment policy scot-free thanks to his position as boss of the £20million quango with a legal monopoly.
Mr Phillips has been helped of course by a feeble national media and politicians from all the major parties terrified to call him to account. It would take more than white victims of racism to stir them.
Why did Mr Phillips collude in the colour bar? He has been bold enough to make it clear in his speeches.
At the Social Policy Forum on 19 June he stated “For example we recently had to order one police force - Somerset and Avon - to stop a programme to fast track some minority applicants into the force, because we thought a court might say that it was unfair to white applicants. Yet they were clear that they only brought in the scheme for operational reasons, not political or social reasons. I don't think it can be right that we have drifted into a situation where the CRE has to stand in the way of moderate measures to increase diversity in the police force - something which Scarman recommended twenty-five years ago, Macpherson more recently, and the Chief Police Officers are desperate to do so they can do their job better.”
Note the weasely description. The Forum wonks would not have got from his gloss how white applicants had been summarily rejected once their race had been discovered from the equal opportunity forms, which they were assured were no part of the recruitment policy.
In some of the few words so far directly attributed to Trevor Phillips at the Commission for Racial Equality’s two day conference [27/28 November] he talks of "the racism that smiles to your face just as it's dumping your job application in the bin marked 'not white enough'". [Guardian 27 November 2006]
Let us examine that statement. Trevor Phillips is a wonderful media performer capable of sublime political jujitsu.
If he had replaced “not white enough” with “white” he would have been talking about the biggest race scam for years in which he played a crucial role in facilitating and securing its success.
He aided and abetted the racist exclusion of 289 males this year whose applications to join the police were indeed binned by the chief constables of Avon and Somerset and of Gloucestershire. Mr Phillips was asked by Liberty and Law to intervene in time to reinstate their right to be considered for work. A single telephone call by him or one of his officers could have stopped the vicious colour bar but the CRE let the recruitment go ahead by spinning out its investigations. Mr Phillips knows how not to use the law. He is the soul of charming if diabolical discretion.
Of course, the CRE eventually had to conclude that the chief constables were acting against the law and make the police authorities sign a piece of paper saying they would not do it again. But tempo was important. The white males were successfully shafted and the job completed and with no penalty. The police got away with their [and his] racist recruitment policy scot-free thanks to his position as boss of the £20million quango with a legal monopoly.
Mr Phillips has been helped of course by a feeble national media and politicians from all the major parties terrified to call him to account. It would take more than white victims of racism to stir them.
Why did Mr Phillips collude in the colour bar? He has been bold enough to make it clear in his speeches.
At the Social Policy Forum on 19 June he stated “For example we recently had to order one police force - Somerset and Avon - to stop a programme to fast track some minority applicants into the force, because we thought a court might say that it was unfair to white applicants. Yet they were clear that they only brought in the scheme for operational reasons, not political or social reasons. I don't think it can be right that we have drifted into a situation where the CRE has to stand in the way of moderate measures to increase diversity in the police force - something which Scarman recommended twenty-five years ago, Macpherson more recently, and the Chief Police Officers are desperate to do so they can do their job better.”
Note the weasely description. The Forum wonks would not have got from his gloss how white applicants had been summarily rejected once their race had been discovered from the equal opportunity forms, which they were assured were no part of the recruitment policy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)