''Diversity'' and ''Inclusion'' in the UK: the rise of the Racist White Liberals

[G. Ward]

It does not exist in the UK, it is illegal here end of. The only instance where it is lawful to give someone less qualified than another on basis of race, gender ,faith, sexuality , disability etc is if the reason falls under the definition of a genuine occupational requirement, for example female bra fitters or catholic priests.

Lines begging for diverse candidates to apply is not the same as actually handing out the job to them.

The only thing akin to affirmative action in the UK I'm aware of was the union closed shop and the exclusion of black people from certain roles in the Army and Civil Service, prior to the passing of the old Race Relations Act, as amended 1976. This of course only benefitted white people.


I suggest you read this. You will get the picture

https://assets.publishing.service.go...story_Note.pdf

Quite right. In this country, we don't hand jobs to ethnic-minorities. The following is said un-sarcastically: I didn't know that was the definition of affirmative action.

The following is said with genuine curiousity: In America do they literally just hand jobs to ethnic minorities?

That's insane.

Take care,

-V

[Aexodus]

We do have affirmative action here, and we call it ‘positive action’. The first instance of it was way back in 1978 in Camden, which was at the time illegal. This remained so until the ‘Equality’ Act 2010. Now it is legal to favour someone for their race if merit is judged to be equal, or even to advertise for diversity hiring.

[Cope]

Quite right. In this country, we don't hand jobs to ethnic-minorities. The following is said un-sarcastically: I didn't know that was the definition of affirmative action.

The following is said with genuine curiousity: In America do they literally just hand jobs to ethnic minorities?

That's insane.

Take care,

-V

In terms of recruitment/promotion in the employment market, preferential treatment on the basis of protected characteristics is permissible if two or more candidates are equally qualified and the employer "reasonably thinks that" there is a disadvantage connected with a characteristic of one of the candidates. The government calls this positive action. Outside of the employment market, it seems that there is considerably more scope for discriminating on the basis of protected characteristics: organizations like Creative Access openly engage in affirmative action, but are seemingly able to circumvent the 2010 Equality Act by arguing that the paid "internships" and other opportunities which they offer exclusively to non-whites aren't technically jobs. Whether this theory would actually survive judicial scrutiny I don't know, but they've been doing it for years and, so far as I'm aware, no one has bothered challenging them legally. Another obvious example of affirmative action in the United Kingdom is all-women shortlists for parliamentary candidacy which the Equality Act allows for up until 2030. If I had to put money on it, I'd bet that they'll extend this deadline again.

[G. Ward]

We do have affirmative action here, and we call it ‘positive action’. The first instance of it was way back in 1978 in Camden, which was at the time illegal. This remained so until the ‘Equality’ Act 2010. Now it is legal to favour someone for their race if merit is judged to be equal, or even to advertise for diversity hiring.

Ah. Thanks for clearing that up.

do you have an opinion on the practise?

In terms of recruitment/promotion in the employment market, preferential treatment on the basis of protected characteristics is permissible if two or more candidates are equally qualified and the employer "reasonably thinks that" there is a disadvantage connected with a characteristic of one of the candidates. The government calls this positive action. Outside of the employment market, it seems that there is considerably more scope for discriminating on the basis of protected characteristics: organizations like Creative Access openly engage in affirmative action, but are seemingly able to circumvent the 2010 Equality Act by arguing that the paid "internships" and other opportunities which they offer exclusively to non-whites aren't technically jobs. Whether this theory would actually survive judicial scrutiny I don't know, but they've been doing it for years and, so far as I'm aware, no one has bothered challenging them legally. Another obvious example of affirmative action in the United Kingdom is all-women shortlists for parliamentary candidacy which the Equality Act allows for up until 2030. If I had to put money on it, I'd bet that they'll extend this deadline again.

Right. Okay. Thanks for clearing that up. Do you have a background in Law?

How do you know all this stuff? Or, do you spend time researching it & then posting it here?

Of course, either is fine.

Cheers,

[mongrel]

Ah. Thanks for clearing that up.

do you have an opinion on the practise?



Right. Okay. Thanks for clearing that up. Do you have a background in Law?

How do you know all this stuff? Or, do you spend time researching it & then posting it here?

Of course, either is fine.



Cheers,

A person posts an ancient article judging by the antedilivian language in badly drafted article. Was it written when race discrimination was perfectly legal (it applies both ways).Or is it an English article at all? The grammar is so bad it looks like it was written in a non-English speaking country. Aexodous, date and name of source please. Risible discription of Camden btw, which makes me wonder what the source actually is.

EDit- Actually no, I'm calling it out as a bad fake. I can't trace the image or the wording. There is no way that would pass a proof read in any newspaper. Even If I'm wrong and the proof-reader was either drunk or missing, no-one in England spells 'coloured' that way, or recognise or specialise with a 'z'. Americans do.

The other post is utter drivel, legally speaking and yet you ask if he has a background in law? Only on teh internetz.


Lets put an end to this nonsense.

Affirmative action is a foreign practice. The UK is a sovereign country with its own laws and customs. Anyone who says we have adopted US or other foreign laws and customs is either uninformed, a fool or a liar.

The law in UK has never generally accepted the practice of favouring one protected group over another in employment. As far as the current law goes (NI excepted)

the general principle is set out in section 13(1) Equality Act 2010

'A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others.'

It is listed as prohibited conduct , so anyone for example who says it is normal practice to offer jobs to a particular group is either uninformed, a fool or a liar.


https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/13


Of course there are times when discrimination is lawful and righfully so, where there is an occupational requirement for a particular person spec. A Vicar must be Christian, a Catholic one, male. It's only fair for an telephone reception in North Wales to reserve some jobs for Welsh speakers to meet customer demand

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/9

On positive action, I must confess I've never seen the point. in around 30 years of observing the chaotic process that is commonly known as employee relation I've never seen a case where there has been a dispute between two people equallyqualified for a post. Not just my opinion either , 'Since its introduction, section159 of the Equality Act 2010 has been seldom used by employers, mainly due to perceived difficulty of demonstrating that two or more candidates are truly comparable.' (Weightmans.com)

But s158/9 is there, so I guess some minister was persuaded otherwise.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga...t/11/chapter/2

The thing is it doesn't actually favour the person landing the job, they would have been picked , quite lawfully anyway. Remember 'A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others.'. Picking one person when both are equally qualified is not detrimental treatment to the other, in terms of law. It is just bad luck. What it does do is protect the employer from a discrimination claim from the unfortunate loser.


Epic _fail's reeeee is legally illiterate. The application of positive action is spelt out in UK law (not American)

The law is clear , well at least to a practioner.

'(2)Part 5 (work) does not prohibit P from taking action within subsection (3) with the aim of enabling or encouraging persons who share the protected characteristic to—

(a)overcome or minimise that disadvantage, or

(b)participate in that activity.

(3)That action is treating a person (A) more favourably in connection with recruitment or promotion than another person (B) because A has the protected characteristic but B does not.

(4)But subsection (2) applies only if—

(a)A is as qualified as B to be recruited or promoted,

(b)P does not have a policy of treating persons who share the protected characteristic more favourably in connection with recruitment or promotion than persons who do not share it, and

(c)taking the action in question is a proportionate means of achieving the aim referred to in subsection (2). '


This principle in underlined in case law which says that the Employment Tribunal must be convinced that ‘taking the action in question is a proportionate means of achieving the aim’ of encouraging persons with the protected characteristic to ‘overcome or minimise disadvantage’ or participate in the activity in question.

As far as I know there has only been one s159 case to date.

One Mr Furlong won his case against Cheshire Police because as the Tribunal put it 'Whilst the Tribunal applauds the respondents attempts to improve diversity and its attempts to recruit from a wider pool to have more police officers with the protected characteristics, applying positive action to the large volume exercise in this way does not seem to us to be reasonably necessary.'

https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribun...e-2405577-2018

One final word of advice, unless a source is professional, don't take anyone's view of s158 or 159 as being of any use.

The Goverment policy intention is described in the Explanatory Note. It says.......

'The extent to which it is proportionate to take positive action measures which may result in people not having the relevant characteristic being treated less favourably will depend, among other things, on the seriousness of the relevant disadvantage, the extremity of need or under-representation and the availability of other means of countering them. This provision will need to be interpreted in accordance with European law which limits the extent to which the kind of action it permits will be allowed.' If you go back the the case I referred you to you can see how limited the application of this section is, in light of this note.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga...ision/3/11/2/1



Now I did say there is no such thing as affirmative action in the UK. End of. Are you going to take the word of someone conversant the law, or some amateurs reeeeeeeeeeeeing whilst copy/pasting random media articles accompanied by uninformed opinion, not facts?


Can we now go back to discussing what goes on in the UK, rather than what some foreigner imagines it to be?

[Cope]

A person posts an ancient article judging by the antedilivian language in badly drafted article. Was it written when race discrimination was perfectly legal (it applies both ways).Or is it an English article at all? The grammar is so bad it looks like it was written in a non-English speaking country. Aexodous, date and name of source please. Risible discription of Camden btw, which makes me wonder what the source actually is.

EDit- Actually no, I'm calling it out as a bad fake. I can't trace the image or the wording. There is no way that would pass a proof read in any newspaper. Even If I'm wrong and the proof-reader was either drunk or missing, no-one in England spells 'coloured' that way, or recognise or specialise with a 'z'. Americans do.

The other post is utter drivel, legally speaking and yet you ask if he has a background in law? Only on teh internetz.


Lets put an end to this nonsense.

Affirmative action is a foreign practice. The UK is a sovereign country with its own laws and customs. Anyone who says we have adopted US or other foreign laws and customs is either uninformed, a fool or a liar.

The law in UK has never generally accepted the practice of favouring one protected group over another in employment. As far as the current law goes (NI excepted)

the general principle is set out in section 13(1) Equality Act 2010

'A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others.'

It is listed as prohibited conduct , so anyone for example who says it is normal practice to offer jobs to a particular group is either uninformed, a fool or a liar.


https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/13


Of course there are times when discrimination is lawful and righfully so, where there is an occupational requirement for a particular person spec. A Vicar must be Christian, a Catholic one, male. It's only fair for an telephone reception in North Wales to reserve some jobs for Welsh speakers to meet customer demand

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/9

On positive action, I must confess I've never seen the point. in around 30 years of observing the chaotic process that is commonly known as employee relation I've never seen a case where there has been a dispute between two people equallyqualified for a post. Not just my opinion either , 'Since its introduction, section159 of the Equality Act 2010 has been seldom used by employers, mainly due to perceived difficulty of demonstrating that two or more candidates are truly comparable.' (Weightmans.com)

But s158/9 is there, so I guess some minister was persuaded otherwise.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga...t/11/chapter/2

The thing is it doesn't actually favour the person landing the job, they would have been picked , quite lawfully anyway. Remember 'A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others.'. Picking one person when both are equally qualified is not detrimental treatment to the other, in terms of law. It is just bad luck. What it does do is protect the employer from a discrimination claim from the unfortunate loser.


Epic _fail's reeeee is legally illiterate. The application of positive action is spelt out in UK law (not American)

The law is clear , well at least to a practioner.

'(2)Part 5 (work) does not prohibit P from taking action within subsection (3) with the aim of enabling or encouraging persons who share the protected characteristic to—

(a)overcome or minimise that disadvantage, or

(b)participate in that activity.

(3)That action is treating a person (A) more favourably in connection with recruitment or promotion than another person (B) because A has the protected characteristic but B does not.

(4)But subsection (2) applies only if—

(a)A is as qualified as B to be recruited or promoted,

(b)P does not have a policy of treating persons who share the protected characteristic more favourably in connection with recruitment or promotion than persons who do not share it, and

(c)taking the action in question is a proportionate means of achieving the aim referred to in subsection (2). '


This principle in underlined in case law which says that the Employment Tribunal must be convinced that ‘taking the action in question is a proportionate means of achieving the aim’ of encouraging persons with the protected characteristic to ‘overcome or minimise disadvantage’ or participate in the activity in question.

As far as I know there has only been one s159 case to date.

One Mr Furlong won his case against Cheshire Police because as the Tribunal put it 'Whilst the Tribunal applauds the respondents attempts to improve diversity and its attempts to recruit from a wider pool to have more police officers with the protected characteristics, applying positive action to the large volume exercise in this way does not seem to us to be reasonably necessary.'

https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribun...e-2405577-2018

One final word of advivce, unless a source is professional, don't take anyone's view of s158 or 159 as being of any use.

The Goverment policy intention is described in the Explanatory Note. It says.......

'The extent to which it is proportionate to take positive action measures which may result in people not having the relevant characteristic being treated less favourably will depend, among other things, on the seriousness of the relevant disadvantage, the extremity of need or under-representation and the availability of other means of countering them. This provision will need to be interpreted in accordance with European law which limits the extent to which the kind of action it permits will be allowed.' If you go back the the case I referred you to you can see how limited the application of this section is, in light of this note.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga...ision/3/11/2/1



Now I did say there is no such thing as affirmative action in the UK. End of. Are you going to take the word of someone conversant the law, or some amateurs reeeeeeeeeeeeing whilst copy/pasting random media articles accompanied by uninformed opinion, not facts?


Can we now go back to discussing what goes on in the UK, rather than what some foreigner imagines it to be?

Nothing written here rebukes any of the arguments made in my post. You called me "legally illiterate" and then went onto cite the exact chapter of the legislation which I had just introduced into the conversation. You then dismissed out of hand irrefutable evidence showing an organization connected with well known British brands profiteering from practices which include affirmative action. Appealing to your own authority and spamming the usual screeching is, as ever, thoroughly unconvincing.

[mongrel]

Nothing written here rebukes any of the arguments made in my post. You called me "legally illiterate" and then went onto cite the exact chapter of the legislation which I had just introduced into the conversation. You then dismissed out of hand irrefutable evidence showing an organization connected with well known British brands profiteering from practices which include affirmative action. Appealing to your own authority and spamming the usual screeching is, as ever, thoroughly unconvincing.

Utter bollocks. You can't insist that UK laws reflect an entirely foreign legal practice. Your barely adequate description of UK law, which did not cite the relevant sections and obviously didn't cover the restrictions placed on employers considering positive action when selecting candidates. Given your posting history, I infer that omission was deliberate.

I have provided the relevant law, the actual government interpretation of it and the only example of case law arising from s158/9 that has arisen 9 years after implentation. Which part of what I said was incorrect in law?

Of course you can't. As you are an amateur, all you can do is reeeeeeeeeeeeeeee like some demented goat. Not even worth my mockery.

I'm sure Mr Ward is intelligent enough to read these proper, official sources and learn by himself how our laws are constructed,and why.

Aexodous, any word on what I suggest is an obviously fake article?

[Cope]

Utter bollocks. You can't insist that UK laws reflect an entirely foreign legal practice.

At no point did I insist that "UK laws reflect an entirely foreign legal practice". You're reverting to inventing my arguments again.

Your barely adequate description of UK law, which did not cite the relevant sections and obviously didn't cover the restrictions placed on employers considering positive action when selecting candidates. Given your posting history, I infer that omission was deliberate.

I have provided the relevant law, the actual government interpretation of it and the only example of case law arising from s158/9 that has arisen 9 years after implentation. Which part of what I said was incorrect in law?

Of course you can't. As you are an amateur, all you can do is reeeeeeeeeeeeeeee like some demented goat. Not even worth my mockery.

I'm sure Mr Ward is intelligent enough to read these proper, official sources and learn by himself how our laws are constructed,and why.

Aexodous, any word on what I suggest is an obviously fake article?

I cited the chapter which specifically relates to the topic under discussion. Relevant caveats are included in the chapter and the entire Act is accessible via the link I provided. Your furious accusation of my supposed legal illiteracy - which you followed up, first by by citing the same chapter of the Act which I'd just introduced to the discussion and then by whinging that said chapter lacked the "relevant sections" - indicates that you didn't bother reading my post, have no interest in discussing the points I raised and have descended into your typical state of belligerent posturing. There is no point engaging with you further.

[Infidel144]

A person posts an ancient article judging by the antedilivian language in badly drafted article. Was it written when race discrimination was perfectly legal (it applies both ways).Or is it an English article at all? The grammar is so bad it looks like it was written in a non-English speaking country. Aexodous, date and name of source please. Risible discription of Camden btw, which makes me wonder what the source actually is.

EDit- Actually no, I'm calling it out as a bad fake. I can't trace the image or the wording. There is no way that would pass a proof read in any newspaper. Even If I'm wrong and the proof-reader was either drunk or missing, no-one in England spells 'coloured' that way, or recognise or specialise with a 'z'. Americans do.

Well, if you had read Aexodus post you might have noted that he dated it to 1978. You might also have noted the reporter's name (Bruce Levett) and news association (CP) and come up with one Bruce Levett of The Canadian Press (obit here: https://www.squamishfuneralchapel.co...e/obituary.php ).

Nothing written here rebukes any of the arguments made in my post. You called me "legally illiterate" and then went onto cite the exact chapter of the legislation which I had just introduced into the conversation.

You don't expect anything different do you?

[Cope]

You don't expect anything different do you?

Not really. The point of my response was to offer a valid perspective for other potential readers; I had no expectation that my interlocutor would attempt to address the arguments which contradict his view.

[mongrel]

Not really. The point of my response was to offer a valid perspective for other potential readers; I had no expectation that my interlocutor would attempt to address the arguments which contradict his view.

Valid? my arse.
It is not a matter of perspective, it's a matter of law. There is nothing to argue about, unless you consider yourself more expert on the issue than Parliamentary Counsel and the Tribunal Members whose decision clarified the application of sections 158/9 .

I doubt , under the circumstances that you can can provide any reasoned argument, just the usual reeeeeeees. That is why your efforts lack substance. Providing a bare link isn't enough, I doubt if you even read the act properly so why expect anyone else to?

You should have gone over the general rules of discrimination and referred to s158/9 in some detail in order to put things in proper perspective. You chose not to, and I can draw an inference from that, it is because you could hide the true nature of the beast, allowing you to pretend is akin to some alien law. As I said, those arguments are legally illiterate.

You can't have a serious discussion with direct and complete reference to the relevant sections and the relevant parts of the policy intent ( the explanatory note). That , for the benefit of the forum is now provided, with some case law, for no charge. Let there be no doubt. Your pretence that UK law is akin to that found in the US is, in my humble opinion total bollocks. End of.

I trust that other readers will refer to the actual law and legal arguments provided and form their own views from that, rather than endure reeeeees about foreign issues that have absolutely no relevance in the UK. For example , if someone took the trouble to read s158/9 and the judgment and said to me that, in their opinion it wasn't necessary and indeed confusing to employers and there is a case for rewrite through a statutory instrument to reflect the recent judgment , or withdrawal of sections 158/9 altogether, I would say fair argument, have some rep. That is how a proper and reasoned argument is constructed (not screaming reeee its affirmative action coz I say so).

Well, if you had read Aexodus post you might have noted that he dated it to 1978. You might also have noted the reporter's name (Bruce Levett) and news association (CP) and come up with one Bruce Levett of The Canadian Press (obit here: https://www.squamishfuneralchapel.co...e/obituary.php ).

Might explain the spelling and casual racism, but are Canadians that illiterate? Just look at the errors and typos. There is no way that could have been published surely? Of course I could put out a link to google street map to to show what Camden is really like, but do I need to suggest that an area including Regent's Park, Highgate, Hampstead Heath, Soho , Fitzrovia and Theatreland cannot be described somehow as a 'black ghetto' (LOL in respect of Chinatown!) and a 'dingy squalid area'? Was this man drunk? I need more proof to be convinced.

I guess its a start, but I'm now intrigued, how did Aexodous get an untracible Canadian rant, one that is so badly written that it would be more likely to be found in a waste paper basket than an actual publication?

[Aexodus]

A person posts an ancient article judging by the antedilivian language in badly drafted article. Was it written when race discrimination was perfectly legal (it applies both ways).Or is it an English article at all? The grammar is so bad it looks like it was written in a non-English speaking country. Aexodous, date and name of source please. Risible discription of Camden btw, which makes me wonder what the source actually is.

EDit- Actually no, I'm calling it out as a bad fake. I can't trace the image or the wording. There is no way that would pass a proof read in any newspaper. Even If I'm wrong and the proof-reader was either drunk or missing, no-one in England spells 'coloured' that way, or recognise or specialise with a 'z'. Americans do.

It’s from a 1978 issue of a Canadian newspaper called the Daily Bulletin. I found it on holiday last summer and took some pictures of the stories inside. There were other ones from the same year and a 1984 Vancouver Sun too. Here’s a piece about Nixon that shows the name and date.



At any rate look up the articles referenced in the article for yourself.



The Spectator has an archive of the topic http://archive.spectator.co.uk/artic...ence-of-camden

Until, that is, Friday of last week when both The Times ('Council plans to discriminate against whites') and the Daily Telegraph ('Discrimination on jobs to aid race minorities') decided that the new policy was of such significance that it merited long front page news stories more than a fortnight late. The London Evening Standard was not far behind, splashing its racing edition with the inflammatory headline 'Blacks first in jobs queue'.

The Guardian's leader, while taking an opposing viewpoint, was no less absurd, describ
ing the policy as 'racist. .and right'.

Here’s an archive of ‘The Daily Colonist’ which printed a longer version of the same Camden article and quotes from the Times.

https://archive.org/stream/dailycolo...01_31_djvu.txt

Racial tension in London
Police lay groundwork
for peaceful co-existence


By TAKASHI OKA from London
Colonist-Monitor Service


Asian residents of London: racial tensions simmer in some inner-city areas

'Positive discrimination'

Blacks get preference in jobs


TV borough of Camden, a
dingy, almost squalid area of
London, has touched .off a
stir with the announcement
that it plans to practise “posi
tive discrimination."

In other words the borough,
when hiring, will give prefer¬
ence to members of its large,
black immigrant population.

Camden is a black oasis in
a cone of upper-class afflu¬
ence. To one side lies Re¬
gent's Park. On the other are
the expensive Nash terraces
of St. John’s Wood.

A policy statement by the
borough council, adopted at
its last meeting, says: “The
council now recognizes that a
passive policy of non dis¬
crimination in itself will not
be sufficient to break the
cycle of deprivation and so
guarantee equal opportune
lie* for members of ethnic
minority groups ”


By BRUCE LKVETT from London


Alan Evans, head of the
staff and management com
mittee which initialed the
policy, explains that the aim
is equal opportunity across
the board

“If two persons of equal
ability apply for a job and one
is white and one is Indian,
Pakistani, West Indian or
Gujarati, then I would ap¬
point from the second
group/’ he said.

Colored workers, he said,
are under represented
among the council’s 7,000 em¬
ployees.

The council particularly
wants colored personnel as
social workers, housing liai
son officers, interviewers, es¬
tate managers, environ¬
mental health officers and II
brarians, areas in which it


feels they can bring specia
lized knowledge.

The result has been such
uneasy headlines as in The
Times: “Council plans to dis¬
criminate against whites.’’

The Evening Standard says
“Camden puts blacks first in
jobs queue.”

In an editorial. The Times
says “Camden steps out too
far” and comments that
black favoritism is consonant
with the council’s announced
policy of “positive discrimi¬
nation” but is incompatible
with non-discrimination and
makes a lie of the council s
advertised claim of being “an
equal-opportunity employ¬
er.”

Both unemployment—
there are 1.5 million out of
work in Britain—and immi¬


gration. particularly black
immigration, are shaping up
as prime issues for a general
election which is likely this
year.

Right wing groups ha\e
linked the issues by declaring
that black immigrants are
“taking our jobs.”

The Camden stand, experts
say. may prompt some em¬
ployers of an opposite philos¬
ophy to say, “Right, they’re
looking after the blacks, we’ll
look after the whites.”

Gwyneth Williams, leader
of the Conservative opposi¬
tion on the Labor-dominated
borough council, has suggest¬
ed—In place of “positive dis¬
crimination”—improved vo¬
cational training

“Saying we will accept a
colored person for job but w e
would not accept a white per
son is just as bad as the other
way around,” she said.

The Canadian Press


To the editor



A black carnival In London s Nottlng Hill district
suddenly turns ugly. An anti-immigrant march In
l^ewisham by the neo-fascist National Front clashes
with leftist counter demonstrators.

Fortunately, such scenes of violence are rare In this
increasingly multiracial metropolis. But they are
outw ard signs of grow ing tension in some of the city’s
deprived areas between the white majority and immi
grants from the West Indies and the Indian subconti
nent.

To defuse the tension and to bridge the gap between
the communities, the Metropolitan Police force is
developing a vigorous community-relations program.

“Good community relations are a prerequisite of
police effectiveness,” says an annual report signed
two years ago by outgoing police commissioner Sir
Robert Mark. . *


Chief Inspector Ted Crew is one of the community
liaison officers assigned to each of the 26 divisions of
the Metropolitan Police force, under the over all su¬
pervision of Commander John Thornton at New Scot¬
land Yard.

His bailiwick is Southwark, a long, narrow borough
south of the Thames extending from the depressed
dock area of Rolherhithe through Peckham and Cam¬
berwell to the rich stockbroker belt of Dulwich. Peck
ham is the centre of the West Indian immigrant
community on this borough, as Brixton is of the
neighboring borough of Lambeth.

On a typical day Crew may be spending the morning
with the director of social services for Southwark,
taking a sandwich to a church crypt to join a
lunch club of community workers, sitting as his desk
in Camberwell police station ^viewing cases in the
afternoon (he also heads the juvenile bureau), then
rushing off to a Peckham settlement house to chat with
new youth workers, including blacks. He has been
doing this work for four years and obviously loves it.

“So mucirof police work is concerned with today and
tomorrow,” he said during a recent interview between
appointments. “We are a kind of instant serv ice. It’s
only community relations work that really looks many
years ahead. What we do now may not bear fruit until
10 years later."


That is why Crew devotes much of his time to
contacts with local schools, especially those schools
with a high proportion of black pupils. He recognizes,
quite frankly, that most black youngsters view police
with hostility.

In recent years the Metropolitan Police have active¬
ly recruited among the black community, but the total
of Asian and West Indian officers still is less than 80 in
a force numbering 22,430 at the end of last year. Blacks


who join the police force are often regarded by their
Jellow immigrants as having gone over to the enemy.

Crew thinks the reasons are not so much racial as
economic. Blacks find it more difficult to find jobs
than whites. Their level of education is frequently
lower. In bad times, they are the first to be dismissed.


Youth unemployment is even higher. The crime rate
among blacks is higher than among whites, and there
is a tendency for the police to he more suspicious of
blacks than of whites. It is a vicious circle.

To break it. Crew looks for as many opportunities as
possible to meet young blacks in a non-conflict situa¬
tion. That means visits to schools, to youth clubs, to
community events. It means helping youngsters try
for the Duke of Edinburgh awards scheme — a
competition designed to encourage young people to
learn about public service.

Crew and his staff have 26 secondary schools, and 11
special schools to take care of. They talk about their
jobs, they show police equipment, they engage older
children in discussion of drugs, of child abuse, of crime
and its punishment.

“Young people are much shrewder than we realize,”
he says. “When they ask us, ‘Do policemen beat
people? Are there corrupt policemen?’ it would be daft
to say no.” He explains that there have been corrupt
policemen, there have been policemen who beat up
suspects. Then he tries to put the whole thing in per¬
spective.


In most cases, he says, he finds youngsters fair-
minded enough to recognize what the police are trying
to do —to protect the great mass of law-abiding
citizens from the criminal action of a few.

“We are your police,” said Constable Derek
Blake, one of Crew’s team, during a social studies
session with a circle of black and white teen-agers.
“You pay our wages. Here’s your chance to ask what
makes us tick.”

The youngsters, stiff at first, soon are asking when
and under what circumstances a policeman might be
justified in arresting a suspect, what procedures he
was required to follow.

Blake, a 25-vear veteran, answered each question
courteously and in detail

That scene, repeated in dozens of classrooms
throughout Southwark, is what gives Ted Crew hope
that, however difficult the present transitional phase
in police relations with immigrant communities, the
groundwork is being prepared for genuinely fruitful
interaction in which no community feels threatened
and the policeman is seen as both the servant and guardian of all.

[mongrel]

Fascinating. If the standard of Canadian literature was that bad in 1978, I'm surprised the nation remains developed. Still that satisfies my curiosity and for that reason only rep is earned.

Good attempt to play the reverse race card, but you would know , having read the Spectator article, that the Time/Evening Standard/CP articles are just trash.


As the Spectator article summarised :

It is a shame that Mr Spence and his colleagues have made no attempt to defend publicly the policy in the light of the mainly unfounded attacks which have now been launched. For the three-page policy document does not at any point imply that a less qualified black person will be preferred to indigenous citizens when it comes to filling job vacancies. What Camden's policy — the result of discussion over more than eighteen months — does attempt to do is to overcome in the words of its architect Alan Evans, 'the systematic or institutional type of discrimination which shows itself in seemingly objective decisions, but the result of which is the screening out of disproportionate numbers of racial minorities — and women — from better job opportunities'.

The Spectator article seems to be quoting Camden's policy:

The statement that will accompany the job advertisements — 'All applicants will be considered solely on the basis of their suitability for the requirements of the post' — applies as much to whites as to blacks.

To make that statement more than mere words, interviewers will undergo special training to help ensure that a lack of under standing of different cultural and behavioural patterns does not lead to the under-assessment of a black person's potential. The council will actively seek applications from members of ethnic groups(while still actually selecting the best potential employee), and it will provide training opportunities, open to all employees, to help individuals, from wherever they have come, to realise their full potential — for the benefit of themselves, of the council, and of the community.

This doesn't seem to be different to the polices of any late 2oth/21st century employer, although it might have been seen as radical at a time when the colour bar and closed shops were still very recent memories.

Camden's policy, in other words, is to promote genuine equality of opportunity in job selection, irrespective of ethnic origin, rather than the so-called general nondiscrimination which has led Britain to a position where, in 1976, 79 per cent of white male graduates held professional and managerial posts as opposed to only 31 per cent of ethnic minority graduates; where' only 21 per cent of white male graduates were in white collar jobs, as against 48 per cent of minority men with degrees; and where 21 per cent of graduates from the ethnic minority community were forced to do manual work.

There you have it, the reason why they needed to improve recruitment methods.

It is clear that he didn't say the reported statement: 'If there was a post in the housing department where there were not any Sikhs, Gujaratis or Bengalis employed, and we got a white applicant along with a Beng all with the same qualifications, we would give the job to the Bengali.'

It is certain that he wrote that if two candidates of equal qualifications presented themselves for the same post, and one of them belonged to a minority group 'it might well seem to us (since a decision one way or the other has to be taken) that preference should be given to that candidate.' But then that is not putting 'blacks in front of the queue' if they have to be equally or better qualified by white candidates, is it?

It is noted that the policy was supported by people of all parties. That would be doubtful if the policy was as described in that crappy article. In any event if a discriminatory policy had been proposed, you know how local government works in this country. Camden Council's Counsel would put to and end any draft policy that was contrary to the 1976 Race Relations Act, in an instant.

Obvious reasons why.

RRA 76 section 1. A person discriminates against another in any circumstances relevant for the purposes of any provision of this Act if—

(a)on racial grounds he treats that other less favourably than he treats or would treat other persons; or

(b)he applies to that other a requirement or condition which he applies or would apply equally to persons not of the same racial group as that other but—

(i)which is such that the proportion of persons of the same racial group as that other who can comply with it is considerably smaller than the proportion of persons not of that racial group who can comply with it: and

(ii)which he cannot show to be justifiable irrespective of the colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins of the person to whom it is applied ; and

(iii)which is to the detriment of that other because he cannot comply with it.

(2)It is hereby declared that, for the purposes of this Act, segregating a person from other persons on racial grounds is treating him less favourably than they are treated.

and s4

Discrimination against applicants and employees

(1)It is unlawful for a person, in relation to employment by him at an establishment in Great Britain, to discriminate against another—

(a)in the arrangements he makes for the purpose of determining who should be offered that employment; or

(b)in the terms on which he offers him that employment; or

(c)by refusing or deliberately omitting to offer him that employment.

(2)It is unlawful for a person, in the case of a person employed by him at an establishment in Great Britain, to discriminate against that employee—

(a)in the terms of employment which he affords him ; or

(b)in the way he affords him access to opportunities for promotion, transfer or training, or to any other benefits, facilities or services, or by refusing or deliberately omitting to afford him access to them ; or

(c)by dismissing him, or subjecting him to any other detriment.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1976/74/enacted


So I'm afraid the newspaper article is not only illiterate, it is a complete pack of lies. I don't have sight of the Times and Evening Standard articles, but I suspect this is an early example of churnalism. I can guess why, the National Front was the fourth largest party at the time, something to talk about. What people did not know at the time was that successful anti -Nazi activism and a more honest Tory migration policy would break the back of that organisation.


I repeat my advice to the forum, if someone reeeeees about affirmative action/positive discrimination, don't accept their word, find something by someone who knows what they are talking about, there are good HR and legal sites out there that spell out the real picture for employers.

[Aexodus]

If two candidates are equally qualified, it is legal to discriminate on the basis of race to employ one over another. I am opposed to this, which even in 1978 was illegal. That’s all the point I was making. Racial discrimination which is legal now, was illegal in the late 70s.

[mongrel]

If two candidates are equally qualified, it is legal to discriminate on the basis of race to employ one over another. I am opposed to this, which even in 1978 was illegal. That’s all the point I was making. Racial discrimination which is legal now, was illegal in the late 70s.

There is more to it than that, I've posted the law on this, there has to be some objective reasoning behind such a decision, the 'proportionate means' to an aim. Case law , as you should remember, as I only pasted it yesterday says that even that ,in itself is not enough and the tribunal questioned whether there would be an occaision where two or more people could be deemed as 'equally qualified' particularly in a mass trawl, in any event. There is nothing wrong with being 'opposed' to s158/9, professionals find it confusing, I would not be too far wrong if I suggested that after Furlong vs Chesire Police, business and the legal profession would consider the sections unworkable.

My concern is that such issues are discussed by using reasoned arguments based on facts. Britain's employment laws and the Tribunal system are there for a serious purpose, to protect workers from harassment, discrimination and exploitation and to protect employers from capricious, expensive and vexatious lawsuits. It is important that Britons know the laws as they are properly practiced and understood. They are not a vehicle for people for people to play out imaginary transatlantic culture wars, that doesn't benefit anyone.

You had misled Mr Ward on two points. Affirmative action has nothing to do with UK laws, I think you are bright enough to know this, you could have put your point across differently. Secondly you offered a very flawed, barely literate and racist article as your example, when I dare say you would recognise that a perfectly serviceable source, that from the Spectator, was available to provide a fairly balanced account of the issue.

[G. Ward]

$hit heated up whilst I was gone.

I feel that the discussion has reached an impasse.

Both sides of the argument will just continue to get more and more verbose and enraged, without actually examining the others' argument.
I don't think either of you actually bother to read through the others' papers & evidence, or, even if you do, it is hard to know how often these laws are actually upheld (or challenged), or, how often they are actually taken into account by the employer.
I'd wager that these laws aren't at the front of the public's conscience.

[mongrel]

$hit heated up whilst I was gone.

I feel that the discussion has reached an impasse.

Both sides of the argument will just continue to get more and more verbose and enraged, without actually examining the others' argument.
I don't think either of you actually bother to read through the others' papers & evidence, or, even if you do, it is hard to know how often these laws are actually upheld (or challenged), or, how often they are actually taken into account by the employer.
I'd wager that these laws aren't at the front of the public's conscience.

There is no argument,there are no sides. There is no impasse. It 's the damned law of this land. If a Tribunal passes a judgment on an issue that is that . The only opinion that matters in real life is that of the judiciary.

It is clear that you did not read my posts properly because I not only pointed out how many cases were challenged (one) but also gave an account of it (employer lost). Now go do your homework and read what I posted thoroughly. If my posts were verbose, it is because it contains actual legal material as opposed to the bollocks posted by ideologically driven people.

Honestly, only on teh internetz. And you asked if Epic-Fail was legally trained, ffs.


You are correct on one point, positive action law is indeed not at the front of the public's conscience. In the nine years or so since s158/9 was passed, I never heard discussion of it, received breifing or training on it, let alone seen an actual case, apart from reading Furlong vs Cheshire Police. The employer lost that one, so I can't imagine any other employer making use of it unless the law is clarified or amended.

[G. Ward]

Okay. It seems you have pounded Epic-Fail into submission.

I didn't single just you out as being verbose. Both of you -- quite naturally -- were become more verbose & riled-up, as your arguments were challenged.

[Cope]

As was stated here, there are certain ways in which affirmative action manifests itself in the United Kingdom.

Here is a legal example of a advertiser offering a paid internship which excludes white people from applying. You can decide whether you think this is affirmative action or not.

[mongrel]

As was stated here, there are certain ways in which affirmative action manifests itself in the United Kingdom.

Here is a legal example of a advertiser offering a paid internship which excludes white people from applying. You can decide whether you think this is affirmative action or not.

Oh for the love of God, this is amateurish, there is no affirmative acion law in the UK. The only thing even remotely close to it, if you are referring to s159 ( not that it is) has been rendered usless. You are no Judge Grundy and no amount of copy and paste reeeees will overcome what the law and case law actually says.

You are now being both the Basil and the HH of the forum.

P:S not a BBC link, where did to obtain the picture? I'd wager that this fell outside BBC recruitment processes, they usually do.


Now the technical bit.

We are not talking about 'positive action' in recruitment and promotion (s159), it's a short-term internship, in other words training. The law says:

s 158 Positive action: general

(1)This section applies if a person (P) reasonably thinks that—

(a)persons who share a protected characteristic suffer a disadvantage connected to the characteristic,

(b)persons who share a protected characteristic have needs that are different from the needs of persons who do not share it, or

(c)participation in an activity by persons who share a protected characteristic is disproportionately low.

(2)This Act does not prohibit P from taking any action which is a proportionate means of achieving the aim of—

(a)enabling or encouraging persons who share the protected characteristic to overcome or minimise that disadvantage,

(b)meeting those needs, or

(c)enabling or encouraging persons who share the protected characteristic to participate in that activity.

Basically, if they considered s158 and it applies, and there is a justifiable aim then it must follow that all the current interns, or too many of them compared with the general population must be white , thus rendering the very idea that the BBC won't recruit white people ridiculous. Others are invited to make the difference If a job becomes available,one can presume the best intern will get it regardless of race, because unless there is a occupational reason, it would be unlawful to do otherwise.

Final observation. If there is one part of the BBC that needs an ethnic minority presence, it's the BBC World Service.

Okay. It seems you have pounded Epic-Fail into submission.

I didn't single just you out as being verbose. Both of you -- quite naturally -- were become more verbose & riled-up, as your arguments were challenged.

Sorry, as you probably have worked out employee relations is a real life issue I'm quite concerned with. There is nothing more vital, to British workers and managers than to know what their rights are. I find it annoying when people with no knowledge suggest that UK employment laws do things which are patently false.