Category Archives: diversity

ESSEX POLICE DIVERSITY CAMPAIGN

ESSEX POLICE DIVERSITY CAMPAIGN

 
Following a video blog article by “Sargon of Akkad” (Carl Benjamin) about Essex Police’s diversity recruitment campaign, I wrote to the Police Commissioner who I do know from previously being a candidate of Police Commissioner in Essex, as follows:-
 
17th December 2018
Dear Roger
Re: Essex Police racist recruitment campaign
I gather from the YouTube video below that your Essex Police Force are indulging in so-called “positive discrimination”. 
The English Diversity Police – YouTube >>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsDeE29hfOc
As you are probably aware “Positive Discrimination” is prima facie illegal under the Equality Act.  That is unless you are compliant with Sections 158 and 159 by having undertaken the requisite research to enable you to “reasonably think” that your “ethnic minority” recruits currently “suffer a disadvantage to their characteristic” and that such recruits are as qualified as English recruits and furthermore that you do not have a policy of treating ethnic minority recruits more favourably than English recruits and also that the actions that you are taking are “proportionate”. 
If you have undertaken such research and have documents showing your compliance with all aspects of the above, then please could you let me have copies (pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act)?
Whilst writing I would personally wish you and yours a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
Yours sincerely
Robin Tilbrook
 
 
For good measure I then also wrote to Essex Police itself as follows on the 18th December:-
 
Information Officer
Data Protection & Freedom of Information,
  Information Management
Essex Police
PO Box 2
Springfield
Chelmsford
Essex CM2 6DA
 
Dear Chief Constable 
Re: Essex Police racist recruitment campaign
I gather from the YouTube video below that your Essex Police Force is indulging in so-called “positive discrimination”. 
The English Diversity Police – YouTube >>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsDeE29hfOc
As you are probably aware “Positive Discrimination” is prima facie illegal under the Equality Act.  That is unless you are compliant with Sections 158 and 159 by having undertaken the requisite research to enable you to “reasonably think” that your “ethnic minority” recruits currently “suffer a disadvantage to their characteristic” and that such recruits are as qualified as English recruits and furthermore that you do not have a policy of treating ethnic minority recruits more favourably than English recruits and also that the actions that you are taking are “proportionate”. 
If you have undertaken such research and have documents showing your compliance with all aspects of the above, then please could you let me have copies (pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act)?
 
Yours faithfully
 
R C W Tilbrook
Chairman
 
 
In response I have had this from the Police Commissioner on 7th January 2019:-
 
Dear Robin
Thank you for your email dated 17 December 2018 in which you asked me to consider whether the current Essex Police BAME attraction campaign meets the ‘Positive Discrimination’ criteria, as defined in Sections 158 and 159 of the Equality Act, and if the campaign itself is ‘racist’.
I fundamentally reject the premise that the campaign is about discrimination in any way. It is wrong to describe it as amounting to positive discrimination and it is not in any way racist. I shall refute your assertions below and thereby demonstrate that the criteria in Sections 158 and 159 of the Equality Act do not apply.
The diversity recruitment campaign sits alongside Police Constable and Special Constable recruitment activity that is ongoing. No one is barred from applying to join Essex Police unless they fail to meet the eligibility criteria which apply to every applicant. The force’s ongoing police constable recruitment campaign, Fit The Bill, is a general-purpose attraction and recruitment campaign that is still live and is accessed from the front page of the recruitment section of the Essex Police website. It was promoted before the BAME attraction campaign, it is currently being promoted alongside it and it will be promoted again after the BAME attraction campaign closes. 
Government policy, parliamentary select committee recommendations and national policing strategy all set clear expectations that forces do more to ensure that they reflect the communities that make up their force area. Currently the proportion of BAME officers and staff at Essex Police stands at just over 2%, considerably lower than the demographic make-up of the county with around 7% of the population identified as being of BAME origin.
The diversity campaign is an attraction marketing campaign aimed addressing (i) the disproportionately low numbers of applications by black and ethnic minority persons for the role of police constable Essex has received in the past, and (ii) the under representation of black and minority ethnic people serving as police constables with Essex Police.  This is lawful, positive action, falling within the Equality Act 2010.
The attraction campaign was developed with regard to research and strategy including the National Police Chiefs’ Council Diversity, Equality and Inclusion Strategy and the Parliamentary Home Affairs Select Committee report on diversity in policing. The government response to that report stated:
“…increasing diversity in our police forces is not an optional extra. It goes right to the heart of this country’s historic principle of policing by consent. We must ensure that the public have trust and confidence in the police, and that the police reflect the communities they serve…  We believe that it is time for concerted action, prioritised across all forces, policing bodies and Government”.
The campaign was also informed by the National Centre for Social Research paper ‘Enhancing diversity in policing’.
I hope you now feel reassured about the context in which the BAME attraction campaign was devised and understand that it in no way seeks to recruit officers of any particular ethnic origin over any other. It is an awareness and attraction recruitment campaign to encourage all members of our different communities in Essex – who meet the eligibility criteria – to consider policing as a career.
Thank you for your good festive wishes. I extend mine to you and yours as well and wish you the very best for 2019.
Yours sincerely
Roger Hirst
Roger Hirst
Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner
Office of The Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner for Essex
 
I responded as follows on 10th January:-
 
Dear Roger
Thank you for your email on the 7th January
You talk about refuting my assertions in my email, however on reviewing my email I don’t think it can be fairly said that I made any assertions at all.  What I pointed you to was a YouTube video.  I wonder if you have watched it?  Perhaps you should, because it was in that where assertions were made about your campaign being racist. 
On one hand, I do however somewhat agree with the author of the YouTube, since, on the face of it, your “diversity recruitment campaign” does look, at first glance, as if it was treating people from different racial origins differently. 
On the other hand, I am however somewhat reassured by your comments that you are not in fact treating people differently.  
It is my belief that the official attempt to foster “multi-culturalism” by way of imposed policies under the oxymoronic heading of “Equality and Diversity” is part of the reason why all aspects of the British State are rapidly degenerating towards the point where even the simplest of tasks is beyond it.  This is increasingly because people are appointed because of tick box multi-culturalist tokenism instead of recruitment being strictly according to the ability to do the job.  In this regard I consider Government policy, Parliamentary Select
Committee recommendations and the National Policing Strategy all to be wrongly focussed on recruitment policies other than the traditional policing ones of recruiting a police force to maintain and enforce law and order. 
In my email I did ask you for your research justification and I note you assert that “currently a proportion of BAME officers and staff at Essex Police stand at just over 2% considerably lower than the demographic make-up of the County with around 7% of the population identified as being of BAME origin”.  Clearly there must be at least two items of research to back-up those statistics.  Please could you let me have those? 
I note that you pray in aid for “the National Centre for Social Research”.  This is a largely publically funded quango which states on its website that “we…believe in equality and diversity, and recognise that it is essential that people are treated with respect and dignity.  We believe that diversity enriches all our lives.
Legal and unfair discrimination, whether direct, indirect or by association, or perception, have become increasingly indefensible in today’s society.  A diverse workforce makes organisational sense, as it adds value by bringing staff with different experiences, knowledge and perspectives together.”
I hardly think there could be a clearer statement of the kind of thinking which disrespects English history, traditions and people and which has created the level of disenchantment with the direction of British Establishment policy which gave rise to the Brexit vote!
Yours sincerely
Robin Tilbrook
 
 
Then to my amusement I then had this response from Essex Police:-
 
From: Data FOI Essex <data.foi@essex.pnn.police.uk>
To: robintilbrook@aol.com <robintilbrook@aol.com>
Sent: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 9:23
Subject: FOI 12512

Thank you for your enquiry which has been logged under the above reference.
Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Sec1(1)(a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Sec1(1)(b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon s17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.
In respect of your enquiry:
I gather from the YouTube video below that your Essex Police Force is indulging in so-called “positive discrimination”.
The English Diversity Police – YouTube >>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsDeE29hfOc
As you should be aware “Positive Discrimination” is prima facie illegal under the Equality Act.  That is unless you are compliant with Sections 158 and 159 by having undertaken the requisite research to enable you to “reasonably think” that your “ethnic minority” recruits currently “suffer a disadvantage to their characteristic” and that such recruits are as qualified as English recruits and furthermore that you do not have a policy of treating ethnic minority recruits more favourably than English recruits and also that the actions that you are taking are “proportionate”.
If you have undertaken such research and have documents showing your compliance with all aspects of the above, then please could you let me have copies (pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act)?
Having completed enquiries within Essex Police and in respect of Sec 1(1)(a), Essex Police does hold information relating to your request, Essex Police can confirm in respect of Sec 1(1)(b) the following data
·         The diversity recruitment campaign is very much about addressing (i) the [disproportionately] low numbers of applications by black and ethnic minority persons for the role of police constable Essex has received in the past, and (ii) the under representation of black and minority ethnic people serving as police constables with Essex Police. This is lawful positive action, falling within the Equality Act 2010. At the moment just over two per cent of our officers are identified as Black, Asian or Minority Ethnic (BAME) as compared with 6.8% for the population of Essex.
·         Government policy, parliamentary select committee recommendations and national policing strategy all set clear expectations that forces do more to ensure that police forces are better able to reflect the communities that make up their force area. The proportion of BAME officers and staff at Essex Police is considerably lower than the demographic make-up of the county and this campaign aims to address that under-representation.
Essex Police trusts that the information provided is of assistance. Thank you for your interest in Essex Police.
Kind regards,
 Information Rights Team
Information Management Department
Strategic Change Directorate
E-Mail:Datafoi@essex.pnn.police.uk
 
 
I followed up as follows on the 19thJanuary 2019:-
 
 
Dear Sirs
Thank you for your email of the 14th January. Thank you for confirming that you do hold data.  I would be grateful if you would please let me have copies of the documents which you refer to.
Yours faithfully
 
Robin Tilbrook
 
 
I also then wrote to the Police Commissioner asking for his comments on the fact that his claims had been undermined by Essex Police as follows:-
 
From: Robin Tilbrook <robintilbrook@aol.com>
To: roger.hirst <roger.hirst@essex.pnn.police.uk>
Sent: Sat, 19 Jan 2019 13:47
Subject: Fwd: FOI 12512

Dear Roger
I thought you might be interested to know that I also made a FOI application to Essex Police and have now received a response from them in which they say that in fact the action that is being taken is “lawful positive action, falling with the Equality Act 2010.”
This is of course contrary to what you said to me which was that it wasn’t in fact “positive action” and that it did not in fact fall within the Equality Act because it wasn’t different treatment! 
I wonder what your position is on that?
Yours sincerely

 
 
Robin Tilbrook
 
 
 
I have had no response to this last email, although I have had a further response from Essex Police giving me links to some of the research, which of course does not answer the question that I had actually put to them. 
 
In summary it would seem that not only do the Essex Police and the Essex Police Commissioner not properly communicate, despite the fact that that is not what is supposed to be happening at all.  The Police Commissioner ought to be in control of Essex Police, particularly on issues like recruitment.
 
So there would therefore appear to be a breakdown in the proper hierarchy.  Also it seems probable that Essex Police are in fact pursuing an illegal and discriminatory recruitment campaign in order to improve the “Equality and Diversity” tokenistic tick boxing!  Well done to Sargon of Akkad for raising this issue!

THERESA MAY AND HER GOVERNMENT MAKE FAKE NEWS

THERESA MAY AND THE TORY GOVERNMENT ARE EXPOSED AS MAKERS OF FAKE NEWS
The above is an image of Theresa May talking about the UK Government’s Housing Plans in terms as if that is a “British” issue. 
However the key point to remember is that housing is not an issue which the British Government has any legal competence to deal with in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.  It is only in England where the British Government has direct rule over England and we English are not properly represented by our own Government that they have any jurisdiction over housing. 
It is thus not surprising that the vast programme of house building that this Government is proposing is to be built only in England.  The English will not be properly asked about this and the members of the Government who are imposing it, although they can still calls themselves members of the Conservative Party, the leadership of it has in fact abandoned traditional Conservatives and traditional values in favour of globalism, multi-culturalism and diversity. 
It is for this reason that housing is being deceitfully represented as a domestically generated need, whereas in fact the primary generator of housing need is the vast wave of immigration that we have had, primarily into England.  This has led to at least 12 million immigrants coming to England in the last 20 years. 
Although some people have left, often to escape the consequences of mass immigration, nevertheless it does mean that, if the Government’s targets are to be met, a new Greater London is to be built on England’s “green and pleasant land” without any proper consultation with the English Nation as a whole. 
Fake news or what?
Below is the report of what she says:-
‘Do your duty to Britain’, Theresa May tells property developers in major speech on ‘restoring dream’ of home-ownership
Prime Minister to pledge to ‘rewrite planning laws’ and force private housebuilders to ‘step up and do their bit’ as she attempts to place housing at heart of policy agenda
Theresa May to tell property developers to ‘do your duty to Britain’ in major speech on restoring ‘home-ownership dream’
Theresa May will announce plans to penalise property developers who do not build homes quickly enough, as she uses a major speech to warn housebuilders they must “do their duty to Britain”.
The Prime Minister will criticise developers who profit from building expensive properties rather than the quantities of new homes the country needs, telling them it is time to “step up do your bit”.
She will vow to “rewrite the laws on planning” in order to help more people get on the housing ladder.
The Government will also adopt a tougher approach to local councils, including setting targets on how many homes each authority needs to plan for.
Number of social homes to fall by 230,000 by 2020, analysis reveals
Key workers such as nurses, teachers and firefighters should be the priority for affordable homes, Ms May will say, and local authorities will be given powers to implement this.
The speech marks another strand of Ms May’s attempt to flesh out a domestic policy agenda that goes beyond Brexit. Last month she delivered a keynote education speech promising to review how universities are funded.
However, opponents said the “feeble” changes had already been announced in the Government’s housing white paper, published last year.
They are also likely to demand the Government make more funding available or allow councils to borrow more to invest in housing. Town halls have long insisted that restrictions on their ability to borrow to fund new homes is the biggest barrier to housebuilding.
Questions are also likely to be raised over the future of Starter Homes – one of the Government’s flagship policies for boosting home-ownership. The Independent revealed late last year that not a single one of the properties, which will be sold to first-time buyers at a discount, has yet been built.
Accepting the failings of current housing policy, Ms May will say “for decades this country has failed to build enough of the right homes in the right places”.
She will once again place housing at the heart of her agenda, saying: “We cannot bring about the kind of society I want to see unless we tackle one of the biggest barriers to social mobility we face today: the national housing crisis.”
The Prime Minister has previously said she will make tackling the housing crisis her “personal mission”.
Speaking at a planning conference in London, she will argue that “in much of the country, housing is so unaffordable that millions of people who would reasonably expect to buy their own home are unable to do so” because the “failure to match demand with supply really began to push prices upwards”, and also drove up rents.
“The result is a vicious circle from which most people can only escape with help from the bank of Mum and Dad. If you’re not lucky enough to have such support, the door to home-ownership is all too often locked and barred,” she will say.
Recounting her own experience of buying a home, she will add: “I still vividly remember the first home I shared with my husband, Philip. Not only our pictures on the walls and our books on the shelves, but the security that came from knowing we couldn’t be asked to move on at short notice.’ 
“And because we had that security, because we had a place to go back to, it was that much easier to play an active role in our community. To share in the common purpose of a free society.”
“That is what this country should be about – not just having a roof over your head but having a stake in your community and its future.”
Flagship government housing plan fails to deliver a single home in three years
Ms May will take a tougher line against private developers, criticising the “perverse incentive” that allows property executives to profit from building expensive homes rather than greater numbers of affordable ones.
She will suggest a company’s past record of delivering affordable housing should be taken into account when it bids for planning permission for new properties.  
She is expected to say: “The bonuses paid to the heads of some of our biggest developers are based not on the number of homes they build but on their profits or share price.
“In a market where lower supply equals higher prices that creates a perverse incentive, one that does not encourage them to build the homes we need.
“I want to see planning permissions going to people who are actually going to build houses, not just sit on land and watch its value rise.”
The Prime Minister will also point out that developers have failed to build thousands of homes that have been given planning permission, warning that “the gap between permissions granted and homes built is still too large”.
Analysis by the Local Government Association (LGA) earlier this year revealed 420,000 homes that received planning permission last year are still waiting to be built.  
Calling on private housebuilders to “step up and do their bit”, Ms May will say: “I expect developers to do their duty to Britain and build the homes our country needs.”
Sajid Javid, the Housing Secretary, has already hinted the Government is considering giving councils “use it or lose it” powers to take land away from developers who are refusing to build homes on sites they own.
Ms May will also criticise David Cameron’s legacy, saying her predecessor had presided over “a great and welcome increase in the number of planning permissions granted” but not “a corresponding rise in the number of homes being built”.
Budget 2017: Hammond commits £ 44bn to housing and commits to delivering 300,000 net additional homes per year by mid 2020’s
Although the Prime Minister will announce that 80 proposals from the Government’s housing white paper will be implemented, housing insiders will be watching closely to see what type of housing the Government will prioritise and whether any new funding will be made available.
Since 2012, the Conservatives have prioritised the more expensive “affordable housing” over social housing, leading to the loss of hundreds of thousands of the cheapest homes.
Ms May is also likely to face calls to reverse some of the provisions of the Housing and Planning Act 2016, which forced councils to sell off social homes and extended the controversial Right to Buy to housing association tenants. The scheme is another leading cause of the fall in the number of low-cost homes.
John Healey, Labour’s Shadow Housing Secretary, said: “The Prime Minister should be embarrassed to be fronting up these feeble measures first announced a year ago. After eight years of failure on housing it’s clear her Government has got no plan to fix the housing crisis.
“Since 2010, home-ownership has fallen to a 30-year low, rough sleeping has more than doubled, and deep cuts to housing investment have led to the lowest number of new social rented homes built since records began.
“This housing crisis is made in Downing Street. It’s time the Tories changed course, and backed Labour’s long-term plan to build the genuinely affordable homes the country needs.”
The Prime Minister was also warned by Conservative peer Lord Porter, who chairs the LGA, that planning changes would be largely meaningless without new funding.
He wrote on Twitter: “If we want more houses, we have to build them, not plan them.
“The [Housing Department] need to push back against [the Treasury] or the nonsense will go on and nothing will change. Less homes built next year than there were this year.
Ms May will insist that building on green belt land is not the answer to tackling the housing crisis. She will instead announce new protections for woodland and coastlines.
Here is a link to the original article>>> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-housing-speech-property-developers-homes-affordable-john-healey-labour-right-to-buy-a8239466.html

CLAIMS OF UNFAIR RACIAL DISPARITY IN LEGAL EXAM RESULTS DISPUTED

CLAIMS OF UNFAIR RACIAL DISPARITY IN LEGAL EXAM RESULTS DISPUTED

The Law Society Gazette is the in-house magazine for the Society of England and Wales,which is the professional body for all Solicitors in the English and Welsh jurisdiction. Like all such organisations there is a creeping move towards political correctness and “positive action”towards “diversity”; “multi-culturalism and globalisation”. An example of this appeared recently in the 8thJanuary issue of the Gazette. It was entitled“Racial Disparity in exams by Max Walters”. Here is his article :-

Minority ethnic students lagging behind in LPC success

By Max Walters

White students are more likely to pass their legal exams and law conversion courses than people from an ethnic minority background, data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority has revealed.

According to an SRA report, almost 80% of white students successfully completed their LPC, compared with only 40% of black students and 53% of Asian/Asian British students.

The figures, which cover September 2015 to August 2016, were published on the SRA website at the end of last year.

They appear in the annual ‘Authorisation and Monitoring Report’ which focuses on the success rates for two qualifications – the legal practice course (LPC)and the common professional examination (CPE) – a conversion course for non-law graduates.

It will come as another blow for the profession’s reputation for diversity after barristers’ regulator the Bar Standards Board revealed at the end of last year that black and minority ethnic (BME) students were half as likely as their white counterparts to achieve pupillage.

The figures for CPE candidates were similar to those taking the LPC. Among white students, 74% successfully completed the course, compared with 33% of black students and 46% of Asian students.

The report also reveals a stark gap between success at training institutions.

For the LPC, one provider achieved a pass rate of 100%, compared with 30% at another. CPE completion rates were similar and varied from less than 45% to100%. ?The providers have not been named.

The report also reveals that the University of Hertfordshire has opted to reinstate the LPC this year. The university suspended the course in 2016 in light of forthcoming changes to qualification. The Gazette has contacted the university for comment.

Here is the link to the original article>>> https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/minority-ethnic-students-lagging-behind-in-lpc-success/5064169.article

Here is my letter to the Editor in reply:-

Dear Sir

Your article in the 8th January issue of the Law Society Gazette:-“Racial disparity in exam results” by Max Walters


The statistics which Mr Walters quotes of “disparity” between “Black” and “Asian”Students and “White” Students may not actually “constitute a fresh blow to the profession’s reputation for inclusion”. For that inference to be properly drawn we would have to know whether the LPC “providers” were requiring the same levels of prior academic achievement from prospective students from each of these respective racial groups.

Anecdotally it would appear that the providers are actually not requiring the same level of academic achievement from each of the racial groups. Instead the providers appear to be offering course places at least partly on the basis of politically correct “positive discrimination”.

In other reports it also appears that “Asian” were 22% and “Black” were 9% of the total candidates. This is well over the percentage of these racial groups compared with their percentages of the population as per the 2011 Census. These percentages mean that even given their lower pass rates more Asian and Black candidates are becoming solicitors than these racial groups proportion of the population of England. It is actually English candidates who are underrepresented (so much for “White Privilege”?).

This supports the idea that “positive discrimination” is occurring which confirms that the “providers” are probably giving places to “Asian” and “Black” students who have not previously done as well academically as the “White”students. It may therefore be the reported results are hardly surprising. Law exams are testing knowledge of what is objectivity true. Hence, it was always improbable that racial discrimination came into the picture.

The disturbing implication of Mr Walters’ article is that he may be implying the academic standards for the LPC should be lowered. If this is his intention then the impact on the basic purpose of open examinations and of Professional regulation (which is to create a profession able to maintain and guarantee high professional standards of service to the public) would be sacrificed on the altar of politically correct “diversity” targets!

Yours sincerely

Robin Tilbrook

Solicitor& Chairman of the English Democrats

What do you think?

“THERE IS NONE SO BLIND AS THOSE WHO WILL NOT SEE!”

“THERE IS NONE SO BLIND AS THOSE WHO WILL NOT SEE!”


The Bible is not only, of course, the holy scripture of Christianity for Christians and the Old Testament for Jews, but it also contains a huge number of deep insights into human nature and the recurring themes of the strengths and weaknesses in our nature, as well as much history. The quotation in my title “there is none so blind as those who will not see” has its roots in the Bible, Book of Jeremiah, chapter 5, verse 21 “Hear now this, oh foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears and hear not.”

The actual formulation that I have used in the heading appears in Jonathan Swift’s “Polite Conversation”. It has the same common-sense connotations about the difficulties of getting people to do or think things that they stubbornly and wilfully refuse to do, as the old English proverb “you can take a horse to water but you cannot make it drink”.

This article arises as a result of a conversation that I recently had with a teenager, who, like most teenagers in our country, has been subjected to a programme of politically correct “socialisation”, an important purpose of which is social engineering (Aka the National Curriculum!).

I always think it is worth bearing in mind when considering compulsory primary and secondary education that the first State to introduce it was the most militaristic of all historic European states, which was Prussia. The Prussian State introduced compulsory primary and secondary education for all boys to socialise them and to prepare them mentally and physically to become soldiers in the Prussian Army. In short compulsory education is much about a modern state’s socialisation agenda as it is at all about preparing children with the skills needed for work.

In England in many ways the education system has following the introduction of the “National Curriculum” become less effective in preparing children for work while it has become more effective at socialising children in the modern British States’ agenda of multi-culturalism and diversity.

Coming back to my conversation with the teenager, I had the temerity to ask about the background of somebody that the teenager was talking about and, in particular, what country his family had come from.

For all who have asked such a similar question, I am sure you can guess the kind of “stream of consciousness” response that I got!

But I persisted and pointed out that you cannot understand another human-being or sensibly begin to try to understand them unless you take into account politically incorrect questions about their culture, religion and hereditary. We are all, as human-beings, framed by these factors. 

 I would say to try to do so would be a bit like trying to sort out a dietary plan for someone without taking any account of the fact that the person in question is an orthodox Jew! 

In fact, our individual character, particularly when young, operates mostly within these frameworks, rather than being something that is completely separate.

I later had another conversation with a teacher who was saying that what is taught in a multi-ethnic modern school in England is to ignore all such framework questions as culture and religion and hereditary and to be “free from all such prejudices”. My response was to point out that it is itself a sort of prejudice to wilfully close your eyes to the most important parts of any human-beings character. I went on that “political correctness” was not a “freedom” or something that frees people up from things, but on the contrary it is a programme for the encouragement of wilful blindness.

All of which brings me neatly back to my proverb “there are none so blind as those who will not see” which I note in Wiktionary is translated as “understanding cannot be forced on someone who chooses to be ignorant”.


How true, I would reply, especially when that choice is guided by “political correctness”. Also how contrary that type of thinking is to traditional English Further Education which tried to lead young people out of their framework thinking and to encourage them to have “open and enquiring minds”.


To an alarming extent that ideal has now been replaced with all the political correctness and safe spaces of the UK’s multi-culturalist diversity agenda!

MULTI-CULTURALISTS HISTORICAL LIES EXPOSED!

MULTI-CULTURALISTS HISTORICAL LIES EXPOSED!


I have just read a very interesting and profoundly significant book by Dario Fernandez-Morera, the Associate Professor at the Department of Spanish and Portuguese in North Western University. The book is called “The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise – Muslims, Christians and Jews under Islamic Rule in Medieval Spain”. The book has been very thoroughly researched and, for the academically minded, has nearly 100 pages of closely typed footnotes providing sources and evidence for every assertion.

The reason such detailed research is required is because the effect of the book is to explode the unhistorical Leftist theory that has been put forward by academics, politicians and media commentators that Islamic Spain or Al-Andalus was a “multi-culturalist” and “Diverse” paradise.

In fact as Professor Fernandez-Morera shows in comprehensive detail, the written sources, whether they be Islamic or Christian or Jewish, are all agreed there was nothing more or less than the typical Islamist tyranny with widespread executions and discriminatory legal rules suppressing, in particular, Christians.

The current political importance of this research is that it means that those Leftists advocating “multi-culturalism” are now left with no Islamic example in history where “multi-culturalism” and “diversity” has worked nicely, instead what we are left with is very many examples where multi-culturalism has led either to civil war or the need for a ruthless tyranny to put down the dissident elements within the area controlled by that State.

It should however be remembered that “multi-culturalism” has been adopted or fostered by most Empires throughout history. In the case of the British Empire it is worth remembering its record of applying the ancient Roman imperial formula of “Divide and Rule” (“divide et impera”). 

I wrote about that, as regards Malaya, in this article >>> THE IMPERIALISTIC ROOTS OF MULTI-CULTURALISM

http://robintilbrook.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/the-imperialistic-roots-of-multi.html. 

Within pre-First World War Europe the key example of a multi-culturalist state was the Austro-Hungarian Empire with its detailed rules on the entitlements of the various ethnic groups within that Empire.

When reading Professor Fernandez-Morera’s book I often wondered about the motivation of the various historians who are quoted telling the most outrageous lies about what life was like in Al-Andalus.

It would be very interesting to know whether their remarks are a product of both sloppy research and of simply going with the least line of resistance in following those others who have made similar remarks, or whether they have a specific purpose in distorting the history to make out that Islamic Spain was ruled justly and thus to ignore the sufferings and oppression of the subjugated Christians.

Given that academics do not mislead in the same way in writing about other parts of the world, such as when Christians subjugated others in more modern Colonial history, it seems to me to be far more likely that the misleading about Medieval Islamic Span has been done deliberately and has been done to specifically advance the multi-culturalist political project with an eye to undermining our own culture and civilisation.





Do read it for yourself and see what you think!

Here is a link to buy the book >>> The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise: Muslims, Christians, and Jews under Islamic Rule in Medieval Spain: Dario Fernandez-Morer

https://www.amazon.com/Myth-Andalusian-Paradise-Christians-Medieval/dp/1610170954

Judical Appointments to fast-track Tick Box "DIVERSITY"!

I wrote a letter recently to the Law Society Gazette, which is the in-house magazine of the Solicitor’s profession. 

It was published under the heading of:- 

“Ticking Boxes”. 

Here is my letter:-

Dear Sir

Re: Judical fast-track would boost diversity – 31st October 2016


I viewed your above story with great disquiet as it seems that this proposal from Mr Justice Hickinbottom seems somewhat symptomatic of the various questionable, not to say flaky “Reform” former initiatives launched by various members of the Judiciary of the England and Wales jurisdiction.

I suspect that most other practitioners, who have a court based practice, will have noticed that, whilst many of the Judges that we experience are still of excellent quality that there is nevertheless an increasing proportion who are not of that quality. They are being appointed by the Judicial appointments system, which was politicised by Lord Irvine when he was Tony Blair’s Lord Chancellor to ensure that “no-one with reactionary views” could be appointed or promoted.

With the utmost respect to the learned Mr Justice Hickinbottom, the focus of any public service ought to be on actually delivering a service to the public rather than tick-boxing “Diversity” quotas in a fashion reminiscent of the appointment system in the Soviet Union.

Yours faithfully
etc

What do you think?

"Diversity" in 15th Century England?


“Diversity” in 15th Century England?


It seems that even the 15th Century English nobility must be presented as being “Diverse”!

The article below is from the “Right on” Leftist newspaper “The Independent”. It illustrates perfectly the extent of historical untruthfulness and disinformation that the “Arts Council for England” and “Equity” and the “Actors Union”, insist upon going to propagandise their political ideologies of “multi-culturalism” and “diversity”.

The reported row shows that to the publically funded Arts Council for England considers it more important to cast plays in a “diverse” and “inclusive” fashion than to present either a vision of the truth to audiences or even to present a play focussed on doing its best for the audiences’ benefit. On the contrary every play this unaccountable quango thinks should be an opportunity for multiculturalist propaganda!

I would suspect that any local theatres which receive public funds will refuse to allow the play to be presented there. So if you want to see it you may need to go to Kingston!

Here is the article. What do you think?

“Trevor Nunn defends all-white Shakespeare histories


One of Britain’s most celebrated theatre directors, Sir Trevor Nunn, is embroiled in a furious row over the all-white cast chosen for his latest Shakespearean production, The Wars of the Roses. The distillation of four history plays, which opens at the Rose Theatre in Kingston next month, will be performed by a 22-strong cast led by Joely Richardson and Rufus Hound.

The casting has been condemned by the actors’ union Equity and drawn criticism from Arts Council England and diversity campaigners who are angry at what they describe as a “whitewashing” of history. Malcolm Sinclair, the president of Equity, said: “Whilst wishing every individual actor in the production well, can it be acceptable best practice in 2015 to cast a project such as this with 22 actors but not one actor of colour or who apparently identifies themselves as having a disability?”

And in a statement, Equity’s minority ethnic members committee said: “To present this benchmark of British heritage in a way that effectively locks minorities out of the cultural picture [literally] flies in the face of the huge conversation taking place in British media at present, of the very real progress made in recent years to increase diversity in our industry.”

Responding to the criticisms, Sir Trevor told The Independent on Sunday said he was a longstanding member of the movement to “cast, whenever possible, according to the principle of diversity”, but in this case of The War of The Roses he had made an “artistic decision” to cast according to “historical verisimilitude”.

He added: “The connections between the characters, and hence the narrative of the plays, are extremely complex, and so everything possible must be done to clarify for an audience who is related by birth to whom. Hence, I decided that, in this instance, these considerations should take precedence over my usual diversity inclination.”

That explanation was confirmed by a spokesperson for the Rose Theatre, who said: “A creative decision was taken by the director that a naturalistic historical approach in casting was required.”

Critics have questioned the “verisimilitude” of the production, which amalgamates Shakespeare’s Henry VI trilogy and Richard III and is sponsored by Norway’s largest financial services group, DNB. Norwegian actor Kare Conradi was chosen to plays Edward IV. And two British actresses, Joely Richardson and Imogen Daines, play the French characters Margaret of Anjou and Joan of Arc.

Simon Mellor, executive director of arts and culture, Arts Council England said: “This production seems out of step with most of British theatre where casting that ignores an actor’s race is increasingly the norm.”

He added: “Whilst we do not fund the Rose Theatre, we expect organisations we fund to actively ensure their programme, and the artists that create it, reflect the people of contemporary England.”

And actor Danny Lee Wynter, founder of Act For Change, which campaigns for greater diversity in the arts, said: “The Wars of the Roses caused us concerns, particularly the justification of historical accuracy which displayed a lack of awareness of the debate … It’s very hard in this day and age to have a company that size which is all white.” Mr Wynter added: He added: “They have not been ‘historically accurate’ in having a Norwegian actor in the company.

Trevor Nunn, the Rose Theatre Kingston, and Ginny Schiller who cast this production have placed themselves in a tremendously unfavourable corner … worryingly, some will take the Rose Theatre’s whitewashing of history as gospel.”

Ms Schiller, who cast the play, told The Independent on Sunday: “On this occasion Trevor Nunn – a director with a proven commitment to diverse casting – decided that because of the complex family tree and conflicting claims to the throne through direct lineage to Edward III, a naturalistic ‘colour aware’ approach was required.” She added: “All the supporting actors will play many parts, and at some point in the trilogy take on roles who are related to the Houses of York and Lancaster by blood. This is why even those roles with no genealogical link to the families were also cast white.”

In a statement last night, Sir Trevor said: “Having been involved since the early 1970s in the movement to cast, wherever possible, according to the principle of diversity, I am, of course, saddened to discover that Equity has criticised the casting for my current project.” He added: “I took the artistic decision that a trilogy of Shakespeare’s early history plays, telling in documentary detail the story of the English monarchy and English nobility in the second half of the 15th century, should be presented with, as far as possible, historical verisimilitude.”

The row highlights the continuing debate over the lack of diversity in British theatre and comes just months after actor Adrian Lester, speaking during an event at London’s National Theatre, said: “It’s up to us to gather in groups and embarrass the sides of the industry that we can…and to consistently, always, constantly ask for change.”

Diversity is one of the biggest challenges facing the arts today, says Equity, and the union recently issued its first ever policy on ‘inclusive casting’ to tackle what is calls “discrimination across the industry.” This calls for targets for casting actors from diverse backgrounds, regardless of sex, disability, race or sexuality, along with equality monitoring of performers, stage management and creative teams.

Julia Horan, a member of the Casting Directors Guild of Great Britain, commented: “I think that everybody in the industry supports the idea of inclusive casting and it is part of a constant conversation about who we should cast which is taking place in theatres across Britain.” But she added: “There’s a wider issue of a lack of diversity which extends beyond casting to the entire industry itself. Diversity only moves forward when the people doing the picking are diverse and if there’s no diversity in that then there will never be any true diversity in terms of who’s on stage.””

(Here is a link to the original story>>>Trevor Nunn defends all-white Shakespeare histories – News – Theatre & Dance – The Independent )

JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS IN ENGLAND – A POLITICALLY CORRECT STITCH UP?


JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS IN ENGLAND – A POLITICALLY CORRECT STITCH UP?


You may think that you live in a country where the best of England’s lawyers are appointed to be our Judges. You would be wrong! Here is some detail on why!

Have a look at this:-

THE JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS COMMITTEE (“JAC”) Equality Objectives 2012 – 2016 


The document starts off all sounding fine:-

“The Judicial Appointments Commission seeks to deliver processes which are fair and ensure all applicants receive equal treatment.
Under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 the JAC must select solely on merit. That combined with the requirement to encourage diversity in the range of persons available for selection will ensure that the most meritorious candidates will succeed and that the best judges will be appointed.”

BUT then it begins to show the real agenda:-

“The Equality Act 2010 applied a general equality duty to the JAC. The equality duty requires public authorities to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations. In addition the JAC is subject to specific duties as set out in the regulations that came into force on 10 September 2011. The duty requires the JAC to publish relevant, proportionate information demonstrating compliance with the equality duty and to set specific, measurable equality objectives.

The JAC objectives for 2012-2016 are split into four distinct areas; outreach, fair and open processes, monitoring, and promoting diversity within our staff. Each objective and the associated outcomes are detailed below. Reference to statistical data in Objective 4 refers to four specific areas, namely; gender, ethnicity, disability and professional background. This is in line with the Commission’s identified under represented groups. However, all protected characteristics, as defined in the Equality Act 2010, are considered when carrying out equality assessments.”

“Objective 1
To widen the pool of candidates applying for judicial positions through communication and outreach activities”

“The JAC will continue to encourage the widest range of good quality candidates to apply for judicial vacancies. In order to meet this objective we will:
” Continue to explain the selection process through a balanced outreach programme linked to the exercise programme.
” Increase our online presence to help raise awareness and understanding.
” Continue to circulate details of vacancies to a wide network of partner organisations to promote opportunities to their members.
” Analyse candidate feedback following seminars and exercises to ensure available materials continue to be appropriate and relevant and meets candidate expectations.
” Improve feedback provided to candidates throughout the selection process.”

Outcome measure…

” “Agreed outcomes of Barriers survey to be fed into the Diversity Forum Forward Look.”

“Objective 2
To ensure that all JAC selection exercise policies, procedures and practices are free of any unintended bias ensuring all candidates experience a fair and open process”

” “Complete an equality impact assessment against all nine protected characteristics for all selection exercise materials and all changes to the selection process used to identify any bias (unintended or otherwise) and make amendments where necessary.”
” “Continue to deliver equality and diversity training for all panel members as part of a tailored training package delivered before each exercise.”

” “Continue to work with the Judicial Diversity Taskforce and steering group to implement the Neuberger recommendations and other related activities.”

Outcome measure

” “Ensure progression rates for the reported groups are consistent throughout the selection exercise and where possible in line with or an improvement on the eligible pool”.

“Objective 3
To monitor the diversity of candidates selected for judicial appointment (against the eligible pool where available) and take remedial action where appropriate”

” “Consider diversity at the three key checkpoints of the exercise, namely, application, short listing and selection day stage and seek to remedy any disproportional ‘drop out’ of candidates by protected characteristics as outlined in the Equality Act 2010 on which we have data.”
” “Wherever possible we will use a previous comparator exercise to measure any increases/decreases in applications from women, disabled, black and minority ethnic candidates and solicitors in line with the Commission’s identified under represented groups.”
” “Continue to publish official statistics containing diversity breakdowns for public scrutiny twice yearly on the JAC website “
” “Invite equality representatives from the legal professions, i.e. Bar Council, Law Society and CILEx to equality assess qualifying tests and role plays making recommendations for change where appropriate.”

“Objective 4
Promoting diversity in the workplace and ensuring that the JAC meet the requirements of the Equality Act 2010 as an employer”

” “Ensure regular updates and monitoring of the diversity breakdown of permanent staff through the HR system.”

Outcome measure

” “Staff reflect the diversity of the general population at all levels.”

Click here for the full article >>>
http://jac.judiciary.gov.uk/static/documents/jac_equality_objectives_2013.doc

The Judicial Appointments Commission is of course applying a system set for it by the Commissars of Political Correctness. Here are some key extracts from :-

THE REPORT OF THE ADVISORY PANEL ON JUDICAL DIVERSITY 2010


“DEVELOPING A DIVERSE POOL

Recommendation 12

The Panel recommends that the Bar Council, the Law Society and ILEX set out a detailed and timetabled programme of change to improve the diversity profile of members of the professions who are suitable for appointment at all levels. They should bring this plan to the Judicial Diversity Taskforce within 12 months of the publication of this report. This plan should include information on how progress will be monitored.”

“STRUCTURED ENCOURAGEMENT

Recommendation 13

The legal profession and the judiciary should put in place systems for supporting suitable and talented candidates from under-represented groups to apply for judicial appointment.”

“THE JAC’S INTERVIEWING PANELS

Recommendation 31

The JAC must assemble diverse selection panels. There should always be a gender and, wherever possible, an ethnic mix.

Recommendation 32

Panel chairs and members must receive regular equality and diversity training that addresses how to identify and value properly transferable skills and also to ensure that they are aware of any potential issues regarding their unconscious bias.

Recommendation 33

All JAC selection panel chairs and members should be regularly appraised and membership periodically refreshed. Poorly performing panel members should be removed.”

“APPOINTMENT TO THE SUPREME COURT AND COURT OF APPEAL

Recommendation 41

The selection process for vacancies in the most senior courts should be open and transparent, with decisions made on an evidence base provided by the applicant and their referees in response to published criteria. No judge should be directly involved in the selection of his/her successor and there should always be a gender and, wherever possible, an ethnic mix on the selection panel.

Recommendation 43

The selection process to the Supreme Court for the United Kingdom should be reviewed to reduce the number of serving justices involved and to ensure there is always a gender and, wherever possible, an ethnic mix on the selection panel. This review should include consultation with the Lord Chief Justices of England and Wales and Northern Ireland and the Lord President of the Court of Session.”

Click here for the full article>>>
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Reports/advisory-panel-judicial-diversity-2010.pdf

This “Report” was chaired by, and mostly written by, Baroness Neuberger. Its recommendations are sometimes referred to in official documents as “Neuberger guidelines”.

Here is an extract from Baroness Neuberger’s biography that may help clarify what mind-set and ideological background she brought to her work. It also clarifies what personal interests she might have brought to bear in writing the report.

“Rabbi Julia Babette Sarah Neuberger, Baroness Neuberger, DBE (born 27 February 1950; née Julia Schwab) is a member of the British House of Lords. She formerly took the Liberal Democrat whip, but resigned from the party and joined the Crossbenches in September 2011 upon becoming the full-time Senior Rabbi to the West London Synagogue.

EARLY LIFE AND EDUCATION
Julia Schwab was born on 27 February 1950 to Walter and Liesel (“Alice”) Schwab. She attended South Hampstead High School and Newnham College, Cambridge, obtaining her Rabbinic Diploma at Leo Baeck College, London, where she taught from 1977-97. She was Chancellor of the University of Ulster from 1994-2000.

Her father was born in the UK to German Jewish immigrants who arrived before the First World War. Her mother was a refugee from Nazi Germany, arriving at age 22 in 1937. The Schwab Trust was set up in their name, to help support and educate young refugees and asylum seekers.

RELIGIOUS ROLES
Neuberger was Britain’s second female rabbi after Jackie Tabick, and the first to have her own synagogue. She was rabbi of the South London Liberal Synagogue from 1977 to 1989 and is President of West Central Liberal Synagogue. She has been president of theLiberal Judaism movement since January 2007. On 1 February 2011, the West London Synagogue (a Movement for Reform Judaism synagogue) announced that she had been appointed as Senior Rabbi of the synagogue.

PARLIAMENTARY ROLES
Neuberger was appointed a DBE in the New Year Honours of 2003. In June 2004 she was created a life peer as Baroness Neuberger, of Primrose Hill in the London Borough of Camden. She served as a Liberal Democrat Health spokesperson from 2004 to 2007. On 29 June 2007, Baroness Neuberger was appointed by the incoming Prime Minister Gordon Brown as the government’s champion of volunteering. She resigned from the Liberal Democrats upon becoming Senior Rabbi of the West London Synagogue.

PERSONAL LIFE AND FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS
Julia Schwab married Professor Anthony Neuberger.[8] They have two adult children, a son and a daughter. Anthony Neuberger is the son of Professor Albert Neuberger, and the brother of Professors Michael and James Neuberger, as well as Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.”

For further reference on Baroness Neuberger you might find this snippet interesting>>>

Rabbi Julia Neuberger (of West London Synagogue)’s daughter Harriet to be gay bride | Daily Mail Online

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2560965/SEBASTIAN-SHAKESPEARE-Rabbi-Julia-Neubergers-daughter-Harriet-gay-bride.html

It is also “interesting” to say the least that this is what Baroness Neuberger’s brother-in-law said recently:-

“A career judiciary with fast-track promotion to higher courts may be required to overcome lack of diversity on the bench, the UK’s most senior judge has suggested. City law firms use “honeyed words” to obscure their efforts in preventing talented solicitors from becoming judges, Lord Neuberger, president of the supreme court, said. He said without further changes the shortage of women and those from minority ethnic backgrounds would take too long to rectify.

In an interview with the UK supreme court blog, Neuberger also says that the courts system remains “chronically underfunded” and that the increase in litigants in person – due to cuts in legal aid – is leading to delays and “less good justice”.

His comments, released in advance of the new legal term, will galvanise the debate over how to ensure that the judiciary better reflects the composition of society. Overall, 24.5% of court judges are women and about 5.8% are from ethnic backgrounds. Seven of the 38 judges in the court of appeal are women.
Of the 12 justices on the supreme court only one, Lady Hale, is a woman. Another of the justices, Lord Sumption, has said that under the current appointments system it will take 50 years to achieve a representative judiciary.

“A career judiciary where there is a potential fast track could be an option: such an individual could enter it at, say, the age of 35 as a junior tribunal member or possibly a district judge and work their way up,” Neuberger told the UKSC blog, which is independent of the supreme court…”

Neuberger said that it should not be assumed that the problem will rectify itself. “I am not one of those people who optimistically thinks that if we just sit back it will all sort itself out and the judiciary will eventually include many more women and ethnic minorities,” he said. Merit should still be an essential requirement “although to be fair, merit is a slightly flexible concept”.”

Here is the full article>>>
Judiciary needs fast-track scheme to boost diversity, says top judge | Law | theguardian.com

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/sep/17/judiciary-needs-fast-track-scheme-boost-diversity-neuberger