UK

Rain (AM and PM) 6° London Hi 9°C / Lo 7°C

Fear and loathing at equality central

Discrimination, conflicts of interest, financial irregularities: allegations against Trevor Phillips and his commission are building.

By Paul Vallely and Kevin Rawlinson

The head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission Trevor Phillips

David Sandison

The head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission Trevor Phillips

It was not supposed to work like this. The Government's equality watchdog – which is charged with rooting out discrimination on the grounds of sex, race, religion, sexuality, age or disability – was yesterday in the dock charged with discrimination by a member of its own staff. It only adds to the mound of political embarrassment being heaped upon the chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Trevor Phillips, whose days in the job look increasingly limited.

The woman before an employment tribunal yesterday was Brid Johal, from Tipperary. (These things are important when it comes to equality). She was an aide to the aide of Mr Phillips. Even aides have aides in the wonderful world of quangos, until David Cameron gets his way at any rate. While she was on maternity leave the person who was covering for her – whom we might, unkindly perhaps, describe as the aide of the aide of the aide – was promoted over Ms Johal's head. It happened just as a commission bigwig was holding forth publicly about how unfortunate it was that women get penalised if they take a year off. Ms Johal told the tribunal that she had not been informed that there was a vacancy available despite her bosses' promises that she would be "kept in the loop" while she was away.

There is now muttering inside the EHRC about how it has not, after all, consigned to history a world in which some people are more equal than others. "There is something oddly old-fashioned going on in terms of plum jobs at the higher level," one insider said recently.

Some are beginning to think that the man at the top, Trevor Phillips, may have feet of clay. Indeed some are murmuring that the clay goes up to knee-level and beyond. The commission has been hit in recent months by a succession of internal disputes and allegations of financial irregularities. There is talk now that the former television executive, who wanted a second term in the job, will be forced to step down when his contract ends in the autumn.

It was never meant to be like this. When Phillips was appointed as head of the Commission for Racial Equality (EHRC's predecessor) in 2003 he was acclaimed as high-profile, well connected and, most importantly, willing to take positions contrary to those normally adopted by race campaigners. He was also able to engage with the arguments of the old-style left as well as those of the right.

But his tenure has not been smooth. Ever since the EHRC was formed he has been in the firing line, not just for his ideology but for his management of the organisation as well.

In the next few weeks the National Audit Office is expected to deliver a hard-hitting verdict on the commission's finances, and may even qualify its accounts. Its concerns are said to centre on staff who were given generous redundancy payments when the CRE was wound up, then re-hired by the EHRC. Mr Phillips may soon face questions in Parliament.

More personally embarrassing for Mr Phillips is the rumbling row over his private business activities. Last year he was forced to quit as director of the Equate Organisation, a management company that he founded – and in which he owns a 70 per cent stake – when it was disclosed that it gave advice to Channel 4 following the Jade Goody race row in the 2007 series of Celebrity Big Brother. He was accused of a conflict of interest between his business and his public-sector role. It was also revealed that his contract with the commission – where he is paid £110,000 for a three-and-a-half day week – allowed him to use the commission's offices for a number of exclusively private business activities. "Mr Phillips should decide whether he wishes to be a management consultant or whether he wants to chair the Equality and Human Rights Commission," the equal opportunities lobbyist Michael Rubenstein wrote at the time.

The row continues because the Equate website continues to display a picture of Mr Phillips with the accolade: "Trevor is one of the leading experts on migration in Europe. He has, for over two decades, been advising private companies particularly in the media and finance sectors on their response to social change; and remains one of the most widely listened-to advisers to government and public bodies in Europe. He is the chair of the UK's Equality and Human Rights Commission." This is despite requests from the commission's legal director that it should be removed.

Then there is the internal turmoil: 34 permanent members of staff have resigned during the past year. Some, including the organsiation's chief executive, Nicola Brewer, have gone on to appreciably better jobs. But in April three board members resigned after a public assertion by Mr Phillips that the police were no longer institutionally racist. Mr Phillips argued that the police had "shown a much better understanding of how to deliver a public service that doesn't discriminate just because of the colour of your skin" since the botched investigation into the murder of Stephen Lawrence. But this did not go down well with the old guard.

They had already been incensed by his U-turn on multiculturalism – the notion that a diverse society should celebrate the different cultures of its ethnic groups. Multiculturalism, Phillips argued, might actually be counter-productive. Rather than creating a diverse society, he said, it could open social divisions and cause Britain to "sleepwalk towards segregation". The veterans of the race industry were dismayed.

But Phillips was not alone. After 9/11 the Government had became determined to find sets of values and touchstones that could promote a more integrationist view of the politics of race. Tony Blair, with whom Mr Phillips had become friendly via Peter Mandelson – who was best man at Mr Phillips's wedding – began to try to co-opt Muslims into "community cohesion". Gordon Brown became obsessed with Britishness.

To his critics Mr Phillips was doing New Labour's bidding. To his friends he was forming the debate. However, many in the ethnic minority communities were alarmed, arguing that it was his job to defend minorities, not give succour to attacks on them.

Eventually Trevor Phillips went too far for his some of his more ardent supporters. His remarks last year that if Barack Obama became President it might "postpone the arrival of a post-racial America" caused consternation in the higher echelons of the Government. And his claim that it would be impossible for a black candidate to rise to the top in UK politics because of institutional racism in the Labour Party was deemed to be ill-considered, taking no account of the fact that non-whites constitute a third of the US population but less than 10 per cent here.

There is now talk that his time at the commission may be nearly up. Some are suggesting deal may be done to allow him to save face, by which he will be offered another three years – on the understanding that he will turn it down. He might be offered a job as head of another quango, the British Council, which has a vacancy at the top following the departure of Neil Kinnock who had to quit when his wife, Glenys, was made a minister. It would mean a significant drop in salary for Mr Phillips. But promoting Britishness around the world may prove easier than trying to define it in this country.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Time to go
[info]had_it wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 06:51 am (UTC)
He seems honest, practical, down-to-earth sensible, willing to call things as he sees them and not to kow-tow to received PC wisdom.
Get rid of him.
Re: Time to go
[info]tominlondon wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 08:56 am (UTC)
110,000K for a three-and-a-half day week for a close friend of Peter Mandelson who has had nothing to say on racism for months - despite everything that's been happening. This guy should be in court.
agreement that multicultural society is an oxymoron, because humans' percepetions of reality are
[info]cronyblatcher wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 07:23 am (UTC)
culturally *saturated*, was enough to put the skids under him, despite being number one token non Caucasian - far too much has been invested, by Blatcherist government as an enemy of the State and of the people, in a 'broken' society in which people are too busy bitching among themselves to focus on their parasites
(no subject) - [info] - Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 07:29 am (UTC)
fallacious nonsense
[info]cronyblatcher wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 07:48 am (UTC)
in fact an unremarkable untalented token elevated as a token and equipped as a token with "public money and power", who did however publicly agree the blindingly obvious, namely that multicultural society is an oxymoron
[info]nivea1 wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 08:21 am (UTC)
Precisely. Look at what our MPs are up to and they're not attracting so much attention! He's a black man, in charge of a public body, heading a group of mainly white, middle class infighting commissioners who are representing their single interests rather than looking at issues holistically -

Why has it not occurred to anyone that as the chair, Trevor Phillips is not responsible for staffing matters or the finances - he only does 3 days a week - its the CEOs reponsibility but she's not being vilified by the press or anyone else for that matter - in fact she messed up the Commission and got a rewarded with a plump government posting in South Africa instead whilst Trevor, irrespective of his sometimes dodgy politics, is being made a scapegoat for her incompetence! May be his biggest error was becoming the chair of of such a high profile organisation and not expecting to be scapegoated if mistakes were made!

Who said institutionalised racism is dead!
his "mistake" was to publicly blurt out the truth, namely
[info]cronyblatcher wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 09:08 am (UTC)
that "multicultural society" is an oxymoron
Trevor Phillips
[info]terry_hamblin wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 08:21 am (UTC)
I think the thing they really hold against him is the apointment of Joel Edwards, a prominent evangelical Christian to the Commission.

But Cameron is right; get rid of the whole Quango and save the money. People like these parasites should be working for a living. If they wany influence, let them get elected.
"let them get elected" to
[info]cronyblatcher wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 09:25 am (UTC)
the ranks of subversive quisling snouts in a pseudo-democracy - in other words the solution is less simple than you think it is
Muliculturalism
[info]geiseric wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 08:23 am (UTC)
We have got multiculturalism whether we like it or not. The idea that the various immigrant groups are going to drop their cultural identity and all become brown Englishmen (and women) is absurd. They are as proud of their identity as we are of ours. I get the impression that the whole multiracialist thing has not been thought through.
My understanding is that a bringing together of the races was supposed to bring peace. Now we are told that we have to fight a war in a landlocked country thousands of miles away in order to counter the threat of terrorism. i.e. we are fighting a war to defend an ideology that was supposed to bring peace.
Re: Muliculturalism
[info]tominlondon wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 08:57 am (UTC)
We have got multiculturalism whether we like it or not

Er, we like it.
Muliculturalism
[info]cronyblatcher wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 09:04 am (UTC)
You fail to differentiate between a multi-racial society, and the oxymoronic concept of multicultural society. This guy in his role of number one token, made the mistake of publicly blurting out the truth behind intentionally subversive Blatcherist governments' misuse of public money to promote a "broken" society on which people are too busy bitching among themselves to focus on their parasites.
Re: Muliculturalism
[info]geiseric wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 09:18 am (UTC)
In my opinion you are unlikely to have a multiracial society without also having a multiculturalism. The various races are proud of their various cultures will not drop them just because Trevor Phillips or anyone else thinks they should.

In the article it states...
Multiculturalism, Phillips argued, might actually be counter-productive.

If multiculturalism might be counter-productive, where do we go from here?
with due respect that is fallacious nonsense
[info]cronyblatcher wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 09:35 am (UTC)
look at how the Irish / Scotch / Jews / Huguenots / pre-Blatcherism_subversion non Caucasians, even the bl..dy Normans, et al, blended mingled and intermarried without all of this (publicly financed / government_promoted) tension. While not a Roman scholar, I have reason to believe that the Roman Empire, for example, was also built on a multi-racial as disitinct from multi-cultural militaristic society
Re: with due respect that is fallacious nonsense
[info]geiseric wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 10:28 am (UTC)
I don't entirely disagree with you. Much depends on the rate of immigration and the cultural difference between resident and immigrant groups. However, the Norman conquest cannot really be seen as an example of peaceful multiculturalism (the harrowing of the North for example). Likewise the Roman conquest. In these cases 'peace' was imposed by the mass slaughter and total subjugation of the resident population.
The Huguenots (protestant) came to England (protestant) because they faced persecution in France (catholic). This persecution included the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre, in which thousands of Huguenots were killed, arguably another example of multiculturalism.
Re: with due respect that is fallacious nonsense
[info]cronyblatcher wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 10:47 am (UTC)
Neither Norman nor Roman conquests were "peaceful multiculturalism". There is no such thing as "peaceful multiculturalism", but there are plenty of examples of anything but peaceful "multiculturalism"s.

Normans assimilated - are any of their descendants culturally 'different' today?.
The Roman empire was built on a successful multi-racial militaristic monoculture.
The descendants of Huguenots are undeniably 100% (mongrel) British today, as are large numbers of Irish / Scotch/ Jews / etcetera.

Blatcherist governments, as an enemy of the State and of the People, have used public money to obstruct / subvert natural forces that promote peaceful assimilation and voluntary adoption of the indigenous monoculture, pursuant to the unlawful purpose of manufacturing a 'broken' factionalised society in which people are too busy bitching among themselves to focus on their parasites
"where do we go from there"?
[info]cronyblatcher wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 09:47 am (UTC)
adapt the irrational BNP stance ('British' are actually mongrels) to one of adopt and blend with the indigenous culture , or you are not welcome - it may seem brutal but it is the only effective treatment of this facet of a subversively engineered "broken society" - if you wish to change it , and goodness knows who doesn't, then do so from within, or...
Re: Muliculturalism
[info]cronyblatcher wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 09:20 am (UTC)
It has been thoroughly "thought through", by those able to subversively misuse public money to engineer a "broken" society in which people are too busy bitching among themselves to focus on their parasites. Intellectual toffs tend to denigrate meeja and 'communication' students, but the least able of them will tell you that humans' perceptions of reality are culturally saturated and that effective cross-cultural communication is at best difficult and usually impossible.
In short there was manufactiure of the perfect 'demon in our midst' - far superior to "the IRA" one - with which to prod the herd whenever necessary and prevent it from raising its head to look around at those behind the ranks of subversive snouts as herders who strut corridors of power.
Phillips made the unforgivable mistake of publicly half-heartedly agreeing.
Re: Muliculturalism
[info]starance wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 07:06 pm (UTC)
geiseric says "...They are as proud of their identity as we are of ours."

Yes, we the British, whom are the Scots, English, Welsh and Irish are indeed so proud of ours. Where we all the banning of our national flags at many events, and public/government buildings. We allow other flags, like the "EU" to take place of our own, as well we all a lot of discriminating policies against our native peoples. Yes geiseric, we sure are proud of our own, not.

Oh... it goes on and on, including with our own Military forces, and Police. I wont get into that, as you can search for yourself all the negativity towards "our own" sense of identity!
Race Relations cannot be commissioned
[info]gaolhouse wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 09:00 am (UTC)
Sadly this has happened before with Mr Phillips with one of his own Board Membes leaving due to this "reign of fear and oppression "34 permanent members of staff have resigned during the past year. Some, including the organsiation's chief executive, Nicola Brewer".

When a person like this, with dubious business dealings, decides to act on his won without consideration to the people he is supposed to represent is despicable. He has made the whole process a laughing stock.

Sack him.
Re: Race Relations cannot be commissioned
[info]tominlondon wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 09:49 am (UTC)
It is unclear to me what this quango, with its enormous staff, actually does,
Re: Race Relations cannot be commissioned
[info]cronyblatcher wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 10:34 am (UTC)
Its function is still that of propping up the subversive 'multicultural society' oxymoron. I have before me papers documenting the fact that if as a disabled person, you look to it even for information let alone representation (in the absence of legal aid) in a matter of disability-related employment discrimination:
a) the only 'informatuon' available is a list of other possible sources dressed up in glossy paper brochures and an expensively built / maintained web site;
b) enquiries about representation before a disability-related employment tribunal, in what is a complex area of law, are simply ignored.

This is why Phillips public stance is seen as subversive and why he must be ejected.
New Labour
[info]hanibalecter wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 09:01 am (UTC)
Typical New Labour, money is God.
Hail the defenders of the oppressed!
[info]john_b_ellis wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 09:13 am (UTC)
I find it hard to shed tears over any difficulties that either Mr Phillips or his quango may be experiencing. Clearly there are ideological differences between him and some members of his staff, and the signs may suggest that Mr P is a more proficient idealogue and communicator than he is an administrator. But both he and they have carved lucrative careers and, in some cases, reputations. They do all right!

But my main issue is that this quango, with its predecessors of various titles, has been the progenitor in Britain of a type of "thought police". The whole notion was Orwellian and Stalinist. It's not altogether surprising (and, to me, quite satisfying!) that, like previous organizations in the Stalinist style, it has apparently come to be fractured by idealogical furies and jealousies.

The irritating thing in a time of recession is that these people wage their internecine ideological wars entirely at public expense, and enjoy a lifestyle that most of the people whose interests they claim to serve could only dream of. In a fairly literal sense of the word, they are parasites.
No such thing as 'multiculturalism'
[info]jaded63 wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 09:19 am (UTC)
Everyone knows that, en effet, there is no such thing as 'multiculturalism' in Britain. Not as a successful project, in any case. All that the concept has produced is division. Contrast this with the USA and its traditional 'melting pot' concept - infinitely more successful. In the USA you are judged by whether you show you are a patriotic American first. If you pass that test, your ethnic background is not supposed to matter. Yes, there are racial tensions, but there is an American sense of unity which now far surpasses any sense we have of our British unity. The reason for this is quite simple: in the USA the vast majority of the population has bought the 'melting pot' and patriotic American identity concept, whereas in Britain, ever since the end of WW2 we have done nothing but chip away at our sense of British identity and patriotism.

In France, too, the state rejects the whole ludicrous 'multiculturalism' concept - there is a strong, centralised concept of what it is to be French, and being French is what matters above all else. Once again, despite racial tensions, one only has to pop over the channel to realise how much more clear, strong and patriotic is the sense of identity possessed by the French.

Gordon Brown has belatedly come to realise the damage 'multiculturalism' and, indeed, devolution (which could also be seen as the end product of 'multiculturalism') has done, not least to the chances of Labour getting re-elected, and has discovered his and our Britishness. I fear that it's all rather too late, and the damage done to Britain's identity and its prospects as a cohesive nation is probably terminal.
Re: No such thing as 'multiculturalism'
[info]tominlondon wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 09:50 am (UTC)
patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
Re: No such thing as 'multiculturalism'
[info]jaded63 wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 10:17 am (UTC)
A hackneyed cliche is the first refuge of a weak mind.
Re: No such thing as 'multiculturalism'
[info]colinru wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 10:35 pm (UTC)
The quote should be " A false patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel"
Bad smells
[info]gaius_godd wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 09:36 am (UTC)

Clean the stables! Let in the light. Let's have a clean audit of this sinister organisation.
Time to abolish this quango, and many more...
[info]arclight99 wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 10:07 am (UTC)

It's typical of Labour's obsession with all things media that they appointed a TV presenter to take charge of a large quango without first considering whether he had either the necessary management skills or the good character to fulfill the role.

But if he's forced out there's no cause for cheer as the old race relations guard are even worse, to the point of utterly useless. The fact that in April three EHRC board members resigned after Phillips said the police are no longer institutionally racist says it all. Why not just abolish the whole thing and let people take their employers to court as and when necessary? It would save the country a pretty penny and force a bunch of semi-detached slackers to go out and get a proper job.

Re: Time to abolish this quango, and many more...
[info]cronyblatcher wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 10:49 am (UTC)
Agreed (with para 2)
Re: Time to abolish this quango, and many more...
[info]john_b_ellis wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 11:01 am (UTC)
Likewise!
[info]danoxford1 wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 11:13 am (UTC)
I'm more concerned why 70% of the EHRc's staff are minority ethnic when this clearly does not represent the overall population...
[info]brazierdv wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 01:49 pm (UTC)
Human rights bodies attract activists. Not only is there a disproportionate number of minorities on the staffs they often take a condescending view of the public, believing that their job is a "special calling" rather than what it is, enforcement of a law.

But all bodies are staffed with people with all the frailties that that entails. Human rights commissions can discriminate just like any other employer.
CRE - Waste of space, time, resources and money
[info]blsewell wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 11:15 am (UTC)
Hello,

I totally agree with the comments made - the CRE is a total waste of public money - its a pity that they can't be forced to repay all the public funds that they have received over the past (10) years - with the alternative being immediately sent to prison or afghanistan.

This organisation like so many similar quango's is only a thank you by the labour party for some of its high profile followers and members.

They perform absolutely no useful service for anyone except themselves - close friends and associates - they won't even talk to me - (it might upset xyz), their boss.

As a black person having lived and worked in the UK for over past 50 years, I am a pensioner living on a state pension - because my business was stolen by a government agency whom I had approached for assistance in starting my business, the culprit is a member of the labour party.

I have tried over several years to have a discussion with the CRE, (a) they were not empowered to deal with cases of intellectual property theft by government business support agencies,(www.tfc-training.com/ipt.htm) (b) they could not offer any advice as to who I could or should be talking to to get my case looked into, (c) even when I reported that the DTI was (falsely) trying to make me bankrupt - they would not or could not intervene.

Regards

LS
Multiculturalism and Identity.
[info]chiennoir wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 11:25 am (UTC)
What exactly is multiculturalism. It seems to me that people from different cultural background should be able to mix without any problem. But there is a problem. What is it? I think it's identity-politics. My own identity seems to me to be so fluid - changing from one moment to the next - as to be non-existent. I'm gay, for instance, but I don't necessarily have any more in common with other gays than I have with straight people. Any sense of having anything in common with other gays only emerges when I encounter antigay prejudice. Then, of course, I discover an identity, which I don't normally have. It's a question purely of the circumstances I find myself in and what I perceive them to be. Quite apart from those circumstances - and the hostility perhaps of others - I'm quite happy to motor along in the world without any thought of who I might be. I had a good Senegalese friend when I lived in Madrid who told me that the only time he felt black was when other people had a problem with his skin colour, otherwise he was just himself, whatever he felt himself to be at the time. All these identities we adopt and build a politics around, and it doesn't matter whether it's British, Islamic, Black, Gay or whatever, say very little about who we really are in ourselves. Identity-politics, however, forces us all into a mould from which it becomes very difficultto free ourselves from. That's what i think the real problem is, not whether or not we hail from this or that cultural group. As for the person who believes that Americans have solved this problem by adopting the melting-pot notion and making everyone identify with America, well perhaps, but they have only dneo so by displacing it outwards and regarding non-Americans - beginning with the Native-Americans - as their enemy. That's the price of American identity-politics, which some call patriotism.
Cronyblatcher
[info]gordon123 wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 11:28 am (UTC)

Welcome back cronyblatcher, I haven't seen your posts for some time, while I may not agree with all you write I certainly enjoy reading your pieces. Where I do agree with you is your assertion that multiculturalism is indeed an oxymoron. The UK is a multiracial society that contains people from different cultures many of which are incompatible with British culture. While I respect other cultures and the right of minorities to respect their own culture it is incumbent on them to to integrate and accept the culture of the country in which they live. During the course of my life I have lived and worked in many countries, while remaining British I made every attempt to integrate into the society of the country in which I was based and always respected the culture, it has to be said that some of these attempts were more successful than others. The UK Government seem to be taking extraordinary steps to promote the cultures of the ethnic minorities at the expense of that of the indigenous Britons
Re: Cronyblatcher
[info]cronyblatcher wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 12:13 pm (UTC)
"The UK Government seem to be taking extraordinary steps to promote the cultures of the ethnic minorities at the expense of that of the indigenous Britons" pursuant, as quislings of those who look at you over the shoulders of creatures like Thatcher and Blair, to creating and maintaining a fractured ("broken") society in which people are too busy bitching among themselves to focus on their parasites
At last the truth is coming out.
[info]paganpete1001 wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 12:51 pm (UTC)
Any form of discrimination is wrong - positive or negative - let each person live by their own merits not by your sex or skin colour.

Get 'big chips' Trev out and close this waste of our tax money down!
Re: Cronyblatcher
[info]gordon123 wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 12:56 pm (UTC)


Not quite sure what you mean here !
Re: Cronyblatcher
[info]cronyblatcher wrote:
Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 01:16 pm (UTC)
Before Thatcher and Blair (Blatcherist government as an enemy of the State and of the people) society was sufficiently un"broken" and undistracted to organise and resist looting by organised economic crime syndicates of 35 trillion worth of N. Sea assets plus goodness only knows the value of the rest of the family silver. Thatcher and Blair, and gangs that formed around them, not only facilitated but aided and abetted by suppressing isolated pockets of opposition http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTbdnNgqfs8
Johal v EHRC case
[info]socialstboy wrote:
Monday, 12 October 2009 at 05:43 pm (UTC)
Been following this for uni. Johal lost her case and the case was dismissed by the Tribunal.

Most popular in UK News



Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date