Tory Debates: 'Words have consequences'

Power Politics Smelling Around a Lampost

by Brian Bamford

DURING the Tory leadership debate on the 30th, June, the BBC was accused of bias and the Daily Mail ran an headline: 'BIASED BRAZEN CONTEMPTABLE' and an editorial entitled 'A farrago of deceit and naked BBC bias'.  The editor Geordie Greig wrote:  'One questioner was an imam ('Abdula from Bristol'), who took Mr (Boris) Johnson to task over his use of Islamaphobic language.'  

What the Imam questioner from Bristol asked was did Boris accept that 'words have consequences?'

Boris then admitted that some of his remarks might occasionally have caused some plaster to off the ceiling, but added that people sometimes chose to 'escalate' his comments. 

Ludwig Wittgenstein was once quoted as saying:   'A philosopher who is not taking part in discussions is like a boxer who never goes into the ring.'

Despite Geordie Greig's protestations about BBC bias in the Daily Mail, the Imam was justified in asking his question which was of interest to the public.

more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/ludwig_wittgenstein_147252

A philosopher who is not taking part in discussions is like a boxer who never goes into the ring.
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/ludwig_wittgenstein_147252

The roots of this question stem from a column in the UK’s Daily Telegraph newspaper on 5 Aug 2018, in which Johnson wrote that while he doesn’t support a burqa ban in Denmark, he does think they’re 'ridiculous' because they make women look like 'letter boxes' and 'bank robbers.'

But Johnson was also perfectly entitled to describe the effect the asthetic style of the burka had on him:  'If you say that it is weird and bullying to expect women to cover their faces, then I totally agree,' Johnson wrote.  'I would go further and say that it is absolutely ridiculous that people should choose to go around looking like letter boxes.'

Months later in December 2018, Boris Johnson was cleared by an internal Tory Party internal inquiry of breaching the Conservative Party’s code of conduct by comparing veiled Muslim women to letter boxes and bank robbers when an independent panel decided the former foreign secretary was 'respectful and tolerant' and was entitled to use 'satire' in his newspaper column in August.

When I worked at Arrow Mill in Rochdale in the early 1970s, the Pakistani textile spinners there told me that at that time their women-folk wouldn't wear the veil because we natives would laugh at them.  At that time there were less Asian women in the UK, and what shocked most people was that the women usually trialed behind their men-folk when they where out walking in the streets.  It was years later when the fashion of the burka became more commonplace among Muslim women in the UK.

From a logical point of view  'words have consequences' because words are tools to shape meanings in the way a chisel would impact an impression on a piece of wood.  Polemics is the art of throwing eggs or delivering blows in the businesslike manner of a boxer (see Wittgenstein reference above).

In response to this we are told that the critics of Boris will tell us that they are offended and that what Boris writes is a form of 'hate speech'.  Well they may well make this claim as such people often do as they are very vocal.  Yet, others may thus equally respond, as Queen Gertrude did in Shakespeare's play Hamlet:.  'The Lady Doth Protest Too Much, methinks'. 

Most writers on Northern Voices have been clearly committed to libertarian anarchism as rooted in free speech, and question the squeamishness of those who make claims that they are perennially offended by something or other.  The squeamish are now categorised as 'snowflakes'. 

Yet are the squeamish simulating their 'offence' to close down free speech in the way that is available to any human being?  Here we are dealing with something like a private language or the philosophical 'problem of other minds'.  We have words that refer to sensations like being 'offended' or being 'in pain', but we have no way of knowing if these sensations are fake or not.

To throw into relief the possible artful practices of squeamish human 'snowflakes' let us consider what Wittgenstein asks about a dog:

'Why can’t a dog simulate pain? Is he too honest? Could one teach a
dog to simulate pain? Perhaps it is possible to teach him to howl on
particular occasions as if he were in pain, even when he is not. But the
surroundings which are necessary for this behaviour to be real
simulation are missing.'

We can however go further and distinguish between the artful human snowflake and the dog by what Russell B. Goodman writes about in his essay 'Thinking about Animals:  James, Wittgenstein, Hearne': 

'Dogs can be sneaky or deceptive, and that there are stories of
dogs pretending to be injured and doing other clever things. So
perhaps a dog can simulate pain. Would the dog then be dishonest?
Wittgenstein is making a revealing little joke here, based on the
incongruity of saying that dogs either are or are not honest. They
do not have a form of life in which honesty is a major component
in the way that for example, hiding bones and smelling lampposts
are.'

Thus honesty, hypocrisy, sincerity and what could be called human decency, do not form part of the dog's universe.  What could be said about Boris's comments on the Burka and the claim of his alleged Islamophobia is that he is there to entertain and is simply attention seeking when he talks about letter- boxes.  After this week's latest debate with Jeremy Hunt, Eamonn O’Domhnaill, 48, a finance manager from Ireland, was unimpressed with both candidates but said:
'I don’t believe Boris Johnson is taking this seriously - there has been far too much buffoonery.'.

We all know Boris is believed to have favoured remain in the run-up to the referendum.  It is tempting to suggest that there is a certain Fastaffian amorality about his politics which places him closer to Russel B. Goodman's dog smelling round a lamppost as he seeks the Tory leadership..

*****************."

Be a Marra, support Durham Miners' Gala

Dear friend

 

I am honoured to be speaking at the 135th Durham Miners’ Gala this Saturday (13 July). The Gala is the greatest event in the trade union movement calendar.

It is now 25 years since the closure of the last colliery on the Durham coalfield. The Gala has not only survived, but is thriving, and serves as a beacon for the whole working class.

It is vital as trade unionists that we play our part to ensure that this great celebration of solidarity and community continues for many years to come.

For more than a century, the Gala was funded by the working miners of Durham. It is their gift to us all. Today, it is funded by Marras - the Friends of Durham Miners Gala. Marras - the Durham miners’ word for a friend who can be relied upon - make contributions throughout the year.

You can become a Marra for a little as £2 a month. As a proud Marra myself I ask you to give your support for the Durham Miners’ Gala and become a Marra today.

To join, visit: www.friendsofdurhamminersgala.org/join_us

The past we inherit; the future we build.

 

Len McCluskey

General secretary

Guardian newspaper pulls letter following complaint from Board of Deputies of British Jews!

On 8th July, the Guardian newspaper published a letter from over 100 prominent members of the Jewish community including Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein. Following a complaint by the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the letter was withdrawn by the Guardian 'pending investigation'. Tony Greenstein, one of the signatories, said: "The Zionists complained we weren't prominent and that some of us had been expelled for 'anti-Semitism'! That was the whole point! Antisemitism has been weaponised." We are publishing below the letter and other material that has been published on social media.

********************

Prominent members of the Jewish community, in the UK and abroad, write to defend the Labour MP Chris Williamson amid allegations of antisemitism.

"We the undersigned, all Jews, are writing in support of Chris Williamson and to register our dismay at the recent letter organised by Tom Watson, and signed by parliamentary Labour party and House of Lords members, calling for his suspension (Anger over return of MP who said Labour was ‘too apologetic’ over antisemitism, 28 June).

Chris Williamson did not say that the party had been “too apologetic about antisemitism”, as has been widely misreported. He correctly stated that the Labour party has done more than any other party to combat the scourge of antisemitism and that, therefore, its stance should be less apologetic. Such attacks on Jeremy Corbyn’s supporters aim to undermine not only the Labour party’s leadership but also all pro-Palestinian members.

The mass media have ignored the huge support for Chris both within and beyond the Labour party. Support that includes many Jews. The party needs people like him, with the energy and determination to fight for social justice. As anti-racist Jews, we regard Chris as our ally: he stands as we do with the oppressed rather than the oppressor. It should also be noted that he has a longer record of campaigning against racism and fascism than most of his detractors.

The Chakrabarti report recommended that the party’s disciplinary procedures respect due process, favour education over expulsion and promote a culture of free speech, yet this has been abandoned in practice. We ask the Labour party to reinstate Chris Williamson and cease persecuting such members on false allegations of antisemitism.
Noam Chomsky MIT, Norman Finkelstein Lecturer and writer, Ed AsnerActor, Prof Richard Falk Princeton University, Leah Lavene and Jenny Manson Jewish Voice for Labour and more than 100 others." Full list at tinyurl.com/y4mr4lwb

• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com

• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters

• Do you have a photo you’d like to share with Guardian readers? Click here to upload it and we’ll publish the best submissions in the letters spread of our print edition

Who Really Speaks for British Jews?

by Les May

 

THE Jewish Chronicle (JC) wants to be seen as the only authentic voice of British Jews. Yesterday (Tuesday 9 July) its website carried a piece headed ‘The Guardian's long standing and shameful tradition of promoting antisemitism denial’ with the sub-heading ‘For decades, Britain's most prominent left-wing paper has promoted those denying antisemitism on the wider left, contributing to today's toxic climate for British Jews’.

https://www.thejc.com/comment/comment/the-guardian-s-latest-letter-continues-their-long-tradition-of-promoting-antisemitism-denial-1.486275

What becomes clear in reading this is that the writer’s concern is that people, including Labour people, are willing to take information about the opinions of Jewish people from sources other than the JC and the people who write for it.  In particular the writer does not like the Jewish Voice for Labour (JVL) which is dismissed as a ‘tiny minority of far-left Jews’.

And what does this ‘tiny minority of far-left Jews’ actually have to say when providing guidance about what constitutes antisemitism?

‘Free speech is legally protected. Within these legal limits political discourse can be robust and may cause offence. There is no right not to be offended. The fact that some people or groups are offended does not in itself mean that a statement is antisemitic or racist. A statement is only antisemitic if it shows prejudice, hostility or hatred against Jews as Jews.’

‘Criticising Zionism or Israel as a state does not constitute criticising Jews as individuals or as a people, and is not evidence of antisemitism.’

‘Drawing such parallels (with Nazi Germany or apartheid South Africa) can undoubtedly cause offence; but potent historical events and experiences are always key reference points in political debate.  Such comparisons are only antisemitic if they show prejudice, hostility or hatred against Jews as Jews.’

If you want to check that I am not just quoting selectively then visit the website below.  You’ll find a robust attitude to antisemitism.

https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/statement/antisemitic-misconduct/

If you actually talk to people about antisemitism in the Labour party they are baffled.   It simply is not part of their experience, they’ve not seen it, they’ve not heard it, they have no idea what all the fuss is about.  Note here that I am not saying that people who are prejudiced against Jews as Jews are not to be found in the Labour party or amongst its supporters. Such people exist in all walks of life and I doubt the Labour party is exempt.

The people who write for the Jewish Chronicle seem to think that the vast majority of voters actually care about the writer’s opinions and so will be swayed in how they vote.  I doubt that the majority of people care one little bit.   This isn’t antisemitic,  it’s just that we do not feel inclined to take these people as seriously as they take themselves. And we are not going to accept at face value the JC’s exaggerated claim of ‘a toxic climate for British Jews’.

************

Angela Rayner prostrates herself before Board of Jewish Deputies!

Angela Rayner MP at the Board of Deputies Chanukah Party

The MP for Ashton-under-Lyne, Angela Rayner, who is a member of Labour Friends of Palestine, recently addressed a meeting of the 'Board of Deputies of British Jews'. The meeting attended by 150 guests, took place in the Cholmondeley Room in the House of Lords. Ms Rayner's invitation was controversial and did cause disquiet among some members of the Jewish Community. Stephen Pollard, the editor of the Jewish Chronicle, called the invitation an "idiotic, craven and deeply counter productive decision." 

A number of years ago after visiting Auschwitz, the Nazi death camp, Ms Rayner had referred to a quote from the book called the 'The Holocaust Industry' by anti-Israel activist Norman Finkelstein, who had claimed that US Jews had exploited the 'Shoah' for political gain. Rather than defend the quote, Ms Rayner expressed remorse and said she deeply regretted saying this and was certain that she would not use it again. She also told the meeting that those who distorted history by likening Hitler to Zionism, would no longer be welcome in the Labour Party and that Labour would kick racists out of the party. Ms Rayner said she particularly welcomed the expulsion of Jewish anti-Zionist activist, Tony Greenstein, from the Labour Party. Mr Greenstein was expelled from the Labour Party in 2018 for expressing views, that the Labour top brass considered abusive and beyond the pale.

We contacted Mr Greenstein for a response to Ms Rayner's comments at the Board of Deputies meeting and he sent us the following article from his own website.

"Before reading in last week’s Zionist press about Angela Rayner’s attack on me, I had barely heard of the woman. She is not exactly a household name. Nor is she known for her wit and charm.  In an interview just over a year ago she demonstrated her mettle:

“I see myself as soft left. I’m very pragmatic. I’m interested in how we can change lives for the better; how we can we put socialism into practice. Every time we expend energy on fighting each other, we’re letting down the people that need us the most.” READ MORE:

The Politics of Delusion

by Les May

I VOTE Labour. In the referendum I voted to remain in the EU, but accepted the result.   At no time have I felt it necessary to criticise Labour’s policy about Brexit. It has confounded the ‘scribblers’ in the media whose criticism has had to be limited to grumbling about its lack of clarity. How nice it would have been for them if Labour had declared its support for, or opposition to, a further referendum.  They would have been able to look forward to lots of ‘exclusive’ briefings from Labour MPs in favour of or against the policy, as the equivalent of open warfare gripped the party. It has not happened.

Credit for this not happening is not due to Corbyn alone.  Those seen as ‘big names’ in the party who do not entirely agree with his stance, John McDonnell, Emily Thornberry, Keir Starmer, plus those Labour MPs which some sections of the media would find more congenial as Labour leader, e.g. Yvette Cooper, Hillary Benn and Stephen Kinnock, have been muted in their criticism.

Criticism has tended to come from Labour MPs eager to convince us that if only it would adopt their preferred strategy of supporting a second referendum and campaigning to remain in the EU, the party’s poll ratings would magically improve.

What people who believe this forget is that Labour does not have a majority in Parliament. Labour is essentially a bystander with no power to influence the decisions of the next prime minister, who at this moment is being selected by 160,000 Tory party members in no way representative of the wider population and who seem happy to trash the economy, the union with Scotland and tear up the international treaty which gave guarantees to the people of Ireland in a single minded pursuit of leaving the EU.

If Labour did adopt such a strategy it would have the support of the Welsh and Scottish nationalists, LibDems, MPs who identify themselves as Independent and some Tories.   Even if collectively the different groupings could muster a majority, constitutionally there appears to be no mechanism by which Parliament can prevent a Johnson or Hunt led government forcing us to leave the EU without a deal. To believe that Labour declaring itself in favour of a second referendum and that it will campaign to remain in the EU will in some way influence what happens when a Johnson or Hunt led government takes over is the politics of delusion.

The people who believe this are not alone in being deluded. Corbyn, Hunt and Johnson all share their own delusions.  They believe that if they become Prime Minister they will be able to negotiate with the EU to produce something that is different from the deal that was rejected three times by Parliament.  Corbyn has already tried to sweet talk the Irish government to no avail. I doubt whether the other 27 countries of the EU are exactly quaking in the boots at the prospect of meeting Boris or Jeremy who both seem to think that threatening to leave with ‘no deal’ is going to wring some major concession from the EU.

Labour’s worst nightmare has to be that blame will be dumped on it for the chaos that will follow if Hunt or Johnson have to ‘put their money where their mouth is’ and the UK leaves the EU without a deal.  Labour will be accused of doing ‘too little, too late’ by people who don’t want to acknowledge that its ability to significantly affect whether the UK leaves the EU after the referendum was always limited. Labour’s best option now is probably to look to a damage limitation strategy. 

********** 

Rochdale Labour Aim at Restoring Trust

 Leak of Motion for clean break with past politics

LAST Wednesday, the West Heywood and East Middleton wards agreed to move the motion below which raises concerns about the proposed reinstatement of a former Rochdale Labour leader, Richard Farnell, who many in the local Labour Party and among the public beyond who generally feel he was discredited by the finding that he lied under oath at the  Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA).  

The tenure of the motion suggests that the people moving it feel that not only has Richard Farnell become totally toxic by his insistance that he was unaware of what was going on at Knowl View residential school, but that the culture created by Farnell's successor, Alan Brett, is now stifling any remaining remnant of decency in the body politic in Rochdale. 

The Heywood and Middleton Constituency Labour Party below urge a change of leadership to create a 'break with that (spirit of) Richard Farnell and Allen Brett, in order that trust and confidence in the local party can be restored'.

Wed 03/07/2019 21:59

 The Motion states:

'In light of recent press reports relating to Richard Farnell and Allen Brett, Heywood and Middleton CLP/ branch note that: Richard Farnell was suspended from the Labour Party when the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) reported its finding that he had lied to the Inquiry under oath; his replacement as Leader of Rochdale Council, Allen Brett (himself found to have brought the authority into disrepute) is reported to have said that he will be pressing for Richard Farnell’s suspension to be immediately lifted; the Executive of Rochdale CLP have apparently written to Labour North West Region in respect of the suspension, with their meeting minutes referring to selection meetings in September and the unfairness of Richard Farnell being “in limbo”. Heywood and Middleton CLP/ branch are of the view that: regardless of the outcome of Richard Farnell’s suspension, his behaviour at the IICSA and IICSA’s finding that he lied under oath, reflect very badly on the Labour Party in Rochdale; perceptions of Allen Brett’s behaviour compound this, along with his call for Richard Farnell’s immediate reinstatement; there is a risk as borne out by responses on social media, and in spite of the good work of many councillors and party members, that the Labour Party in Rochdale Borough loses trust and credibility in the eyes of the electorate. And so, (Heywood and Middleton CLP/ branch) call on Rochdale Council Labour Group to bring about a change of Rochdale Council leadership in a way that represents a clean break with that of Richard Farnell and Allen Brett, in order that trust and confidence in the local party can be restored.'

 Passed at West Heywood and East Middleton so far. On the agenda at Castleton branch next week.

***************************

More brouhaha about Flag Flying in Tameside!

Stalybridge Labour Club

A KEEN eyed vexillogist and Northern Voices reader, recently sent us this picture of the rainbow (gay) flag blowing proudly in the wind atop the flag pole of Stalybridge Labour Club. 

The art historian and journalist, Brian Sewell, expressed the view in July 2011 that the lives of many Mancunians were haplessly intertwined with transvestites, transsexuals, teenage lesbians and a horde of homosexuals across the range, because Manchester is known for being one of the most LGBT friendly cities in the UK. The gay art critic, asked:   'Is Manchester now the Sodom of the North?  Where once we had no gaiety at all, we now perhaps, have rather too much.'

In May this year, Cllr Leigh Drennan became the first openly gay Mayor of Tameside.   Two other boroughs in the region, have had an openly gay Mayor - Bury and Manchester.  Among the Mayor's charities this year, will be the 'LGBT Foundation'.   In his year as Mayor, Drennan has said that he hopes he can help to raise awareness of the issues LGBT people face and help people overcome prejudice.

In recent years, the subject of flags and their symbolism, is something that has given rise to much brouhaha and consternation in Tameside.  In March 2018, two Tameside Conservatives, Cllr Doreen Dickenson and Liam Billington, saw red when an hammer and Sickle flag was run up the same Labour club flagpole. The Communist Party flag had been put there, by friends and family,  following the funeral of Rodney (Rod) McCord, a communist and local health campaigner who had died in March 2018.

Their complaint went viral and caused a furore on social media.  The two low-life Tories, shamelessly tried to make political capital out of Mr McCord's death and the flag incident, by linking it to the poisonings of Yulia and Sergei Skripal, allegedly by the Russian state.  It was also alleged that the manager of Stalybridge Labour Club had received death threats and that one of Mr McCord's sons Danny, had been contacted by someone working in the office of Jeremy Corbyn, demanding that the flag be taken down immediately.

In January 2019, a row erupted when the landlord of the Sportsman pub in Hyde, was told by a Greater Manchester Licensing Officer working for Tameside Council, to take down a flag with an iconic image of the famous revolutionary, Ernesto 'Che' Guevara.  The landlord, Geoff Oliver, and his Cuban-born wife Maria, had run the pub and restaurant El Cuba Libre for the last five years.  The flag had been on display on-and-off at the pub for the past five years and wasn't removed from public view.  It has been rumoured that a certain Tameside Tory may have been behind this complaint involving the landlord of the Sportsman pub.

We are not aware that there has been any objections to the rainbow flag. Nowadays, LGBT issues and identity politics have supplanted class politics and have become something required by etiquette and current fashion. There is an obvious and inherent danger with all of this.  The massive attention paid to issues such as Brexit and identity politics, has utterly distracted attention away from the real issues and problems of the world such as, economic inequality, social class, poverty, injustice, capitalist greed and wars, and has divided much of the British left. It has also alienated many people from becoming involved with left-wing politics because of its now farcical nature.

Curiously, the landlord of the Sportsman pub who refused to withdraw the Cuban flag from public view, had his license amended by Tameside's licensing panel when it came up for review. From being allowed to keep serving until 2:00 am in the morning, this was restricted to the witching hour of midnight.  However, we understand from sources, that Stalybridge Labour Club - now privately owned - and which suffers from a lack of customers, has had its licensing hours increased and can now serve until 3:00 in the morning. 

*************

Tories Adopt 'Rana' Strategy!

by Les May

THE ballot amongst Tory members about who should become the next leader of the party descended into farce today when it came to light that many members had been sent two ballot papers.  This mode of running elections is known as ‘The Rana Strategy’ after Rochdale councillor Faisal Rana (a.k.a. ‘Two Votes’) who in the 2018 local government fraudulently applied for and used two votes.

There is however one noticeable difference between how the Tories and Rochdale’s Labour leadership have handled this matter.  For the Tories a shamefaced Iain Duncan Smith admitted what had happened and party members have been warned that anyone who votes twice will be summarily ejected from the party. In Rochdale the leader just about managed to express his ‘disappointment’ in Rana and did not ask for his immediate resignation.

Oh the shame of it! Labour gets a lesson in decency from the Tories.

**************

Lies, Damn Lies and Labour Councillors

by Les May

AT first sight it might seem that the most important political development in Rochdale in recent days is the decision of two well known Labour figures to join the Brexit party.  But any crowing from Labour’s opponents may be short lived.  If it’s members get their way it’s raison d’être will vanish on the first of November.  Only if they fail will it have any further reason to exist.   Either way it looks like a move into a political cul de sac.

Of more long term significance is the decision of Councillor Jacqui Beswick to resign the Labour whip and sit as an Independent.

She is reported to have taken the decision due to the way the party had handled false allegations against her. She has said ‘I believed that after the local elections my complaint would be dealt with, sadly that wasn't the case and I have been told recently that it could be quite some time before that happens’.

There is rather more background to this story than is apparent from this statement.

About six months ago I attended a meeting of people with a background in the Labour movement,  Labour activists and supporters, and some with a Trades Union background.   Most lived in the Heywood and Middleton constituency.  Also present at the meeting was John Blundell who represents a ward in the Rochdale constituency.   From the start it was clear that there was some antagonism towards him and his presence was not welcomed by a majority of the people at the meeting.

A number of people at the meeting were aware that another Labour councillor had made serious allegations against Councillor Beswick and wanted to discuss the matter further. The unwelcome Councillor Blundell managed to block any discussion by suggesting that repeating the allegations might be construed as defamatory and that the allegations were ‘under investigation’.

There were a lot of people at the meeting who will remember what Councillor Blundell said and a recording of exactly what he said may exist. I don’t think anyone present will believe a word he says in the future and it may be that some will conclude that he was lying.

The treatment of Councillor Beswick by the Labour leadership of Rochdale council looks very much like what is known in trades union terms as ‘Constructive Dismissal’.  A Labour councillor has a right to expect that when allegations are made against them they will be investigated by the party within a reasonable time frame. The failure to do this is analogous to a ‘repudiatory breach’ in employment terms.

There exists a significant lack of trust in the Labour leadership in Rochdale amongst many people who are otherwise solidly behind the Labour party. Labour politics in Rochdale has been described to me on a number of occasions as ‘a cess pit’. The treatment of Jacqui Beswick will do nothing to sweeten the smell from it.

More details can be found at;

http://northernvoicesmag.blogspot.com/2019/05/labour-party-strange-allegations.html

http://northernvoicesmag.blogspot.com/2018/06/brave-new-world-hatching-eggs.html

An Opportunity for Feminists to Speak Out

by Les May

TODAY the ‘i’ newspaper carried an item which read;

‘Cleaners at HM Revenue and Customs offices are to stage a 48 hour strike.  Members of the Public and Commercial Services union at ISS in Bootle and Liverpool will walk out on 15 and 16 July.  The union wants a £10 an hour minimum and terms and conditions equivalent to other HMRC staff’. (my emphasis)

Many feminists focus only upon any differences in the pay received by men and women.   They want those to be removed but the hierarchies within groups to remain.  That includes hierarchical differences in terms and conditions.

What the cleaners are looking for is equivalence with HMRC staff in the terms of leave and sick pay.   No doubt many of them will be women, perhaps a majority. Is this going to be another case like that of Asia Bibi where the usually vocal feminists remain silent?

https://www.pcs.org.uk/news/iss-cleaners-vote-for-strike-action

I would like to see it mandatory for all employees of a company or organisation to have the same terms and conditions of employment.   If more unions press for this the Labour party may be persuaded to adopt it as something to appear in the next manifesto.

************

Headteacher suspends two 10-year-olds for Homophobia!

Heavers Farm Primary School - South London

The head-teacher of Heavers Farm Primary School in South London, has suspended two 10-year-old children of African descent for 'homophobic language' after they asked for permission on religious grounds, not to participate in an LGBT lesson during 'Gay Pride Month'.

The organisation 'Christian Concern', allege that the headteacher, Susan Papas, told the children that they had to participate in the lesson because it was part of the school curriculum. It is also claimed that she told both children that they were "a disappointment to the school."

On June 20, pupil Farrell Spence asked his teacher Alex Smith, for permission not to participate in a lesson when Mr Smith handed out LGBT material for colouring. The teacher denied permission, insisting that the LGBT lesson was part of the curriculum.

After class, Smith allegedly accused Farrell of using "Homophobic language" and saying "LGBT sucks and LGBT's dumb", which the child categorically denies. Farrell, a Roman Catholic, was sitting with his classmate Kaysey Francis, a Pentecostal Christian, who also told another teacher he did not "accept LGBT" because of his religion.

It is claimed that the teacher asked the two children - "Do you want LGBT people to die?" "We said no", Farrell replied, but added that if they went back to their countries, they would be punished for being gay." The teacher asked Farrell where he was from and the child told him he was of "African Jamaican" heritage, and because "everybody is Christian and Catholic", so they don't accept LGBT."

Later, head teacher Papas, called in the two children and shouted at them: "How dare you? you are a disappointment to the school."

Ms. Papas, whose daughter Attie is a lesbian and the school manager, put the children in separate rooms and scolded Kaysey saying: "How dare you say that you want to kill LGBT people?" Kaysey replied: "I didn't say kill." Ms Papas then shouted at her and said, "Yes, you did, and don't lie," she was then sent to detention from 10:00 am to 3:00 pm. The headteacher then suspended both Kaysey and Farrell  from school for five days.

Heavers Farm Primary School educates 750 pupils in the multicultural and multi-religious borough of South London. Both the school manager and the assistant headteacher, Robert Askey, are openly gay.

The mothers of the two children complained to the Principal Officer, citing school regulations that state it is unlawful to suspend a student for “a non-disciplinary reason.”

The parents insist their children did not make homophobic comments and have accused the headteacher of failing “to eliminate discrimination based on religion or belief.” They also cited the European Convention of Human Rights, saying it requires that schools respect the manner in which parents seek to raise their children in accordance with their Christian faith. They are now threatening legal action against the school.

By all accounts, this is not the first time that the school and its headteacher have faced criticism over LGBT activism. In June 2018, the school organized a "Gay pride" parade in its playground, posting rainbow flags around the school, and telling students to wear bright colours for the event. Ms. Papas also invited parents to watch the "Proud to be Me!" parade and join in celebrating "the rainbow of things that make them and their family special."

It is likely that incidents of this kind will become a regular occurrence in schools, when the state and middle-class teachers try to foist trendy liberal ideas about homosexuality on people who find these ideas totally abhorrent, because of their religious beliefs. Clearly people of the Christian faith, consider homosexual practices and gay marriage, contrary to scripture.

In the UK, human rights are protected by the Human Rights Act 1998. Article 9, protects your right to hold both religious and non-religious beliefs, freedom of thought and conscience. This is an absolute right that cannot be interfered with by the state.

The alphabet soup brigade who run Heavers Farm Primary School, who seem to proselytize 'Queer politics', should have respected the rights of both children to exclude themselves from LGBT lessons on grounds of religious belief or ought to have consulted their parents. For the Government to insist that these lessons are compulsory for all children seems to be a breach of Article 9. Many parents also seem to object that children in primary schools, are being subjected to this kind of social engineering, at such an early age. There is a danger that what we might finish up with, is children who become extremely confused about their own personal identities and sexuality. .

A friend of the writer and Lesbian, Jeanette Winterson, who supported equal rights, once said to her: "Darling, you know I am on your side, but how many more letters of the alphabet do you think you might need?" Even pensioners like myself, find all this crap - LGBTQIA, gender fluidity, totally bewildering. Are five-year-olds in primary schools, likely to understand it better?

Myth-busting!

by Les May

ANONYMITY until and unless charged for those suspected of sexual crimes has returned to the public agenda with the launching of a parliamentary petition.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/247912

Such a change was recommended by the Home Affairs Select Committee in 2015.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/mar/20/suspects-should-stay-anonymous-until-charged-mps-say

Why this was never acted upon and it has been left to people who have experienced significant personal distress and loss of income because they have been named as being investigated for sexual offences, I do not know.  One possible reason is the myth propagated by some prominent feminists and their acolytes in the media that without the police being allowed to ‘trawl for evidence’, victims as they would call them, complainants to the rest of us, would not come forward.  They would have us believe that this period of pre-charge publicity is essential in securing convictions. This is not true.

Under the changes advocated by the group Falsely Accused Individuals for Reform (FAIR) the restriction on naming a suspect would cease once charges had been brought.  Three of the highest profile sexual abuse cases of recent years were those of Rolf Harris, Stuart Hall and Max Clifford.  I looked at the time which elapsed between each of them being charged and the trial date, and the number of time they appeared in court including the trial date.

Harris was charged in August 2013, went to trial eight months later in May 2014 and appeared in court 3 times;  Hall was arrested in December 2012, went to trial four months later in April 2013 and appeared in court 3 times; Clifford was charged in December 2012, went to trial fifteen months later in March 2014 and appeared in court 4 times.  In other words there was plenty of time for each of them to be repeatedly named in the press after charging and before trial. Significantly the publicity generated by the trial resulted in Hall facing further charges in July 2013 and Harris also faced further charges.

Having seen some of the responses given by some women journalists I am inclined to wonder if they actually realise how limited are the aims of the supporters of FAIR.  There is no demand here that persons being alleged to have committed sexual offences should not be named, only that they should not be named until charged with a specific offence, other than in exceptional circumstances.

The journalist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown insists that pre-charge publicity is vital if complainants are to come forward.  But when she received in May 2012 a letter alleging that Stuart Hall had committed such an offence she did not feel this so strongly that she publicised the fact; she gave the letter to the police.

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/cliff-richard-bbc-reputation-damage-victims-opinion/

Seven months later Hall was charged after a police investigation. Now it may be that Yasmin was just being a good citizen and doing what you or I would do. Alternatively it may be that she realised that the allegation just might be false and that if she publicised it Hall might sue for defamation.

Seemingly repeating what Harriet Harman has said Alibhai-Brown says,

‘FAIR campaigners should focus instead on reckless police officers who bypass strict guidance on when and whether names of suspects should be made public.  According to the rules, identification should be withheld until the person is charged, except when there is some basis for believing there is a pattern of criminal activity.’

The underlined section would cover the Worboys case which is routinely trotted out as an example of why anonymity should not be granted before charges are brought.

You might wonder, as I do, how the ‘strict guidance’ differs materially from what those who support the FAIR campaign are asking for. This seems to have escaped Yasmin and Harriet.

In October 2017 Harriet said, ‘I think that the absolute key to this, when I think about my own experience and think about the Harvey Weinstein thing, is we need a system of whistle-blowing, anonymous whistle-blowing’. So no anonymity there Harriet? How did this woman get to be Solicitor-General and caretaker leader of the Labour party?

http://northernvoicesmag.blogspot.com/2017/10/half-baked-harriet.html

(Note that the link embedded in the above is dead.)

The journalist Melanie Phillips is on record as saying ‘More secrecy in our courts is not the answer’.  Again she seems to have misunderstood the aims of FAIR.  Once someone has been charged with a specific offence it would be permissible to name them.  There is no secrecy involved.   Anyone being questioned or charged would have access to legal representation.  Again no secrecy.

The evidence seems to point to the fact that the publicity surrounding the charging and trial of those alleged to have carried out crimes of a sexual nature is sufficient to encourage other complainants to come forward.  Hall and Harris both faced further charges after their first trial as more complainants contacted the police.   Worboys too has faced further charges as up to 100 complainants have come forward since his trial and conviction in 2008.   We clearly don’t need people to be ‘hung out like like fly paper’ (in the words of Paul Gamboccini) to convince complainants to come forward.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Worboys#Later_developments

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jun/20/john-worboys-admits-drugging-four-more-women

In the UK we tend to think our institutions and ways of doing things are the envy of the world. The Brexit saga has somewhat dented this optimistic view.   But this is what the picture of the English legal system looks like to an Irish Supreme Court judge.  It is not a very flattering picture.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/hardiman-questions-methods-of-uk-sex-claim-inquiries-1.2533054

A House of Lords Library Briefing prepared in advance of the second reading of the Anonymity (Arrested Persons) Bill [HL] can be found by following the link below and going to the bottom of the page.

https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/LLN-2019-0025

************