I hoped that we could have a discussion on this blog about those sessions, so please read on and tell me what do you think. Below you can find a brief description of when and where you can find the One Stop Shop:

If you have problems with your employer, your landlord, need legal advice, etc then the Citizens’ Advice Bureau (CAB) is a good place to go for help.  However, it’s not always easy to get there when you are working all week.

From 17^th July it will be possible to get help on a Saturday morning by visiting the advice “One Stop Shop”.  This is run with CAB and is located in Bournemouth People First on 22 Sea Road, Boscombe.  It will be open in the morning from 9.30 until 12.30, but please don’t come too late or it may not be possible to see you.  Advice sessions will be in English, so bring a friend to help if your English is not too good.

What do you think about ‘One Stop Shop’? We would love to hear your comments!

W Sobotę 17-tego lipca między 9.30 a 12.30 przy 22 Sea Road w Boscome, Bournemouth będzie można wpaść do biura ‘Bournemouth People First’ aby zasięgnąć porady prawnej od doświadczonych doradców z CAB.

Mamy nadzieję, że te sobotnie sesje będą przydatne dla tych którzy pracują od poniedziałku do piątku. Jeżeli masz jakieś pytania o prawo pracy lub masz wątpliwości co do postępowania właściciela nieruchomości którą wynajmujesz, odwiedź nas w sobotę i zobaczymy co da się zrobić. Jeżeli język angielski jest dla Ciebie barierą – nie martw się – przyjdź z kimś kto pomoże Ci się porozmuieć. My natomiast mamy nadzieję, że uda nam się zorganizować mówiącą po polsku assystentkę.

Byłeś u nas? Wybierasz się, lecz masz jakieś wątpliwości? Daj nam znać jeśli byliśmy pomocni i dodaj swój komentarz o ‘One Stop Shop’.

The term “corporate defamation” refers to those instances when entire ethnic/racial groups are defamed. There are many examples, but I will cite only two. Firstly, there is the defamation claiming that certain black African groups are responsible for AIDS due to their sexual practices. Secondly, there is the defamation alleging that Israel is an apartheid/racist state. However, the following is meant to apply to all ethnic/racial groups and not just to “black Africans” or Jews.

“Race” relations legislation in the UK is intended to counter discrimination on racial grounds in such matters as access to employment, housing, education and places of entertainment, etc. It does little to educate individuals away from a racist perspective of their fellow citizens. There is little evidence to suggest that “race” relations legislation has a positive effect when it comes to weaning people away from racism and xenophobia, which is often learnt behaviour dating in many cases from childhood. Maybe high profile court actions showing the vacuous nature of racist claims might have greater effect. The racist or antisemite would be made to defend their racism/antisemitism, not only in the court of public opinion, but also in a court of law.

Taking action against individuals promoting racial or ethnic hatred is notoriously fickle and in some cases fail to come to court for “higher political reasons”. One example is that of Abu Hamza. On the 7th February 2006 he was found guilty of a string of offences including “using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with the intention of stirring up racial hatred” under the Public Order Act 1986. However, his use of such language was nothing new and his utterances were often that of a classic antisemite. He has used such language for years without ever being charged with an offence. Considering that some of the evidence used to convict him had been returned to him without charge some seven years before the 2006 conviction, the question has been asked, “So what changed?”. The short answer is that UK born Islamist suicide bombers hit London.

This contrasts sharply with what happened three years earlier when two UK Islamist suicide bombers attacked Israel. Then there was no sudden change in the UK government’s policy. Asif Mohammed Hanif was born in the UK. He bombed Mike’s Bar in Tel Aviv murdering three people and leaving 60 injured. Omar Khan Sharif was born in Pakistan but raised in the UK. His bomb failed to detonate and he was later found dead (rumoured to have been murdered by Islamist terrorists because alive he was a threat to their security). Despite the involvement of UK citizens, Abu Hamza was left to continue his extreme antisemitic rhetoric untouched by any consideration of the Public Order Act 1986 under which he was eventually convicted in 2006. So was it the case that provided there was no blood on UK streets Abu Hamza was free to insult and vilify the Jewish community at will?

Might an action against Abu Hamza for corporate defamation have curbed his antisemitic incitement? Might a successful action have embarrassed the UK authorities into taking firmer action against UK based Islamist terrorists and thus have avoided both the London and the Tel Aviv bombings? No wonder our government has refused to hold a public inquiry regarding the London bombings. Appeasement is rarely the honourable option. It is often the coward’s way out. Admitting to it as a policy will never provide the sort of self congratulatory headlines beloved of some politicians.

Whenever “race” relations legislation is effective it is often alleged that it involves an unwarranted denial of free speech. This claim is rarely heard in the case of personal defamation. Few people would suggest that freedom of speech includes the right to defame someone by lying about their character or their private lives or whatever. This should also be the case with corporate defamation. Why should racists or antisemites be able to repeat the same damaging lies about an ethnic/racial group ad infinitum? Who would tolerate a situation where an individual needed to constantly deny lying allegations about his or her private life and so on? The individual has the opportunity to nail the lies in court. So why not also the defamed ethnic/racial group? Freedom of speech with responsibility.

Obviously, any law of corporate defamation would need to be carefully framed to avoid mischievous actions. Practice and law (in England and Wales) in the case of defamation is that the judge decides if a statement is capable of being defamatory and the jury decides if this is in fact the case. Similar considerations might be applied in the case of corporate defamation. However, instead of a judge deciding what is capable maybe this could be left to an appropriately assembled committee. Thus before an action could be taken an independent committee would need to be convinced that a statement was capable of defaming the ethnic/racial group(s) concerned.

Personally, I would prefer such cases be tried before a tribunal of three judges rather than a jury. This would eliminate any suspicion of public prejudice. I realise that judges can be biased also, but at least with them there is the hope that, being professionals, they will be better placed to rise above their prejudices and judge a case fairly. There would always be the option of appeal in any case.

There is also the issue as to whom can take action. Maybe a petition by a certain proportion of the members in good standing of a community might suffice. This is the sort of detail that would need careful consideration.

What is without any doubt, is that a law of corporate defamation would allow ethnic/racial and other vulnerable UK groups (and maybe also across the EU) to take action to protect their good names and reputation from serious defamation. This would have no serious effect on the right to free speech (which is already curtailed in the UK and the EU in any case). It would merely imposed responsibility where it was formerly lacking. It would require the racists and antisemites to “put their money where their mouth is”. Just the existence of the law might persuade some people to think twice about what they are saying and moderate their racist/antisemitic language. That of itself would be no bad thing. Finally, it would the first time in the history of Europe that ethnic minorities have been truly empowered.

Ethnic Gypsies living in the UK today are often the descendants of Gypsies living here during the Second World War. Which is hardly surprising considering that Gypsies have been here since at least the 16th Century. Does Mr. Messer think that these people would have fared any better than did their European brethren had the Nazis occupied the UK?

Locally Gypsies are forced to use “illegal” sites because of the dire lack of legal facilities. They are then harassed by the authorities whilst being denied the basic Council services we all enjoy. The consequences of such policies are not due to an unwillingness to pay as Mr. Messer so unkindly suggests. Gypsies in Devon for example have offered to do so on several occasions with no effect.

In a March 2008 seminar at the House of Commons examples were cited of open racist stereotyping of Gypsies in the media, denial of ethnic minority rights and political scape-goating. This behaviour would not be tolerated in the case of any other UK ethnic minority.

Certain provisions of the notorious Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, 1994 have as predicted greatly increased the tensions between Gypsies and their non-Gypsy neighbours. The negative consequences of this legislation for Gypsies has been described as amounting to “ethnic cleansing”. It made the statute despite considerable cross-party opposition in the Commons and the Lords.

More recently the Housing Act, 2004 has added fuel to the fire with the following clause, “Persons of nomadic habit of life whatever their race or origin, …”. This denies Gypsies the rights that come with their recognition as an ethnic minority in law. It ignores their distinctive planning needs related to their culture and ethnicity. It amounts to a serious denial of the UK’s ethnic diversity and the government’s much trumpeted commitment to inclusiveness, equality of opportunity and freedom from racial/ethnic discrimination.

Local Councils and the Police Service among others have a general statutory duty to eliminate unlawful racial discrimination and to promote equality of opportunity and good relations between persons of different racial groups (Race Relations (Amendment) Act, 2000). Anyone unsure as to their duties in this regard is free to contact Mr. Adnan Chaudry – Chief Officer of the Dorset Race Equality Council.

Gypsies were recognised in 1989 as an ethnic group under the Race Relations Act 1976. Since then at least in theory they have had the protection of a considerable volume of UK and EU legislation aimed at protecting people from prejudice, bigotry and discrimination. From what I witnessed last Wednesday outside the Bournemouth Town Hall someone is not paying attention to these legal rights.

Among the placards illustrated on the front page of the Bournemouth Echo (25 06 09) one read, “SAY NO TO TOWN CENTRE GYPSY SITE”. Substitute “Black”, “Jew” or “Asian” for Gypsy in this slogan and its bigotry is immediately recognisable. The same litmus test can be applied to a number of other placards on display. Yet the Town Hall and the police were apparently ready to have such racist material on display on Council property.

An anonymous contributor to the Echo blog describes Gypsies as, “… a people who do not know how to look after anything, or are not willing to pay for anything.” (“Your comments on line”, Daily Echo, 25 06 09).

A string of legislation starting with the Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 has criminalised the Gypsy way of life with the clear intention of destroying it (cultural genocide for Gypsies?). The situation today is that nomadic Gypsies in the UK are often forced to make home on temporary sites deemed illegal by prejudicial legislation. Gypsies on “illegal” sites are denied, as a matter of policy, fresh water, sewerage services, refuse collection and many of the other things that most of us take for granted. If we deny Gypsies the basic means of living a normal life how can any sane person criticise the victims for the consequences? What Gypsies are asking for is equality not special treatment.

Let us take refuse collection. At a number of sites in Devon Gypsies have tried to pay the local Council for refuse collection. They were refused, presumably because the authorities were concerned that this might go some way to establishing planning consent or setting a status quo. How would anyone fair deprived of refuse collection? Would any of the Bournemouth critics care to try?

There are many inconsistencies in the treatment of Gypsies. One of the most puzzling is this. The nomadic tradition has been central to Gypsy culture in the UK since at least the 16th Century. Both national and local government pay lip service to wanting an inclusive society. One in which there is respect for the principles of diversity, anti-discrimination, equality and equal opportunities. All this without loss of cultural identity. Might Gypsies be the test case by which the sincerity of the above fine ideals are judged?

Shopowner Viv Endecott, of Corfe Castle, Dorset was recently accused of racism because she sells gollywogs.

Even the Queen has apologised for selling golliwogs. A spokesperson said, “The management of the shop have said they did not intend to offend anyone by selling this product and have apologised if any offence has been caused. The shop will immediately review its purchasing policy.”

Shopkeeper Moira Pickering of Manchester had her gollywogs seized by the police in 2007 following complaints that she was selling “offensive items”.

It is not difficult to understand why most black people say they find gollywogs offensive. In the 1944 edition of “The Three Golliwogs” Enid Blyton writs, “Once the three bold Golliwogs, Golly, Woggie, and Nigger, decided to go for a walk to Bumble-Bee Common. Golly wasn’t quite ready so Woggie and Nigger said they would start off without him, and Golly would catch them up as soon as he could. So off went Woggie and Nigger, arm-in-arm, singing merrily their favourite song – which, as you may guess, was Ten Little Nigger Boys.”

Gerry German, of the Working Group Against Racism in Children’s Resources, was quoted in The Voice, a Black newspaper, as saying: “I find it appalling that any organisation in this day and age can produce anything which would commemorate the Golliwog. It is an offensive caricature of Black people.”

Stephen Pollard writes, “But there is nothing funny or ironic or any other justification for such crass, offensive, dolls. I imagine how I would feel if I saw a hook-nosed doll called ‘the Yid’. And although I’ve read some defences of Golliwogs on the basis that there’s nothing racist about them, I think that’s total balls. They are entirely so. They may have seemed innocent fun in a bygone and ignorant age, but in today’s world they are simply revolting.”

Adnan Chaudry (Dorset REC Chief Officer) was reported by the Daily Echo as saying, “Golliwogs have become widely recognised as an offensive object by all sections of the modern world.”

So why would anyone want to own a golliwog?