Showing posts with label discrimination. Show all posts
Showing posts with label discrimination. Show all posts

Friday 9 February 2024

The Judgment in the case of Shahrar Ali versus the Green Party

The legal case Shahrar Ali, former deputy leader of the Green Party and previously Green Party candidate for Brent Central, brought against the Green Party resulted in a judgment today. In papers submitted to the court, lawyers acting for Dr Ali claim that officials in the Green Party "collaborated" to remove him from his post  as spokesperson on policing and public safety because of his beliefs about gender, which include the view that "biology is real and immutable". 


The judgment found that Shahrar Ali was discriminated against procedurally in an unfair way because of his protected beliefs but did not find in his favour in other aspects of the case. He was awarded £9,100 in damages. Costs will be decided later.

 

Outside the court Ali said:

 

I see this as my gift to the Green Part y and wider politics, particularly in the left, where there has been an extraordinary toxicity preventing us from speaking freely.

 

Parties are not beyond the law when it comes to seeking to discipline their representatives in accordance with their own rules for alleged misconduct

 

He called for the  Equality and Human Rights Commission to investigate the Green Party over how it handles trans rights debates.

 

The Chair of the Green Party executive, Jon Nott, said: 

 

We are pleased that the court has recognised that a democratic political party has the right to select those who speak for it on the basis that they can and will communicate and support party policy publicly.  


We welcome the findings in the judgment that members of political parties have ‘fundamental party rights’ which include the right to disagree, to advocate for and against policies and positions adopted or proposed in the party, and to organise for those who agree with them and against those who do not, and that the Equality Act is not intended to interfere with those rights. 

 

The party acknowledges that there were procedural shortfalls in how we deselected one of our spokespeople. We apologise for failing in this instance to live up to the standards that both we and the court expect.

 

 Both sides of the case claimed to have won aspects of the case. I can't post the 61 page judgment for space reasons but here are their statements.

 

didlaw who acted for Shahrar Ali said:

 

didlaw is delighted to announce the successful judgment for its client Dr Shahrar Ali in his discrimination claims against the Green Party of England & Wales. 

 

Dr Ali pursued discrimination claims against the Green Party on the basis that he was subjected to a co-ordinated campaign by the Party to see him removed as a Party spokesperson, because of his gender critical beliefs. These beliefs, that sex is real and immutable are protected under section 10 of the Equality Act 2010. 

 

It was Dr Ali’s case that when the Party Executive Committee failed to secure enough votes to remove him as Spokesperson at a meeting in June 2021, a new process was devised so as to ensure he was removed. In October 2021, a newly formed Spokesperson Support and Monitoring Group asked Dr Ali to address concerns about ‘trans rights’. Unbeknown to Dr Ali, one of the Group’s key aims was to censure him. 

 

On 5 February 2022 a majority of the Party’s Executive voted to remove Dr Ali from his Spokesperson role. The Party did not formally inform him of the removal and nor was he provided with any specific reason for the removal save for a public announcement made on Twitter which alleged that he had breached the Spokespeople Code of Conduct. 

 

In a 61-page judgment HHJ Hellman clearly describes the treatment of Dr Ali’s case and upholds his claim that the Green Party Executive Committee, by removing Dr Ali from his role of Spokesperson in a procedurally unfair way, ‘discriminated against Dr Ali because of his protected belief contrary to section 101 of the Equality Act.’ 

The judgment concludes ‘I have upheld in part Dr Ali’s claim that he was unlawfully discriminated against’ and states ‘Dr Ali also seeks a declaration that he has been subjected to unlawful discrimination. I grant the declaration sought, although it does not obviate the need for damages.’ In addition to a declaration of unlawful discrimination Dr Ali has also been awarded £9,100 as an award for injury to feelings. 

 

This is a landmark case and the first protected belief case against a political party. It is also the first case in which the court has had to consider the protection of those with gender critical beliefs in a political party. The key factor for consideration in any protected belief case is the balance between the reasonable manifestation of a belief and the limitations imposed by Articles 9 and 10 of the ECHR in the context in which those beliefs are expressed. This is a tricky balancing act. One thing is clear, the Equality Act 2010 and the obligation to protect members from discrimination applies to all political parties. 

 

Bates Well who acted for the Green Party said:

 

The County Court has given judgment in the case of Ali v representatives of the Green Party of England and Wales. In doing so, it has set out novel and timely principles on the interaction between the prohibition on discrimination by associations in the Equality Act 2010 and the fundamental rights of members of political parties under the European Convention on Human Rights, in a decision which will be of great interest to political parties and campaigners of all kinds.

 

Giving judgment, HHJ Hellman agreed with the Claimant on one matter: that his removal had been procedurally unfair, and that he could not rule out the possibility (which had been the Party’s to disprove) that this procedural unfairness had been due to the Claimant’s protected beliefs. To that limited extent, the Claimant had been discriminated against. He was awarded £9,100 for injury to feelings. However, HHJ Hellman was careful to specify that it is explicitly not discriminatory for a political party merely to remove a spokesperson on the grounds of (in this case, gender critical) belief, provided it follows a fair procedure in doing so. He stated “The Green Party could not, in any event, have been compelled to maintain Dr Ali as a spokesperson if (outside of a party election period) he expressed beliefs that were inconsistent with Party policy, or if they reasonably concluded that he would do so, as this would infringe their article 9(1) rights by obliging them to manifest a belief which they did not hold” (243).

 

The reason for this finding concerned the interaction between the EqA and the Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporates the ECHR into domestic law. HHJ Hellman considered the meaning of three articles of the ECHR: Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion), Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association). Taken together, he held that these Articles guarantee (amongst other things) the rights of members of political parties to:

  • advocate for or against policies and positions adopted or proposed to be adopted by their party;
  • criticise the beliefs or conduct of other members which are inconsistent with the policies and positions they advocate, including using language which their opponents might find offensive; and
  • advocate and organise within the party in support of members who support their favoured policies and positions and against members who do not.  

 

Importantly, HHJ Hellman held that these rights, which he termed “fundamental party rights”, are so core to democratic society that Parliament cannot have intended to restrict them under the prohibition in the EqA against discrimination by associations. Section 101 of the EqA, which contains the prohibition on discriminatory “detriment”, must therefore be construed to exclude the exercise of those rights, as any curtailment of these rights pursuant to s.101 could not be justified in accordance with Higgs [see 207]. Several of the claims made by the Claimant were dismissed on this ground.

 

The remainder of the Claimants’ complaints were also dismissed in their entirety. Some of them were made out of time, and concerned events so clearly separate from the later events complained of that they could not constitute a ‘single act’. Others related to the Party’s local branches, separate organisations within the Party such as the Young Greens, or candidates in internal Party elections; the Claimant failed to establish that those named had been acting as agents of the Party.

 

Commentary

It is now beyond dispute that those with gender critical beliefs enjoy protection under the Equality Act. While those beliefs are protected, however, the issues with which they are concerned are a long way from being uncontentious. Rather, they remain a matter of heated and ill-tempered political debate, not least within political parties themselves. This claim effectively asked the court to direct a political party as to how to conduct that debate. It is to be welcomed that the court would not do so.

 

The principles established in this judgment mean that political parties remain free to debate these and other issues, even in terms which might be considered offensive. If this debate rubs up against protected beliefs, then so be it: some degree of discrimination on the grounds of belief is part of the essence of democratic politics; indeed, as HHJ Hellman observed, every five years voters perpetrate “an act of mass direct discrimination against other persons on grounds of the protected characteristic of belief” simply by voting in a general election.

 

Where key role-holders are being appointed or removed, parties should bear in mind the court’s warning that it will not infringe the fundamental party rights to hold them to requirements of procedural fairness. Provided those requirements are met, however, the field of political debate remains an area into which the courts will not easily be led.

 

 

Monday 6 August 2018

Petition supporting Rastafarian bus driver forbidden to wear her colours



From Brent Trade Union Council,
Willesden Trades and Labour Hall,
375 High Road, Willesden,
London NW10 2JR



Marcia, a Metroline driver at the Perivale garage has been told that she is not allowed to wear a head covering in the colours of her Rastafarian belief (red, gold and green). 
We think this is discrimination- in the same way that we would if a Muslim woman driver was told she could not wear a head scarf. 
Marcia feels that for her to practice her religion, she needs to wear her colours-we support her in this choice. 
Multiculturalism is something to be celebrated, not hidden.
Marcia had to face a grievance meeting with the company, which she sadly lost. It is time for drivers who support her to take a stand. 
We call on London Mayor Sadiq Khan to intervene to help Marcia.
Marcia should not be forced to choose between her religious beliefs and her job-that's discrimination. We support her and call for her immediate return to work. 
Marcia Carty needs the full support of all bus workers, trade unionists and progressive people in London and beyond. She is being victimised as a black Rastafarian woman whose only crime is to wear her colours.  She has worn them for years, but now she is being prevented from starting work each day with her colours. 
Download this petition and get it filled in by as many of your friends, union members or not, as possible. This clearly contravenes Unite’s Equalities policy and is possibly illegal.  Unite needs to take firm action here.
The petition text reads:

  • No to discrimination: Defend driver's right to wear her colours
  •  Marcia, a Metroline driver at the Perivale garage has been told that she is not allowed to wear a head covering in the colours of her. Rastafarian belief (red, gold and green). 
  • We think this is discrimination- in the same way that we would if a Muslim woman driver was told she could not wear a head scarf. 
  • Marcia feels that for her to practice her religion, she needs to wear her colours-we support her in this choice. 
  • Multiculturalism is something to be celebrated, not hidden.
  • Marcia had to face a grievance meeting with the company, which she sadly lost. It is time for drivers who support her to take a stand. 
  • We call on London Mayor Sadiq Khan to intervene to help Marcia.
  • Marcia should not be forced to choose between her religious beliefs and her job-that's discrimination. We support her and call for her immediate return to work.

This is the petition CLICK HERE TO SIGN ON-LINE:


Friday 2 June 2017

Is caste an issue in the General Election in Brent and Harrow?




A consultation is currently going on regarding caste discrimination in Britain and possible inclusion in the Equalites Act. Operation Dharmic Vote LINK is operating behind the scenes to back candidates who are opposed to anti-caste discrimination legislation. This is what they say:
Please take a few minutes to understand some very serious consequences of the caste legislation and case law. For the GE17 election, the Dharmic community needs to vote in large numbers and strategically. Political Party alliances and affiliations need to be set aside. Labour, LibDems, Greens and all the nationalist parties have supported caste legislation bare the odd MP in these parties. As you will see ALL the Prospective Parliamentary Candidates who have signed up are Conservative. Please note Operation Dharmic Vote is not being an agent of the Conservative party, as our analysis and rational for supporting the independent Candidate in Leicester demonstrates.
A Government Equalities Office report gives some background to the issue LINK.  Uma Kumaran, formerly Labour candidate for Harrow East in 2015, recently called out Bob Blackman for the divide and rule tactics based on caste politics used in the 2015 campaign.  She felt she could not expose her family to the stress caused by such campaigning by standing again LINK.


Campaign materials are downloadable from the Operation Dharmic Vote site

Locally Conservative candidates Rahoul Bhansali (Brent Central), Ameet Jogia (Brent North) Bob Blackman (Harrow East), Hannah David (Harrow West), Matthew Offord (Hendon) and Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) have backed Operation Dharmic Vote's campaign to withhold legislative protection for the UK's 250,000 Dalits (untouchables).

Brent resident Sujata Aurora said:  
Caste discrimination is endemic within parts of the Hindu and Sikh communities in the UK - there have been instances of doctors refusing to give medical treatment to Dalits and others where Dalit couples have been refused venues for weddings. It is a discrimination which remains largely hidden to wider society and its defence is usually cloaked as a way of preserving traditions. We have laws against discrimination on the basis of race, sex, sexuality and disability and it is frankly appalling that some candidates in this election are seeking to prevent the implementation of laws against caste discrimination. Voters should question their candidates about their stance on this issue and ask why, in 2017, it is legally acceptable to treat Dalits as inferior subhumans.
Green Party candidate for Harrow East, Emma Wallace recalled the 2015 election:
When I stood as Green candidate in Harrow East in 2015 I could not believe that Bob Blackman and his team had employed such a religiously divisive tactic as 'divide and rule' caste politics to ensure that he retained his seat.  It was especially shocking in light of the fact that Bob Blackman had been elected to represent all his constituents since 2010, in what is the most ethnically and religiously diverse constituency in the country.  It is beyond reprehensible that there are a number of candidates standing in this election backing a campaign to prevent legislation that protects caste members from discrimination. There is absolutely no place for caste discrimination in the UK. 
Liberal Democrat candidate for Brent Central, Anton Georgiou said:
My party's constitution is unequivocal, it says, we exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society in which no one shall be enslaved by ignorance or conformity. Caste discrimination does not belong in the UK's modern society. I am disturbed that some candidates in this election are supporting efforts to maintain it and prevent legislation that would ensure Dalits are treated as equals in our community. Brent's representatives should be leading the way to end this discrimination, not seeking to safeguard it.
Jaiya Shah (Chair Harrow Council for Justice) and Dr Pravin Shah (Coordinator Harrow Monitoring Group) have issued a joint statement on Bob Blackman's candidature  LINK
We can’t support Bob Blackman because we strongly believe that an MP should represent all constituents on equal footing without taking sides, stirring up religious emotions for votes and dividing the communities in the process.

Friday 19 September 2014

Tribunal finds employee suffered race discrimination, victimisation and constructive dismissal at hands of Brent Council

The Employment Tribunals has announced its judgment in the case of Rosemary Clarke versus the London Borough of Brent and Ms Cara Davani, Brent's Director of Human Resources.

Allegations about Ms Davani's conduct and that of other members of the Corporate Management Team at Brent Council have been the subject of serveral postings on this blog LINK, LINK, LINK   which includes a complaint to Eric Pickles about Brent Council.

Brent Green Party's concern was such that we called for an independent investigation LINK:
Brent Green Party is deeply concerned about recent revelations concerning the Corporate Management Team at Brent Council. We call for an independent investigation of:
1. Corporate Management Team officers being paid through their private companies rather than normal pay roll
2. The contractual arrangements for CMT officers and interim appointments
3. Previous employment and business connections between senior offices appointed by Brent Council on an interim basis
4. The working culture of the Human Resources department
5. Brent Council's Whistle Blowing Policy to ensure that it adequately protects whistle-blowers from harassment and retribution.
During Wembley Matters' coverage of the issue, Fiona Ledden, Head of Legal and Procurement at Brent Council asked me to remove material from this blog. I refused on the grounds of Public Interest.

The Employment Tribunals found:
  • The claimant (Rosemary Clarke) has been directly discriminated against on the protected characteristics of race.
  • The claimant having done a protected act has suffered victimisation.
  • The first respondent (London Borough of Brent) has breached the implied term of mutal trust and confidence.
  • The claimant terminated the employment relationships as a consequence of the respondent's breach.
  • The claimant was constructively dismissed.
Remedies are to be considered as a remedy hearing but meanwhile Brent Council has said it will appeal.

The detailed document reveals much much about the machinations within Brent Council and in particular what it refers to as Cara Davani's micro-management style.

The Full Judgement is available at a cost of £10. Follow this LINK

Case Number 3302741/2013  Claimant Ms RC Clarke Respondents 1. London Borough of Brent 2. Ms Cara Davani  Heard at Watford Tribunals 23-24 June 2014 and 22-23 & 30 July in Chambers.

Ms Ledden recently refused my request to speak to a Full Meeting of Brent Council on the issue of the appointment of a Permanent Chief Executive.  Correspondence about this is ongoing.

Tuesday 8 July 2014

Student protest over technician and teacher cuts at College of North West London



As students were registering for courses on Saturday at the College of North West London in Dudden Hill, Willesden there was a demonstration outside by mature student Zo Flamma-Hill of Women in Construction.  She was opposing cuts in technicians, teachers and librarians at the college and the failure of the college to inform students about the cuts. She was also concerned that the Students; Union had taken no action and that the redundancies had taken place in an atmospere of bullying.

She called for investment in education and an end to discrimination in terms of age and gender. Zo pointed out that women represent only 11% of the construction workforce. Most of these jobs are office based and only 2% work in the manual sector. CNWL has been attractiong women into manual trades, graduate construction professions and engineering.

She claimed that courses were being reduced to less technical ones geared to the provision of cheap labour with some apprentices paid only £2 an hour


Thursday 15 May 2014

Victimisation, bullying, racial and sexual discrimination alleged in Davani case

From the Get West London website LINK Reporter: Hannah Bewley


A FORMER Brent Council manager claims she was discriminated against by superiors and “bullied and undermined” despite her years of experience.

Rosemarie Clarke, 50, resigned in April last year after four years as head of learning and development, and launched an employment tribunal claim against the authority and Cara Davani, now HR director but previously on a temporary contract, for constructive dismissal, racial discrimination, sexual discrimination, victimisation, bullying and harassment and psychiatric injury.

Lawyers for the Christchurch Avenue, Harrow, inhabitent wrote in her claim: “Ms Davani’s conduct made her feel like her managerial prerogative was being continuously and seriously undermined and that her professional integrity was also being undermined.

“The claimant asserts that the respondent treated black, female managers less favourably due to their race.”

Ms Clarke cited several incidents as part of her case, for which hearings began on Monday last week at Watford Employment Tribunal.

Her claim said she and Ms Davani had a disagreement about the termination of a contract of a temporary worker, Ms M, at the council.

Ms Davani instructed Ms Clarke to tell the Ms M her contract had ended while Ms M  was on holiday because there was an issue with her performance.

Ms Clarke attempted to persuade her boss to allow a few days for Ms M to hand over to someone else after her vacation.

The claimant told the tribunal Ms Devani said: “She Ms M didn’t say hello to me in the corridor the other week, which I thought was unprofessional.”

Ms Clarke added: “It was obvious Ms Davani didn’t like [Ms M].”

Ms Clarke’s claim form said: “Despite the claimant being of the view that Ms M had done nothing wrong, Cara Davani was insistent she had to go.”

Ms Clarke also said she received an e-mail from Ms Devani instructing her to contact learning and development expert Dr Yvonne Foster, who had previously worked with Ms Davani.

Ms Clarke said in reply she had adequate staffing levels and claims Ms Davani told her she should “find her [Dr Foster] something to do”.

Ms Clarke said: “I was being pressured to contact Yvonne Foster and offer her a job in my team.”

The claimant said she “wasn’t happy” about being shouted at by Ms Davani during an Investors in People accreditation meeting.

Ms Clarke resigned after being suspended in February over allegations of gross misconduct for alleged failure to follow reasonable management instructions.

Monday 6 January 2014

Black teachers and pupils and academisation - some issues


Back in the 1970s/80s I was involved in campaigns against racism in London schools. This had many facets including attitudes towards black pupils, disproportionate numbers of black pupils in SEN and Disruptive Pupils units, ethnic differences in examination entrance, a mono-cultural curriculum and not least discrimination against black teachers.

In this Guest Blog Dalian Adofo looks at current issues regarding the academisation of education:


2013 has been an interesting year for the state of UK education, we have witnessed a youtube video go ‘viral’ laying bare all the contradictions and misrepresentations put forth by the current Education secretary, Michael Gove. There has also been independent production of multiple documentaries highlighting the enforced conversion of many schools into Academies even with resistance by teaching staff and the local communities they serve. In most cases the only justification for conversion to Academies have being that provided by Ofsted after a school inspection.

The resistance to Academies is not so hard to understand, how is education a commodity? The body of knowledge to be acquired can be commoditised yes, but the process of learning as well? It does not take much to realise that we all learn at a different paces based on different cognitive, social and other factors, hence why teachers by default are required to differentiate the learning process to give all students the opportunity to progress sufficiently in their learning.

It is therefore wise that we question the impact imposing targets and performance management directives as tools to measure ‘work efficiency’ will be in such an environment for learning. How will these pressures to perform, part and parcel of the Academies model of education, affect teaching and learning in the long run?               Will teachers be working to ensure they meet targets and keep their jobs or take time out to provide for individual learning needs and requirements, not forgetting the longer hours of work and more paperwork to complete by teachers.

Newspaper coverage from outlets such as the Independent has highlighted the despair and low morale of teachers from surveys carried out by organisations such as the National Union of Teachers (NUT), so the main question is, why is the Government not listening? And is it not obvious who teachers will ultimately be exerting such frustrations on, and will it be a positive impact on learning? I strongly doubt it.

Evidence from the US where the Charter schools model provided the inspiration for our Academies, shows that some of these institutions, usually in highly impoverished inner-city areas, are abandoned within a decade by their investors presumably because their investments has earned returns so it is time to move on.

But what about the wellbeing and development of the child, or does the money matter more? Is this the type of education we want for our children? Or is the suggestion that this is the type of education that children from such backgrounds deserve?

The other disturbing element to the Academies is the lack of Black (in the political sense) staff in senior management positions and as regular staff. Data from the recent Black Teachers Conference suggests that increasingly, non-White staff are being ‘replaced’ with White peers using the same performance management processes that are meant to encourage ‘efficiency’ and ‘high performance’. Rather bizarre?

It is rather disheartening that one of the stated objectives for introducing Academies is to improve standards in inner-city schools yet there seems to be no impetus to keep staff who best reflect the student demographic itself. It is interesting that every year hundreds of non-white individuals will successfully endure and pass teacher-training courses across the country, yet somehow when on the job they are deemed ‘inadequate’…how is this contradiction being addressed by the Government?

And if indeed, we are to entertain the ridiculous notion that non-whites are somehow inadequate in comparison to their white counterparts, then what measures has the Government introduced to ensure that this section of its populace can excel to the ‘desired standards’ once in employment? From the evidence presented at the conference, such ‘enforced removals’ are not strictly for non-whites either, even though they are in the majority. What measures then is the Government or Ofsted implementing to ensure objective measurement of performance rather than what is seemingly subjective judgments informed by nepotistim and/or favouritism?

Entertaining that idea that social standing, class or ethnicity puts one in better stead to educate children is as elitist as it is racist, and utterly preposterous- certainly not a notion to be entertained in a nation priding itself on its democratic values. What will a person from the leafy suburbs of Windsor have in common with a child from the ‘concrete jungles’ of Stonebridge, Brixton or Tower Hamlets?

How will that individual inspire the child to succeed, where is the area of commonality, shared experience and empathetic understanding of the child’s needs beyond the transference of knowledge?

My PGCE at the Institute Of Education clearly outlined the role other pertinent factors play in learning beyond the acquisition of knowledge- how important ethnic, cultural, religious/spiritual and social factors amongst others, played in motivating children to succeed. How can this vision of ‘raising standards’ for these ‘deprived’ children be realised if the only role-models they can find in their school are the cleaners, janitors and meal staff?

What exactly are we trying to get them to aspire to then- just being white and upper-class as the standard of achievement? Suffice to say, we are no longer in the days of empire, the sun set on it long ago, and for the state of education to be enriching for all, it has to grow to appreciate the important roles varied backgrounds and individuals can play in making it an inspiring experience for all involved in the educational transaction. Whilst all these political, economic and social games are being played, we must not forget the most important factor in all this- the children, and ask ourselves is this the best course of action for their future? Is this the future we want for them?


Readers may be interested in this research about black teachers in the UK LINK

Saturday 26 October 2013

Action on 'colour bar' estate agents


On top of the 266 bus returning from the Harlesden Incinerator protest I spotted a Brent Housing Action picket outside the National Estate Agents. The protesters were drawing attention to the discriminatory practices of the lettings agency revealed by the BBC.  The picket was supported by Kingsley Abrams, Unite executive member, and one of those competing for the Brent Central Labour nomination today.

The office remained closed and barred.

Pickets are set to continue and an official complaint about the racial discrimination is to be made to the police.

Stay in touch with the campaign on Facebook LINK

Monday 14 October 2013

Lettings colour bar in Brent - demonstrate tomorrow


From Brent Housing Action. It is unbelievable that something that I remember in London in the 1960s has re-emerged. It appears that we must re-fight battles that we thought we had won.

A BBC Report today exposes the racism in Letting Agencies, naming and shaming two in Willesden that have openly shown they will illegally refuse Black tenants at a landlord's request.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-24372509


In 1990 a Commission for Racial Equality report "Sorry, it's gone" showed that one in five accommodation agencies in thirteen locations discriminated against ethnic minorities. In this case, it seems all 10 that were tested were prepared to.

Brent Housing Action is calling a picket at National Estates tomorrow (Tuesday 15th October)
12.30 until 2pm, 75 High Road, Willesden Green, NW10 2SU  and we will march to A-Z at the other end of the Willesden High Road.

Willesden is at the heart of Brent, a borough whose history has been shaped by Black people, often through community anti-racist action. Even as the government is stepping up its attack on the non-white population through imposing new racist immigration checks on tenants, decades old racism still persists.

We will raise the issue tonight at Brent Question Time and Council meeting, at the Willesden Connects forum, CNWL on Wednesday night.

The next Brent Housing Action meeting is 7pm, Tuesday 22nd. We are already discussing the Redress Scheme, Trading Standards, Brent Council lettings regulation. We are or will be getting in touch with Brent Renters Campaign, CSHC, Brent Councillors, Black community groups, anti-racists, CAB etc