Total Visits

Monday, 20 February 2012

Anti-English discrimination? – SUE!!!

Any English person should take heart from a recent Judgment of Cambridge County Court, the key elements of which I set out below.

If you encounter anti-English discrimination, in any form – SUE, help the Cause and also make yourself some money!



1. “Racial grounds (includes) colour, race, nationality and ethnic or national origins. It is not necessary for the purposes of this case to decide into which of these categories the English may fall, because the Bank does not dispute that if it were to discriminate against or harass the Claimants on the ground that they were English, that would be a racial ground.”

2. “The Claimants’ primary case is that the relevant comparison here must be with a non-English nationalist politician, e.g. a Welsh or Scottish nationalist. If such a person had sought to open a party account, he would have been permitted to do so. The fact that they were not so permitted shows, they say, that it was the word “English” which was the determining factor. That word must have triggered a demeaning racial stereotype of a specifically English nationalist (perhaps a loutish racist skinhead) in the (Bank Manager’s) mind, and led him to conclude that association with such people would be harmful to the Bank’s reputation.”

3. “The Defendants’ response is that their decisions in question were based, not on any consideration of the Claimants’ English origins or allegiance, but on an assessment of their political views (as the Bank mistakenly understood them to be). The Defendants accepted … that the (English Democrats) Party is not a racist (or for that matter”

4. “As I have already hinted….above, (any attempt to argue a) sharp distinction between one’s race and one’s beliefs may be an over-simplification, at least in an unusual case like the present one. A discriminator may say “I am not employing him because I believe he is a racist”. Fair enough; but if on further inquiry he goes on to say “I believe he is a racist because he is a white man with an English accent and a St George’s flag on his car” then the question of racial grounds is reopened. Put another way, it is as possible to make racist assumptions about other people’s opinions as about, for example, their honesty or intelligence, and discrimination on such a basis would appear to be unlawful. Where the opinions in question are or include nationalist ones, that is ones closely linked to the person’s own perceived national origins or affiliations, the risk of overlap is particularly great.”

5. “The conduct element of (a), discrimination, is admitted, in that the Bank accepts that by refusing to allow the (Second Claimant) to open a bank account it treated him less favourably than others in respect of the provision of facilities or services to the public (RRA 1976, ss. 1 and 20).”

6. On the question of harassment
“As to the (Second Claimant)… He went into the Bank with £5 for what he expected would be a straightforward business transaction. Instead he found that, perfectly politely, he was questioned as to his deeply-held political beliefs, which in the context of a staunch nationalist relate particularly closely to his sense of personal identity and community; and then those beliefs (or rather, a hearsay version of them) were judged in his absence by a stranger, and he was found to be unworthy of the privilege of banking with HSBC. It is clear to me that this was unwanted conduct which had the effect of violating his personal dignity, and that it was reasonable for him to feel “angry, perplexed and demeaned” as he told us he did.”

7. “in the case of this or any specifically nationalist political party there is bound to be a close nexus between the members’ perceived sense of ethnic or national community and their political views...”

“(The First Claimant’s) version is that, when asked why he wouldn’t open an account for the Party, (the Bank Manager) replied in the following terms:
a. because you are an English political party;
b. any association between an English political party and HSBC would be detrimental to the Bank;
c. anything English is right wing;
d. anything English is racist;
e. and that, when told action would be taken under the Race Relations Act, he laughed.
(If (the Bank Manager) did indeed say those things, it would of course be very offensive to (the First Claimant) and very strong evidence that (the Bank Manager’s) decisions had been improperly influenced by some form of prejudice based on the Claimants’ English ethnic or national origins.)”

8. “In this case, however, I am satisfied that (the Bank Manager) did not take racial grounds into account, either directly or indirectly, in reaching his decision to refuse the application for an account.”

9. This is not to say that we regard the Bank Manager's conduct as beyond reproach. With hindsight it would have been better for him to make more careful inquiries before reaching his initial decision, rather than simply relying on (the Bank Clerk) Ms Patel’s short report; and we hope that a more experienced bank manager would have reconsidered the case, or at least made further inquiries, on being told that the Party was in fact an existing customer of the Bank. After all, there was no urgency to the matter at all. In short, we take the view that (the Second Claimant) was the victim of a degree of unfair discrimination and harassment at the Bank’s hands, but not on racial or other prohibited grounds.”

10. “It follows that for the reasons set out above the Claimants fail in respect of each of their claims. I am asked, however, to consider the issue of damages in the alternative, that is, on the hypothetical basis that each of the Claimants had succeeded in making out his pleaded case. The relevant head of damages in each case is injury to feelings. We were taken to the leading cases of Vento v. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [2002] EWCA (Civ) 1871 and DaBell v. NSPCC [2010] IRLR 19. These establish three bands, which are, in decreasing order of gravity:

a. the most serious cases: £18,000 to £30,000;
b. serious cases falling below the highest band: £6,000 to £18,000:
c. less serious cases:£500 to £6,000.

Mr Tilbrook accepted that this was not a top-band case but sought to persuade us that it was in the middle band. I bear in mind that, if the Claimants had succeeded, we would be dealing with an unpleasant example of racial discrimination and harassment by a multi-national company of enormous size, and that (the First Claimant) would have been subjected to some extraordinary and offensive remarks. However, I also bear in mind that this was a single short-lived incident, and that (the First Claimant)( in particular is a resilient person who was quick to take advantage of the situation. Both Claimants undoubtedly suffered real anger, distress and humiliation from the incident, but quickly recovered without lasting ill effects. After consulting my experienced colleagues, I have concluded that an important consideration here would have been to award such a sum as clearly declared that they had been the victims of a serious incident, but did not unfairly overcompensate them, and I would (on this hypothesis) have awarded them a total of £1,000 each in respect of all their claims.”

If you think you may have experienced Anti-English discrimination, for advice contact either >>> (if your case is general) Or >>> (if your case is an employee one)


  1. The people in the land area defined by the geopolitical boundary named 'England' are so intermixed with the rest of the 'divisions' that form the islands of Britain, and that includes even southern Ireland, that to view them as culturally 'different' is farcical.

    I for one have ancestral connections with Ireland, Scotland, IOM, and England (probably Welsh if I searched hard enough).

    With the mix added brought about by history's invasions from Scandinavia, Germany, Holland, and France which did not stop at ancient boundaries within Britain, this adds to the cultural mix.

    Do we really need to add the influx during more recent history to complete the picture.

    We all have a common relationship that overrides all those who have some warped desire to see themselves as 'different' and which is used by those, having sought political office, then attempt to use these perceived 'differences' for their own self aggrandizement.

    The land mass of China, and its population could swallow this tiny island many times over. It has become great by working hard at keeping all it's people as 'Chinese' and maintaining that unity by emphasizing that which binds, not divides.

    The United States has maintained a unity of many diverse nationalities, religious, and cultural backgrounds. Had it not, would it have held such
    power and influence that it does today?

    The world is moving closer together today by our shared similarities. Borders are breaking down slowly but surely.

    This does not mean people within even a 'One World Government' scenario that many see on the horizon need to lose their accents, language, religious beliefs, cultural art forms, and whatever other quirks to which they may wish to cling, just so long as they do not express them to seek advantage over, divide, or conflict, with those of another.

    1. Is that 'enlightenment' or self delusion?
      Your definition of England is the most Anglophobic I have seen so far,and I'm amazed that the moderator has not removed it.
      It is a common affliction of those who feel themselves to be 'outsiders' to try to arrange their reality to fit their predicament.That is what you have revealed.The English are in fact more homogeneous than the majority of European nations,whose tribal borders,languages and peoples have changed over the past millenium,sometimes their territories have shrunk,disappeared or engulfed others .Some of those original tribes have simply vanished.The English as an insular people have not undergone these cultural earthquakes.The immigrant levels throughout our 1500 years on this island have seldom reached 1%-until the globalists and 'multiculturalists' decided to attempt to deculturalise and demoralise the English majority.
      The English gave their name to England and the Venerable Bede wrote his History of the English in the 7th century.We have remained here,and will continue to be a discreet ethnic group -even if it upsets those who don't feel they 'belong'.
      If you wish to challenge your own ultra-revisionist version of the English 'enlightenment',try visiting you might find yourself getting an much needed education.

  2. Interesting,,,,but try being English and living in Scotland. The number of times you hear anti-English remarks....and if you register an objection, what happens ? They say "Oh it is just friendly banter" But it ISN'T !! What makes it even can hear it coming out of the mouth of that slimy First Minister Alex Salmond. It is rude, racist and offensive......and you are told you are being over-sensitive if you object

    1. Judi, do you not remember at school, if those who get enjoyment from teasing, and goading, saw that it bothered you, that encouraged them to pile it on.

      It is often friendly banter to see your reaction. I could always give back more than I took, if I were in the mood, otherwise I would just smile and let it roll off like water off a ducks back.

      Yorkshire and Lancashire people often do it to each other. Americans and Brits do it.

      As for 'King Alex' the first, many Scots have him taped. Short little tubby men often have a need to feel and make themselves important.

  3. makes me sick that we dont get a day off for st georges day this is england not bloody asia africa or wherever its about time we stopped giving in to ethnic minorites whims just in case it offends them they can always go home and live there ways in the own countries if they dont like our country

  4. Its such a sad state the we are no longer allowed to have national pride any more. I'm an ex taxi driver and have worked with Indian's, Pakistani's and Somali's and in their own words English or white women are to sleep around with but never to marry as they are considered a lesser breed than the women of their own races.

  5. Enfield council tell people your English so your at the bottom of the list, if your a refuge you get points just for not being English. This needs to be put a stop to look after your own before you worry about the rest of the fcuking world. The no more room at the inn are we gonna have them in the stables next.

  6. There are only two types of people across the globe, Those that are British and those who want to be.

    English is spoken everywhere & we can be proud of that.

  7. As regards the above comments, especially those of enlightened; the Chinese may have many different provinces and dialects but they are still racially Chinese and have no desire to become multi-ethnic or multicultural. The fact that they are so homogeneous is the reason they are now so successful. As Baroness Warsi said, if she were to go to China she could not be Chinese. She cannot be ethnically English either. As regards the USA, this has been fine as long as Europeans were in the majority and ran the show, leaving others to live in their ghettoes/separate communities. The point has now been reached where European children are in the minority and Europeans as a whole will be in the minority there by 2040. You will then see the whole country begin to fall apart unless it is like Brazil ( the template for a future Britain ) where whites are in the minority but still wield the power. Europe is now at a tipping point and England is perhaps more advanced along that line than other European countries, where indigenous Europeans will become a minority. Do you really feel that England will be the same country when the majority are Afro-Asian, probably muslim? As regards the taxi driver and his Indian, Pakistani and Somali colleagues, why are they allowed their own country and we are not and then can come here and insult us? They gained independence from us, why cannot we gain independence from them and have our own country back? To get this country back to any sort of sustainable level - there will not be enough water to support the population soon - we need to return to 1950 levels of population if not lower and 10 to 12 million people need to leave and I don't see why it should be the natives as has been the case for the last 60 years. Last in first out, so off you go.

  8. There is always one know it all. "Enlightened" regarding China what about this video?
    It is titled "Han Chinese mob in hunt for Uighur Muslims"

    "China has become great by working hard at keeping all it's people as 'Chinese' and maintaining that unity by emphasizing that which binds, not divides."
    Rubbish. China is authoritarian. That is why "it's people" are still in a state called China; not for any other reason.

    1. So Anonymous, you get your education and information from You Tube, and I suppose your history lessons from Hollywood movies.

      Well, only like so many other millions, so you are not alone.

      I do not talk about that which I know little about without it being backed, where possible, by first hand experience and studying many points of view.

      I have the benefit of an excellent basic education, then University, and as far as China goes, living and working there for five years. Which also gave me opportunity to visit other parts of Asia.

      Sorry if I took you away from 'You Tube' for a couple of minutes, I don't like to distract people from their source of entertainment.

    2. Well said about China's human rights record. Yes, China is a totalitarian state now with capitalism rather than pure communism. They are no longer alone of course as the EU is turning out to be much the same with democracy now removed from Greece and Italy. All Marxist I suppose. And yet still governments in the West are falling over themselves to grovel to the Chinese and beg them to buy their goods. Northern Ireland is sending its first and deputy first ministers out there in May. One thing is certain, the Chinese will look after themselves first. They are buying up farmland in Africa to ensure that their people survive and don't really care that the Africans may starve whilst they eat. Perhaps European Christians were stupid to keep Africans and others alive by sending out relief aid. But being Christian we could do no other. The Chinese do not seem to have the same level of compassion. Just look at the way they treat their own people and the Tibetans. The scariest thing I heard was that they may now have their eyes on Australian farmland. In the battle for food they will be the undoubted winners. But then if all the rest of the world starves to death they will have nobody to sell their goods to, a pity. Sorry, but something in my subconscious tells me that we may be naive to trust them so much. Or am I being paranoid? Enlightened will undoubtedly say that I am.

  9. You need to speak to the natives of these African countries to learn of the benefits the Chinese have brought to them.

    The Chinese ENSURE that the benefits go to the mass, not in the pockets of their puppet leaders put their by we of the West.

    They do not give them money, thy build them schools, roads, and infrastructure.

    There is a Chinese saying - 'give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, provide him with the means, and he can eat for a lifetime.'

    You have much to learn my friend. China, slowly but surely is forcing the US to change its ways, not by war, or threat of war; not by words, but by action. China avoids interfering in other's problems by the use, or threat of force.

    The US will try everything possible to stop this, but so far is unable. China understands the meaning of 'keep your friends close, but keep your enemy closer'.

  10. I have to say from reading the comments above they come from both sides of the coin, and create a very healthy debate.
    In the not too distant future unless we change out tack there is going to be a worldwide food shortage. It seems the Chinese are the only ones aware of it or preparing for it. By now we should have Ocean bottom farms producing food because there won't be enough farm land available on dry land. Plankton Farmers wanted apply to the Chinese Ministry of Food. Applicants must be strong swimmers (for commuting, on site accommodation is limited)