ESSEX POLICE DIVERSITY CAMPAIGN

ESSEX POLICE DIVERSITY CAMPAIGN

 

Following a video blog article by “Sargon of Akkad” (Carl Benjamin) about Essex Police’s diversity recruitment campaign, I wrote to the Police Commissioner who I do know from previously being a candidate of Police Commissioner in Essex, as follows:-

 

17^th December 2018

Dear Roger

Re: Essex Police racist recruitment campaign

I gather from the YouTube video below that your Essex Police Force are indulging in so-called “positive discrimination”. 

The English Diversity Police – YouTube >>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsDeE29hfOc

As you are probably aware “Positive Discrimination” is prima facie illegal under the Equality Act.  That is unless you are compliant with Sections 158 and 159 by having undertaken the requisite research to enable you to “reasonably think” that your “ethnic minority” recruits currently “suffer a disadvantage to their characteristic” and that such recruits are as qualified as English recruits and furthermore that you do not have a policy of treating ethnic minority recruits more favourably than English recruits and also that the actions that you are taking are “proportionate”. 

If you have undertaken such research and have documents showing your compliance with all aspects of the above, then please could you let me have copies (pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act)?

Whilst writing I would personally wish you and yours a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

Yours sincerely

Robin Tilbrook

 

 

For good measure I then also wrote to Essex Police itself as follows on the 18^th December:-

 

Information Officer

Data Protection & Freedom of Information,

  Information Management

Essex Police

PO Box 2

Springfield

Chelmsford

Essex CM2 6DA

 

Dear Chief Constable 

Re: Essex Police racist recruitment campaign

I gather from the YouTube video below that your Essex Police Force is indulging in so-called “positive discrimination”. 

The English Diversity Police – YouTube >>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsDeE29hfOc

As you are probably aware “Positive Discrimination” is prima facie illegal under the Equality Act.  That is unless you are compliant with Sections 158 and 159 by having undertaken the requisite research to enable you to “reasonably think” that your “ethnic minority” recruits currently “suffer a disadvantage to their characteristic” and that such recruits are as qualified as English recruits and furthermore that you do not have a policy of treating ethnic minority recruits more favourably than English recruits and also that the actions that you are taking are “proportionate”. 

If you have undertaken such research and have documents showing your compliance with all aspects of the above, then please could you let me have copies (pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act)?

 

Yours faithfully

 

R C W Tilbrook

Chairman

 

 

In response I have had this from the Police Commissioner on 7^th January 2019:-

 

Dear Robin

Thank you for your email dated 17 December 2018 in which you asked me to consider whether the current Essex Police BAME attraction campaign meets the ‘Positive Discrimination’ criteria, as defined in Sections 158 and 159 of the Equality Act, and if the campaign itself is ‘racist’.

I fundamentally reject the premise that the campaign is about discrimination in any way. It is wrong to describe it as amounting to positive discrimination and it is not in any way racist. I shall refute your assertions below and thereby demonstrate that the criteria in Sections 158 and 159 of the Equality Act do not apply.

The diversity recruitment campaign sits alongside Police Constable and Special Constable recruitment activity that is ongoing. No one is barred from applying to join Essex Police unless they fail to meet the eligibility criteria which apply to every applicant. The force’s ongoing police constable recruitment campaign, Fit The Bill, is a general-purpose attraction and recruitment campaign that is still live and is accessed from the front page of the recruitment section of the Essex Police website. It was promoted before the BAME attraction campaign, it is currently being promoted alongside it and it will be promoted again after the BAME attraction campaign closes. 

Government policy, parliamentary select committee recommendations and national policing strategy all set clear expectations that forces do more to ensure that they reflect the communities that make up their force area. Currently the proportion of BAME officers and staff at Essex Police stands at just over 2%, considerably lower than the demographic make-up of the county with around 7% of the population identified as being of BAME origin.

The diversity campaign is an attraction marketing campaign aimed addressing (i) the disproportionately low numbers of applications by black and ethnic minority persons for the role of police constable Essex has received in the past, and (ii) the under representation of black and minority ethnic people serving as police constables with Essex Police.  This is lawful, positive action, falling within the Equality Act 2010.

The attraction campaign was developed with regard to research and strategy including the National Police Chiefs’ Council Diversity, Equality and Inclusion Strategy and the Parliamentary Home Affairs Select Committee report on diversity in policing. The government response to that report stated:

“…increasing diversity in our police forces is not an optional extra. It goes right to the heart of this country’s historic principle of policing by consent. We must ensure that the public have trust and confidence in the police, and that the police reflect the communities they serve…  We believe that it is time for concerted action, prioritised across all forces, policing bodies and Government”.

The campaign was also informed by the National Centre for Social Research paper ‘Enhancing diversity in policing’.

I hope you now feel reassured about the context in which the BAME attraction campaign was devised and understand that it in no way seeks to recruit officers of any particular ethnic origin over any other. It is an awareness and attraction recruitment campaign to encourage all members of our different communities in Essex - who meet the eligibility criteria - to consider policing as a career.

Thank you for your good festive wishes. I extend mine to you and yours as well and wish you the very best for 2019.

Yours sincerely

Roger Hirst

Roger Hirst

Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner

Office of The Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner for Essex

 

I responded as follows on 10^th January:-

 

Dear Roger

Thank you for your email on the 7^th January

You talk about refuting my assertions in my email, however on reviewing my email I don’t think it can be fairly said that I made any assertions at all.  What I pointed you to was a YouTube video.  I wonder if you have watched it?  Perhaps you should, because it was in that where assertions were made about your campaign being racist. 

On one hand, I do however somewhat agree with the author of the YouTube, since, on the face of it, your “diversity recruitment campaign” does look, at first glance, as if it was treating people from different racial origins differently. 

On the other hand, I am however somewhat reassured by your comments that you are not in fact treating people differently.  

It is my belief that the official attempt to foster “multi-culturalism” by way of imposed policies under the oxymoronic heading of “Equality and Diversity” is part of the reason why all aspects of the British State are rapidly degenerating towards the point where even the simplest of tasks is beyond it.  This is increasingly because people are appointed because of tick box multi-culturalist tokenism instead of recruitment being strictly according to the ability to do the job.  In this regard I consider Government policy, Parliamentary Select

Committee recommendations and the National Policing Strategy all to be wrongly focussed on recruitment policies other than the traditional policing ones of recruiting a police force to maintain and enforce law and order. 

In my email I did ask you for your research justification and I note you assert that “currently a proportion of BAME officers and staff at Essex Police stand at just over 2% considerably lower than the demographic make-up of the County with around 7% of the population identified as being of BAME origin”.  Clearly there must be at least two items of research to back-up those statistics.  Please could you let me have those? 

I note that you pray in aid for “the National Centre for Social Research”.  This is a largely publically funded quango which states on its website that “we…believe in equality and diversity, and recognise that it is essential that people are treated with respect and dignity.  We believe that diversity enriches all our lives.

Legal and unfair discrimination, whether direct, indirect or by association, or perception, have become increasingly indefensible in today’s society.  A diverse workforce makes organisational sense, as it adds value by bringing staff with different experiences, knowledge and perspectives together.”

I hardly think there could be a clearer statement of the kind of thinking which disrespects English history, traditions and people and which has created the level of disenchantment with the direction of British Establishment policy which gave rise to the Brexit vote!

Yours sincerely

Robin Tilbrook

 

 

Then to my amusement I then had this response from Essex Police:-

 

From: Data FOI Essex <data.foi@essex.pnn.police.uk>
To: robintilbrook@aol.com <robintilbrook@aol.com>
Sent: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 9:23
Subject: FOI 12512

Thank you for your enquiry which has been logged under the above reference.

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Sec1(1)(a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at Sec1(1)(b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon s17 of FOIA requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

In respect of your enquiry:

I gather from the YouTube video below that your Essex Police Force is indulging in so-called “positive discrimination”.

The English Diversity Police – YouTube >>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsDeE29hfOc

As you should be aware “Positive Discrimination” is prima facie illegal under the Equality Act.  That is unless you are compliant with Sections 158 and 159 by having undertaken the requisite research to enable you to “reasonably think” that your “ethnic minority” recruits currently “suffer a disadvantage to their characteristic” and that such recruits are as qualified as English recruits and furthermore that you do not have a policy of treating ethnic minority recruits more favourably than English recruits and also that the actions that you are taking are “proportionate”.

If you have undertaken such research and have documents showing your compliance with all aspects of the above, then please could you let me have copies (pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act)?

Having completed enquiries within Essex Police and in respect of Sec 1(1)(a), Essex Police does hold information relating to your request, Essex Police can confirm in respect of Sec 1(1)(b) the following data

·         The diversity recruitment campaign is very much about addressing (i) the [disproportionately] low numbers of applications by black and ethnic minority persons for the role of police constable Essex has received in the past, and (ii) the under representation of black and minority ethnic people serving as police constables with Essex Police. This is lawful positive action, falling within the Equality Act 2010. At the moment just over two per cent of our officers are identified as Black, Asian or Minority Ethnic (BAME) as compared with 6.8% for the population of Essex.

·         Government policy, parliamentary select committee recommendations and national policing strategy all set clear expectations that forces do more to ensure that police forces are better able to reflect the communities that make up their force area. The proportion of BAME officers and staff at Essex Police is considerably lower than the demographic make-up of the county and this campaign aims to address that under-representation.

Essex Police trusts that the information provided is of assistance. Thank you for your interest in Essex Police.

Kind regards,

 Information Rights Team

Information Management Department

Strategic Change Directorate

E-Mail:Datafoi@essex.pnn.police.uk

 

 

I followed up as follows on the 19^th January 2019:-

 

 

Dear Sirs

Thank you for your email of the 14^th January. Thank you for confirming that you do hold data.  I would be grateful if you would please let me have copies of the documents which you refer to.

Yours faithfully

 

Robin Tilbrook

 

 

I also then wrote to the Police Commissioner asking for his comments on the fact that his claims had been undermined by Essex Police as follows:-

 

From: Robin Tilbrook <robintilbrook@aol.com>
To: roger.hirst <roger.hirst@essex.pnn.police.uk>
Sent: Sat, 19 Jan 2019 13:47
Subject: Fwd: FOI 12512

Dear Roger

I thought you might be interested to know that I also made a FOI application to Essex Police and have now received a response from them in which they say that in fact the action that is being taken is “lawful positive action, falling with the Equality Act 2010.”

This is of course contrary to what you said to me which was that it wasn’t in fact “positive action” and that it did not in fact fall within the Equality Act because it wasn’t different treatment! 

I wonder what your position is on that?

Yours sincerely

 

 

Robin Tilbrook

 

 

 

I have had no response to this last email, although I have had a further response from Essex Police giving me links to some of the research, which of course does not answer the question that I had actually put to them. 

 

In summary it would seem that not only do the Essex Police and the Essex Police Commissioner not properly communicate, despite the fact that that is not what is supposed to be happening at all.  The Police Commissioner ought to be in control of Essex Police, particularly on issues like recruitment.

 

So there would therefore appear to be a breakdown in the proper hierarchy.  Also it seems probable that Essex Police are in fact pursuing an illegal and discriminatory recruitment campaign in order to improve the “Equality and Diversity” tokenistic tick boxing!  Well done to Sargon of Akkad for raising this issue!

THERESA MAY AND HER GOVERNMENT MAKE FAKE NEWS

THERESA MAY AND THE TORY GOVERNMENT ARE EXPOSED AS MAKERS OF FAKE NEWS

The above is an image of Theresa May talking about the UK Government’s Housing Plans in terms as if that is a “British” issue. 

However the key point to remember is that housing is not an issue which the British Government has any legal competence to deal with in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.  It is only in England where the British Government has direct rule over England and we English are not properly represented by our own Government that they have any jurisdiction over housing. 

It is thus not surprising that the vast programme of house building that this Government is proposing is to be built only in England.  The English will not be properly asked about this and the members of the Government who are imposing it, although they can still calls themselves members of the Conservative Party, the leadership of it has in fact abandoned traditional Conservatives and traditional values in favour of globalism, multi-culturalism and diversity. 

It is for this reason that housing is being deceitfully represented as a domestically generated need, whereas in fact the primary generator of housing need is the vast wave of immigration that we have had, primarily into England.  This has led to at least 12 million immigrants coming to England in the last 20 years. 

Although some people have left, often to escape the consequences of mass immigration, nevertheless it does mean that, if the Government's targets are to be met, a new Greater London is to be built on England’s “green and pleasant land” without any proper consultation with the English Nation as a whole. 

Fake news or what?

Below is the report of what she says:-

'Do your duty to Britain', Theresa May tells property developers in major speech on 'restoring dream' of home-ownership

Prime Minister to pledge to 'rewrite planning laws' and force private housebuilders to 'step up and do their bit' as she attempts to place housing at heart of policy agenda

Theresa May to tell property developers to 'do your duty to Britain' in major speech on restoring 'home-ownership dream'

Theresa May will announce plans to penalise property developers who do not build homes quickly enough, as she uses a major speech to warn housebuilders they must “do their duty to Britain”.

The Prime Minister will criticise developers who profit from building expensive properties rather than the quantities of new homes the country needs, telling them it is time to “step up do your bit”.

She will vow to “rewrite the laws on planning” in order to help more people get on the housing ladder.

The Government will also adopt a tougher approach to local councils, including setting targets on how many homes each authority needs to plan for.

Number of social homes to fall by 230,000 by 2020, analysis reveals

Key workers such as nurses, teachers and firefighters should be the priority for affordable homes, Ms May will say, and local authorities will be given powers to implement this.

The speech marks another strand of Ms May’s attempt to flesh out a domestic policy agenda that goes beyond Brexit. Last month she delivered a keynote education speech promising to review how universities are funded.

However, opponents said the “feeble” changes had already been announced in the Government’s housing white paper, published last year.

They are also likely to demand the Government make more funding available or allow councils to borrow more to invest in housing. Town halls have long insisted that restrictions on their ability to borrow to fund new homes is the biggest barrier to housebuilding.

Questions are also likely to be raised over the future of Starter Homes – one of the Government’s flagship policies for boosting home-ownership. The Independent revealed late last year that not a single one of the properties, which will be sold to first-time buyers at a discount, has yet been built.

Accepting the failings of current housing policy, Ms May will say “for decades this country has failed to build enough of the right homes in the right places”.

She will once again place housing at the heart of her agenda, saying: “We cannot bring about the kind of society I want to see unless we tackle one of the biggest barriers to social mobility we face today: the national housing crisis.”

The Prime Minister has previously said she will make tackling the housing crisis her “personal mission”.

Speaking at a planning conference in London, she will argue that “in much of the country, housing is so unaffordable that millions of people who would reasonably expect to buy their own home are unable to do so” because the “failure to match demand with supply really began to push prices upwards”, and also drove up rents.

“The result is a vicious circle from which most people can only escape with help from the bank of Mum and Dad. If you’re not lucky enough to have such support, the door to home-ownership is all too often locked and barred,” she will say.

Recounting her own experience of buying a home, she will add: “I still vividly remember the first home I shared with my husband, Philip. Not only our pictures on the walls and our books on the shelves, but the security that came from knowing we couldn’t be asked to move on at short notice.’ 

“And because we had that security, because we had a place to go back to, it was that much easier to play an active role in our community. To share in the common purpose of a free society.”

“That is what this country should be about – not just having a roof over your head but having a stake in your community and its future.”

Flagship government housing plan fails to deliver a single home in three years

Ms May will take a tougher line against private developers, criticising the “perverse incentive” that allows property executives to profit from building expensive homes rather than greater numbers of affordable ones.

She will suggest a company’s past record of delivering affordable housing should be taken into account when it bids for planning permission for new properties.  

She is expected to say: “The bonuses paid to the heads of some of our biggest developers are based not on the number of homes they build but on their profits or share price.

“In a market where lower supply equals higher prices that creates a perverse incentive, one that does not encourage them to build the homes we need.

“I want to see planning permissions going to people who are actually going to build houses, not just sit on land and watch its value rise.”

The Prime Minister will also point out that developers have failed to build thousands of homes that have been given planning permission, warning that “the gap between permissions granted and homes built is still too large”.

Analysis by the Local Government Association (LGA) earlier this year revealed 420,000 homes that received planning permission last year are still waiting to be built.  

Calling on private housebuilders to “step up and do their bit”, Ms May will say: “I expect developers to do their duty to Britain and build the homes our country needs.”

Sajid Javid, the Housing Secretary, has already hinted the Government is considering giving councils “use it or lose it” powers to take land away from developers who are refusing to build homes on sites they own.

Ms May will also criticise David Cameron’s legacy, saying her predecessor had presided over “a great and welcome increase in the number of planning permissions granted” but not “a corresponding rise in the number of homes being built”.

Budget 2017: Hammond commits £ 44bn to housing and commits to delivering 300,000 net additional homes per year by mid 2020’s

Although the Prime Minister will announce that 80 proposals from the Government’s housing white paper will be implemented, housing insiders will be watching closely to see what type of housing the Government will prioritise and whether any new funding will be made available.

Since 2012, the Conservatives have prioritised the more expensive “affordable housing” over social housing, leading to the loss of hundreds of thousands of the cheapest homes.

Ms May is also likely to face calls to reverse some of the provisions of the Housing and Planning Act 2016, which forced councils to sell off social homes and extended the controversial Right to Buy to housing association tenants. The scheme is another leading cause of the fall in the number of low-cost homes.

John Healey, Labour’s Shadow Housing Secretary, said: “The Prime Minister should be embarrassed to be fronting up these feeble measures first announced a year ago. After eight years of failure on housing it’s clear her Government has got no plan to fix the housing crisis.

“Since 2010, home-ownership has fallen to a 30-year low, rough sleeping has more than doubled, and deep cuts to housing investment have led to the lowest number of new social rented homes built since records began.

“This housing crisis is made in Downing Street. It’s time the Tories changed course, and backed Labour’s long-term plan to build the genuinely affordable homes the country needs.”

The Prime Minister was also warned by Conservative peer Lord Porter, who chairs the LGA, that planning changes would be largely meaningless without new funding.

He wrote on Twitter: “If we want more houses, we have to build them, not plan them.

“The [Housing Department] need to push back against [the Treasury] or the nonsense will go on and nothing will change. Less homes built next year than there were this year.

Ms May will insist that building on green belt land is not the answer to tackling the housing crisis. She will instead announce new protections for woodland and coastlines.

Here is a link to the original article>>> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-housing-speech-property-developers-homes-affordable-john-healey-labour-right-to-buy-a8239466.html

CLAIMS OF UNFAIR RACIAL DISPARITY IN LEGAL EXAM RESULTS DISPUTED

CLAIMS OF UNFAIR RACIAL DISPARITY IN LEGAL EXAM RESULTS DISPUTED


The Law Society Gazette is the in-house magazine for the Society of England and Wales,which is the professional body for all Solicitors in the English and Welsh jurisdiction. Like all such organisations there is a creeping move towards political correctness and “positive action”towards “diversity”; “multi-culturalism and globalisation”. An example of this appeared recently in the 8thJanuary issue of the Gazette. It was entitled“Racial Disparity in exams by Max Walters”. Here is his article :-



Minority ethnic students lagging behind in LPC success

By Max Walters


White students are more likely to pass their legal exams and law conversion courses than people from an ethnic minority background, data from the Solicitors Regulation Authority has revealed.

According to an SRA report, almost 80% of white students successfully completed their LPC, compared with only 40% of black students and 53% of Asian/Asian British students.

The figures, which cover September 2015 to August 2016, were published on the SRA website at the end of last year.

They appear in the annual ‘Authorisation and Monitoring Report’ which focuses on the success rates for two qualifications – the legal practice course (LPC)and the common professional examination (CPE) – a conversion course for non-law graduates.

It will come as another blow for the profession’s reputation for diversity after barristers’ regulator the Bar Standards Board revealed at the end of last year that black and minority ethnic (BME) students were half as likely as their white counterparts to achieve pupillage.

The figures for CPE candidates were similar to those taking the LPC. Among white students, 74% successfully completed the course, compared with 33% of black students and 46% of Asian students.

The report also reveals a stark gap between success at training institutions.

For the LPC, one provider achieved a pass rate of 100%, compared with 30% at another. CPE completion rates were similar and varied from less than 45% to100%. ?The providers have not been named.

The report also reveals that the University of Hertfordshire has opted to reinstate the LPC this year. The university suspended the course in 2016 in light of forthcoming changes to qualification. The Gazette has contacted the university for comment.

Here is the link to the original article>>> https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/minority-ethnic-students-lagging-behind-in-lpc-success/5064169.article



Here is my letter to the Editor in reply:-


Dear Sir

Your article in the 8th January issue of the Law Society Gazette:-“Racial disparity in exam results” by Max Walters

The statistics which Mr Walters quotes of “disparity” between “Black” and “Asian”Students and “White” Students may not actually “constitute a fresh blow to the profession’s reputation for inclusion”. For that inference to be properly drawn we would have to know whether the LPC “providers” were requiring the same levels of prior academic achievement from prospective students from each of these respective racial groups.



Anecdotally it would appear that the providers are actually not requiring the same level of academic achievement from each of the racial groups. Instead the providers appear to be offering course places at least partly on the basis of politically correct “positive discrimination”.



In other reports it also appears that “Asian” were 22% and “Black” were 9% of the total candidates. This is well over the percentage of these racial groups compared with their percentages of the population as per the 2011 Census. These percentages mean that even given their lower pass rates more Asian and Black candidates are becoming solicitors than these racial groups proportion of the population of England. It is actually English candidates who are underrepresented (so much for “White Privilege”?).



This supports the idea that “positive discrimination” is occurring which confirms that the “providers” are probably giving places to “Asian” and “Black” students who have not previously done as well academically as the “White”students. It may therefore be the reported results are hardly surprising. Law exams are testing knowledge of what is objectivity true. Hence, it was always improbable that racial discrimination came into the picture.



The disturbing implication of Mr Walters’ article is that he may be implying the academic standards for the LPC should be lowered. If this is his intention then the impact on the basic purpose of open examinations and of Professional regulation (which is to create a profession able to maintain and guarantee high professional standards of service to the public) would be sacrificed on the altar of politically correct “diversity” targets!

Yours sincerely


Robin Tilbrook

Solicitor& Chairman of the English Democrats



What do you think?

“THERE IS NONE SO BLIND AS THOSE WHO WILL NOT SEE!”

“THERE IS NONE SO BLIND AS THOSE WHO WILL NOT SEE!”

The Bible is not only, of course, the holy scripture of Christianity for Christians and the Old Testament for Jews, but it also contains a huge number of deep insights into human nature and the recurring themes of the strengths and weaknesses in our nature, as well as much history. The quotation in my title “there is none so blind as those who will not see” has its roots in the Bible, Book of Jeremiah, chapter 5, verse 21 “Hear now this, oh foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears and hear not.”


The actual formulation that I have used in the heading appears in Jonathan Swift’s “Polite Conversation”. It has the same common-sense connotations about the difficulties of getting people to do or think things that they stubbornly and wilfully refuse to do, as the old English proverb “you can take a horse to water but you cannot make it drink”.


This article arises as a result of a conversation that I recently had with a teenager, who, like most teenagers in our country, has been subjected to a programme of politically correct “socialisation”, an important purpose of which is social engineering (Aka the National Curriculum!).


I always think it is worth bearing in mind when considering compulsory primary and secondary education that the first State to introduce it was the most militaristic of all historic European states, which was Prussia. The Prussian State introduced compulsory primary and secondary education for all boys to socialise them and to prepare them mentally and physically to become soldiers in the Prussian Army. In short compulsory education is much about a modern state’s socialisation agenda as it is at all about preparing children with the skills needed for work.


In England in many ways the education system has following the introduction of the “National Curriculum” become less effective in preparing children for work while it has become more effective at socialising children in the modern British States’ agenda of multi-culturalism and diversity.


Coming back to my conversation with the teenager, I had the temerity to ask about the background of somebody that the teenager was talking about and, in particular, what country his family had come from.


For all who have asked such a similar question, I am sure you can guess the kind of “stream of consciousness” response that I got!


But I persisted and pointed out that you cannot understand another human-being or sensibly begin to try to understand them unless you take into account politically incorrect questions about their culture, religion and hereditary. We are all, as human-beings, framed by these factors. 


 I would say to try to do so would be a bit like trying to sort out a dietary plan for someone without taking any account of the fact that the person in question is an orthodox Jew! 


In fact, our individual character, particularly when young, operates mostly within these frameworks, rather than being something that is completely separate.


I later had another conversation with a teacher who was saying that what is taught in a multi-ethnic modern school in England is to ignore all such framework questions as culture and religion and hereditary and to be “free from all such prejudices”. My response was to point out that it is itself a sort of prejudice to wilfully close your eyes to the most important parts of any human-beings character. I went on that “political correctness” was not a “freedom” or something that frees people up from things, but on the contrary it is a programme for the encouragement of wilful blindness.


All of which brings me neatly back to my proverb “there are none so blind as those who will not see” which I note in Wiktionary is translated as “understanding cannot be forced on someone who chooses to be ignorant”.




How true, I would reply, especially when that choice is guided by “political correctness”. Also how contrary that type of thinking is to traditional English Further Education which tried to lead young people out of their framework thinking and to encourage them to have “open and enquiring minds”.




To an alarming extent that ideal has now been replaced with all the political correctness and safe spaces of the UK's multi-culturalist diversity agenda!

MULTI-CULTURALISTS HISTORICAL LIES EXPOSED!

MULTI-CULTURALISTS HISTORICAL LIES EXPOSED!

I have just read a very interesting and profoundly significant book by Dario Fernandez-Morera, the Associate Professor at the Department of Spanish and Portuguese in North Western University. The book is called “The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise – Muslims, Christians and Jews under Islamic Rule in Medieval Spain”. The book has been very thoroughly researched and, for the academically minded, has nearly 100 pages of closely typed footnotes providing sources and evidence for every assertion.


The reason such detailed research is required is because the effect of the book is to explode the unhistorical Leftist theory that has been put forward by academics, politicians and media commentators that Islamic Spain or Al-Andalus was a “multi-culturalist” and “Diverse” paradise.


In fact as Professor Fernandez-Morera shows in comprehensive detail, the written sources, whether they be Islamic or Christian or Jewish, are all agreed there was nothing more or less than the typical Islamist tyranny with widespread executions and discriminatory legal rules suppressing, in particular, Christians.


The current political importance of this research is that it means that those Leftists advocating “multi-culturalism” are now left with no Islamic example in history where “multi-culturalism” and “diversity” has worked nicely, instead what we are left with is very many examples where multi-culturalism has led either to civil war or the need for a ruthless tyranny to put down the dissident elements within the area controlled by that State.


It should however be remembered that “multi-culturalism” has been adopted or fostered by most Empires throughout history. In the case of the British Empire it is worth remembering its record of applying the ancient Roman imperial formula of “Divide and Rule” (“divide et impera”). 


I wrote about that, as regards Malaya, in this article >>> THE IMPERIALISTIC ROOTS OF MULTI-CULTURALISM

http://robintilbrook.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/the-imperialistic-roots-of-multi.html. 


Within pre-First World War Europe the key example of a multi-culturalist state was the Austro-Hungarian Empire with its detailed rules on the entitlements of the various ethnic groups within that Empire.


When reading Professor Fernandez-Morera’s book I often wondered about the motivation of the various historians who are quoted telling the most outrageous lies about what life was like in Al-Andalus.


It would be very interesting to know whether their remarks are a product of both sloppy research and of simply going with the least line of resistance in following those others who have made similar remarks, or whether they have a specific purpose in distorting the history to make out that Islamic Spain was ruled justly and thus to ignore the sufferings and oppression of the subjugated Christians.


Given that academics do not mislead in the same way in writing about other parts of the world, such as when Christians subjugated others in more modern Colonial history, it seems to me to be far more likely that the misleading about Medieval Islamic Span has been done deliberately and has been done to specifically advance the multi-culturalist political project with an eye to undermining our own culture and civilisation.





Do read it for yourself and see what you think!


Here is a link to buy the book >>> The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise: Muslims, Christians, and Jews under Islamic Rule in Medieval Spain: Dario Fernandez-Morer

https://www.amazon.com/Myth-Andalusian-Paradise-Christians-Medieval/dp/1610170954