Charlotte Proudman Pic Credit:charlotteproudman.com
Last week I attended with Janice Chapman from CEDAWinLAW the launch of barrister Charlotte Proudman’s book He Said, She Said in London.
She is an extraordinary brave woman who stands up for sexually abused women and children in one of the most secretive parts of the judicial system – the family court – where estranged couples fight for custody of their children following a marriage breakdown. Most hearings are in private, ostensibly to protect the children, though a few can be reported in public following recent reforms.
For those familiar with my reporting of judgments in employment tribunals where whistleblowers stand only a 4 per cent chance of success this may not be such a surprise. Hearings such as those conducted by Leeds employment judge Philip Lancaster who has received 16 complaints from women he has insulted, belittled and patronised during hearings fit a pattern that seems rife in the family court system.
Janice Chapman and me with Charlotte Proudman at her book launch on the roof garden at Carmelite House. Janice asked her as a patron of CEDAWinLAW about the convention for the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women and why it needed to become law here.. Evidently the UK has not had a representative on the Geneva based committee under the last government and Baroness Helena Kennedy did not know whether the present government had to done anything to rectify this.
The book is a shocking eye opener into what goes on these largely secretive area of justice and exposes the appalling treatment of women in family courts – both by husbands and judges and ends with a failed attempt by the Bar Standards Board to end Charlotte’s career because she was exposing the mentality of the “boys club” world by both some male barristers and judges.
Among these is the case of a judge -Judge Scarratt – who threatened a woman who had been raped by her abusive partner and had been forced by him to take drugs to take away her daughter and put her in care and report her to social services for taking drugs. He made it clear that he was going to allow her abusive husband to have unsupervised contact with her daughter and said the whole proceedings were a waste of time. Charlotte Proudman managed to get his decision reversed by the Court of Appeal but by then the woman was traumatised as she says ” forcing even those who win to crawl over broken glass, leaving wounds that may never heal.”
Other highly disturbing material in the book includes the role of parental alienation used against women by men to say that women are turning their children against them. Extraordinarily these claims are backed up by so called experts – some who have no qualifications – who seem to be making a business out of the family court system.
Husband made wife sign a written contract allowing him to sexually assault his wife whenever he wanted
The most disgusting stuff is in a chapter on abortion and and reproductive coercion. It includes two contracts one before a woman became pregnant – which men forced on their partners. One insisted the husband would not have to give his sporting hobbies while she had to agree to shop for clothes in charity shops and ” keep the house as tidy as possible” and included the phrase ” I will entertain all sex requests- whenever and whatever -with a smile on my face and as a willing participant. It went to specify conditions for oral sex. As she comments; “It was, in effect, a charter for a man to rape and sexually assault his wife whenever he chose – a disgusting power fantasy.”
Two other chapters deal with a tragic case that involved the Hague Convention which is so limited in its scope that a woman fleeing her partner in Australia with her child because of domestic abuse was forced to return to him – as the issue of domestic abuse could not be used as a reason under the Hague Convention as it would have to be decided in Australia. The man then broke all his promises to the court.
Another case involved the hostile environment against child asylum seekers who faced female genital mutilation in their own country. Though the practice is illegal in the UK, the Home Office decided to split two sisters – allowing an 11 year old to stay but to deport her 14 year old sister on the wrong grounds she was too old to have FGM. After a desperate battle Charlotte managed to prevent the 14 year old from being deported.
The final part of the book turns the tables on Charlotte herself when she finds herself facing a tribunal at the Bar Standards Board for bringing the judiciary into disrepute – while far worse attacks are made against her on line by other barristers and men who lost their cases.
The tribunal decides that the justice system is robust enough to accept her on line criticisms of it – and board loses the case. The arguments put by the board to discredit her frankly look pathetic.
What this devastating book shows is that we still have along way to go to reform the judiciary and end the outdated boys club mentality. But Charlotte Proudman is on the right side of history and I am sure will prevail.
Last week I attended a conference which aims to unite diverse groups fighting racism to form a national campaign to stop the rising tide of prejudice, harassment and ideological views that portray black and brown people ( especially immigrants) as a threat.
The conference was organised by the law firm Equal Justice Solicitors whose chief executive Lawrence Davies made an impassioned speech at the end saying “no ” to all these traits and go on the offensive to get real integration in this multi racial country.
The response is opportune as the forces backing discrimination are rising high here and in the United States. Donald Trump is abolishing any approach that backs diversity, equality and inclusivity and Reform, who are expected to do well in the local elections this week, are committed to abolish the Equality Act, leave the European Court of Human Rights and will need to leave the UN Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women and girls, which Margaret Thatcher agreed to join in 1986.
Lawrence Davies put up a blog on his newsletter The Intercessor and it very much reflects what he said at the conference so I am reproducing most of it here as it covers a lot of issues and has good examples.
He wrote:”Obviously, at present we are in the midst of an invisible war. The “culture wars” were quietly declared by the Conservative government in 2020. Their aim was to prevent black people empowering themselves by mobilising and using the energy from the #BlackLivesMatter movement to become a political force, such as that which helped the Democrats win the November 2020 election.
“It is an ideological war. Those who do not accept the alleged British way of life (“white is right”) are to be humiliated, made to feel unwelcome, harassed and invited to leave Britian. DEI is to be ended. Unconscious bias training is to stop in the civil service. White (northern working class) people are to be viewed as the real victims, not black people or women. Diversity (and equality) has gone too far. The term “Institutional Racism” is unhelpful and must not be used by the EHRC in any report findings. Black ministers (NB: who ideologically see no racism) were deployed to implement the war tactics to deflect from and provide deniability from their innate racist motivation.
One chess move in that war was the decision by the institutionally racist Home Office (which oversees the institutionally racist Met Police) to implement the Hostile Environment – a policy of deliberately seeking to make the Windrush generation uncomfortable and unwelcome living in the Britain.
Another was to label all illegal immigrants as criminally minded threats to our way of life and culture.
It started in 2016, although ideologically decades before that. The anti-foreigner element to the Brexit campaign was a rallying call to lone wolf social media racists and incels alike.
Racial harassment at work rose from 16% to 31% in the period of 2016 to 2020. It has become much worse since then.
We had race riots in the summer of 2024. Every alleged crime committed by a black person was taken as a justification to visit personal injury on the whole black community, be it in Southport or anywhere else, due to racist stereotypes about aggressive black people. They are all the same. They have it coming etc.
By contrast, every heinous crime committed by white people of course did not lead to any attacks on the majority white community. The ideologically motivated, Andrew Tate loving, Kyle Clifford was not stereotyped as the danger that white people pose to others.
Reform UK promised in its manifesto to abolish the Equality Act 2010, removing all legal protection against racism at work, in education and in health services. They believe, like Jeremy Clarkson, in the white man’s right to call a black person a “N…” at work or in a hospital, without accountability, or liability.
In any non-racist, civilised country, the Law should of course protect the black community from such racism. However, our Law does not. 30% of black people suffer racism at work but only 1% feel sufficiently safe and empowered to utilise their rights under the Equality Act 2010. 99% of racist incidents therefore are simply suffered and not formally complained of. Any Law that 99% of victims are too afraid to use is NOT fit for purpose.
No incentive for organisations or corporations to change
Of the 4% (within that 1%) who exercise their rights and win, they win small and the employer does not change. It is statistically more likely that the racist co-worker or manager will be promoted rather than sacked. Awards for racism which would attract $10 million compensation in the USA attract an award of less than £12,000 in the UK. There is no economic incentive for corporations and organisations to change culturally over a £12,000 award.
Public inquiries into the worst racist cases from the Lawrence Report to Casey Report in 2023 have uncovered the obvious Institutional Racism but led to no real or structural change. In fact, matters are regressing. Doreen Lawrence told me that the police are as bad now as they were in 1993.
In any event “landmark” Employment Tribunal cases do not effect structural change. They just enthuse the claimant and the lawyers who believe that such case do lead to change. But 99% of victims of the new rights won’t exercise them. Metaphorically successfully sailing a boat across a hostile ocean, and against the constant current, to land somewhere (hopefully) safe does not change the presiding structural current, or get close to freezing the Moon – that invisible power, wealth, influence controller.
Meanwhile, Racists are becoming emboldened. That’s exactly what happens when the Law does not work to protect people at work, or outside work.
Wayne Hammond (white) called John J Campbell (black, Union official) a “fucking monkey” at work (Sheffield Teaching North Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust) in a heated discussion about union subscription deductions from wages. The Employment Tribunal found that the remark at work was not made by Hammond in the course of his employment and that the Trust had taken all reasonable steps to prevent such remarks being made (even though it is clear that the steps had not prevented the racist abuse), so neither the Trust nor Hammond were liable.
On 20 March 2025 the Employment Appeal Tribunal rejected the union (UNISON) backed appeal. The union failed to challenge the ET Decision on the grounds that it was perverse.
So the current Law permits a black worker to be called a “fucking monkey” at work provided the conversation is about union matters and the Trust has carried out all reasonably practicable preventative steps to prevent such racist conduct.
The current Law also says that if you are called an “N” at work and pinned to the wall by your manager in front of witnesses it is not perverse (legally wrong) for you to receive only £2,500 in compensation. Nor is it perverse for the appeal court to opine that awarding more than £20,000 in punitive damages would bring UK Law into disrepute, whereas in fact the opposite is true.
The current Law says I can (randomly) scream at you at work and cause you to have a mental breakdown and you have 3 years to sue me but if I (deliberately) scream racist abuse at you causing the same injury you only have 3 months less a day to sue me. Of course, the Law says you have 6 years to sue me if I sell you a defective television…..
Betty Knight posted a post on LinkedIn which tagged a former colleague and effectively stated that the senior team at the college was racist (having previously won a claim at the ET that her constructive dismissal was an act of racial harassment). One white employer (then the head of HR) said she felt harassed by that posting and rather than blocking Betty, instead, chose to report her to the police for criminal harassment. The aggressor said that she did so on her own phone, from her car in the car park, and her employer knew nothing about it and had not authorised the reporting. The ET found that extremely aggressive conduct was not done in the course of the perpetrator’s employment. The matter is on appeal. Either the EAT will find that (allegedly) popping out of the office to report a black person to the police for a LinkedIn post, that LinkedIn itself had no issue with, is part of the employer’s responsibility under the current Law or it will not. In either case, the current Equality Act 2010 is not fit for purpose. No Law that 99% of race victims fail to utilise protects the race victim. The fear of retaliation and the knowledge that Justice will be very expensive and unlikely to be achieved (4%) means that we have only cosmetic rights.
We need a new Inequality Act to be implemented as soon as possible to tackle the rising and ideologically driven racial harassment and tackle the underlying and long-standing structural racism.
In the last year, a black man shopping in an ASDA in London, with a black elderly friend who had had a stroke, was surrounded by plain-clothed security staff and asked about their intentions, being the only black customers in the store. He was then asked if he knew how to lift a voodoo curse from a white person.
Similarly, a black women made her way around Tescos with her daughter only to be surrounded by security staff and asked about her intentions, again being the only black customers in the store. When she complained a manager/supervisor apologised for the matter and offered her “a “bunch of bananas”, smirking at her.
None of the racist white Tesco or ASDA staff concerned were dismissed.
So reading this post, you may feel that won’t happen to me, and as only 25% of British people admit to be very or a little racist, you may (hopefully) avoid being targeted and harassed at work, but know if unfortunately you end up working with or for a racist colleague, once you complain you will be retaliated against because the current Law does not prevent retaliation, or the original racist act, any more than the training the Sheffield Trust did. In fact it permits and encourages it.
Anyone telling you that you have rights not to be racially discriminated against is lying. Yes, there are rights but almost all are unable and/or too afraid to exercise them. A right is not a right unless it is enforceable, and can be exercised safely.
Further, 95% of black school children face racist banter and harassment at school. So the next generation, will face a far more racist world than you did. Racist banter is becoming normalised. It is destroying black lives, and people’s sense of safety and damaging their mental health.
As our society becomes more intolerant under the hate-mongering by Reform UK and BRUV (Andrew Tate’s political vehicle to become PM – NB: 27% of men under 40 years of age believe his misogynistic views of women are correct and kids are 5 times more likely to view violence against women as legitimate having viewed his literature).
So do YOU feel safe at work, in education, in the NHS, when contacting the police, online and offline?
What more can WE do to ensure black people, women and the community as a whole are safe from racist sexist (RaX) people?
Finally, if 25% of British people remain admittedly racist, hopefully that means than more than 50% are not racist and therefore in fact that being British no longer means being racist. Because cultures evolve. So being British no longer means being slave-owners or profiting from the slave trade. Or where the rape of an unmarried girl or women is seen as a criminal rape and no longer viewed as damage to property. Our culture did evolve into a fair and more tolerant (ie: less racist), diverse community but war has been declared on that evolved culture and they want to drag us back to the 1970s culture (and some want to drag us back into chains).
It is time to say NO.
NO more.
Be safe, and prosper, “
Professor Patrick Vernon
Among those who spoke at the conference were Professor Patrick Vernon, pro chancellor at the University of Wolverhampton and board chair of the Birmingham and Solihull Trust; Professor Miranda K Brawn Ahmed who is chair of People, Culture and Education Committee on Guy’s and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust, veteran race discrimination campaigner Lee Jasper, Andy George, president of the National Black Police Association; Roger Kline, research fellow at Middlesex University; Hira Ali, an author and Ritka Wadhwa, founder of Cultural Intelligence. All were determined to make a big change so expect some strong action soon.
Three were good examples from the audience notably at Waltham Forest council where the executives and managers were being held to account over cuts and redundancies to make sure black people were not unfairly treated.
I don’t usually run appeals for money on my blog but I am making an exception in this case because of the huge injustice in the employment tribunal system that allows some judges to insult, berate and patronise women who come before them.
if you want to donate this is the link. DO NOT CLICK ON THE YELLOW BUTTON ON TOP OF THE PAGE WHERE IT SAYS DONATE – as this will go to the general fund for the Good Law Project and not to the women. INSTEAD SCROLL DOWN AND CLICK ON DONATE BY CARD.
To do so they have to get a judicial review against the Judicial Conduct Investigation Office which is both refusing to investigate their complaints and ironically believes it is above our freedom of information laws so it doesn’t have to answer any questions from the press or the public on simple facts like how many complaints there have been against judges. This view is not shared by the Information Commissioner who ruled it should comply with FOI but the Ministry of Justice is planning to appeal this decision.
The case the women want to bring is not just against the bullying Judge Philip Lancaster – but against the whole employment tribunal system which doesn’t allow access to judges’ notes and does not produce court records for all cases and even when it does makes sure it is very expensive to get hold of them.
The women’s case has been taken up by the Good Law Project but the women still have to raise some £13,OOO to cover legal opinions. So far they have raised just over £5000. The case was covered by me in Byline Times here. Now it has been taken up by the BBC programme Look North.
You can see their report below.
BBC Look North coverage of the complaints against Judge Lancaster with interviews with Alison McDermott and Dr Hinaa Toheed.
The treatment of management and diversity consultant Alison Mcdermott, by Sellafield who spent £750,000 on top flight lawyers to oppose her claim at an employment tribunal presided over by judge Lancaster led to her local MP Anna Dixon to request an apology from Sellafield’s chief Euan Hutton at a recent Parliamentary hearing. None was forthcoming. Dr Hinnha Toheed, a GP, tells how she was shouted at 16 times by Judge Lancaster during a maternity discrimination hearing She says: “Judge Lancaster shouted at me 16 times, called my case an “omnishambles” before we had even begun, and showed open bias and contempt throughout the hearing. The experience was devastating. My barrister formally documented his behaviour and submitted a written statement to support my complaint. Yet despite this evidence, the system protected him — and he remains in post to this day.”
She is one of two doctors and a nurse who have put in complaints about Judge Lancaster.
These women need support to get to the position of bringing a judicial review because of the enormous cost of doing so – another barrier against people being able to challenge the judiciary. Their legal team include Emily Soothill of Deighton Pierce Glynn, Dr. Charlotte Proudman, and a prominent King’s Counsel have agreed to capped fees. But they need this money to be able to pay for this advice – and that is why there is a need for this crowdfunder.
II have chosen not to call for any donations for my site on this blog so the money can go direct to the women.
From right to left Jocelynne Scutt, former Australian judge; Ian Byrne, Labour MP for Liverpool,West Derby and myself a journalist and a patron of CEDAWinLAW.
Waspi threaten further legal action and another judicial review
The present impasse over whether 50swomen should receive any compensation at all after ministers refused to pay must cease.
WASPI who relied on the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s weak findings of partial maladministration to get somewhere between £1000 and £3000 compensation for the 3.5 million women who suffered up to a six year delay in their pensions have been totally defeated and are having to restart from scratch.
CEDAWinLAW, formerly BackTo60, are now pressing to avoid further legal action and go straight to mediation with the government – hence the letter to the PM Sir Keir Starmer, the chancellor, Rachel Reeves and the work and pensions secretary, Liz Kendall.
The government is now facing a two pronged attack over the issue from two groups with different approaches but both are aiming to provide some compensation for the 50swomen.
The approach by CEDAWinLAW is much broader than WASPI which is only concerned with getting some recompense for the partial maladministration Sir Robert Behrens, the former Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, made in his long drawn out findings even though he conceded that the women were not directly financially affected by their lack of knowledge.
CEDAWinLAW are putting forward a case that the women were both subject to discrimination by being the only group affected by the delay and by the fact that unlike men they did not have the opportunities to build up the numbers of years to get a full pensions by historic discriminatory measures such as being barred from making contributions.
CEDAW is also relying on two key points. The UK under Margaret Thatcher signed up to the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women in 1986. This body is monitoring the UK’s progress in meeting the terms of the convention – and the issue of discrimination against 50s women is on their agenda in Geneva and will also be raised next month at a women’s conference on discrimination in New York.
Secondly the UK is moving domestically to accept that mediation is a better way of solving issues across the board rather than clogging up the courts with long running disputes. All this explained succinctly by Jocelynne Scutt, a former Australian judge and a women’s campaigner, in the video below
Now WASPI are planning to do the opposite and engage in a long war of attrition again in the courts against the DWP for throwing out any hope of compensation. Now having covered the long running judicial review by Backto60 from the initial hearing to the Court of Appeal ( the Supreme Court wouldn’t even hear it) this is committing their supporters to years of waiting and a huge financial burden running well into six figures to maintain the fight.
John Halford, head of public law and human rights, Bindmans. Pic credit: Bindmans website
The scale of the issue can be shown by the pre action letter sent to by John Halford of Bindman’s to the DWP. Not only is he is asking the ministry to cancel the decision they made not to compensate the women but he gets involved in a long convoluted argument into why the women should be paid and into the minutie of the detail of various surveys the ministry undertook to make his case.. Given the courts preference to look at precedents he will not be able to escape the DWP making references to the previous judicial review and using it to their advantage to quash such an action. The full text of his letter is reproduced below.
Now buried in this is a U turn by WASPI. The letter states it would like to explore an alternative disputes resolution to solve the problem. This is extraordinary about turn because only last year CEDAWinLAW put forward the same idea and invited WASPI to be an interested party. John Halford sent for all the papers and flatly rejected the approach. Not only that but presumably on the orders of Angela Madden, who runs the WASPI company, decided to side with the DWP against CEDAWinLAW if it came to court. Again the DWP could use it against them if they get a good lawyer.
In many ways this is a very sad tale as no agreement is possible between any of the groups fighting to get justice for the 3.5 million 50swomen. which in the short term will suit the DWP who can play off one group against another. There is also no real leadership from the All Party Parliamentary Group on State Pension Equality for Women led by Rebecca Long Bayley, MP for Salford, who describes herself as a wife, mother and proud Socialist, to bang heads together and go for the government over this.
In the meantime the cohort is starting to die out which will be very convenient for all those MPs and ministers whose inaction just prolongs any justice.
But in the long term this issue, the axing of the winter fuel allowance and what I hear is going to be the biggest assault on disabled people’s benefits in a generation will lose Labour its core support and pave the way for Nigel Farage to be our next Prime Minister.
The new Labour government took until nearly Christmas to announce that it was not going to give the 3.5 million remaining 50s women a penny in compensation for their six year wait for a pension.
The result I am sad to say could have been predicted as both Labour and the Conservatives were determined from the start to avoid a pay out by delaying tactics and a refusal to discuss mediation.
It was left to MPs to continue the fight whose parties were either not in a position to pay out the money because they were not in government or didn’t have the power to pay out state pensions in the first place.
This is both a scandal and a tragedy for the women. They have been let down by ministers, the judiciary, civil servants,the Parliamentary Ombudsman, MPs, and even some of their own advocates, especially by bad decision making by WASPI, who took a route to secure compensation that was bound to fail.
Liz Kendall
Ministers have continually procrastinated over the pay out- either by claiming the Ombudsman’s report was so complex they had to study it in detail – the Tories under Mel Stride, then works and pensions secretary or Labour – under Liz Kendall, his Labour successor, that she needed more time..
The judiciary also played their part in delaying any decision and ignoring whether there had been discrimination against the women despite Margaret Thatcher signing up to the UN convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women in 1986. Only one judge, the Hon Justice Lang, a woman judge born in the 1950s, got the significance of the challenge facing this group of women by accepting all the issues raised by barristers Michael Mansfield and Catherine Rayner that it was age and sexual discrimination as well as maladministration. She understood the simple fact that although the decision was taken in 1995 to raise the women’s pension age to be equal with men, it was only now that the effects were being discovered.
The rest of the judiciary in the High Court and the Court of Appeal rejected this and the Supreme Court took the insulting decision that the case was out of time – having spent years already going through the court system.
Civil Servants in the Department for Work and Pensions were equally hostile – they didn’t believe in the women’s case, didn’t want to pay them and one senior civil servant went as far to accuse the women of committing fraud by wanting to claim.
The then Parliamentary Ombudsman.Sir Robert Behrens, produced a mouse of a report, reneged on his duty to make recommendations on the maladministration issue, leaving it to MPs knowing that ministers and civil servants were hostile to any payment.
Most MPs facing a prolonged lobbying campaign from WASPI, organised by Higginson Strategy, came behind the Ombudsman’s weak report and ignored the discrimination issue and later a proposal for mediation.
Making matters worse
To make matters worse the campaign for restitution was divided and split into various groups wanting different things and disagreeing over personalities. There was no united front. WASPI tried to control the agenda by focusing on maladministration. This was a false move as anybody would have known that the Parliamentary Ombudsman in the UK, unlike other countries, can be ignored by government and it cannot enforce its recommendations. So when the weakened report for partial maladministration came out, ministers knew they need not abide by it.
Why I supported Backto60 and CEDAWinLaw, is because they were prepared to put their money where their mouth was, did go to court and employed international experts to make their case, like Dr Jocelynne Scutt, a former Australian judge, to produce a well argued report showing that the case involved discrimination. What is appalling is that issue has been ignored by the national media who have airbrushed any mention of such a solution.
Later CEDAWinLAW moved to get mediation between the groups and the government – and invited everyone to joint them. WASPI looked at it and refused – I can only assume they don’t want any mediation to solve the issue.
Instead they are still flogging the dead horse of the Ombudsman’s Report – which the Government has already rejected- to MPs on the All Party group examining the issue and to the Commons works and pensions committee which is investigating the issue.
The result is I am afraid the women will still get nothing. Only by making a move for mediation will they get anywhere. And they will have to raise the money to force it through the courts as ministers don’t want to know. I know there is already an organisation prepared to act as mediators. What we need is the resolution of people to act or live forever without getting one penny out of the DWP.
The All Party Parliamentary Group on 50swomen pensions finally heard from CEDAWinLaw about what they want to see the Government do about responding to compensation for the 50s women deprived of their pensions for six years.
Until this month the only organisation allowed to approach the group were WASPI and their lobbyists Higginson Strategy. The meeting was in private. An attempt to allow me to attend was banned by the chair, Rebecca Long-Bailey, the Independent MP for Salford, on the grounds that none of the other meetings had been open to journalists.
However I was not to be put off by that and have now managed to piece together who was there, what they said and how they were received.
The two main speakers were Joanne Welch, who organises CEDAWinLAW and Jocelynne Scutt, the former Australian judge, author of a report on the discriminatory nature of the treatment of the 3.6 million women and chair of the people’s tribunal, that examined the issue.
Their arguments will be familiar to my readers – seeking mediation with the government to decide the level of compensation rather than accepting the guidelines by the former Parliamentary Ombudsman, Robert Behrens, for limited compensation for partial maladministration. They were also given a strong briefing from Jocelynne Scutt on the direct and indirect discrimination against the women. She also welcomed Sir Keir Starmer’s commitment to using civil procedures such as mediation to end disputes – though the government is silent about doing this for 50s women.
What was clear to the group was this was the first time they had been told what CEDAWinLAW stood for – including a suggestion that the money could be paid in a lump sum and tax free over five years on top of their pension.
Of course the government does not want to get into such talks and would rather keep postponing making any payments.
Sir Julian Lewis MP
Here the strongest condemnation of this government’s approach came from Sir Julian Lewis, the Conservative MP for New Forest East.
He said at the meeting that the treatment of 50swomen was rather similar to all other cases where the government owes large sums of money in compensation – likening the delay in reaching a settlement to those seeking compensation in the contaminated blood and sub postmasters cases.
” The government wants to spin it out as long as possible hoping that people will get disheartened and give up or will have died by the time they can get any compensation.”
He said last night: ” The delay is equivalent to asking these poor old ladies to wait to end the both the First and Second World Wars for payment. The six year delay on payment of their pension is equivalent to the time the UK spent fighting each of the two world wars.”
Rebecca Long-Bailey MP: Official Portrait. Pic Credit: Chris McAndrew UK Parliament
So who did turn up to hear the case? Present in person as well as Sir Julian Lewis were Labour peer Lord Bryn Davies of Brixton; Ian Byrne, Independent MP for Liverpool, West Derby, who joined Dr Scutt when she presented a letter and petition to Downing Street earlier this year; Ruth Jones, Labour MP for Newport and Islwyn and Adrian Ramsey Green Party MP for Waveney. Five other MPs sent their personal assistants to the meeting. They were Chris Bloore, Labour MP for Redditch; Bell Ribeiro-Addy, Labour MP for Clapham and Brixton Hill; Mary Kelly Foy, Labour MP for the City of Durham; Kate Osborne, Labour MP for Jarrow and Gateshead East and Aspana Begum, Independent MP for Poplar and Limehouse.
The delegation did feel they had a fair hearing and Rebecca Long-Bailey praised them for giving such a clear description of their aims and promised to take their views on board. We shall see.
For those wanting more detail Jocelynne Scutt was initerviewed on Salford City Radio by Ian Rothwell this week and outlined a similar case there. This is the local radio station whose MP is Rebecca Long-Bailey, where I also have appeared on a number of occasions.
The interview is below.
Joanne Welsh has a five minute call for mediation on YouTube which you can hear below
We now await development but don’t hold your breath for an early resolution.
This weekend Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Foundation Trust won a national award for its diversity and inclusion just after a still to be published national staff survey reveals a high level of dissatisfaction about discrimination and bullying among its employees.
The trust which has one of the highest proportion of ethnic minority staff in the country is one of the Excel HPMA award winners. The award is sponsored by a major law firm, Mills and Reeves, which deals with personal injury cases including medical negligence. It is one of a number of law firms sponsoring national NHS awards. Other sponsors include Capsticks for NHS innovation; Bevan Brittan for digital analytics; Browne Jacobson, for employee engagement; and Hill Dickinson for excellence in culture and talent. Ironically, three of the firms are involved in persecuting whistleblowers revealing patient safety issues – two, Capsticks and Hill Dickinson, were leading lawyers for the Lewisham and Greenwich Trust in the continuing ten year battle with Dr Chris Day, who highlighted two avoidable deaths in Woolwich Hospital’s intensive care unit. His long running case resumes at an employment tribunal later this month.
The survey shows the huge difference between the UK breakdown of the current population as referenced by the Office for National Statistics. This stands as 84 per cent white and 16 per cent from ethnic minorities. It also varies enormously from the average picture of an NHS trust. 78 percent of staff in NHS trusts are white, only 43 per cent are white at LGT. Nearly 24 per cent are black British , African and Caribbean compared 14 per cent in average and Asian and British Asian are over 26 per cent of staff compared to nearly 4 per cent in the average NHS Trust.
One of the trust’s two major hospitals.
Given this breakdown when asked about whether staff were discriminated by their boss, the trust comes out as worse than average for a NHS trust and similarly in regards to career progression. Also there is a particularly bad result when they were asked how patients, relatives and the public treated them. Interestingly white people – who are a minority in the trust – had a significantly higher rating for satisfaction about future career promotions than ethnic minorities employed there.
Nor do the staff say they would recommend a friend or relative to have treatment in the trust’s hospitals – this is also below average.
When asked whether staff would leave the moment they found another job, some 20 per cent working there said yes – this compares with just over 15 per cent for the national average. And nearly a quarter of the staff said they would look for another job within 12 months – compared to just over a fifth on average.
Morale at the trust has got worse over the last year while there has been a slight improvement in the NHS as a whole.
However the 10 people employed on the trust’s board rate themselves as one of the best in the country.
There is also a big difference in morale among medical staff and ancillary staff. A BMA survey in 2022 produced some startling results
“Have you personally experienced any instances of bullying, harassment or discrimination within the last 12 months?” they were asked. 44% replied yes.
“If you have personally experienced bullying, undermining, harassment or discrimination in the past 12 months, did you report the incident(s)?”43% replied they had reported this and no satisfactory action had been taken.”
“Why did you not report any instances of bullying, undermining, harassment or discrimination?
42% replied they did not believe action would be taken. 26% replied they felt it would be held against them
All this suggests that this award must be more of a paper exercise than the reality there. I would have expected that the trust would be rated as one of the best in some instances. But this does not appear to be case. No doubt the media department there will praise the award to the highest level, executives will congratulate themselves and the law firms will delight in the glory. But it doesn’t look as though it was really deserved.
If pensioners die from winter cold should their gravestones be engraved with the words ” Frozen to Death by Rachel Reeves and Sir Keir Starmer ” for eternity?
This is the recording of my interview last night with Ian Rothwell of Salford City Radio on the failure of the government to agree yet to any compensation for the women born in the 1950s who had to wait six more years to get their pension and the government’s sudden cruel decision to abolish the winter fuel allowance with little notice for 10.8 million people.
A reminder the original story on my blog has now got over 190.000 hits reflecting the strong feeling people have about Labour’s decision to do this leaving many of the poorest pensioners, many over 80, between £200 and £300 worse off this winter by setting such a low income level to qualify for the money.
New revelations by the BBC TV journalist Michael Buchanan today show what appears to be serial bullying and abuse towards women claimants by Judge Philip Lancaster at employment tribunal hearings
His news report today reveals that eight women have now separately come forward to say they were badly treated when they presented their cases before the judge since 2018. They describe their experience before him as “patronising, degrading, psychologically abusive, and misogynistic.”
The 67 year old judge who presides over employment tribunal hearings in Leeds is often rude and abrasive towards women and in one case even suggested that a claimant had mental health problems.
One woman claimant Angela Gates brought a case of disability discrimination and constructive dismissal against her employer in 2021.
She says a hearing in front of Judge Lancaster made her feel “like a villain being prosecuted”.
She says: “I felt I couldn’t give my side on anything.”
The four-day hearing was held on Zoom, and Ms Gates, 53, says Judge Lancaster regularly shouted at her, repeatedly telling her to be quiet. She says his behaviour was “appalling and degrading, verging on psychological abuse”, adding: “I don’t believe I’ve been given a fair trial.”
Another woman, who wished to remain anonymous, had similar treatment over a constructive dismissal and unfair treatment case.
“He made my life hell “
She said: He made my life hell,” she recalls. “He’d put his hands on his head, and appeared disinterested in what I was saying. He repeatedly asked why I was asking [my employer’s witnesses] particular questions and raised his voice numerous times. I felt useless.” She is now appealing the ruling.
Seven women are now planning to contact their MPs about their treatment as it is virtually impossible to complain about a judge as the system is rigged against them. You can refer a case to the Judicial Conduct Investigation Office or previously complain to Judge Barry Clarke, President of the Employment Tribunals in England and Wales. Or even to the Senior President of Tribunals, Sir Keith Lindblom. All seem set up to protect judges not complainants. Barry Clarke refused to act and Sir Keith ignored it.
Judge Barry Clarke, President of Employment Tribunals in England and Wales – protecting judge Lancaster from complaints
In a letter written by Alison McDermott, a management consultant, who complained about the way Judge Lancaster treated her in her case against Sellafield and the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, to Adam Jones of the Judicial Conduct Investigation Office she says:
“It is simply not tolerable the way this judge has conducted himself, whether it is arbitrarily excluding the public, treating me less favourably, allowing bullying in the courtroom, treating me with hostility and contempt, ignoring evidence, attempting to block evidence, actually blocking exploration of evidence, vilifying me, acting partially, and failing to document procedural matters.
” I urge you, therefore, to conduct a thorough investigation into what went so badly wrong in my case and to exhibit, transparency and accountability – behaviours which the legal profession professes to uphold. I sincerely hope that I and the other key witnesses mentioned in this letter of complaint will be interviewed, as would occur with any other formal complaint or grievance investigation. In my experience as a consultant with over 20 years investigating organisational cultures and problems, it is not washing dirty linen in public that causes a problem but allowing it to fester in plain sight.”
Of course the office had no intention of doing such a thing. Judges, as I reported yesterday, are protected because the notes on the cases are kept private even when they are the only official record of the tribunal hearing. It is impossible to get hold of the evidence that would prove a judge was biased and judge Clarke would not reveal how many complaints he has received.
05/07/2024. London, United Kingdom.Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, Shabana Mahmood. poses for a photograph following her appointment to Cabinet by Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer in 10 Downing Street. Picture by Lauren Hurley / No 10 Downing Street
So this leaves the Lord Chancellor to act but as I reported yesterday it is almost impossible to write to her directly – without officials in the ministry of justice or the judiciary intervening.
I would have thought Shabana Mahmood, a highly successful woman with an ethnic minority background, should ask for an investigation into Judge Lancaster. Many of the women who complained about him are from ethnic minorities as well. None of them should have had to put up with such egregious treatment and does the Lord Chancellor want to preside over system where a judge can treat women as dirt.
05/07/2024. London, United Kingdom. Rachel Reeves, Chancellor of the Exchequer poses for a photograph following her appointment to Cabinet by Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer in 10 Downing Street. Picture by Lauren Hurley / No 10 Downing Street
UPDATE: Statistics released today (Tuesday) show claims for Winter Fuel Allowance jumped by 214,000 last year. More and more people over 80 are claiming the £300 higher allowance which had reached 3.3 million for the firsttime. Thenew figures mean the government will save even more money by abolishing it for all those not claiming pension credit, particularly from the very elderly.Figures released also show that those state pensioners living in EU countries who will continue to get the allowance amounted to 34,300. Over three quarters of them, some 26,000, live in the Republic of Ireland while those in Northern Ireland will get nothing. Qualifying for the allowance last year was this week which raises whether those claiming pension credit after this week will get the money for this winter.
Chancellor’s decision fuels racism when it is revealed her cuts are aimed at 95 per cent of white British born people
At last no doubt embarrassed by the Equality and Human Rights Commission which said the new Labour government was in breach of the Public Sector Equality Duty, the Treasury and the Department of Work and Pensions have had to release a breakdown of who is affected by the abolition of the winter fuel allowance.
Both departments used the mechanism of a Freedom of Information request made in August and chose a Friday afternoon to slip it out after Parliament had gone into recess to avoid too much publicity.
The clue is in what the announcement is called – an Equality statement – not an impact statement which was demanded by the House of Lords. In fact there has been no impact statement prepared at all even when Age UK said that about two million pensioners who will lose the annual £200 or £300 payment are just above the cut off point.
The document itself makes a claim that more men than women are affected by the change. But this is based on percentages not the actual figures. As it says: “This means that 85% (5.2m) of women receiving a Winter Fuel Payment (WFP) will lose out, compared to 91% (4.8m) of men. The reason for this is that women live longer than men and are more affected by the loss of the payment. The gender breakdown is 54% (6.1m) of those who received a WFP in GB in 2022/23 Female, and 46% (5.2m) Male.
The figures reveal that the older you are, the bigger the loss you make, partly because the payment for over 80s is £300 rather than £200 per household.
The statement says: ” Although a smaller proportion of those aged 80+ will lose out than those under 80, due to the higher rate of WFP from that age, older pensioners who are affected will be proportionally worse off financially as a consequence of the policy.”
This is still 2.7 million people in top of the 7.9 million aged 66 to 79 who lose out.
Then there is the effect on the disabled – those claiming attendance allowance and disability living allowance. Here 1.6 million lose out and they must be the most vulnerable to the cold.
So if you are woman, more elderly and disabled you are worse off. If you are all three it is catastrophic.
The government has made a lot of noise about the 880,000 people not claiming pensions credit who could qualify by applying and getting the winter fuel allowance. But the paper says despite all the noise ministers are only expecting another 100,000 to claim leaving 780,000 still going without it.
The figures for existing claimants for pension credit are interesting. The most successful claimants are men not women – despite men being in a minority. The least successful are couples and there is a nasty reason for this. Under the Tories rules were changed so that both people had to be aged 66 to get it. So if you had a man who was 66 married to a woman who was 62 you would be excluded from claiming it until the man was 70 and the woman 66. No wonder the take up is lower. And Labour haven’t changed the rules.
Finally there is an ethnic breakdown. In the UK among the general population 84 per cent of the people are white British and 16 per cent are from ethnic minorities. Among the pensioner population, 95 per cent are white British and only five per cent are from ethnic minorities. So Labour in this case has targeted anybody who was born here far more heavily than people who were not.
This may well explain why I am getting a backlash from readers of this blog who complain that the government is doing more for people who have just arrived here than the population who have worked here since they were 15. They think it is unfair.
Cheerleader for Nigel Farage?
So we have the extraordinary situation that Rachel Reeves is inadvertently becoming the cheerleader for Nigel Farage by providing him with a platform to say that British born people are being unfairly penalised.
Her policy among that generation may well drive them to support Reform because they have a grievance that only Labour has created and cannot be blamed on the Tories. This unfortunate situation aids racism and has more purchase with people than tales of a £22 billion black hole.
Then there are international repercussion. The last government was already in trouble with the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Discrimination against women and girls (CEDAW) in Geneva. Although we ratified it nearly 40 years ago when Lady Thatcher signed us up, we have not implemented in law many of the provisions. This is a new policy – even though it was done administratively – and the government has not tested the impact on women which is against the convention.
More close to home there could be a case for indirect discrimination against women because although the policy appears to be fair to all pensioners, women are again bearing the brunt of it.
Of course as I argued in a previous blog both Rachel Reeves and Sir Keir Starmer know that many pensioners will die before the 2029 general election so they won’t be here to vote. By implementing this cruel policy for those just above the cut off point they know many more will join them as they freeze in their homes this winter.
Westminster Confidential 