Thread: The EDP wins Anti-English discrimination case

PRESS RELEASE
1 May 2007

THE ROYAL ARMOURIES (LEEDS) PAY £5,200 COMPENSATION FOR ANTI-ENGLISH RACISM

The English Democrats have won a notable victory in the battle against political correctness by suing the Royal Armouries in Leeds for anti-English discrimination in breach of the Race Relations Act. In an out of court settlement the Royal Armouries have paid the English Democrats £5,200 compensation.

The English Democrats are a national political party campaigning for the institution of an English parliament, and a First Minister and government for England with at least the same powers as the Scottish Parliament, within a federal UK. English Democrat candidates are standing in council elections across England, including 15 in Yorkshire.

Solicitor Robin Tilbrook, the National Chairman of the English Democrats, who instituted and managed the claim, said, “£5,200 was the maximum that could be claimed in this case. Whilst the English Democrats did not receive an apology from the Royal Armouries the fact that they readily paid the full claim without further contest is de facto a full admission of their guilt.”

The English Democrats had booked a conference room at the Royal Armouries for March last year. The Royal Armouries had accepted the booking (and received a deposit) but then some weeks later, claiming a “double booking”, had cancelled. As no alternative booking was offered the English Democrats were suspicious and served a Section 65 Race Relations Act Questionnaire which revealed that the explanation given by the Royal Armouries was untrue.

Instead the Royal Armouries Solicitors now claimed that “…their (clients’) reason for so doing was their perception as to the risks their customers and stakeholders would face as a result of potentially adverse reaction to your client’s presence on the premises at which our client’s organize their events”.

The Royal Armouries, in their Reply to the Questionnaire claimed that the reason they had cancelled was “in no way on grounds of your nationality or that of your officers/members” and “Following the booking, we reviewed the English Democrats Party website. We were very concerned as to how third parties might judge its content and message – whether intended by you or not. As a result we identified the following groups of stakeholders in the museum, and considered the risk of potential damage to the Museum’s reputation occurring due to offence potentially being caused and a complaint being raised to the Museum itself our customer”. The arguments put forward were:-

“Yorkshire and the surrounding counties have many inhabitants from diverse ethnic backgrounds and origins, many being immigrants or second/third generation descendants of immigrants. It was anticipated that they may not have felt comfortable visiting the Museum during the conference…”

The Royal Armouries claimed that the presence of the English Democrats, “might have prompted adverse public reaction by public demonstration.”

“All visiting children have to enter the Museum using the same entrance as event delegates. We feel that children and teachers (again many from multi-ethnic backgrounds) may have felt intimidated by the Party’s presence. Or the presence of third parties demonstrating against the Party.”

That, “RAI prides itself on the diversity of nationalities, ethnic backgrounds and religious beliefs of its staff”, and “As a considerate employer, we would have felt uncomfortable exposing staff to this type of event and the consequences we perceived to be inherent in it taking place. Some staff may have even refused to work, which could have exposed us to potential employment legislation issues if we could not have deployed elsewhere.”

“15% of our employees are from ethnic minority backgrounds and we have and practice an Equal Opportunities and Dignity at Work policy (an extract of which is attached as “Annex 2”) the principles of which we also apply in our dealings with third party clients and customers where appropriate.”

“The Museum is open to all and has suffered protests from certain groups who did not agree with the content of some previous events… These have brought disturbance disrepute to the museum and have had an adverse financial affect. They have also caused concerns as to Health and Safety… We envisaged that if the general public perceived the English Democrats as a fringe political group, then this would attract adverse reaction in the form of mass demonstrations at which protests may have ensued, disrupting museum operations and potentially causing risk to the Health and Safety of staff and members of the public, thus damaging our reputation.”

The English Democrats National Council decided that they did not accept this explanation, considering it to be bogus and untruthful. Proceedings were therefore issued.

Christine Constable, a business woman from Norfolk and the Vice Chairman of the English Democrats, who booked the conference, said:- “This is a notable victory in a battle against political correctness and a warning to all those government funded institutions whose loathing of all things English has been shown by this case to be illegal!”

Michael Cassidy, Chairman of the Yorkshire English Democrats’ said, “Really the Royal Armouries have got off lightly in this case because the English Democrats had decided to restrict this claim to £5,000 in order to reduce the cost. If we had been greedy we could have won, according to the Court of Appeal’s guidelines, up to £25,000.” He added, “If we have further examples of anti-English behaviour by quangos misusing taxpayers’ money to further the Government’s anti-English agenda we may well sue for the maximum”.