00:00:00
so police forces in the UK have been
00:00:02
accused of being racist by prioritizing
00:00:05
applicants from minority groups over
00:00:07
white British applicants so I've
00:00:10
obviously had a number of comments and
00:00:11
questions and emails about covering this
00:00:14
i have covered things like this before
00:00:16
but I would like to do that again in
00:00:17
direct response to this latest news and
00:00:20
there are a couple of scenarios in which
00:00:22
this might well be discriminatory but it
00:00:24
really depends on precisely how they
00:00:27
implement it so I'll go through that in
00:00:28
this video but first of all about half
00:00:31
of you don't subscribe to the channel
00:00:32
i'd be really grateful if you did even
00:00:34
if it annoys one or two people when I
00:00:36
ask I do ask cuz that's how YouTube
00:00:39
works so apologies for those that get
00:00:40
fed up of it but that just helps so if
00:00:43
ever you want to grow a YouTube channel
00:00:45
that really does help so thank you for
00:00:46
doing that uncharacteristically for me
00:00:48
I've got some notes with me cuz
00:00:49
obviously I don't have my laptop sitting
00:00:51
out here in the middle of nowhere in
00:00:53
China but here we go um let's have a
00:00:55
look at this so the Equality Act now
00:00:57
this is the first bug bearer that I'll
00:00:59
talk about because a lot of people when
00:01:01
they talk and they try to talk with some
00:01:03
authority on this and they call it the
00:01:05
Equalities Act really quite annoys me
00:01:08
now it's a simple mistake i won't be
00:01:10
overly critical about it but it does
00:01:11
annoy me if someone wants to speak with
00:01:13
authority about it and they don't get
00:01:15
the name of the act right it's the
00:01:16
Equality Act 2010 now the Equality Act
00:01:20
is designed primarily for companies and
00:01:24
employers and governments etc not to
00:01:26
discriminate against anybody with a
00:01:28
protected characteristic most of which
00:01:30
you'll obviously be familiar with age
00:01:32
disability gender gender reassignment
00:01:34
marriage civil partnership sexual
00:01:36
orientation race religion belief uh etc
00:01:39
and so if anyone is discriminated
00:01:41
against that is to say they are treated
00:01:44
less favorably directly or indirectly
00:01:47
because of one of those protected
00:01:48
characteristics then they are unlawfully
00:01:50
discriminating against somebody now I
00:01:52
say unlawfully discriminating against
00:01:54
somebody because there is lawful and
00:01:56
unlawful discrimination for example
00:01:59
there are certain provisions for men and
00:02:02
certain provisions for women that are
00:02:04
different and that is directly because
00:02:07
of being male or female this is one of
00:02:11
the reasons I have an issue with um
00:02:13
gender reassignment and all of this sort
00:02:15
of stuff because when these two things
00:02:17
overlap it can cause problems for
00:02:19
example sex is immutable in my opinion
00:02:22
you are either male or female and
00:02:24
whereas gender reassignment is is
00:02:27
different entirely it is a gender
00:02:29
identity and thus if you were
00:02:30
discriminated against specifically
00:02:32
because of your gender identity that is
00:02:33
a different matter but back to the point
00:02:35
here this is whether or not the police
00:02:37
force is discriminatory on the basis of
00:02:39
race um with with regard to its
00:02:41
application procedure so an employer can
00:02:46
lawfully discriminate to an extent
00:02:49
during its application process if it is
00:02:51
taking steps reasonable measures to uh
00:02:55
address an under representation or a
00:02:57
disadvantage which is experienced or
00:02:59
evident within a particular group with a
00:03:03
protected characteristic so if in this
00:03:06
scenario here there is an
00:03:08
underrepresented group of society within
00:03:10
the application process or indeed within
00:03:12
the employment of the company or the the
00:03:14
force as a whole they can take specific
00:03:18
steps and measures so long as they are
00:03:20
proportionate to address that disparity
00:03:23
however the way in which it does so will
00:03:24
determine whether or not it is
00:03:26
discriminatory so under section 158 that
00:03:30
is general positive action of the
00:03:32
equality act whereas section 159 is with
00:03:35
regard to recruitment and promotion
00:03:38
these sections allow for positive action
00:03:42
that is to say they take a specific step
00:03:46
towards helping or addressing a
00:03:49
particular group so long as it is
00:03:53
objectively justified now what does that
00:03:56
mean well there must be evidence of some
00:03:59
first of all under reppresentation or
00:04:01
disadvantage which includes the data and
00:04:04
the statistics etc that shows that one
00:04:07
particular group or of the workforce or
00:04:09
whatever is underrepresented or
00:04:11
disadvantaged in some way or another
00:04:13
they then must show that whatever
00:04:15
positive action or step that they take
00:04:17
is a proportionate means of addressing
00:04:20
this issue and so it must be appropriate
00:04:24
necessary proportionate and without
00:04:26
excessively harming any other group so
00:04:29
for example which is how I saw it
00:04:32
reported which I don't think is exactly
00:04:34
how it's been implemented but it's how I
00:04:35
saw it reported for example if the force
00:04:39
were to say "We are not employing any
00:04:43
white British candidates for the next
00:04:45
year or two to address this problem,"
00:04:48
that would be excessively harming that
00:04:51
particular group because they're white
00:04:53
British that would pretty much certainly
00:04:56
be discriminatory and unlawful and not a
00:04:59
proportionate step under these sections
00:05:02
as permitted to address any disparity
00:05:05
however if these steps were much less
00:05:09
severe for example they just gave them
00:05:13
uh gave minority groups a little bit of
00:05:15
a head start a little bit of assistance
00:05:18
and thus helped to address this
00:05:21
disparity that might be a different
00:05:22
story altogether so just to be clear
00:05:25
what this positive action does not
00:05:27
permit is any kind of blanket exclusion
00:05:31
blanket restriction or any other extreme
00:05:33
measure that would in and of itself be
00:05:36
discriminatory and excessively harming
00:05:39
any other group as a result of trying to
00:05:41
assist one group and so therefore we
00:05:44
come to this balancing act of being
00:05:46
proportionate and justified in any step
00:05:49
that they take otherwise there is a risk
00:05:51
of direct discrimination against said
00:05:53
group taking a step back for a moment if
00:05:55
you've watched my channel for any length
00:05:56
of time you'll have noticed that
00:05:58
recently I've taken an interest in news
00:06:00
and politics and how together with the
00:06:02
law they overlap and intertwine and
00:06:03
affect your everyday lives but one thing
00:06:06
that interests me the most is the
00:06:08
headlines not just because you may not
00:06:11
know everything about a story and so
00:06:13
you're looking for the detail but how
00:06:15
they can be very different depending on
00:06:16
the political leanings of the outlet
00:06:18
whether they are left or right leaning
00:06:20
outlets and they focus on different
00:06:22
details altogether and in essence then
00:06:25
giving you a different spin on the same
00:06:27
story so if you didn't know the facts
00:06:29
you learn the facts from that outlet and
00:06:31
then they can influence you or in some
00:06:32
cases mislead you into what to think
00:06:36
take for example the hugely
00:06:38
controversial UK deal with regard to the
00:06:41
Chaos Islands and Maitius and so as a
00:06:44
hugely simplified explanation first of
00:06:46
all in 2019 the International Court of
00:06:49
Justice ruled that the separation of the
00:06:51
Chaos Islands from Maitius was unlawful
00:06:54
and that the UK had an obligation to end
00:06:56
its administration of the islands now
00:06:59
bearing that in mind let's take a look
00:07:01
at some of the headlines because I use
00:07:03
ground news to look at the left and the
00:07:05
right headlines to draw a comparison
00:07:07
between the two in fact it even has a
00:07:10
bias comparison on the website with the
00:07:12
left-leaning outlets focusing very much
00:07:13
more on the historical context the
00:07:15
decolonization and the international
00:07:17
legal rulings in favor of Maitius
00:07:19
whereas the right-leaning outlets
00:07:21
emphasize very much more that this is a
00:07:23
surrender of sovereign territory and the
00:07:24
cost implications which will run to many
00:07:26
billions of pounds as a cost to the
00:07:29
taxpayer so let's take a look at some of
00:07:30
those headlines and you'll see exactly
00:07:32
what I'm talking about if we look at the
00:07:33
Colorado politics it says Trump approves
00:07:36
the UK plan to give up the Chaos Islands
00:07:38
under the ICJ's decolonization ruling
00:07:41
abc News says UK milaitius close in on a
00:07:43
deal over the Chaos Islands after US
00:07:46
signals its consent and the Daily Mirror
00:07:48
says "Trump gives UK Chaos Islands
00:07:51
decision that will silence Nigel
00:07:53
Farage." Comparing this with some of the
00:07:55
more right-leaning outlets we have the
00:07:57
Sun headline "Fury as Trump signs off
00:07:59
PM's Chos Islands deal set to cost Brits
00:08:03
billions." GB News went with Donald
00:08:05
Trump signs off on Kyama's Chos
00:08:07
surrender but Labour refuses to come
00:08:10
clean on the true cost to Britain's and
00:08:12
the Daily Express went with Nigel Farage
00:08:14
loses it over Chaos surrender as Donald
00:08:16
Trump signs off the deal and so with
00:08:18
headlines so different you might wonder
00:08:20
whether you're really getting the true
00:08:22
picture and so that is why I partnered
00:08:23
with Ground News which is both an app
00:08:25
and a website which pulls together news
00:08:27
from around the world and gives you this
00:08:29
bias comparison it gives you a
00:08:31
factuality score to determine how
00:08:33
accurate the news source is that you're
00:08:34
reading and even an indication as to
00:08:36
ownership because that can give a clue
00:08:38
as to why the headlines lean a certain
00:08:40
way and of course there are always some
00:08:42
stories that are disproportionately
00:08:43
covered by the left or the right and
00:08:44
that's precisely why Ground News has a
00:08:46
blind spot feature which will highlight
00:08:48
to you the stories that are
00:08:49
disproportionately covered by the left
00:08:51
or the right to ensure that you get the
00:08:53
full picture and as always as a partner
00:08:54
to my channel you get a fantastic
00:08:56
discount which is 40% off that's 40% off
00:08:59
using the link
00:09:02
ground.news/bb which is on screen and in
00:09:04
the description below to get you 40% off
00:09:06
access to the world's news and so the
00:09:08
next time you're reading a story and
00:09:10
you're wondering if it's just a little
00:09:11
bit biased you can check on ground news
00:09:14
and you can get the full picture and see
00:09:16
another side to the same story so grab
00:09:18
yourself the discount with the link in
00:09:19
the description below and stay on top of
00:09:21
the world's news and so now let's
00:09:23
address what uh West Yorkshire Police
00:09:25
have been accused of and what their
00:09:27
statement was and whether or not we
00:09:28
think that is discriminatory on that
00:09:30
basis well West Yorkshire Police said
00:09:33
"You may have seen articles in the
00:09:35
national media suggesting that West
00:09:37
Yorkshire Police is blocking or even
00:09:39
rejecting white British applicants from
00:09:41
the recruitment process they say that
00:09:43
this story originated from a query from
00:09:46
the Telegraph regarding the force's
00:09:48
approach to positive action the full
00:09:51
response sent earlier in the week was as
00:09:53
follows." And this is reading from the
00:09:55
West Yorkshire Police website which I
00:09:56
can link below they say in West
00:09:59
Yorkshire Police we are committed to
00:10:01
improving equality diversity inclusion
00:10:03
within the organization and strive to be
00:10:05
more representative of the communities
00:10:06
we serve our diversity equality
00:10:08
inclusion team supports and consults
00:10:10
with those of different protected
00:10:11
characteristics such as sex disability
00:10:13
sexual orientation and race to ensure
00:10:15
that their views can influence and
00:10:17
improve the service the force delivers
00:10:19
they also work to improve the well-being
00:10:21
of everybody in the organization and
00:10:22
inclusivity overall uh the most recent
00:10:25
census they say found that 23% of people
00:10:28
in West Yorkshire identified as being
00:10:29
from an ethnic minority background our
00:10:32
current police officer representation
00:10:34
from ethnic minority background is
00:10:36
around 9% so to be clear they say that
00:10:39
roughly 23% of the people within West
00:10:42
Yorkshire identify as one of a number of
00:10:45
ethnic minority backgrounds but only 9%
00:10:48
were reflected within the police force
00:10:52
to address this under reppresentation
00:10:54
they say we use positive action under
00:10:56
the Equality Act they got it right our
00:10:59
use of this was recently reviewed under
00:11:00
His Majesty's Inspector of
00:11:01
Constabularary and Fire and Rescue
00:11:03
Services in an activism and impartiality
00:11:06
inspection and no issues were identified
00:11:08
and so then we go on to what they
00:11:10
actually did they say positive action
00:11:12
allows people from an underrepresented
00:11:14
group who express an interest in joining
00:11:16
the force to complete an application
00:11:18
which is then held on file until a
00:11:20
recruitment window is opened they say no
00:11:23
interviews are held until the window is
00:11:25
officially open to all candidates
00:11:27
enabling people from underrepresented
00:11:29
groups to apply early does not give them
00:11:32
an advantage in the application process
00:11:34
it simply provides us with more
00:11:35
opportunity to attract talent from this
00:11:38
pool of applicants but that is where the
00:11:40
statement ends and that is where I have
00:11:43
a little bit of a question to raise
00:11:45
because whilst they might have addressed
00:11:48
the issue at hand to allay any concerns
00:11:52
that it's discriminatory etc the
00:11:53
follow-up question would then be how
00:11:55
does the recruitment process itself
00:11:59
ensure that the early application bears
00:12:02
no bearing on success now the only way
00:12:05
to do that fairly would be to do a blind
00:12:09
application process without any idea at
00:12:12
all that the candidate was from an
00:12:14
ethnic minority background now obviously
00:12:16
because it does bits of the application
00:12:18
and recruitment process include
00:12:21
face-toface uh sections fitness sections
00:12:24
etc it's impossible to entirely rule out
00:12:29
whether somebody is from an ethnic
00:12:30
minority background um whether or not
00:12:32
the early application has any bearing on
00:12:34
that at all is another matter this would
00:12:37
obviously then come down to the
00:12:38
personnel actually running the
00:12:40
recruitment making the assessments and
00:12:43
determining whether or not the candidate
00:12:44
is suitable for the job now assuming
00:12:47
that the application and the recruitment
00:12:49
process is rigorous and entirely fair in
00:12:54
other words there's no different
00:12:55
criteria or pass threshold VV fitness
00:12:59
tests or anything else of that nature
00:13:02
then if everything else is equal then
00:13:04
that should be perfectly fine but
00:13:06
nothing is perfect and thus it would
00:13:08
eventually come down to an individual
00:13:10
case as to whether somebody believed
00:13:11
they were discriminated against so it's
00:13:13
unlikely in that scenario and so
00:13:16
assuming that the only positive action
00:13:18
that they've taken is to allow them to
00:13:20
apply early then there's an argument
00:13:22
that it's a proportionate step to
00:13:24
achieve a legitimate aim however the
00:13:26
problem then comes that they may then
00:13:28
have actively blocked applicants from a
00:13:31
white British background which
00:13:33
conversely may end up being
00:13:34
discriminatory so on the whole I think
00:13:37
what the positive action should be is to
00:13:40
extend the application period rather
00:13:43
than allow them to apply early because
00:13:45
the argument thus would be if they make
00:13:48
the application period longer which is
00:13:51
the broad effect of what they're doing
00:13:53
if you say for a moment here is where
00:13:55
the applications are accepted and here
00:13:58
is where the recruitment process begins
00:14:01
that period is where they are accepting
00:14:03
those applications from those minority
00:14:06
groups
00:14:07
i can't really see any difference from
00:14:11
accepting all applications but just
00:14:13
extending that period because otherwise
00:14:15
if they say that it's not satisfactory
00:14:18
to accept white British applicants in
00:14:21
that longer period because then
00:14:22
effectively what they would be doing
00:14:24
would be admitting that accepting all of
00:14:26
them would be uh discriminatory against
00:14:29
the minority group because they've
00:14:32
accepted all applications whereas if the
00:14:34
recruitment process itself was fair
00:14:37
notwithstanding the applications if the
00:14:39
recruitment and the actual process
00:14:41
itself was fair then surely there's no
00:14:45
discrimination so I just think they
00:14:46
should extend the recruitment period as
00:14:48
the positive action to enable applicants
00:14:51
of a minority background to apply
00:14:53
earlier and to apply for longer
00:14:55
therefore more likely to attract their
00:14:57
attention because I don't see the
00:15:00
connection i I just I cannot get past
00:15:03
this i cannot see the connection between
00:15:05
blocking white British applicants and
00:15:08
only allowing those of a minority
00:15:10
background to apply early because they
00:15:14
will still apply what they can do as the
00:15:17
positive action is take positive steps
00:15:19
to encourage them to apply to uh visit
00:15:22
certain centers or certain regions of
00:15:24
the city to uh to visit them in person
00:15:27
to go you know go with billboards go
00:15:29
with uh a van driving around with
00:15:32
recruitment leaflets and hold events to
00:15:35
encourage them to apply to the force
00:15:38
that would be positive action that would
00:15:40
be encouraging them to apply extending
00:15:42
the application period would be giving
00:15:43
them more opportunity to apply but
00:15:46
excluding white British applicants
00:15:48
during that period personally and as a
00:15:52
lawyer I think that is very likely
00:15:55
discriminatory and I think there are
00:15:57
better ways around it which are far less
00:16:00
likely to be discriminatory against
00:16:01
white British applicants that is just my
00:16:03
view you're welcome to disagree with it
00:16:05
but please do let me know what you think
00:16:06
in the comments below but I thought I'd
00:16:08
give you a little bit of a talk on this
00:16:09
i know I've talked about it before but
00:16:11
it keeps popping up and these questions
00:16:13
keep coming up again and again and
00:16:14
unless it's addressed I fear it will
00:16:16
only get worse so let me know what you
00:16:18
think in the comments below thank you
00:16:18
for watching and I'll see you next
