The Metro has obtained a High Court injunction against "all persons responsible for the publication and/or distribution" of a Metro spoof paper that was distributed by campaigners at London tube stations on Friday morning. But since the spoof was produced and distributed anonymously, the injunction seems to have been served upon the wrong people, in what appears to be a guilty-by-association verdict.
The spoof paper, which has also been circulated on the web, has a similar masthead and layout to the free daily, with a zero instead of the O. The owners of Metro, Associated Newspapers Limited, claim this is an infringement of the company's trademark copyrights, while campaigners argue the company directors "do not have a sense of humour" and have "gone too far in suppressing free speech to protect their commercial interests."
Under the headline "Gordon Brown to be deported to Scotland," the front page story claimed the former prime minister was facing imminent removal back to his "home country," as the new coalition government introduced new immigration rules that imposed further restrictions on "non-English nationals." Alongside the article, a manipulated picture showed Gordon Brown being arrested by two policemen at a beer festival in Cambridge.
Tens of thousands of copies of the spoof paper were distributed by 50 or so people wearing white T-shirts bearing the Metro logo during rush hour at 20 busy stations around the capital. The 'spoofing operation' was apparently part of 'two days of action against racist press', called by a coalition of anti-racist and migrant rights groups under the name Press Action. A blog bearing the same name had been set up about a month before, with the aim of "exposing and taking action against racist and anti-migrant bias in mainstream media." [1]
The callout for the days of action, circulated around various campaign websites and mailing lists, had called upon "all concerned groups and individuals to stand up to counter fear with action on the 2nd and 3rd July" and "put the racist press in the spotlight" by taking "autonomous, decentralised actions and protests against racist press across the UK." [2]
Represented by Bird & Bird LLP, Associated Newspapers sought a High Court injunction until 10:30am on Monday, ordering the respondents to "not publish or distribute in any way (including by way of the Internet) any publication which purports to be 'Metro' or any other publication of the applicant." The legal action seems to have stemmed from an assumption that the spoof might be distributed again on Saturday, which turned out to be unfounded speculation and a waste of judges' time.
A copy of the injunction order was subsequently sent by Katharine Stephens of Bird & Bird to the people running the Press Action blog [3], presuming they were behind the spoof. A statement by Press Action, however, said they "had nothing to do with the publication and distribution of the spoof" and had merely received an electronic copy from the anonymous spoofers, along with a press release [4], which they then circulated and posted on their blog.
The blog has since taken the spoof down but it can be accessed on numerous other activists and websites. A statement by Press Action maintained that, "despite not being the respondents, we have complied with the court order as a gesture of goodwill."
Metro's official website had also been spoofed as part of the spoofing operation, with a similar layout but with the spoof paper's content instead, and a web link (URL) substituting the O with zero (www.metr0.co.uk).
It is understood that Associated Newspapers has also contacted the US-based company that apparently hosts the spoof site, asking that they take it down, which they have refused to do, according to the injunction hearing records.
A Whois check on the spoof website [5] shows that it registered under the name 'Press Action' and an address in Whitechapel, London, that belongs to a social centre known as the London Action Resource Centre.
LARC describes itself as a "collectively run building providing space and resources for different activist groups" and is, indeed, used by many people who do not necessarily know each other or know what the others might be doing.
A spokesperson for Press Action said: "It is very likely that whoever did the spoof was inspired by our callout and wanted to use our name and register the domain with a common address, such as LARC's, to protect their anonymity. To argue that LARC is "clearly involved with the two days of action," as the Metro solicitors did in court, is just a desperate search for a scapegoat that is guilty by association."
Asked by the judge what damage the spoof had caused their client, the Associated Newspapers solicitors argued that the Metro "avowedly doesn't take a political stance. The damage to the brand and goodwill [of the paper's owners] is unquantifiable. The people behind the spoof are avowedly political. They are piggybacking on the goodwill built up in the brand since 1999 to espouse their own political cause."
Unconvinced by this argument, and repeatedly expressing his concern that "this is a case of make haste and repent at leisure," the judge asks, "Are you seriously suggesting that your clients will suffer damage [as a result of the spoof]?" to which the solicitor replies, "It is an intangible damage to my client's goodwill, that is, it effects what people will think about its product."
-ends-
For further information and questions, contact: pressaction@riseup.net
Notes for editors:
[1] The blog is at: http://pressaction.wordpress.com
[2] The callout can be found at: http://pressaction.wordpress.com/2010/06/06/two-days-of-action/
[3] A copy of the injunction order, along with the proceedings and the applicant's notes submitted to the judge, are attached herewith.
[4] The Metr0 press release can be found at: http://london.indymedia.org.uk/articles/5099
[5] http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois/?tool_id=66&token=&toolhandler_redirect=0&ip=http%3A%2F%2Fmetr0.co.uk
Sunday, 4 July 2010
Friday, 2 July 2010
Metro Targeted By Anti-Racist Spoof
London commuters were this morning surprised to find that their usual Metro paper was a bit thinner, yet more interesting and engaging, than usual.Tens of thousands of copies of a spoof newspaper that looked very similar to the free daily were distributed at 20 busy tube stations around the capital during rush hour. Thousands more were distributed in other cities around the country.
Under the headline 'Gordon Brown to be deported to Scotland' the frontpage story claimed the former prime minister was facing imminent removal back to his "home country," as the new coalition government introduced new immigration rules that imposed further restrictions on "non-English nationals". Alongside the story, a manipulated picture showed Gordon Brown being arrested by two policemen at beer festival in Cambridge.
Wearing a white T-shirt bearing the Metro logo and a blue baseball cap, one of the 50 or so distributors, who preferred to keep anonymous, said: "By replacing the word 'British' with 'English' when talking about 'British jobs' and the 'floods of illegal immigrants into Britain,' we hope people will realise how racist and absurd this rhetoric of immigration controls is."
In a witty attempt to highlight the racist and sexual violence experienced by immigration detainees at the hands of private 'detainee escorts', a fake advert claimed that G4S, the private security giant that runs a number of immigration detention centres in the UK and provides detainee escort services on behalf of the UK Border Agency, was looking for "strong men" to "escort women abroad."
The rest of the spoof paper featured a 60-Second interview with a real-life ex-detainee, a 'myth-buster' about asylum and immigration, an 'immigration newspeak' glossary, racist quotes from mainstream press and a couple of more in-depth articles on immigration controls and protests against them.
Many of those who picked up the paper initially seemed confused as to why the Metro had "shrunk." Realising it was a spoof, however, many commented that it was "very funny", "clever", "naughty" and "brilliant". Some even returned back and asked for more copies. Others, however, threw it away and wanted the thicker "real thing."
The Metro website has also been spoofed, with a layout similar to that of the paper's official website but with the spoof paper's content.
The 'spoofing operation' was part of 'two days of action against racist press', called by a coalition of anti-racist and migrant rights groups under the name Press Action.
A spokesperson for the anonymous group of spoofers said, "We are sick of being lied to; we are sick of being lied about. These lies, repeated everyday by free papers, tabloids and other corporate mainstream media outlets, have almost become a reality, where the most vulnerable victims of this screwed-up political-economic system are blamed for it."
Explaining why the group chose the Metro and not a 'more obvious target' when it comes to racist press, such as the Daily Mail or the Evening Standard, the anonymous spokesperson commented: "We wanted to highlight the fact that racism and anti-immigration bias is sometimes more subtle than the Daily Hate rants. Besides, the Metro seemed to provide a better vehicle due to its exploitation of the 'public' transport system, so we thought we'd reclaim that right for a day."
-ends-
For further information and enquiries, please contact: pressaction@riseup.net
Photos available on request.
Notes for editors:
1. A pdf of the spoof paper can be found at:
http://www.metr0.co.uk/images/metr0-e-edition.pdf
or http://pressaction.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/metro_spoof.pdf
2. The spoof Metr0 website is at http://www.metr0.co.uk
3. The callout for the Two Days of Action Against Racist Press can be found at:
http://pressaction.wordpress.com/2010/06/06/two-days-of-action/
or http://www.metr0.co.uk/article/days-of-action.html
Thursday, 1 July 2010
Possible Libyan Mass Forced Deportation Of Eritrean Refugees
Three weeks ago the UNHCR, without any explanation, was given its marching orders by the authorities in Tripoli. Now the reason appears to be plain: clearing the way for possible mass forced expulsions of the thousands of imprisoned refugees in the country.
At dawn yesterday, the 2 container lorries carrying around 300 Eritrean refugees, including women and at least 50 children, left the notorious Misratah detention camp, heading south to the interior of the country. All the refugees had been victims of Italy's 'push back' policy, intercepted on the journey from the Libyan coast towards Lampedusa and forced back into the arms of the Libyan police and military.
They had also collectively refused orders to give their identities to the Eritrean embassy, fearing that it was the first step to a collective expulsion according to the Fortress Europe website. Fearing the worst, many had tried to escape but were caught and beaten by guards. Tensions between the guards and detainees lead to further clashes, which were brutally put down by security forces.
So, on the night of the 29th, a Libyan army unit had raided the cells confiscating all mobile phones. They then herded everybody together, including 30 people who had sustained serious injuries in previous clashes and forced them into the converted shipping containers for the 12 hours journey to Sabha, deep in the Sahara desert. Many of the women and children are understood to have suffered from heat stroke in the cramped, hot and airless conditions in
these glorified metal boxes.
The fate of the detainees is uncertain and, whilst the Libyans supposedly officially suspended deportations to Asmara three years ago, forced overland removal remains a possibility*. Although sources in Libya also claim that the mass transportation may be in punishment for the migrants' resistance and as a prelude to being broken up into smaller groups and relocated to other prisons
However, Libya faces a growing problem with all the migrants are entering the country enroute to Europe but are now unable to make it anywhere other than into Libyan prisons and detention camps. Italy and the rest of Europe, in the form of Frontex and the International Organisation for Migration, may well be paying for many of the costs of running Libya's extensive detention system but the detainee population cannot go on growing without serious consequences and Libya may well be on the verge of resorting to a 'radical' and highly controversial solution: mass forced expulsions.
* Eritrea is a single party state run by the PFDJ and military conscription is universal and effectively life-long. Many of the refugees in the Libyan camps have fled Eritrea to avoid conscription and all returned refugees are subject to arrest and imprisoned in forced labour camps. Many of these have been used to build the hotels and infrastructure that have sprung up along the Red Sea coast to cater for the country's burgeoning tourist industry. And because of the political situation in Eritrea, many countries have no extradition arrangements with the country.
So, whilst Libya has never been particularly interested in the views of the rest of the world when it comes to the fate of refugees and prisoners in its jails, Libya has superficially followed this convention. We say superficially, as reportedly it has a tacit agreement with Eritrea to return its nationals and, according to the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, it has "allowed the IOM to open an EU-funded centre in March 2008 to return migrants as “a complementary concept to deportations.”" Additionally, in January this year it secretly deported 12 Eritreans who had previously been either government officials or in the military. Their fate is unknown.
At dawn yesterday, the 2 container lorries carrying around 300 Eritrean refugees, including women and at least 50 children, left the notorious Misratah detention camp, heading south to the interior of the country. All the refugees had been victims of Italy's 'push back' policy, intercepted on the journey from the Libyan coast towards Lampedusa and forced back into the arms of the Libyan police and military.
They had also collectively refused orders to give their identities to the Eritrean embassy, fearing that it was the first step to a collective expulsion according to the Fortress Europe website. Fearing the worst, many had tried to escape but were caught and beaten by guards. Tensions between the guards and detainees lead to further clashes, which were brutally put down by security forces.
So, on the night of the 29th, a Libyan army unit had raided the cells confiscating all mobile phones. They then herded everybody together, including 30 people who had sustained serious injuries in previous clashes and forced them into the converted shipping containers for the 12 hours journey to Sabha, deep in the Sahara desert. Many of the women and children are understood to have suffered from heat stroke in the cramped, hot and airless conditions in
these glorified metal boxes.The fate of the detainees is uncertain and, whilst the Libyans supposedly officially suspended deportations to Asmara three years ago, forced overland removal remains a possibility*. Although sources in Libya also claim that the mass transportation may be in punishment for the migrants' resistance and as a prelude to being broken up into smaller groups and relocated to other prisons
However, Libya faces a growing problem with all the migrants are entering the country enroute to Europe but are now unable to make it anywhere other than into Libyan prisons and detention camps. Italy and the rest of Europe, in the form of Frontex and the International Organisation for Migration, may well be paying for many of the costs of running Libya's extensive detention system but the detainee population cannot go on growing without serious consequences and Libya may well be on the verge of resorting to a 'radical' and highly controversial solution: mass forced expulsions.
* Eritrea is a single party state run by the PFDJ and military conscription is universal and effectively life-long. Many of the refugees in the Libyan camps have fled Eritrea to avoid conscription and all returned refugees are subject to arrest and imprisoned in forced labour camps. Many of these have been used to build the hotels and infrastructure that have sprung up along the Red Sea coast to cater for the country's burgeoning tourist industry. And because of the political situation in Eritrea, many countries have no extradition arrangements with the country.
So, whilst Libya has never been particularly interested in the views of the rest of the world when it comes to the fate of refugees and prisoners in its jails, Libya has superficially followed this convention. We say superficially, as reportedly it has a tacit agreement with Eritrea to return its nationals and, according to the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, it has "allowed the IOM to open an EU-funded centre in March 2008 to return migrants as “a complementary concept to deportations.”" Additionally, in January this year it secretly deported 12 Eritreans who had previously been either government officials or in the military. Their fate is unknown.
Tuesday, 29 June 2010
If The Cap Doesn't Fit
It was highly amusing yesterday listening to the leopardskin-print be-pumped new Home Secretary Teresa May as she squirmed during a BBC radio interview. In time-honoured politician mode, she sought to outline the latest policy, this time on the new LibCon temporary immigration 'cap', whilst studiously avoiding actually talking directly about it or answering any of the questions put to her by Sarah Montague, the interviewer.
Needless to say she repeated the arch Tory hypocrisy of their seeking to curb Labour's 'uncontrolled' immigration policy whilst in the same breath saying that they would seek to tighten immigration controls on people coming into the country to marry, controls that obviously were in place when Labour were in power. May also refused to address the question as to how the government would manage to limit immigration in the light of existing rates of migration from existing EU-accession countries, something which they can have little or no control over, short of leaving the EU. Instead she talked about controlling migration from future accession countries and, rather irrelevantly, constantly referring to the introduction of "a cap on non-EU 'economic migrants'" and trying to learn from how non-EU countries control immigration during the planned 12-week consultation on the implementation of the full 'cap'.
This errant bollox is a typical politician's PR effort designed to cover up the simple fact that the Tories' pre-election promise of returning net migration rates to the tens of thousands of the halcyon days of Thatcher, down from Labour's supposedly 'uncontrolled' hundreds of thousands, is unachievable. Why, and what about this temporary 'cap'?
On the 'cap' front*, what Mark Easton called a "tiny tweak" that's "not even a knotted handkerchief"**, the government plan for a maximum of 24,100 non-EU workers tol be allowed into Britain up till April next year, down by 1,300 on 2009 or a mere 5% reduction. The Financial Times went as far as labelling this temporary 'cap' a "shabby policy". Going on to say, "Labour’s points-based system was already limiting non-EU migration to high flyers or people working in professions with skills gaps. Indeed, if the coalition had left well alone, the number of arrivals would feasibly have fallen further than its interim cap."***
As to the efficacy of returning net migration rates to the '90s, we need to look at some current figures:
Year ending September 2009 net UK migration was 142,000 [503,000 people coming to live and work minus 361,000 leaving].
Of the 503,000, 270,000 (53%) were non-EU citizens; 183,000 were here to study, 176,000 to work and 80,000 were either accompanying someone here to work or study or were arriving to join someone already in the country.
In the first 3 months of 2010, 406,455 visas were issued.
367,145 were for temporary residence (temporary employment, student visas, visitors, etc.).
Less than 10% (39,310) were for permanent settlement or residence.
Only 6,685 of these were Tier 1 (highly skilled workers, leading to settlement) and 16,915 Tier 2 (skilled workers) visas.
In the same quarter, 2.25m (7.84%) of the UK workforce were non-UK nationals, of which 1.235m or 55% were non-EU nationals.
In 2006 the IPPR estimated that 5.5m Britons were living and working abroad, equivalent to 9% of the current UK population. Of these, 40% (2.2m) were classified as professional/managerial. [See also]
The estimated population of non-UK nationals in Britain (Oct 08 - Sept 09) was 4.3m (7.1%). [ONS]
So, whilst its interesting to note that there are many more UK citizens living abroad than non-UK citizen living in the UK, that doesn't concern us here. What does is where this cut from 142,000 to under 100,000 could be achieved, if at all, given that only half of all in-migration can be targeted. Labour's points based system is already severely squeezing visas for non-EU professionals (though not the endless stream of useless overpaid Premier League footballers), so extending the temporary 'cap' is a non-starter, especially as the business world is up in arms about it. For example, one of the largest non-EU groups to be hit further would be Indian nationals, whose lack of new visas (along with those for other subcontinent nationals) has already hit the curry restaurant business, rasing fears of a country-wide biryani-shortage.
One possible area has already been flagged up - foreign national spouses, with the newly proposed covertly-racist language tests.**** Overseas students are the next and most obvious large target (273,610 last year). However, cutting numbers back here could have a drastic economic effect. The income from foreign students (estimated to be £12bn) subsidises further education provision for UK students and cutting foreign student numbers would inevitably force universities and colleges to close, in addition to the obviously vulnerable foreign languages schools. Yet many universities and colleges will already be suffering from the loss of foreign lecturers due to the cap.
Yet, all these potential areas for cuts do not look capable of producing the tens of thousands needed to get back to Cameron's idyllic 1990's figure of 50,000. Sadly, all this anti-immigration bluster may well be exactly what it appears to be - window dressing to get them elected and to keep the Right Whingers onboard. In fact, net migration may well have ended up at less than 100,000 anyway, with little or no help from the government, largely through the effect of the global recession and the ending of the transition arrangements for A8 states brought in by EU countries such as Germany.
* The peak? Though that depends on which way round one wears it.
**"The tiny tweak to the immigration rules announced [yesterday] by the Home Office is not a cap. It's not even a knotted handkerchief." Mark Easton is usually eminently readable on migration matters and invariably cuts through all the spin and bullshit.
*** For example, in the last 9 months there has been a 15% fall in applications by skilled migrants from outside the EU anyway. Plus, the limit is on a 'first come, first served basis' and the 'cap' might be reached after only a few months with pressure from the private sector leading to the government increasing the limit, and the cap does not apply to 'intracompany transfers' leaving open another back door for entry.
**** Mark Easton suggests that "The real issue here is not integration or removing cultural barriers, it might be argued. It is about trying to reduce the economic impact of a legacy of British colonial rule." We somehow doubt whether your average Tory really bothers that much about "the economic impact of a legacy of British colonial rule."
Needless to say she repeated the arch Tory hypocrisy of their seeking to curb Labour's 'uncontrolled' immigration policy whilst in the same breath saying that they would seek to tighten immigration controls on people coming into the country to marry, controls that obviously were in place when Labour were in power. May also refused to address the question as to how the government would manage to limit immigration in the light of existing rates of migration from existing EU-accession countries, something which they can have little or no control over, short of leaving the EU. Instead she talked about controlling migration from future accession countries and, rather irrelevantly, constantly referring to the introduction of "a cap on non-EU 'economic migrants'" and trying to learn from how non-EU countries control immigration during the planned 12-week consultation on the implementation of the full 'cap'.
This errant bollox is a typical politician's PR effort designed to cover up the simple fact that the Tories' pre-election promise of returning net migration rates to the tens of thousands of the halcyon days of Thatcher, down from Labour's supposedly 'uncontrolled' hundreds of thousands, is unachievable. Why, and what about this temporary 'cap'?
On the 'cap' front*, what Mark Easton called a "tiny tweak" that's "not even a knotted handkerchief"**, the government plan for a maximum of 24,100 non-EU workers tol be allowed into Britain up till April next year, down by 1,300 on 2009 or a mere 5% reduction. The Financial Times went as far as labelling this temporary 'cap' a "shabby policy". Going on to say, "Labour’s points-based system was already limiting non-EU migration to high flyers or people working in professions with skills gaps. Indeed, if the coalition had left well alone, the number of arrivals would feasibly have fallen further than its interim cap."***
As to the efficacy of returning net migration rates to the '90s, we need to look at some current figures:
Year ending September 2009 net UK migration was 142,000 [503,000 people coming to live and work minus 361,000 leaving].
Of the 503,000, 270,000 (53%) were non-EU citizens; 183,000 were here to study, 176,000 to work and 80,000 were either accompanying someone here to work or study or were arriving to join someone already in the country.
In the first 3 months of 2010, 406,455 visas were issued.
367,145 were for temporary residence (temporary employment, student visas, visitors, etc.).
Less than 10% (39,310) were for permanent settlement or residence.
Only 6,685 of these were Tier 1 (highly skilled workers, leading to settlement) and 16,915 Tier 2 (skilled workers) visas.
In the same quarter, 2.25m (7.84%) of the UK workforce were non-UK nationals, of which 1.235m or 55% were non-EU nationals.
In 2006 the IPPR estimated that 5.5m Britons were living and working abroad, equivalent to 9% of the current UK population. Of these, 40% (2.2m) were classified as professional/managerial. [See also]
The estimated population of non-UK nationals in Britain (Oct 08 - Sept 09) was 4.3m (7.1%). [ONS]
So, whilst its interesting to note that there are many more UK citizens living abroad than non-UK citizen living in the UK, that doesn't concern us here. What does is where this cut from 142,000 to under 100,000 could be achieved, if at all, given that only half of all in-migration can be targeted. Labour's points based system is already severely squeezing visas for non-EU professionals (though not the endless stream of useless overpaid Premier League footballers), so extending the temporary 'cap' is a non-starter, especially as the business world is up in arms about it. For example, one of the largest non-EU groups to be hit further would be Indian nationals, whose lack of new visas (along with those for other subcontinent nationals) has already hit the curry restaurant business, rasing fears of a country-wide biryani-shortage.
One possible area has already been flagged up - foreign national spouses, with the newly proposed covertly-racist language tests.**** Overseas students are the next and most obvious large target (273,610 last year). However, cutting numbers back here could have a drastic economic effect. The income from foreign students (estimated to be £12bn) subsidises further education provision for UK students and cutting foreign student numbers would inevitably force universities and colleges to close, in addition to the obviously vulnerable foreign languages schools. Yet many universities and colleges will already be suffering from the loss of foreign lecturers due to the cap.
Yet, all these potential areas for cuts do not look capable of producing the tens of thousands needed to get back to Cameron's idyllic 1990's figure of 50,000. Sadly, all this anti-immigration bluster may well be exactly what it appears to be - window dressing to get them elected and to keep the Right Whingers onboard. In fact, net migration may well have ended up at less than 100,000 anyway, with little or no help from the government, largely through the effect of the global recession and the ending of the transition arrangements for A8 states brought in by EU countries such as Germany.
* The peak? Though that depends on which way round one wears it.
**"The tiny tweak to the immigration rules announced [yesterday] by the Home Office is not a cap. It's not even a knotted handkerchief." Mark Easton is usually eminently readable on migration matters and invariably cuts through all the spin and bullshit.
*** For example, in the last 9 months there has been a 15% fall in applications by skilled migrants from outside the EU anyway. Plus, the limit is on a 'first come, first served basis' and the 'cap' might be reached after only a few months with pressure from the private sector leading to the government increasing the limit, and the cap does not apply to 'intracompany transfers' leaving open another back door for entry.
**** Mark Easton suggests that "The real issue here is not integration or removing cultural barriers, it might be argued. It is about trying to reduce the economic impact of a legacy of British colonial rule." We somehow doubt whether your average Tory really bothers that much about "the economic impact of a legacy of British colonial rule."
Thursday, 24 June 2010
Plans For Bullingdon Detention Centre Dropped
Plans to build the largest immigration detention centre in Europe on the Bullingdon site near Bicester have been dropped. The long mooted plan for the 800 place Category C-standard immigration prison to be built on ex-military land close to HMP Bullingdon are victims of the new government's massive cutbacks. No doubt the new LibCon immigration minister Damian 'The Omen' Green found this particularly galling news to have to announce that "the construction of the centre is currently unaffordable under current plans". Nevertheless, he can comfort himself that there are plans afoot to convert Category D HMP Morton Hall, and possibly part or all of the rebuilt HMP Ashwell, into detention centres, the decisions on which will probably be announced in the run up to the new governmental spending review this autumn.
Battle To Save RMJ Fails
Refugee and Migrant Justice administration update:
Refugee and Migrant Justice is saddened to announced that a last-minute rescue plan to save the organisation has not succeeded.
After launching an emergency appeal for funds, £76,525 was pledged by members of the public within a 24 hour period and a number of charitable trusts and organisations offered significant support. However, talks with the Legal Services Commission, RMJ's main funder, were unsuccessful.
The administrators BDO are now in the process of winding down the organisation.
People who kindly pledged money to RMJ are being informed and their money will be returned.
Caroline Slocock, chief executive of Refugee and Migrant Justice said: "During this period, RMJ has received the most amazing support from supporters and we were overwhelmed and touched by the offers of financial help in response to our campaign. We would like to thank everyone who has tried to save RMJ and very much regret that it has not been possible."
Refugee and Migrant Justice is saddened to announced that a last-minute rescue plan to save the organisation has not succeeded.
After launching an emergency appeal for funds, £76,525 was pledged by members of the public within a 24 hour period and a number of charitable trusts and organisations offered significant support. However, talks with the Legal Services Commission, RMJ's main funder, were unsuccessful.
The administrators BDO are now in the process of winding down the organisation.
People who kindly pledged money to RMJ are being informed and their money will be returned.
Caroline Slocock, chief executive of Refugee and Migrant Justice said: "During this period, RMJ has received the most amazing support from supporters and we were overwhelmed and touched by the offers of financial help in response to our campaign. We would like to thank everyone who has tried to save RMJ and very much regret that it has not been possible."
Tuesday, 22 June 2010
Are The PCC & NUJ Doing Enough To Stop Racist Press?
Given the amount of ongoing racism in the UK press, maybe it is time to remind the Press Complaints Commission and the National Union of Journalists, who ostensibly have strict rules against ‘prejudicial’ and ‘pejorative’ reporting, that they are not doing their job properly.
Clause 12 of the Press Complaints Commission’s Editors’ Code of Practice relates to discrimination and suggests that prejudicial or pejorative remarks about race and other personal traits and social groupings should be avoided.
i) The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual’s race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability.
ii) Details of an individual’s race, colour, religion, sexual orientation, physical or mental illness or disability must be avoided unless genuinely relevant to the story.
Similarly, Clause 10 of the National Union of Journalists’ Code of Conduct, by which all NUJ members are expected to abide, states that:
A journalist… produces no material likely to lead to hatred or discrimination on the grounds of a person’s age, gender, race, colour, creed, legal status, disability, marital status, or sexual orientation.
In addition, the union’s Black Members Council has produced Guidelines on Race Reporting, which many (white) members have clearly breached over the years.
So are the journalists and editors, whom this blog was set to expose, abiding by these rules? Clearly not. And are the PCC and NUJ doing enough to stop them? Clearly not.
If you would like to remind them of that, perhaps with a few recent examples, here are their contact details:
Press Complaints Commission
Halton House
20/23 Holborn
London EC1N 2JD
Online complaint form: http://www.pcc.org.uk/complaints/form.html
Email: complaints@pcc.org.uk
The NUJ
Headland House
308-312 Gray’s Inn Road
London
WC1X 8DP
Email: info@nuj.org.uk
Ethics Council: ethics@nuj.org.uk
Equality Council: lenac@nuj.org.uk
Press Action
Clause 12 of the Press Complaints Commission’s Editors’ Code of Practice relates to discrimination and suggests that prejudicial or pejorative remarks about race and other personal traits and social groupings should be avoided.
i) The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual’s race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability.
ii) Details of an individual’s race, colour, religion, sexual orientation, physical or mental illness or disability must be avoided unless genuinely relevant to the story.
Similarly, Clause 10 of the National Union of Journalists’ Code of Conduct, by which all NUJ members are expected to abide, states that:
A journalist… produces no material likely to lead to hatred or discrimination on the grounds of a person’s age, gender, race, colour, creed, legal status, disability, marital status, or sexual orientation.
In addition, the union’s Black Members Council has produced Guidelines on Race Reporting, which many (white) members have clearly breached over the years.
So are the journalists and editors, whom this blog was set to expose, abiding by these rules? Clearly not. And are the PCC and NUJ doing enough to stop them? Clearly not.
If you would like to remind them of that, perhaps with a few recent examples, here are their contact details:
Press Complaints Commission
Halton House
20/23 Holborn
London EC1N 2JD
Online complaint form: http://www.pcc.org.uk/complaints/form.html
Email: complaints@pcc.org.uk
The NUJ
Headland House
308-312 Gray’s Inn Road
London
WC1X 8DP
Email: info@nuj.org.uk
Ethics Council: ethics@nuj.org.uk
Equality Council: lenac@nuj.org.uk
Press Action
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)