More threats from the Deman mob
Apologies to those who would have like to continue commenting on the post about Dr Suresh Deman, the vexatious litigator who has been banned from taking legal action in England, Scotland and Wales after launching a string of spurious racial discrimination cases against academic institutions.
Although their comments were automatically blacklisted, the number of abusive, threatening and racist comments I was receiving from the Deman mob was getting beyond a joke.
So far I have been called a white supremecist, a racist ignorant, a zionist Labour mafia collaborator, dozy, sexist, a paid harasser or stalker, a firebrand racist, a racist idiotic jerk, a self-entangled racist idiotic jerk, an under achiever and chicken shit variously by Dr D’Silva, Mrs Mayo-Deman and Council for Ethnic Minority. Mostly by Council for Ethnic Minority actually.
Then this morning I received this email which is, to be quite frank, a complete joke considering the racist abuse I’ve been getting from this bunch of illiberal cretins:
Dear Mr Stuart Parr:
Now that you have blocked our comments and many other professionals’ comments exposing your disparaging campaign and white supremacist racist nonsense we have no choice but to contact you by e-mail. It appears you do not want to receive from others as there is not even a shred of evidence that either Mrs Mayo-Deman or Dr DSilva used their employers’ equipments to expose your extremely offencive views and nonsense.
Please be advised to let us know your mailing address so that we could pass it on to our solicitors to serve you a formal Pre Action Protocol Warning of defamation and racial harassment. Let us know how many proxi names you have been using to perpetuate myth of lies and deceits on your website.
We are looking forward to hearing from you ASAP.
Yours sincerely,
C. Kumar & Mrs S. Mahdevan
Coordinators
It was tempting to ignore it because I’ve already told them several times that this blog is published by a limited company and as such all their correspondence should be put in writing to the limited company care of the legal compliance department of the hosting company. After all, when you have a problem with a newspaper article you don’t complain to the journalist, you complain to the publisher. But I replied anyway, generously giving them the same information again in as simple terms as possible.
To be honest, I’m thinking of going to the police and making a complaint about racial harassment. What do you reckon? Should I treat them with the contempt they deserve and ignore them or take the bull by the horns and make a complaint about racial harassment?
Technorati Tags: Deman, Harassment
This entry was posted
by wonkotsane on Wednesday, February 27th, 2008 at 8:30 am and is filed under General.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Are you nuts? You know exactly how the thought police will react. These people are what junk mail filters are for.
February 27th, 2008 at 10:54 amGo for it. Whether I agree with you or not is irrelevant, there are too many people willing to stamp on peoples right to any sort of free speech these days, and most of them seem to do it by bullyingly playing the ‘racist card’. Whatever happened to ‘I don’t agree with you, but I’ll defend your right to say it’ which used to be one of the signs of our free society?
February 27th, 2008 at 12:22 pmDitto MP, the only way we’ll fettle these numties is by standing up to them.
February 27th, 2008 at 2:01 pmIf they are too dumb or ‘foreign’ to understand what you have said, then tough….
February 27th, 2008 at 5:02 pmIf you give them enough rope, wonko…
February 27th, 2008 at 10:17 pmYou’re right Andy but when you consider that I’m a supporter of Palestine and vocally anti-BNP, it’s a bit shitty when people like that come along and start throwing around all those accusations.
If anyone is interested in talking to these people, perhaps to give them an insight into what I’m really like because they haven’t bothered to read anything else I’ve written, then their email addresses are as follows:
s_deman2000@yahoo.co.uk
c.dsilva@mmu.ac.uk
tribunals_racialbias@yahoo.co.uk
edd_rider@yahoo.co.uk
jmayodeman@yahoo.co.uk
I strongly advise against saying anything inflamatory as you don’t all want to be on the receiving end of the same racial abuse that I’m getting!
I’d be interested to know if any other bloggers have got this same abuse from reporting on this story. I know that the same people have put the same few comments on different blogs that covered the story. I wonder if I was simply the only one to stand up to them and that’s the reason why they’ve started this vendetta against me.
February 27th, 2008 at 11:17 pmWell Wonko, “white supremacist”, “racist”, “zionist”, and “labour supporter”…
This isn’t the blogging companero I know. I think ignorance is best rewarded with ignorance, but if you feel harrassed you should make a complaint.
As an avid reader of your blog, I can say that you are being slandered. If you feel that your reputation is under attack, you should complain to the relevant authorities - otherwise, treat ignorance with ignorance.
February 28th, 2008 at 1:15 amMore emails:
Dear Mr Parr
I don’t know who the hell you are but I can only sympathise with your belligerent conduct as the difference between the beast and human beings is that beast have horns outside for their own protection but human beings have them inside which they use to hurt many victims like Dr D’Silva, Mrs Mayo-Deman and myself. People like you must be dealt with extreme care.
S Deman
I replied:
If I may remind you that I merely repeated a story in a national newspaper and expressed an opinion. This “campaign” that your wife and CEM insist I am waging against you is a fiction of your deranged imagination. The post had not been commented on for months until your wife decided to drag it up by posting a comment concealing her true identity. It was only when I “outed” Mrs Mayo as Mrs Mayo-Deman that the problems started when she, CEM
and Dr D’Silva started posting racially abusive and threating comments.
You may have bullied people in the past with your accusations of racism but you won’t bully me. The blog is published by a limited company with no assets - sue the company if you like, it doesn’t trade. At no time have I said anything racist and, far from harassing you or anyone else, I have tried to stop the abusive and racist comments from your wife, CEM and Dr
D’Silva. As for the accusation of intimidation - how can I intimidate a professor with a doctorate? You and your associates are, in fact, attempting to intimidate me with threats of legal action for exercising my right to free speech.
Do not continue to harass me.
Then I got this:
Dear Mr Parr:
I guess brevity is the virtue. I want you to put facts right with an apology as your demand for deportation is based on wrong facts and racially motivated. CEM has outlined factual inaccuracies in your reporting and yet you did nothing about it. I assure you no one has guts to deport me as they tried in Northern Ireland in 1995 but failed. Although I am not crazy to live in one country having worked in 8 countries but I decide when I leave my place of residence. Certainly, you are not a victim, I am. And yet you do not let me put my thoughts on your Wonko or Junko Web. I am not interested in money but I will make sure that you do not play the game of Zionist Labour/Employers Racist mafia to discredit my colleagues and myself. We have people every where I wonder how will you get rid of them. By the way Mohammad Ali’s trainer’s wife was here with me (an old friend from Pittsburgh) and my attorney who did case in Pittsburgh became President of Bar Council. I will approach him shortly to deal with your company in Pennsylvania. This is only the beginning once more people know you will get more e-mail and letters. I have done trade unionism and journalism too. I was offered a Parliament seat in 1977 when Emergency was revoked in India but I chose to continue in academics. I am afraid you might go crazy.
Suresh Deman
To CEM I said:
Please be advised that I will tell you nothing – you have no right to ask any questions of me. For the Race Relations Act to be relevant I would first have to be guilty of a racially motivated crime which I’m not so how about you read and digest the contents of the email I sent to Dr Deman in which I explained that neither myself or the company that publishes the blog has any money or assets whatsoever. I’m afraid Dr Deman will have to find another target to top up his litigation fund.
Don’t bother replying to this email because I’ve given you contact details for the publisher of the blog several times. Send your correspondence in writing to the publisher but make sure that you back up your false accusations of racism in precise detail because, as laid back and tolerant as I am, you really are trying my patience. It may have escaped your notice but people I don’t know are commenting in support of me yet the only people defending Dr Deman are you, his wife and his friend Dr D’Silva. Does that not tell you something? For every false accusation, libellous comment and racial slur you attack me with, I can produce 10 people that will vouch for my good character and 10 articles I’ve written that will prove you to be ill-informed liars.
If only you had read more than one post on the blog you would realise just how incredibly wrong you are about me. But then you’re not interested in facts are you?
To which they replied:
Mr Parr:
You can bring your pit bulls to the trial we are sure they will run away with their tails between the legs. You do not have bonafides for your self entanged commentators. They appear to be your own creation like the Daily Mail. Didn’t you go police yet?
Coordinator
So there you go, evidence if evidence were needed, that their sole intention is to harass me - “I am afraid you might go crazy” - that email was cc’d to 15 people who presumably are in this racial harassment cartel.
And the Deman crew still insist they’re the vicitims. I’ll be printing all this off and taking it to the police, probably today, they can’t be allowed to get away with such blatant criminal activity.
February 28th, 2008 at 8:22 amWhat on Earth do they think the courts in Pennsylvania can do to you?
February 28th, 2008 at 5:48 pmConsidering it seems like these people are intent on bringing some form of case against you, they seem to be going about it in quite an interesting way.
That is, if you define “interesting” as doing to you what they say you are doing to them.
People seem to forget that racism can ofthen work the other way around, and I think this is a prime example of that.
February 28th, 2008 at 6:21 pmIs’nt it strange, that as a published academic, it is not until you are well down the second page of a google search that any articles appear?
This is the best one
http://atangledweb.squarespace.com/httpatangledwebsquarespace/suresh-is-deman.html
Jings!!!!!!!!!!!!
I wonder if we will get him up here because we too have a seperate legal system?
February 28th, 2008 at 7:48 pmI enjoyed a few days without receiving any more racial harassment from the Demans until this evening when Dr Deman emailed me a copy of a MySpace profile for someone with my name. I don’t use MySpace but never mind. Looks like he’s trying to track me down instead of writing to the publisher like he’s been told - I’ve even given him a correspondence address several times! Unfortunately for Dr Deman, there are actually an exceptionally high number of people sharing my name down this neck of the woods - second only to the Lancashire area and London I believe. I’ve added his email address to the spam filter now anyway, I’ve wasted enough time on this jumped up hypocrite.
March 3rd, 2008 at 8:13 pmNow that I’ve blocked Dr Deman’s emails at the server I’ve had an email from Commission for Ethnic Minority [sic] again asking for my address despite telling the whole group of them by email and on this blog a care of address they can use to write to the publisher of the blog and including a Word document about a picket of the Press Complaints Commission - perhaps they think I might want to attend their picket or something?
They just don’t seem to be taking the hint. I think perhaps they see me as an easier target than the Daily Mail because all I did was repeat a story in the Daily Mail and they don’t seem to be giving the Daily Mail grief over it.
Anyway, I’ve emailed them back explaining that I’ve given them all an opportunity to tell me exactly what they find racist and/or offensive but they have refused to do so. All I got back from Dr Deman was a refusal and more threats which further proves that they are only interested in pursuing a racially motivated vendetta against me. I’ve blocked their email address as well so no doubt the next person to send me an email will be Dr D’Silva, he seems to be the next one down in the pecking order.
March 5th, 2008 at 8:04 amI have just read this
http://www.bignewsnetwork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16379&p=69530
Are they serious? To me it doesn’t make much sense for them to libel you and then try to threaten you with legal action. They’ve put ample evidence against themselves in the public domain. I can only assume that they are trying to intimidate you into backing down
March 21st, 2008 at 3:12 pmFrom the link
‘Mr Stuart Parr alias Woncotsane
Owners of Wonko blog
University of London’
What is the connection with University of London?
Or is there something, I am missing?
March 21st, 2008 at 7:44 pmNo idea. I didn’t ask!
March 22nd, 2008 at 10:14 amMr Winkotsane:
I am bit disappointed that you have edited an earlier version of sequence of events about Prof. Deman. It is unfair to the receiving party as the link is missing. For example, there is reference to inaccurate facts but you have removed those letters. I wonder why?
You must note, even if you have published exactly what was in the Daily Mail (thoguh you are not rigth a they did not say, “send him home”), still you will be liable, if facts were inaccurate becaue you have circulated wrong facts.
Vladmir
April 23rd, 2008 at 12:02 amNothing’s been edited, that’s why Deman has got one on him - he wants me to go back and take out anything that he doesn’t like and I’m not going to do that, I’m not a revisionist. If he’d taken the Daily Mail to court and got them to change their story (which he didn’t) then I’d have published the Daily Mail’s retraction.
I really can’t believe that you people have nothing better to do with your time than try this website every day just to wait until I removed the ban on your IP addresses. Get a hobby or something, you really have to find something better to do with your time or you’re just going to end up spending the rest of your life looking for excuses to play the victim.
And thanks for the legal advice but I don’t need to it - I already spoke to a solicitor friend who specialises in civil litigation and confirmed that I’ve done nothing wrong. As for your specific example of me saying “send him home”, there’s nothing wrong with me saying that - despite the best efforts of people like Dr Deman and his racist associates, free speech still exists in England even when the person you’re talking about is asian.
If the racism and threats start again I’ll just block you all again so don’t bother.
April 23rd, 2008 at 7:53 amMr WONKO COME ON & GET REAL - NO FREE FREE SPEECH HERE
I SAW ON Cemkumar.googlepages.com-DOES NOT SUPPORT YOUR STORY
INSTITUTIONALISED RACISM IN THE HIGHER EDUCATION
UCU ELECTION 2007-GOT 1451 VOTES AGAINST UCU CAND.
An interesting story of Dr D’Silva published in CAFAS Update No. 52 has prompted us to follow up the story on the Institutionalised Discrimination extended across the Higher Education Sector although an empirical attempt was made in a study by John Carter, Steve Fenton & Tariq Modood funded by the CRE, AUT, NATHFE, CUCO, CVCP, HEFCE, & SHEFC and others, indicting widespread institutionalised racism within the HE Sector, see: Ethnicity & Employment in Higher Education 1999. Unfortunately, the findings of that study have long been forgotten. Like Sir William McPherson’s Report on Steve Lawrence Enquiry, it has become a bedside reading for the racist employers and public relations exercise for the trade unions without proper groundwork being done on ‘shop floor’. In Dr D’Silva’s case readers have seen an example of institutionalised discrimination within a single organisation, Manchester Metropolitan University. However, in the present story you would find how the Academic Institutions could put in place a discriminatory regime to close the ranks and carry out the acts discrimination and victimisation against the whistle blowers. In this regard we draw attention to Stephen Lawrence enquiry Chaired by Sir William McPherson of Cluny who defined institutionalised racism as follows:
“The collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture, or ethnic origin. It can be seen or detected in process, attitude and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwittingly prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people” [paragraph 6.34].
The above principles apply even if every one in an organisation is not individually racist. Since the Institutionalised Racism is not a legally accepted phraseology Court of Appeal in Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis v J Hendricks [2002] reformulated the definition of institutionalized racism as follows:
“To describe an ongoing situation or state of affairs was, the Court of Appeal said, a more precise way of characterising Ms Hendricks’ case than to use “institutionalised racism” or a “prevailing way of life”, a “general policy of discrimination”, or a “climate” or “culture” of unlawful discrimination”.
Academic Background:
Mr Deman has received an overwhelming support for his nomination for the NEC Black Membership in University College Union Elections 2007 across the United Kingdom, i.e., from Northern Ireland, Scotland, England & Wales and also form overseas. Some of these people are also members of the Council for Ethnic Minority and Council for Academic Freedom. Since Mr Deman does not personally know many of those who nominated him we thought we provide the members some background information about his academic history, experiences of employment problems and commitment to the Trade Union movement.
Mr Deman obtained his BSc, MA & MPhil from India and an MA & DBA from one of the top universities in the World, the University of Pittsburgh, and he also has an M. Phil from the UK. He has travelled internationally presenting his research in about 50 countries and has worked in India, Poland, US, Australia, Japan, Northern Ireland, New Zealand and in London as an Assistant Professor/Visiting Professor, Lecturer, Senior Lecturer, Research Fellow, Research Coordinator, and Professor. His main research interest is theoretical modelling of corporate takeovers and acquisitions and the policy implications on society at large. He has published about 30 research papers and books articles and he has served on the United Nations Expert Group Panel for UNEP/UNCTAD. The UNEP invited him to contribute an article on Environmental Compliance, which included incorporating Health & Safety and Affirmative action into the modelling. His research paper was published in the UNEP Report in 1994 with an extended mathematical version published in the proceedings of the International Performance & Measurement Conference, held at Cambridge University in 1998. He was invited to contribute 5 leading articles in Blackwell’s International Encyclopaedia of Finance, edited by Professors Paxton and Wood of the University of Manchester and two chapters in refereed edited volumes, published by Oxford and Cambridge Press, and other three accepted. Further, his Managerial Decision Economics & Advances in Econometrics [1994] papers were highly rated by his peers.
Mr Deman’s articles are indexed in the Journal of Economic Literature, and the Social Sciences Citation Index and has presented his papers in the Royal Economic Society, Econometrics Society and American Economics Association, International Finance Association, etc, conferences and in 1997 he was given the best papers award. He attended a Postgraduate Supervisors’ Training Programme at the University of Warwick and he is a qualified Ph.D. supervisor and has supervised MA/MSc/MPhil/PhD work. He has served on the Postgraduate Research Committees and has written guidelines for Research Supervisors and Ph.D. students. He was the co-coordinator of Faculty Seminars and has also served on the Faculty Post-Graduate Research Committee at the Queen’s University Belfast and on the University Senate and Faculty Committees in the US and India.
Trade Union Background
Mr Deman is an active member of Civil Liberties and Human Rights organizations. Given his background he is keenly interested in the plight of people of oppressed and ethnic minorities all over the world. He is a committed trade unionist with considerable trade union experience including working closely with the former Defence Minister of India, Mr. George Fernandez during an Industrial Action of 2 million Railway Workers in 1974. He has also worked with Mr. Prakash Karat, the present General Secretary of the CPIM, when he was President of the ‘Students’ Federation of India, Centre for Indian Trade Unions [CITU], Rajasthan University Teachers’ Association, University Senate and the All Indian Federation of University and College Teachers Organisation. He has been a founder member of a number organisations including Civil Rights movements in the UK and elsewhere. He has never hesitated to voice his opinion on issues surrounding the right to a fair hearing, unfair dismissals, racial discrimination and victimization. Mr Deman was also one of the founders of the Council for Ethnic Minority, which assists victims in the Employment Tribunal [tribunals_racialbias@yahoo.co.uk].
In the late 1990s Mr Deman actively campaigned for Race Relation Legislation in Northern Ireland, which finally became a reality. The BBC interviewed me on a programme entitled, “Hidden Troubles in Northern Ireland” and he was called to the ITV on current affair programmes to comment on changes in legislation. In the wider context he has made representation on reforms in the Employment Tribunals system including policies and practices to provide a “level playing field” for individuals taking complaints against their employers in the Tribunals and the EAT. We outlined our suggestions to Lord Chancellor who had agreed to discuss with us:
1. Complaints procedure and methods of investigation of complaints against members of the judiciary of the ET/EAT and County Courts;
2. Examples of specific and general complaints to overcome the generic argument, “we can’t do anything on the basis of one complaint”;
3. Institutionalised bias of the Employment Tribunals/Courts against the litigants in person;
4. Problems of administration of justice in the Employment Tribunals & EAT (Following decision of House of Lords in Lawal v Northern Spirit Ltd);
5. Problems with Appeal Procedure re: Visitorial jurisdiction & Legal Aid;
6. Absence of Human Rights in the RRA/Employment Law & Legal aid in ET
7. Suggestions for Reforms: Discrimination cases must be tried by a Jury, limiting role of Tribunal Chairmen on fact findings, mandatory reinstatement, rewards and penalties including punitive damages, etc.
Experience of AUT/NATHFE:
With his commitment to trade unionism Mr Deman was extremely disappointed in the functioning of Trade Unions in the Higher Education and the attitude of the leadership. They appeared to be more interested in the public relation exercise by putting a few people of ethnic minority on the front desk rather than undertaking the real work on “the shop floor.” Many like me who approached them for assistance received platitudes rather than assistance. Thus an individual member seeking a resolution of an employment problem is often brought into conflict not only with his employer but also with his/her union that is supposed to assist in employment problems.
This is demonstrated by the fact that in the period 1997-2004, there were 16 claims of racial discrimination against the Union of which an Iranian member won 2 claims, 6 were settled (including one Iranian member, the union admitted liability in 2 claims), three claims were withdrawn and three are pending. Any member considering that the union is there to help him or her in employment difficulties should feel alarmed at these statistics. The above claims do not include claims against the AUT but we suspect the picture is not different as we are aware 7 claims by members of Indian origin in Central London Tribunal, 1 claim by a Chinese in Glasgow Tribunal, 2 by an Indian in Northern Ireland Tribunal are registered against the AUT & its officers.
Mr Deman’s own experiences with the AUT/NATFHE mirror these experiences. He first experienced discrimination in the US and after a long battle of 6 years in 1994 the Federal Court of Pennsylvania in a Jury trial found Professor Kevin Sontheimer, Head of Department and the University of Pittsburgh guilty of racial discrimination. Despite a unanimous verdict by 6 members of the jury the University of Pittsburgh instructed one of the largest Law Firm, Reid, Smith & McCauley [with over 250 lawyers] to harass Mr Deman for 2 years to set aside the verdict but without success. Despite his success his past employer are still haunting him by sending one-sided view of his cases to his past & potential employers to victimise him. Unfortunately, his employers (past and present) chose to rely upon one-sided information and unsolicited references rather than the court transcripts. This statistics does not include internal complaints.
In Mr Deman’s claims in 1999 a Central London Tribunal found as follows:
“Dr Triesman was an impressive witness but he displayed a surprised degree of naiveté and ignorance as to the reality of discrimination on the shop floor. His evidence that everything was satisfactory in race terms within the AUT apart from the applicant’s complaint, displayed a surprised degree of ignorance and complacency: It does not follow from the facts that no-one other than the applicant had raised an official grievance under the rules – unlike the applicant – that all ethnic minority members are happy with the state of affairs within the union.” [1/1/44].
“The Tribunal found Dr Joanna DeGroot to be a patronising, unreliable and evasive witness. When asked by a Member of this Tribunal as to how many members of the York University were black, her glib, evasive and unhelpful reply was, “I don’t put labels on people” [1/1/42]
“Dr Triesman should meet with and pay heed to the views of members like Dr Saha, who was a most impressive witness, who wanted to work with and not against the AUT but who are very unhappy with the services provided by the AUT to ethnic minority members. When asked why he had not raised any internal grievance, his telling reply was, “Then I would have ended up like the Applicant”, i.e., in the Tribunal against the AUT, which is not the situation he would like to be in. [1/1/44]
Similarly, the EAT President Justice Lindsay commented in case against the AUT, Triesman and & others as follows:
“For a body, especially one which could be reasonably expected to be well informed and effective as the LAC, to escape a possible conclusion of racial discrimination on the grounds of its incompetence and corner-cutting is obviously unattractive and, if not carefully watched, the use of such an escape route could all too easily become endemic”.
However Justice Lindsay’s forewarning fell on deaf ears of the Union leadership. Although Mr. Triesman got a fast track promotion from General Secretary of AUT to the Labour Party General Secretary, to Lord Triesman as a Government whip, if one examines his record, he has done very little, if anything, for the union and its members. The union rather than uniting against the employers chose to unit against the victims.
When faced with employment problems and being turned down from receiving trade union support the individual academic has basically two choices to withdraw his or her complaint or take it forward on an individual basis facing overwhelming odds. Mr Deman personally chose the latter route and we must say it is a long hard road that Mr Deman would not wish any other individual to have to take.
Deman’s Treatment in the HE Sector & Tribunals Results:
Mr Deman has had his successes within the tribunal system in the rare cases where he received a fair hearing from a chairmen with an open mind who was not intimidated by the high powered and expensive employer’s legal teams. But one must bear in mind that the Employment Tribunals Service Annual Accounts for the year ended 31 March 2005 show only 3% of race discrimination cases were successful at tribunal. We summarise the findings in some of Mr Deman’s own cases [tried himself] which is as follows:
European School of Economics:
In case of European School of Economics the Tribunal concluded in paragraph 13.2 as follows:
“It is our unanimous judgement that the Respondents ESE and Dr Coates (who made the appointment) discriminated against the Claimant on the grounds of his race when Mr Vidgeon was short listed and appointed to the position of adjunct Lectureship and he was not and that this was to his detriment. It is our unanimous judgement that Dr Mitchell did not discriminate against the Respondent as she did not play any party in the appointment of Mr. Vidgeon”.
In relation to position of Assistant Academic Director the Tribunal in paragraph 13.2 concluded as follows:
“It is our unanimous judgement that the Respondents ESE and Dr Coates discriminated against the Claimant by treating the Claimant less favourably that Ms Lopez-Rodridze on grounds of his race by failing to short list or appoint him to the Assistant Academic Director post and that this was to his detriment.”
On 9 June 2005 the Tribunal awarded substantial damages, which after a lot of difficulties the Respondents agreed to pay and Mr. Deman cleared some of his debts to his solicitor from previous actions.
University of Greenwich & Russell Brockett, Director of Personnel:
In case of his past employer, the University of Greenwich & others in which the AUT & NATFHE refused to provide support believing that there were no prospects of success the Ashford Tribunal found as follows:
“Mr Geddes was capable of making racist comments” ……In our view, the Applicant was on this occasion genuinely of the opinion that the remark was racist. We consider that we are entitled to infer racial discrimination in that instance.” [para 70].
“Whichever account of the words used is preferred, the remark is unquestionably a racist stereotype and Mr Geddes is revealed as someone capable of ethnic stereotype.”[para 91].
“…comment made in at the Staff Assessment Panel meeting of 23 June 1999, at which Mr Geddes described half the subject group as “brain dead” and the other half as “idle bastards”. Given the clear indication of racist attitudes entertained by Mr Geddes, we believe that the proper inference to draw is that this remark was capable of interpretation as a from of racial discrimination and that the Applicant did so interpret”.
As to Russell Brockett, Director of Personnel, the Tribunals found as follows:
“We consider, however, that a serious procedural irregularity has occurred, depriving the Applicant of the right to a fair hearing. ”[para 87].
“In order to attract the defence, both elements must be present, but in our view even if this were not so it would be impossible to say that in a number of cases the Applicant’s complaints were made in bad faith.” ….In our view, that the alleged trouble-maker was protected by section 2 of the Act and the disadvantage to him occasioned by Mr Brockett’s actions inevitably constitute example of victimisation.” [para 117]
“We have said Russell Brockett was acting in effect as prosecuting counsel and that it was for the Applicant to defend himself. That does not alter the fact however, that Brockett may have been motivated to take that position by his desire to get rid of the Applicant.” [para 123].
“In our view, the proper inference to draw from the facts is that Mr Brockett had decided, probably some time in June or July, that his duty to deal with the Applicant’s trouble-making, albeit trouble-making by the raising of allegations of racial discrimination, in seeking the dismissal of the Applicant.” [para 124]
Greenwich EO Claim & Sir William McPherson Report:
Further, the University of Greenwich had been in breach of his own Equal Opportunity commitments as exemplified in its EO report and in the THES, though clamour for factual substantiation:
“Black and ethnic minority constitute 7% of staff who have returned monitoring information. This figure is considerably lower than the percentage of ethnic minority students (28%). The ethnic diversity of staff is also considerably less than the diversity of the population of the London region (20.2%).”
The official response (in reference to Sir William McPherson’s inquiry into the racist murder of Steve Lawrence) to the University Court was discussed in a joint consultative group meeting of the NATFHE, AUT (on page 3 of the minutes). Mr Brockett, Director of Personnel, said, “there had been only a small number (2?) of complaints of racial harassment that required investigation.” Clearly, Mr Brockett’s claim is contrary to the evidence gathered by our volunteer as the following cases are registered in the Ashford Employment Tribunal against the University of Greenwich, case #51442/96, 47503/96, 2302552/97, 2305534/97, 1102038/97, 1102147/97, 1100918/98, 1101208/98, 1101486/98, 1101610/98, 1102044/98, 1101341/99, 11014699/99, 1101618/99 and since then Dr Nejad, Dr Mehdian, Dr Nissan and many other have made claims against the University of Greenwich but got no support from the unions. This does not include a number of cases, which were pursued through internal proce