UK Politics

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Do Unions seriously go on strike over Israel etc?

Pistols at Dawn wrote:
No, lets call in the reps to mediate!

I've only just noticed your username.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Can we take the Unions discussion to its own thread?

**Ketara**

Whirlwind wrote:

@Ketara - This time I agree with you! Makes a change doesn't it!

The amusing thing is that about eighty pages back I was the one warning against Union influence in the Labour Party. That's the one thing that lets me know I still sit the middle of the fence, I argue with the people on both sides of it.

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Can we take the Unions discussion to its own thread?

Actually, you're right. This is going way OT (and eating up far too much of my time, I've spent about an hour typing on it today).

Orlanth? You win. Unions are all evil money grubbing rapacious bastards, etcetc.

Moving swiftly on....

Apparently inflation is going to be less than previously thought. Combined with still dropping unemployment, and a slight tilt upwards in wage growth, things aren't too bad.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38330862

Let's all cross our fingers and hope it stays that way.

**motyak**

Indeed, just to be clear that's the end of the union chat, thanks guys. Why can't the US thread be more like you, self-policing to an extent etc...

**Whirlwind**

Ketara wrote:

Apparently inflation is going to be less than previously thought. Combined with still dropping unemployment, and a slight tilt upwards in wage growth, things aren't too bad.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38330862

Let's all cross our fingers and hope it stays that way.

Didn't last long, 4 hours later BBC were reporting the pound sinking again by 1.45%

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38327135

The real issue will be if the OPEC suddenly decide to drive oil prices higher. Then we really are in for a world of hurt!

Also be wary about the employment figures (I'm arguing statistics again but at least they are provided!):-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38313110

The last paragraph states "The ONS is 95% confident that the figure of a 16,000 fall in unemployment is accurate give or take 81,000. That means that the fall in unemployment is not statistically significant."
Basically they are only 95% confident that employment has actually changed is somewhere between -97,000 to +65,000 (the previous month was pretty much the same). So unemployment could have also increased, we just don't have enough data to verify which side of the line it falls on.
Always remember the average figure they provide isn't the actual important value, it's the values between the two 95% significance figures that are!

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

motyak wrote:
Indeed, just to be clear that's the end of the union chat, thanks guys. Why can't the US thread be more like you, self-policing to an extent etc...

Because they're not civilised like us. Probably something to do with Tea - they disposed of all their tea.

**Kilkrazy**

godardc wrote:
So, how is it going on, since the Brexit ? Any noticeable change in your economy (I mean, have you noticed any impact, good or bad, on your daily life ?)

My personal economic life has been in the crapper for three years, but that is largely because the UK still hasn't recovered from the Global Triumph of Capitalism of 2008.

Brexit certainly will not help in the medium term (say 1-5 years.) Things may possibly get better after that. However I feel the UK will have suffered about 20 years of economic doldrums and it will take at least a decade of well above average growth to get back to where we were in 2007.

The thing about the unemployment figures is that someone can be made redundant from a £72,000 a year job, be unemployed for a year, get a job on £16,000 and is now counted as not unemployed. But that person's realistic life situation is vastly worse off and they certainly won't be spending to boost the economy and so on.

**Silent Puffin?**

Ketara wrote:
Mother of God......there's a certain beauty in brevity, and this isn't it. Once more unto the breach....

Its really not worth the effort, you will simply be met with a repeat of the last wall of text worded slightly differently.

I only respond to his more egregious 'contributions' at this stage.

godardc wrote:
So, how is it going on, since the Brexit ? Any noticeable change in your economy (I mean, have you noticed any impact, good or bad, on your daily life ?)

Its much too early, the real extent of the Brexit damage won't be known for years, probably over a decade. As it is the plummeting pound hasn't really affected consumer prices yet and things are bumping along much the same as before but everyone is waiting for the penny to drop.

**reds8n**

https://www.ft.com/content/a3d0eff4-c224-11e6-81c2-f57d90f6741a

Lloyd’s of London has become one of the first major City businesses to put a timetable on plans to move a part of its operations to the EU in preparation for Brexit.

The 328-year-old insurance market is choosing a destination from a shortlist of five and is likely to put a proposal to its members by February next year.

The market will then seek regulatory clearance for the subsidiary, which will be used to conduct business around the EU using the “passporting” system. This allows financial services businesses to conduct trade across the bloc from a single location.

John Nelson, Lloyd’s chairman, said the market had decided it needed to act sooner rather than later to protect the 11 per cent of its revenues coming from Europe.

“Insurance is a mobile business,” he said. “In common with other financial institutions, we need to put our plans in place — at least on a precautionary basis.”

Many specialist insurance and reinsurance companies use London as a base to access the rest of the EU, and say that if passporting disappears they will have to find new bases.

Dublin is expected to be popular, given its language, legal system and proximity to London. Beazley has said it will use Dublin as a base for EU operations and the Irish Central Bank has increased staff numbers in its insurance division by 25 per cent to cope with an expected influx of companies.

Lloyd’s preferred option remains to keep its European operations concentrated in London. The market might shelve its relocation plans if a “no change” deal is struck between the EU and London, allowing British financial businesses to trade freely through the single market. Mr Nelson has been one of the City’s most vocal campaigners for passporting rights to be part of any Brexit deal with the EU.

The market had also been considering setting up a network of branches across the continent, rather than a single subsidiary. That option has been shelved.

Lawyers say that Lloyd’s structure — it is a market composed of underwriting syndicates — poses challenges when it comes to setting up base elsewhere.

George Swan, an insurance partner at law firm Freshfields, says: ““Lloyd’s is a hybrid — it is a market, but for regulatory purposes it is treated as an insurer as well. The question would be whether regulators in other countries would need to put in place specific measures to regulate it.”

Many of the insurers that operate at Lloyd’s also have large non-Lloyd’s operations, and could transfer EU business to those operations if Lloyd’s cannot find a workable post-Brexit structure.

MPs and regulators are stepping up pressure on the government to buy the insurance industry more time by seeking transitional arrangements to avert a “cliff edge” effect after Brexit.

A House of Lords committee report called on ministers to make such arrangements a priority when Article 50 is triggered next year to prevent financial services firms from restructuring or relocating on the basis of a “worst-case” scenario.

The committee’s call has also been echoed by the UK’s top supervisor of banks and insurers, who told parliamentarians that transitional arrangements to smooth Britain’s exit from the European Union should ideally be agreed within nine months of the official Brexit mechanism being triggered.

Sam Woods, head of the Bank of England’s Prudential Regulation Authority, told the Treasury select committee: “The important thing is to have some kind of clarity on the transitional [deal], and the sooner the better.”

Mr Woods said such a deal “would reduce the risks but this seems just as true for the EU as it would be for the UK”.

Mr Woods’ position is in line with his boss, Mark Carney, governor of the Bank of England. The chancellor, Philip Hammond, has also called for transitional arrangements, which some Brexiters view with scepticism because they are pushing for a “clean break” with the EU.

David Davis, Brexit secretary, also conceded on Wednesday that transitional arrangements may be needed.

uh huh.

Fingers crossed for " a “no change” deal is struck between the EU and London, allowing British financial businesses to trade freely through the single market. "

I'm sure that'll be simple to negotiate.

**Orlanth**

Whirlwind wrote:

Yes what you say can and does happen, a lot, constructive dismissal is rife, but mostly targeted at white, straight, males; who have little de facto recourse.

Not finger pointing, isn't that exactly what your statement was (ie. 'white,straight,males' get picked on)? You could have easily stated "Yes what you say can and does happen, a lot, constructive dismissal is rife" (although I would have asked for evidence that it is rife). Instead you added the second part of the sentence. That implies you have extra sensitivities on the subject that it does not appear you want to see. So I'll ask in a different way What evidence do you have that "white, straight, male" workers are being unfairly dismissed compared to "not-white, not-straight, not male" colleagues.

Ok, it was explained in context (missing). Targeting for constructive dismissal is not because of anti-white agenda, but because people in the 'political majority' do not have protected status. Should however have been extra clear, perhaps by not using the word targeted.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ketara wrote:
Whirlwind wrote:

@Ketara - This time I agree with you! Makes a change doesn't it!

The amusing thing is that about eighty pages back I was the one warning against Union influence in the Labour Party. That's the one thing that lets me know I still sit the middle of the fence, I argue with the people on both sides of it.

You don't need to stick to a left or right wing milieu or even center politics. Pick and choose. There is a logic to be pro Union, and yet worried about the politicisation.

Ketara wrote:

Orlanth? You win. Unions are all evil money grubbing rapacious bastards, etcetc.

Moving swiftly on....

Huzzah.
Lets just agree to disagree.

Ketara wrote:

Apparently inflation is going to be less than previously thought. Combined with still dropping unemployment, and a slight tilt upwards in wage growth, things aren't too bad.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38330862

Let's all cross our fingers and hope it stays that way.

I think its possibly a false dawn. The Bank of England chief mentioned in June that he was actioning very large sums of money to stabilise the economy post Brexit in the event of a Leave vote, and later confirmed doing so. We dont know how much has been spent and at what cost long term.

**SilverMK2**

Really? What is this, some poor mans America? Where forcing people to mumble to promise to love the queen and tea will "Make us Great Again"?

British values oath proposed for public office holders - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38355373

I really hate all this talk of "British values" rubbish at the moment - a very obvious attempt at social engineering. Besides, British values have historically included invading France every other week and owning most of the rest of the world. And I somehow doubt that they want to indoctrinate a loyal worker class into that kind of thinking...

**Whirlwind**

SilverMK2 wrote:
Really? What is this, some poor mans America? Where forcing people to mumble to promise to love the queen and tea will "Make us Great Again"?

British values oath proposed for public office holders - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38355373

I really hate all this talk of "British values" rubbish at the moment - a very obvious attempt at social engineering. Besides, British values have historically included invading France every other week and owning most of the rest of the world. And I somehow doubt that they want to indoctrinate a loyal worker class into that kind of thinking...

It is a right wing governments approach to control the populace. It is simply "our way or the highway approach" and as you pointed out social engineering of the public sector. I suppose the point is probably lost on the numpty that by forcing people to swear to some arbitrary Tory written values which should include "democracy, equality and freedom of speech" then they are in effect removing that persons freedom of speech to refuse to accept these values (for whatever reason)

On the same day we also have a number of Tory MPs that think that they should be able to emergency legislate against any strikes that are 'inconvenient'. I guess their plans for 5 star Christmas skiing holiday have just been thrown up in the air and they aren't happy.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/17/pressure-theresa-may-unions-run-rampant/

How does this work with regards freedom of speech if they ban anything that upsets them?

**Kilkrazy**

It's a typical modern single pill solution to a complex problem that has developed over 40 years.

**reds8n**

Big story in the Mail today :

Spoiler:

have we ran out of news all of a sudden ?

.. so how good are Vaz's lawyers then eh ?

I know t'is the season and all but how the hell is he getting away with this then ?

**Howard A Treesong**

Whirlwind wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38313110

The last paragraph states "The ONS is 95% confident that the figure of a 16,000 fall in unemployment is accurate give or take 81,000. That means that the fall in unemployment is not statistically significant."
Basically they are only 95% confident that employment has actually changed is somewhere between -97,000 to +65,000 (the previous month was pretty much the same). So unemployment could have also increased, we just don't have enough data to verify which side of the line it falls on.
Always remember the average figure they provide isn't the actual important value, it's the values between the two 95% significance figures that are!

I wonder howamy of the employed are still on income support? I rather suspect that this increased employment are due to part time work and zero hours contracts, short term contracts with no fixed employment that last weeks or months. Your hours or whole job could be cut in an instant. These aren't jobs that feed families and puts a roof over your head, they're barely a sticking plaster. Having masses of people on part time jobs gives flexibility to employers, but doesn't suit most people in the jobs, they need full time work. It massages the employment figures but many are still on the bread line. Some of these jobs make people worse off than being on benefits. Once they are taxed, have to pay out for transport and other costs (easy if you travel far for short shifts), they end up with less money than if they were unemployed.

The growth of zero hours contracts is a disgrace, it just leads to uncertainty and exploitation, pushing people into working unsociable hours and making themselves constantly available at little notice for fear of not being given regular work as a reward. 'Didn't you want to start 6am on Boxing Day? Ok, well we likely won't be needing you at all next week, we'll give those hours to someone showing more dedication. Oh, you can manage boxing day after all? Good.'

The employment figures are a complete fudge, I'm sure of it. Employing 20 people part time instead of 10 full time looks great on the employment stats but when it adds up to the same number of hours and wages going out, it's nothing to shout about. If there's all this employment, why are those in financial difficulty and turning to food banks at a high? And the moment there's a sudden squeeze on the economy? These jobs will evaporate overnight.

**Silent Puffin?**

SilverMK2 wrote:

I really hate all this talk of "British values" rubbish at the moment - a very obvious attempt at social engineering.

The massive difficulty with this, aside from its childishness, is defining exactly what constitutes 'British values', especially when the things that are actually important (tolerance in the work place, fairness etc) are already enshrined in law.

What is generally meant by this is 'queen and country' nationalism and that kind of thing is not welcome in the modern world.

**Whirlwind**

reds8n wrote:

Big story in the Mail today :

Spoiler:

have we ran out of news all of a sudden ?

I heard the Daily Fail have been told they can only report factual news from now on....

This is all they've got!

**Kilkrazy**

Howard A Treesong wrote:
Whirlwind wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38313110

The last paragraph states "The ONS is 95% confident that the figure of a 16,000 fall in unemployment is accurate give or take 81,000. That means that the fall in unemployment is not statistically significant."
Basically they are only 95% confident that employment has actually changed is somewhere between -97,000 to +65,000 (the previous month was pretty much the same). So unemployment could have also increased, we just don't have enough data to verify which side of the line it falls on.
Always remember the average figure they provide isn't the actual important value, it's the values between the two 95% significance figures that are!

I wonder howamy of the employed are still on income support? ... .... .

According to DWP statistical summary for Dec 2016 there are nearly 2 million people/families on various forms of income support.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/576364/dwp-stats-summary-december-2016.pdf

Governments have been fudging employment stats in various ways since mass unemployment began to grow under Thatcher.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

British governments have been playing with social engineering for decades, and all of a sudden you're all against it because now its the nasty Tories doing it?

What was Labour's deliberate mass immigration policy, if not social engineering?
Political correctness?
The push for sex education and diversity education in schools?
The restrictions on grammar schools, and emphasis on comprehensives?
The huge expansion of state university places, and Labour's push for everyone to go to university?

Admit it, you're not opposed to social engineering, your're just opposed to the wrong kind of social engineering.

(And please note, I don't necessarily disagree with that list - only the first two really).

Though I do agree, this is a stupid childish move on the Tories' part that won't actually solve anything.

**Compel**

I still think "policial correctness" as a concept is one mostly made by the Daily Mail and friends.

For everyone else, it's known simply as "not being a Richard."

**Ketara**

Stupid concept. What are we, Americans? Saluting the flag and swearing an oath to obey our government? I'd be the first to refuse to take any such stupid vow. If I'm in public office, I'm there because I was voted to be put there or because I was competent enough to get hired for it. We're not China, to reject politicians for not swearing allegiance convincingly enough.

The first British value is to distrust authority. The second is never to take stupid concepts like this seriously. And the third is to never voice any form of patriotism overtly.

In other words, swearing an oath to British values is completely self-contradictory.

**Kilkrazy**

I am not against social engineering. It has been used very successfully to reduce smoking and drunk driving, for example.

The thing is, it takes decades of gradually advancing policy change, advertising and education to bring about real social change. It can't be done overnight by making some people swear an oath.

This proposal harks back to the campaign to keep Roman Catholics out of government service by making them swear an oath against the Pope.

The way to persuade people to join in British society is to maintain a society which is clearly attractive and worth living in.

**SilverMK2**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
British governments have been playing with social engineering for decades, and all of a sudden you're all against it because now its the nasty Tories doing it?

Yes that is exactly it. It has nothing to do with the entire concept being moronic with absolutely zero redeeming features that addresses no problem and is, ironically, as unbritish as you can get...

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Ketara wrote:
Stupid concept. What are we, Americans? Saluting the flag and swearing an oath to obey our government? I'd be the first to refuse to take any such stupid vow. If I'm in public office, I'm there because I was voted to be put there or because I was competent enough to get hired for it. We're not China, to reject politicians for not swearing allegiance convincingly enough.

The first British value is to distrust authority. The second is never to take stupid concepts like this seriously. And the third is to never voice any form of patriotism overtly.

In other words, swearing an oath to British values is completely self-contradictory.

What would happen to newly elected SNP officials under this crackpot idea?

Technically, they, and their supporters like me, are a threat to British values as our final goal is the end of the United Kingdom, through peaceful, democratic means of course.

Mark my words, this scheme will be quietly dropped in a day or two, but it is proof of the point I put to you a few pages ago: that May and her government are a threat to liberty.

First a bill that allows mass spying on the public, and now loyalty tests...

I don't like where this nation is going...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Silent Puffin? wrote:
SilverMK2 wrote:

I really hate all this talk of "British values" rubbish at the moment - a very obvious attempt at social engineering.

The massive difficulty with this, aside from its childishness, is defining exactly what constitutes 'British values', especially when the things that are actually important (tolerance in the work place, fairness etc) are already enshrined in law.

What is generally meant by this is 'queen and country' nationalism and that kind of thing is not welcome in the modern world.

It's a sure sign nation that a nation is in trouble when it starts banging on about values. Confident nations, secure in the knowledge of what they are and where they are going, don't resort to this, they don't have to, they just carry on doing what they're doing.

**Orlanth**

Silent Puffin? wrote:
SilverMK2 wrote:

I really hate all this talk of "British values" rubbish at the moment - a very obvious attempt at social engineering.

The massive difficulty with this, aside from its childishness, is defining exactly what constitutes 'British values', especially when the things that are actually important (tolerance in the work place, fairness etc) are already enshrined in law.

What is generally meant by this is 'queen and country' nationalism and that kind of thing is not welcome in the modern world.

That post is a good example of the brainwashing resulting from social engineering in the Blair years.

First British values are no more childish than say US values of French values. Most nations ctively foster a sense of national identity. What might appear to be over the top about US flag waving actually forges a bond between the citizens of the US as Americans. It is an enormous strength and people are not ridiculed for flying the flag. Other nations have similar attitudes, even if were to deduct soch movements s the Front Nationale there is still a very strong national identity and patriotism in France. Most countries have this.

The UK does too, however New Labour was an exercise in divide and rule. Scottish identity or Welsh identity was encouraged, British identity was not. The desired result was fragmentation with New Labour, being the powerbase in Scotland and Wales, and a major factor in England would be set up as the unifying glue necessary for the continuance of the nation. This broadly worked so long as Blair was in control, however it also gave window the SNP once Labour starting becoming toxic under Brown and due to the Gulf War.

Nobody would claim it childish to raise the Saltaire, and nobody should fail to take Scottish nationalism seriously. It is just the same as Queen and Country nationalism it just stops at the English border, ad likely would not include the monarchy anyway if their SNP get their way.

The very idea that people in the Uk would find that British nationalism is unwelcome in the modern age doesnt in the leasrt bit surprise me. It means that New Labour conditioning is still working. Nationalism is alive and kicking in the modern age, and most nation states encourage it, it is even encouraged in component states of the UK with exception of England, where it is instead raised as potential fascism.

British nationalism has been very strong and has equally been understated, it was not our way. Because it is generally not our way to fly flags and crow about our country, as happens a lot elsewhere it was easy to marginalise by labeling those who do. The two exceptions being the monarchy, because New Labour try as it could was unable to dislodge that, and sport. Even sport was a late addition, flying the cross of St George = fascism was a New Labour mantra, the Rugby world cup victory in 2006 opened that somewhat as people started flying the flag even though there was a strong feeling of disapproval for even using th symbol. New Labour adapted to this and made the St George cross a sporting achievement symbol. To the extent of adding sporting achievement slogans to Last Night of the Proms and other traditionalliy nationalistic events.

There is little to fear from traditional English nationalism, as it is not intended to denigrate others. The watchword being serenity, the proud Englisghman has nothing to prove when a patriot of another nation raises their flag, that is for others to have issues with. Last Night of the Proms is a good example, while the room is filled with Union flags and St George flags, nobody complains if an Australian flag is flown or a French or US or Saltaire. Doing the opposite at cultural festivals in those countries would likely be taken as offensive.

**Steve steveson**

Orlanth wrote:
Whirlwind wrote:

Yes what you say can and does happen, a lot, constructive dismissal is rife, but mostly targeted at white, straight, males; who have little de facto recourse.

Not finger pointing, isn't that exactly what your statement was (ie. 'white,straight,males' get picked on)? You could have easily stated "Yes what you say can and does happen, a lot, constructive dismissal is rife" (although I would have asked for evidence that it is rife). Instead you added the second part of the sentence. That implies you have extra sensitivities on the subject that it does not appear you want to see. So I'll ask in a different way What evidence do you have that "white, straight, male" workers are being unfairly dismissed compared to "not-white, not-straight, not male" colleagues.

Ok, it was explained in context (missing). Targeting for constructive dismissal is not because of anti-white agenda, but because people in the 'political majority' do not have protected status. Should however have been extra clear, perhaps by not using the word targeted.

I will say it one more time. There is no such concept as protected status in the UK. I will repeat my, and Whirlwinds request. Where is your evidence of this disctrimination? It should be easy to come by. The likelihood of unfair dismissal by groups, or the likelihood of redundancy?

**Orlanth**

Steve steveson wrote:

I will say it one more time. There is no such concept as protected status in the UK.

And you will be wrong one more time.

Protected status definitely does exist. It is partisan because it doesnt account for all, and therefore is uneven.

Flat out undeniably true examples include women only shortlists. As used heavily by Labour since 1997 and still in use today.

Steve steveson wrote:

I will repeat my, and Whirlwinds request. Where is your evidence of this disctrimination? It should be easy to come by. The likelihood of unfair dismissal by groups, or the likelihood of redundancy?

One example for you.

Match this :

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/discrimination/discrimination-because-of-race-religion-or-belief/discrimination-because-of-race/

With this:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/612310/British-recruiters-advertise-jobs-abroad-Polish-workers

Work it out.

**Co'tor Shas**

Wait, companies in the UK are advertising in Europe (probably because immigrants will accept lower wages), and that's anti-white? Unless I'm very much mistaken, Poland is about the whitest country on earth (90%+).

**AlmightyWalrus**

By that logic British companies who only advertise in English is discriminating people who don't speak English.

**Compel**

And the phrase, "protected status" isn't mentioned once on that first link. The closest is a reference to, effectively, "if you complain about jerks being jerks, the jerks have no legal right to be even bigger jerks to you." - Which is rather a good thing.

As for the second link. I genuinely don't even have the words. It reminds me of a quip I read earlier on twitter.

Just sed s/mail/express/g

Now, here's the thing, I posted about my own political leanings a few days ago and ultimately, they probably do come down onto, say, the Centre-Right.

But, come on fowks, we can be better people than this.

**Orlanth**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
Wait, companies in the UK are advertising in Europe (probably because immigrants will accept lower wages), and that's anti-white? Unless I'm very much mistaken, Poland is about the whitest country on earth (90%+).

Made no comment on the phenomenon being anti-white, I stated the opposite in fact.

It is however highly discriminatory, and nothing is done about it. Now compare that with the CAB documentation.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
By that logic British companies who only advertise in English is discriminating people who don't speak English.

Again you need to READ before you comment. That is exactly what the CAB are saying, and is actionable under race relations legislation.