CORNWALL 2000: CIVIL LIBERTIES/HUMAN RIGHTS
45 Higher Bore Street, Bodmin, Cornwall UK. PL31 1JS
Outstanding points at issue and questions relating to the Cornish and the implementation within the United Kingdom of the Council of Europe Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities.
6th November 2003
1. This urgent request for clarification of the Governments position in relation to the above is directed in the first instance to Home Secretary David Blunket MP, Home Office, 50 Queen Anne’s Gate, London SW1H 9AT and in the second instance to, Bruce Gill, Head of the Home Office Race Equality Unit (REU) at the same address. The REU is responsible for UK race relations policy and legislation.
2. I write on behalf of myself and other Cornish people who are concerned with the increasing number of misleading, irrational and false statements made by government in respect of Convention implementation and the Cornish. We are particularly concerned with the government’s ambiguous use of language, the duality of its approach to deciding which groups benefit from Convention rights, the dogmatic refusal by government to investigate this discriminatory situation and the huge adverse effect this behaviour has on the ability of the Cornish to access due educational and cultural rights.
3. The Cornish are one of 79 UK Census 2001 ethnic group categories. The government has accorded official status to the Cornish language. The domestic authorities acknowledge the existence of our separate history and our widely practised culture receives limited public funding. The Cornish are recognised by international bodies and sometimes ethnically monitored by domestic authorities. The Cornish perceive themselves, and are perceived by others, as a distinct community.
4. In spite of this general level of acceptance and recognition, the Cornish have been unable to achieve specific case law recognition. Although absence of case law is being used by the authorities to prevent the Cornish from accessing due rights, this has been no barrier for other groups accessing Convention rights. Kept in a position of inequality, the Cornish experience levels of state inspired prejudice and discrimination that leaves them unable to participate fully in society. This document provides the Home Secretary, and the Head of the REU, with clear evidence of Convention implementation procedures that are arbitrary in nature and unlawful in practice.
5. We would rather resolve our differences in a spirit of mutual co-operation and understanding. However, bearing in mind the government’s traditionally uncooperative approach to this issue, its consistent refusal to answer our questions and its unwillingness to engage in dialogue with the view to righting the wrong, this document: a) briefly outlines the situation, b) poses the Home Office a number of questions relating to this situation c) takes the form of a preliminary enquiry following the Home Office invitation to comment on the implementation of the Convention in the UK and, in so far as potential legal action is concerned, d) constitutes part of a pre-action protocol.
6. First point at issue: Although skin colour and ethnic origin are separate grounds for being designated a racial group for the purposes of the Race Relations Act 1976, the 1999 Government 1st Report to the Framework Convention Advisory Committee uses the following phrases: "The ethnic minority population is less dispersed than the white population" [Annexe A], "This includes our ethnic minority communities [visible minorities]" [Comment 2] and, "as many young people from ethnic minorities are getting unsubsidised work as their white counterparts, 29% ethnic, 30 white" [Comment 253].
7. The UK criteria for legally recognising ethnic groups [established in Mandla v Dowell Lee 1983] make no reference to physical characteristics. The 1976 Act recognises as ethnic groups those who have white skin, and non-whites can belong to what are perceived as being predominantly white case-law recognised ethnic groups. The Department for Education, for example, have ethnic monitoring categories labelled ‘White Chinese’ and White Indian’. It is clear that being non-white is not a prerequisite for being accepted as, or into, an ethnic group.
Question 1. Why does the Home Office 1st Report to the Council of Europe contain phrases that exclusively equate non-white skin colour with ethnic group status?
8. Second point at issue: Reversion to stereotypical racial characterisation, thereby treating complex multi-cultural problems in the UK as a white/non-white issue, has severe adverse cultural and educational implications for the Cornish. For instance, this policy has filtered down through UK ethnic monitoring systems until demographic surveys in Cornish schools become largely reduced to quantifying pupils in terms of skin colour.
9. A Plymouth University survey found that 25,000 pupils in Cornwall would, if given the opportunity, identify as ethnically Cornish. Yet in 2003 Cornwall Education Authority prevented pupils from registering as Cornish in school surveys on grounds that it would by ‘unhelpful’ and ’unhealthy’ [Letter dated 6/12/02]. The present Portfolio Holder for Education in Cornwall and the previous Director of Education in Cornwall are on record as saying the Cornish dimension is ‘dangerous’ [Correspondence dated 14/8/01 & 24/4/03], and Government [Ofsted] inspections of Cornish schools assess pupil demography in terms of skin colour.
10. St Ives School Ofsted inspection report states that 710 pupils are ‘ethnically white’ [Inspection No. 189356] and last years Helston School Ofsted inspection report states that ‘almost all pupils are white’, and 1645 pupils are of ‘white ethnicity’ [Inspection No. 190668]. White is a term denoting skin colour, it is not a case law recognised ethnic group.
11. The Home Office practice of deploying phrases that reduce analysis of complex cultural issues to assessment of skin colour has led other authorities to follow their example. Not only is the official preoccupation with pupils physical characteristics irrational and disturbing, it also facilitates the masking of cultural differences between the Cornish and other white Census 2001 ethnic groups. This helps dispense with the State obligation to provide an education that meets the specific needs of the Cornish community.
Question 2. Why are the Home Office suggesting in the phrases quoted above that whites cannot obtain ethnic group status and receive associated cultural and educational benefits?
12. Third point at issue. Extending to over 50 pages, these Ofsted school assessments reveal in great detail the cultural content of the curriculum. Yet in spite of government overtly praising the merits of multiculturalism, these performance assessments never mention, examine or indicate how Cornish pupils might celebrate their own language, history and culture.
13. First the authorities make Cornish pupils statistically invisible, then they inculcate into them the language, history and culture of another people.
14. Whenever the Cornish have complained to the Home Office sponsored Commission for Racial Equality [CRE] about such activities the CRE consistently refuse to take cases up on their behalf. The most recent incident concerned children being prevented from registering as Cornish in schools. Despite the fact that over 100 letters of complaint from Cornish parents were received by the CRE, the case satisfied all the CRE criteria for offering assistance, leading Counsel’s opinion stated that the case had ‘good prospects of success’ and the CRE admitting that the case was complex, they still refused to help the Cornish pursue their case. It should be born in mind that in a letter to Paul Tyler MP [dated 22 March 1999] the CRE admitted to arbitrarily destroying all complaints from the Cornish.
15. Without some form of assistance from the state, the Cornish have little chance of obtaining the funds necessary to secure case law recognition. The government are aware of this and the Legal Services Commission application for public funding in respect of the above case was also refused on grounds that: 1. The community should fund the case itself and 2. It is unreasonable for the Cornish to expect the taxpayer to fund a case that might compel the authorities to adhere to the law [letter dated 29/9/03]. My family were then left without any form of redress.
16. A letter dated 18 March 2003 from Lord Filkin, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Home Office, to Matthew Taylor MP stated, "Those ethnic communities that fall within the scope of the Framework Convention do so because a member of that group has been successful in bringing a case under the Race Relations Act. Case law has established that Sikhs, Gypsies and Irish Travellers are racial groups within the meaning of the Race Relations Act. Should an individual of Cornish origin successfully do the same then they would fall under the scope of the Convention".
17. Lord Filkin omitted to mention, and the Home Office failed to inform the Council of Europe, that all communities brought under the protection of the Race Relations Act via this method have had their legal fees paid by the CRE, and that without this assistance it would have been impossible for these communities to obtain case law recognition.
18. Instead of treating the Cornish the same as other communities, the CRE advised me that my family "could represent itself, but the preparation and presentation of evidence is complex and formal, and if the claim did not succeed, we would be at risk of having to pay the other sides costs" [Letter dated 22 October 2003]. In other words, in order to secure recognition and rights that other Census 2001 ethnic groups obtain with state assistance, Cornish complainants must risk bankruptcy, homelessness and destitution.
19. The CRE did not refuse to fund the case because it was an invalid complaint. Far from it, the CRE acknowledged that the Cornish had experienced discrimination. Funding was refused because the Cornish had not previously been recognised by case law. This is a circular argument that cannot operate in practice. In contrast, the CRE has not experienced similar qualms in regard to its support of other communities which it has assisted (Rastafarians etc.), despite them also not being case law recognised groups at the outset! If the CRE had applied the policy that it applies to the Cornish uniformly, Sikhs, Gypsies and Irish Travellers would never have gained case law recognition. As it stands, the CRE have declared that they will never pursue a case that might lead to the Cornish obtaining case law recognition.
20. Moreover, school ethnic monitoring categories are determined on the basis of their inclusion within UK Census 2001, and Census categories were determined not on the basis of case law recognition, but by self-perception [Office for National Statistics ‘Census 2001 Classifications – September 2001’ p.38]. If school ethnic monitoring categories were determined on the basis of being recognised as an ethnic group by case law, the vast majority of Census 2001 groups would be excluded from the Department for Education and Skills master list. Such groups would include, for example, the English which have been found by a court not to be an ethnic group [Boyce v British Airways 1997].
21. In our situation the Council of Europe’s recent condemnation of the government’s treatment of the Cornish, relevant Department for Education and Skills curriculum guidance, sections 406 and 407 of the Education Act 1996, Council Directive 2000/43/EC, Strasbourg court rulings on the content of the curriculum, aspects of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the European Convention on Human Rights and the Framework Convention itself are being systematically ignored.
22. In spite of receiving decades of complaints from the Cornish, and the Convention Advisory Committee stating that groups like the Cornish should be properly consulted and then brought under the protection of the Convention, the Home Office blindly asserts: "The government does not believe that any rights are denied to any individual in Cornwall as a result of their Cornish origins." [1999 Compliance Report, July 2001 Response to Advisory Committee, May 2002 Comments on Advisory Opinion, March 2003 letter from Lord Filkin]. The Home Office has yet to fully investigate our circumstances, listen to our problems, answer our questions or seek meaningful dialogue.
Question 3. Will the Home Office now agree to undertake an urgent investigation into our circumstances, paying particular regard to the lack of cultural funding, discrimination in relation to our children’s education and the arbitrary administrative decisions detailed in this document?
23. Fourth point at issue: The Framework Convention is the first legally binding international instrument designed to protect the rights of minorities [established by the upheavals of European history] experiencing majority derived cultural aggression and forced assimilation.
24. Comment 2 of the UK’s 1st Compliance Report informs the Council of Europe that, by dint of case law, Convention rights are extended to the Scots, Irish and Welsh. The Home Office failed to inform the Council of Europe that the legal action recognising these communities in case law also established the majority English [by dint of national origins, not ethnicity] as a protected racial group.
25. If the Council of Europe were informed of this situation they might have better understood both the plight of the Cornish, and the ambiguities thrown up by the UK’s disingenuous manner of Convention implementation. For under the current approach to implementation, many aspects of the minority Cornish culture face continuing degradation and marginalisation, while the majority English culture has been effectively brought under the remit of a treaty designed to protect the interests of minorities.
26. In April 2001 the Advisory Committee to the Council of Europe asked the government if non case law recognised ethnic groups could be brought under the remit of the Convention. Despite many prior representations being made by the Cornish, the Home Office said they are not aware of any group who might fall into this category [July 2001]
Question 4. Will the Home Office accept that the present method of Convention implementation fails the Cornish Census 2001 ethnic group?
Question 5: Are the Home Office content to oversee a situation that leaves the Cornish Census 2001 ethnic group in a legal vacuum?
27. Fifth point at issue: The March 2002 Home Office response to the Advisory Committee’s Opinion on the Governments 1st Convention Compliance Report stated that the provisions of the Convention do not apply to the Cornish. Of the 79 UK Census 2001 ethnic group categories, only the Cornish are singled out by the Home Office to be publicly identified as apparently failing to come under the provisions of the Convention.
28. The argument was repeated in a letter dated 18th March 2003 from Lord Filkin [Home Office Parliamentary Under Secretary of State] to Mathew Taylor MP:
"The term ‘national minority’ is not a legally recognised term within the United Kingdom. The UK Government therefore ratified the Framework Convention on the understanding that its principles should apply to what are referred to as ‘racial groups’ under the Race Relations Act. Contrary to the Advisory Committee’s recommendation, it is the sole responsibility of the courts to determine in case law the various groups to be racial groups within the meaning of the Race Relations Act. Those ethnic communities that fall within the scope of the Framework Convention in the UK do so because an individual of that ‘colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins’ has been successful in bringing a case under the Race Relations Act. Should an individual of Cornish origin successfully do the same then they would fall under the scope of the Convention."
The message from government is clear, only ‘ethnic communities’ recognised via case law obtain Framework Convention rights.
29. Although absence of case law is used by the government to prevent the Cornish from gaining Convention rights, the governments 1st Report to the Convention Advisory Committee details measures to be taken to develop the culture, and enhance the rights, of Asian, Chinese, Afro-Caribbean, Muslim, deaf, Hindu, Welsh, English, Scots, visible women, black men, Travellers, Bengali, Christian, Ulster Scot, Black-Jewish and Gaelic communities. The follow-up July 2001 and March 2002 Home Office responses to the Advisory Committee detail the plethora of measures to be taken, and the many millions of pounds to be spent, enhancing the rights, culture and identity of Ulster-Scots and Gael communities.
30. The 1999 1st Report to the Convention Advisory Committee refers to these communities as ‘ethnic communities’ or ‘ethnic groups’. The inference at all times is that these groups are case law recognised ethnic groups.
31. ‘Race’ and ‘Colour’, are not legally defined terms in the UK. The term ‘Chinese’ refers to a nationality made up of diverse ethnic groups and ‘Asian’ is a loosely defined generic group; it is therefore impossible for these groups to satisfy the UK governments rigid legal definition of ‘ethnic group’ [i.e. long shared history, an exclusive cultural tradition, common language and a common literature peculiar to that group etc].
32. Moreover, Chinese people are Asian. Black men and visible women are not ethnic groups but gender specific groups. UK Courts have ruled that Muslims, Christians and Hindus are not ethnic groups but religious groups. Welsh, Scots and English have been found by UK courts not to constitute ethnic groups, and Afro-Caribbean, Bengali, Black-Jewish, Irish Traveller, Traveller, Ulster-Scot, Gael and deaf communities were not, in 1999, recognised by any Race Relations Act case law.
33. Although the Cornish have obtained a higher level of recognition than the Ulster Scot and Gael communities [Ulster Scot and Gael communities were not provided with a Census 2001 category], the government still insist that only the Cornish will remain deprived of Convention recognition and rights.
34. Although the Cornish speak a pre-English Indo-European language, the Ulster Scots speak a dialect of English that anyone who understands English can read with ease. This, and the absence of any form of case law, did not stop Government from including this group within the Framework Convention. There is now a formal body to develop public understanding of this community and project their distinctiveness into educational establishments. The body has been allocated an opening budget of £4.35 million spread over 3 years. [Home Office July 2001]
Question 6: Will the Home Office explain how they can maintain the present position yet still comply with the Council of Europe Advisory Committee’s statement that "implementation of the Framework Convention should not be a source of arbitrary or unjustified distinctions".
35. The Home Office Race Equality Unit must satisfy the requirements of the Human Rights Act 1998, Directive 2000/43/EC and its own Race Relations legislation. Under qualification criteria applied to the Cornish, the communities listed above cannot be afforded Framework Convention recognition or rights.
Question 7: Will the Home Office now either:
a) Accept that the de facto situation is in conflict with the government’s stated basis for implementation, and agree that Convention rights apply to the Cornish OR
b) Commit itself to publicly identifying, on its website and in its next Compliance Report, the fact that, like the Cornish, the above communities have no Race Relations Act case law defining them as ethnic groups and, like the Cornish, these communities are specifically excluded from the provisions of the Convention. The commitment should also indicate that positive measures expressly taken with reference to these communities in terms of Convention obligations will be withdrawn and, in future, references to such rights and benefits in respect to these groups will be excluded from Compliance Reports.
36. The ‘no case law’ argument is constantly deployed against the Cornish. For instance, the education authorities gave a variety of reasons to justify the decision to prevent children from registering as Cornish before finally settling on the defence that they could discriminate with impunity because the Cornish were not recognised by case law [Letter dated 16/4/03]. Children were therefore obliged to register as ‘White British’. Yet because the term ‘White British’ has yet to be recognised by case law, it has no more legal standing than Cornish.
37. The BBC [net income £2.5 billion pounds annually] has a local radio station producing 168 hours of production material during which the Cornish language is allowed 5 minutes of airtime. When the Cornish complained, the station stated that they are not a case law recognised group. When the Cornish complained about prejudicial statements made on programme produced by independent television company Carlton, the company stated in its defence that the Cornish were not a case law recognised group.
38. When the Convention Advisory Committee asked the Home Office for information on steps taken to limit racist style language on the internet [April 2001] the Home Office asserted that "use of the internet as a medium for inciting racial hatred is illegal" [July 2001]. When earlier this year the Cornish Vice President of the Federal Union of European Nationalities complained to police about the British right wing websites ‘Freenations’ and ‘UK Conservatism’ labelling him, and the Cornish, Nazi, the police said that the Home Office sponsored Crown Prosecution Service would do nothing because the Cornish are not a case law recognised ethnic group [16 July 2003 Police log no 364].
39. When the Convention Advisory Committee asked the Home Office what steps are taken to encourage tolerance of national minorities in the media [April 2001] the Home Office asserted that "The Press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to a persons race"[July 2001]. Even as I prepare this document I am informed that the West Briton newspaper had published material labelling the Cornish Flag the "Cornish Swastika", further adding that the Cornish wanted "Cornwall for the Cornish" [6/11/03]. Although this is a frequent occurrence, the Press Complaints Commission has never pursued a complaint on behalf of the Cornish. So the Cornish give up complaining.
40. UK Decision makers, administrators and arbitrators of justice are apportioning rights in an arbitrary way. When the Cornish attempt to claim legal protection and rights the authorities often resort to the case law argument to prevent rights acquisition, yet dozens of communities obtain rights and recognition without case law. There are other ambiguities that need addressing. For instance, there is no legal definition of ‘colour’ or ‘race’, yet these are criteria for recognition under the Race Relations Act 1976. With no legal definition of these terms, the system relies on methods of determination that are ad hoc, vague and based largely on perceptions. Yet when it comes to the state analysing ‘national origins’ criteria there is guidelines, and the ‘ethnicity’ criteria has numerous parameters that are stringently applied [or sometimes relaxed as fits political will].
Question 8. When a complainant basis their claim to rights on colour or race, how can, and do, the authorities assess whether that person should be awarded the protection of the Race Relations Act?
Question 9. In the determination of a citizens rights with regard to the Race Relations Act 1976, why, for instance, is the ethnicity criteria based on parameters requiring in-depth courtroom investigations needing huge amounts of evidence, expert witnesses and many days of court time, when the ‘colour’ qualification criteria is simply based on perceptions?
41. A recent Scottish Court of Session ruling stated that if the discriminators behaviour arises from their perception of the victims national or ethnic origins, then the victims actual national or ethnic origins are irrelevant [BBC v Souster 2001].
Question 10. Does the Souster ruling mean that once the discriminators motive is proven to be based on the perception of the victims national or ethnic origins, the rules requiring an expensive courtroom based forensic examination of ones national or ethnic origins are rendered redundant? If not, why not?
42. Sixth point at issue: The Home Office has repeatedly stated to the Council of Europe that it is not the government but courts, via case law, who determine which communities in the United Kingdom constitute Race Relations Act, and hence Framework Convention, groups [1999 1st Compliance Report, July 2001 Response etc]. Not only is this approach compromised by the de facto situation, courts are not the sole arbitrator. For example, Part 1, Section 5 (3a) of the Race Relations (Northern Ireland) Order states, "In this Order ‘racial group’ includes the Irish Traveller community". This 1997 determination was made by the Government via Orders in Council.
Question 11. Will the Government treat the Cornish community in the same way as they treat the Irish Traveller community and make a similar Order in respect of the Cornish?
43. It has since been deemed prudent to recognise ‘Irish Traveller’ via case law. When members of this community were prevented from gaining access to a public house, the Home Office sponsored Commission for Racial Equality financed both prosecution and defence. This arrangement ensured that the issue reached a court for determination. Although Judge Goldstein realised that the group did not meet the 1983 House of Lords criteria for recognition as an ethnic group [i.e. he admitted they only had history extending back 150 years], he still declared in their favour. Full details of the August 2000 case [O’Leary v Punch Retail] have not been written-up in the usual law journals.
44. I repeat, when Cornish children were prevented from obtaining educational rights the CRE advice was that my family "could represent itself, but the preparation and presentation of evidence is complex and formal, and if the claim did not succeed, we would be at risk of having to pay the other sides costs" [22nd October 2003]. In other words, in order to secure rights that others obtain with State assistance, a Cornish claimant must risk bankruptcy.
Question 12. Will the Home Office compile, and release to the public as a matter of urgency; a) The full list of communities recognised by case law as ethnic groups and, b) The full list of communities entitled to benefit from the express provisions of the Framework Convention?
45. The authorities [CRE and Home Office in particular] have so far refused to publish the definitive list of ethnic group categories called for above. This is because there are vast inconsistencies between the numbers and types of groups accepted and recognised by the various authorities. As a result, UK public authorities have different lists of minority communities entitled to register and be evaluated in respect of employment, housing and other forms of service delivery. This leaves the UK system of ethnic monitoring/rights delivery in complete disarray.
46. For example, the Cornish can register as such on Office of National Statistics [ONS], National Health Service [NHS] and Cornwall County Council ethnic monitoring forms, but not on the Department for Education and Skills [DfES] form. If the authorities cannot cross reference data, the groups social profile remains at best incomplete, at worst, submerged. Sometimes public authorities collect data on the Cornish, but do not use it when analysing employee profile or service delivery. The NHS in Cornwall recently admitted to this practice, and we are informed that Cornwall County Council are experiencing difficulties with central government refusing to accept, and process, data on the Cornish. Other communities experience similar problems.
47. Because most Census 2001 ethnic groups are not recognised as ethnic groups via case law, and many self-perceived groups are neither included in Census 2001 or recognised by case law, many communities find themselves in confused situations. ‘Portuguese’ feature on the DfES list, but the NHS, ONS and CRE make no mention of this group. ‘Northern Irish’ are on the ONS and NHS list, but not on the DfES list. The CRE list ‘Chinese Welsh’ as being monitored, but they are not on the NHS, ONS or DfES lists. ‘Punjabi’ is on the ONS and NHS list, but not on the DfES list. ‘Miripuri Pakistani’ is on the DfES list, but not on CRE, ONS or NHS listings. ‘Kurdish’ is on the ONS and NHS list, but not on the DfES list. ‘Israeli’ is on the ONS list, but not on the NHS or DfES list of ethnic groups. ‘Sikh’ is on the ONS and CRE lists, but not on the NHS or DfES list [and this is after the Sikh’s fought, and won, a CRE backed case of racial discrimination against a school]. These are only examples.
48. The CRE advises public authorities to monitor Census 2001 ethnic groups. This body also stipulates the English, Scots and Welsh Census 2001 groups in their "alternative expanded" ethnic monitoring form for England and Wales. The Cornish are a Census 2001 ethnic group, but the CRE refuse to include this group in any of their specimen forms [p.84 of CRE publication ‘Ethnic Monitoring – A Guide for Public Authorities’] .
49. In spite of the CRE advising public authorities to adhere to Census 2001 ethnic groups, the same guidance shows CRE derived specimen ethnic monitoring forms listing groups like ‘Chinese Scottish’, ‘Black Welsh’ and ‘Asian English’. These are not Census 2001 ethnic groups and they are not case law recognised ethnic groups. In fact, these categories have been arbitrarily invented by the CRE.
50. Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights [UK Human Rights Act 1998] states that in the determination of our civil rights, my family is entitled to a fair hearing before an independent tribunal. Although the Race Relations Act 1976 [Amendment) Regulations 2003 implements most of Council Directive 2000/43/EC, measures relating to Article 7 are absent. Nevertheless, the UK is still subject to Article 7 i.e. "States shall ensure that judicial and/or administrative procedures for the enforcement of obligations under the Directive are available to all persons who consider themselves wronged by the failure to apply the principle of equal treatment to them". Although I have been writing to the Home Office for five years, and the education authorities for seven years, I still come up against attitudes that seem to be a legacy of the colonial past. As such, my sons are still prevented from registering their identity in school and accessing the multi-ethnic education to which they are entitled.
Question 13. It appears unlikely that the Cornish will receive state assistance in pursing their rights. Therefore, in an attempt to have my family’s civil rights determined by a court, I am considering acting as a self-litigant. If I held the Home Office to account, and lost, would the Home Office consider it to be in the public interest to pursue my family for costs, place us into bankruptcy and leave us homeless and destitute?
51. Under the Code of Practice on access to Government Information 1997 the Home Office have 5 working days to acknowledge receipt of this correspondence and 20 working days to either respond to the questions in full or provide lawful reasons for refusing to do so. Considering the serious nature of the rights violations outlined above, the usual practice of ignoring the questions and issuing a general statement would be deemed wholly unacceptable. We require specific answers to specific questions.
Signed
John Angarrack
Parent Action Co-ordinator
Director, Cornwall 2000: Civil Liberties/Human Rights
Sent via email to various addresses within the Home Office Race Equality Unit and via recorded delivery. Copies to: European Monitoring Centre on Racial Intolerance, EU Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, Council of Europe Secretariat - Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, Council of Europe Committee of Experts of the European Charter of Regional and Minority Languages, European Platform of Regulatory Authorities, European Ombudsman, Federal Union of European Nationalities, EU Culture Commissioner, Eurolang, European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, Aire Centre; UN Committee - Convention on the Rights of the Child, UNESCO, UK Mission to UN at Geneva; Minority Rights Group, UK Commission for Racial Equality, UK Legal Services Commission, UK Audit Commission, UK Office of National Statistics, UK Department for Education and Skills and numerous other NGO's, government departments and International bodies.
 Are you lost? Go to Main Index and Home Page |