THE TRUTH ABOUT ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LAWS: The Sad Case Of CCU

Have you noticed that the more personal liberties people have, the more discrimination they suffer, seriously? In 2014, the misnamed Anti-Defamation League of BíNai BíRith published a study in which it claimed there were over a billion anti-Semites on this planet, 1.09 billion to be precise. Hysteria over racism, sexism and of late homophobia has reached record levels. This latter is especially revealing because since the 1967 Sexual Offences Act, homosexual acts between consenting individuals over the age of twenty-one and in private have been legal. Previously, homosexuals faced not only prosecution but potential prison sentences; most controversially they were sometimes faced with the choice of prison or medical treatment to cure them of their perversion. The most high profile victim of this absurdity was the distinguished mathematician and computer scientist Alan Turing, who committed suicide in 1954.

Today, homosexuals are free not only to practise their perversion in private but in public, to corrupt the young - the age of consent having been reduced to sixteen - even to marry other men, but guess what, that is still not enough, we have to not only tolerate them but like them.

One major area of the anti-discrimination industry, be it the campaign against this ism or that phobia is the workplace. How many times have you heard facile whines about blacks not being hired, women not being promoted - the mythical glass ceiling - and other complaints? At times we hear complaints that people who have names that sound non-white are refused even job interviews. Have you ever wondered why? Let me tell you the sad story of Catford Centre for the Unemployed, then you will understand.

I discovered CCU round about 1986; I was fly-pitching in Catford - the things Iíve done to keep my head above water - when a guy stopped to talk to me. He was Tom Caldwell, who sadly died far too young in December 1994. Tom ran the CCU, he was also a leftist who in his time had been a member of the Socialist Workers Party, but unlike most leftists he was not dogmatic. He also realised that not all members of the working class and certainly not all members of the underclass were angels.

I spent many happy hours at the CCU, and even on one occasion contributed to its annual report. Some time after Tomís death, the Committee decided to hire new staff, including a manager. I thought former Communist Kate was more than up to the latter, but for whatever reason, they placed an advert(s) in, I think, the Guardian. The applicants for the first post included a Mr Sikpi.

As there was only the one job and as usual several applicants, it stands to reason that all but one would be disappointed. Mr Sikpi was not only disappointed, he was convinced that he was the most suitable applicant and had been rejected because of, you guessed it, racial discrimination. So he filed a lawsuit against CCU. The scans at the bottom of this page are copies of essential documents from this action. There are only five of them, I could have copied the lot but these few build a picture of what happened. They were supplied by one of the (non-white) staff - not Anthony Djondo, who appeared at the court hearings.

The bottom line is that this was a shakedown attempt; Sikpi was clearly hoping to get some sort of out-of-court settlement knowing that because of the then current legislation the defendant would be saddled with a huge bill whatever, so was on a hiding to nothing, but CCU refused to bow to blackmail. Sikpi lost the case, appealed, didnít bother to turn up for the appeal, and indeed did saddle this charity staffed by idealistic leftists - white and black - with a bill for nearly two grand for giving him a job interview.

It gets worse though, the successful applicant was a young black woman who can best be described as a cunt. The few times I met her she was always obnoxious to me; I asked another member of staff what was the problem only to be told she hated white people! Then they hired a manager who would work something like three days a week; he was a Moslem, and would be commuting from Peterborough, a distance of nearly a hundred miles. No one appears to have been the slightest bit suspicious. Immediately after his successful application he collected an advance on his pay, put in a medical certificate, and they never saw him again. They did though have a visit from either the police or a court official; the guy had something like five warrants outstanding against him. And to cap it all, the aforementioned black woman managed somehow to engineer the closure of the Centre. Donít ask me why, but clearly she was the type of person who should not seek employment in the voluntary sector.

Now, imagine you were running a small business, or even not such a small one, with anti-discrimination laws putting you in a lose/lose situation, making you vulnerable to any shakedown artist or lousy worker, would you want to hire someone who had an African or non-white name? Would you employ a woman - white or other - who might on a whim sue you for vicarious sexual harassment when you could employ a man? Before you answer that question, consider the aggravation Stella English gave Lord Sugar, or the even more toxic Ellen Pao and her failed gender discrimination suit against an employer that was paying her a salary in excess of half a million dollars a year. Employers must be able to sack bad workers. And cunts.

Furthermore, anti-discrimination legislation does nothing for the people at the bottom of society, be they young, mentally challenged, reformed petty criminals, unskilled blacks, working mothers, or anyone else. There is another way to help these people, but race agitators and womenís rights activists are not interested in their livelihood or well-being. Instead they are contininuing to do what they set out to do, and what they have succeeded in doing, namely foisting reams of Draconian so-called anti-discrimination legislation onto business in the name of combatting the mythical diseases of racism and sexism. While this legislation does nothing for those at the bottom of the food chain, it does increase costs for businesses. Can they be unaware of this? Of course not, they know exactly what they are doing, destroying the free enterprise system in order to promote their socialist utopia. And how many rights will any of us have then, including them?

Letter lawyers to CCU, October 13, 1998
A legal bill February 26, 1999
Transcript of appeal hearing, March 3, 1999
Letter Kate Ayres to Anthony Djondo, March 5, 1999
Final order, April 16, 1999

[The above scans are the best quality possible. At the time these documents were copied I did not envisage publishing them to the world like this].

Back To Articles Index