For Sequa pension related information, contact Bank of NY/Mellon at 1-800-634-7936
All other pension related inquiries can contact the Sequa Pension Service Center at 1-855-242-1528
мы инженеры человеческих душ
![Antisemitism in the United Kingdom signifies hatred of and discrimination against Jews in the United Kingdom.[1] Discrimination and hostility against the community since its establishment in 1070 resulted in a series of massacres on several occasions and their expulsion from the country in 1290. They were readmitted by Oliver Cromwell in 1655.
Thank you for contacting me about the campaign led by the pressure group, Republic, on abolishing the monarchy following allegations of privileged access.
I have the utmost respect for HM The Queen and the Royal Family. The Queen has dedicated her life to the service of the United Kingdom and the 16 realms of which she acts as Head of State. Her commitment has been unwavering.
Working members of the Royal Family assist The Queen in carrying out her duties. These include official state responsibilities in the UK and overseas. Members of the Royal Family also support the public and charitable sector and around 3,000 organisations have a member of the Royal Family as president or patron.
The Duke of York stepped back from public duties in November 2019. He previously undertook a wide range of public work with a focus on business and the economy.
Prince Michael of Kent receives no public money and earns his own living running a consultancy company. He undertakes a range of engagements for the not-for-profit sector funded by his own household. He represents The Queen at certain engagements.]
The Chief Executive of The Prince’s Foundation, Michael Fawcett, has stepped down while an investigation is carried out. I understand that the Prince of Wales had no knowledge of the alleged offer of honours and citizenship and that he fully supports the investigation being carried out.
The Sovereign plays an important constitutional role and The Queen and the Royal Family have a special place in the hearts of the British people. I do not agree with your view that the monarchy should be abolished.
Thank you again for taking the time to contact me.
01626 368 277 2 Salisbury House, Salisbury Road, Newton Abbot, Devon, TQ12 2DF
Across the UK, streets are plastered with Union Jacks bearing the portrait of King Charles; red, white and blue bunting litters the isles of almost every supermarket; and there are even calls to swear allegiance to the King, all ahead of King Charles’ £250 million pound coronation this weekend, in what feels like a dystopian nightmare.
Growing up in the UK, you are subconsciously reared from birth to become a subservient subject of the Royal Family, never at all questioning their opulent and luxurious way of life, but expected to foot the bill through taxes.
In school, we would have parties when a Royal Family member got married or gave birth. Every newspaper and magazine adorn them on their front pages. Morning news shows even have segments dedicated to how you can dress like them, “for an affordable price”.
The Monarchy is falsely presented to the average tax-paying British citizen as being politically neutral, powerless but ‘good for tourism’, when in reality this is far from the case.](https://listverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/neville-chamberlain-and-adolf-hitler-shaking-hands.jpg)
LONDON, Dec 7 (Reuters) - Six former London police officers on Thursday were given suspended prison sentences for sharing offensive and racist messages on WhatsApp, including references to Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, and other members of the royal family.
In a statement after the sentencing hearing Commander James Harman, who leads the Metropolitan Police's Anti-Corruption and Abuse Command, said "the racist and discriminatory content of these messages is absolutely appalling".
Advertisement · Scroll to continue
"Given the defendants once served as police officers, we recognise that this case may further damage confidence in policing," Harman said.
The six officers, who have all retired, were charged after an investigation by the BBC's Newsnight programme which discovered the men sent the messages between August 2018 and September 2022, a period when they had all left the police.
Three of the messages featured racist comments about Meghan, the wife of King Charles' younger son, Prince Harry. Meghan's mother is Black and her father is white.
Advertisement · Scroll to continue
One of these messages also included a picture of the late Queen Elizabeth and her husband Prince Philip, while others referenced Charles' eldest son and heir Prince William and his wife Kate, along with Rishi Sunak, Britain's first prime minister of colour.
Five of the former officers, aged in their 60s, pleaded guilty to sending offensive messages in September and were all sentenced on Thursday to between six and 14 weeks' imprisonment, suspended for 12 months.
Advertisement · Scroll to continue
The five men had all worked in various departments at the police but had all served in the Diplomatic Protection Group, which in the last two years has seen one former member convicted of murder and rape, and another jailed for carrying out 24 rapes and other sex offences over two decades.
Michael Chadwell, 62, pleaded not guilty to one count of sending an offensive message, but he was convicted after a trial at City of London Magistrates' Court last month.
Chadwell was sentenced to 10 weeks' imprisonment, suspended for 12 months.
London's Metropolitan Police, Britain's biggest force, has been plagued by multiple scandals in recent years and an independent review in March concluded it was institutionally racist, misogynistic and homophobic.
Its chief Mark Rowley, who took up the post last year, has promised to rid it of unsuitable individuals among its more than 43,000 officers and staff.
A 2011 report by Transparency International concluded that although corruption is not endemic, it is a much greater problem than recognised and that there was an inadequate response to its growing threat.[201] The report also found that the response to corruption from British institutions was often underwhelming and failed to adequately address the issues. A 2015 report by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) on the capability of British institutions to tackle police corruption argued that progress had been made in combating corruption since 2011, noting that allegations of misconduct and corruption inside the police force are being taken seriously, and that superior officers displayed strong ethical commitments to tackling corruption.[202] However, the report also condemned the relatively large number of investigations where no further action was taken, roughly two thirds of all investigations. HMIC Mike Cunningham noted that many cases of police corruption are dropped due to being unfounded, however they believed many cases had not been adequately investigated.[203] Officers were also shown to lack confidence in the anonymity and mechanisms in place for reporting the misconduct of peers, which hinders the ability of institutions to effectively identify and combat police corruption.[202]
In the UK, the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) is responsible for overseeing the system of handling complaints made against police officers in England and Wales, while these duties are handled by the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland (OPONI) in Northern Ireland, and the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner (PIRC) in Scotland. These agencies can manage or supervise police investigations into corruption, conduct independent investigations into the most serious cases, and can refer cases for prosecution should enough evidence be found to form a case.
A 2012 report into police corruption in England and Wales by the IPCC noted the prevalence of the serious offences referred to them from 2008 to 2011; perverting the course of justice (33%), theft or fraud (30%), abuse of authority (15%), unauthorised disclosure of information (13%), and misuse of systems (9%).[204] The IPCC received 837 referrals during this period, mostly from British citizens.[204] 47 cases were referred for prosecution, resulting in ten prison sentences, one suspended sentence and one fine.[204] As a result of all investigations into the corruption and misconduct of British police and staff between 1 April 2013 and 31 March 2014, 134 police officers and staff were dismissed, while a further 711 faced disciplinary sanctions.[202] 103 Metropolitan Police officers were also suspended during this period.[205] Offences included drug related offences, bribery, theft or fraud, sexual misconduct, and information disclosure, where information disclosure and theft or fraud were the most common offences.[202][205] The Directorate of Professional standards considers the "exploitation of staff through inappropriate relationships with journalists, private investigators and criminals" the biggest threat to police integrity.[205]
On 27 June 2012 the Home Affairs Committee announced an inquiry into the IPCC including, but not limited to, analysis of the independence of the commission, the powers and responsibilities of the commission and the effectiveness of Commission investigations. The committee began hearing evidence on 17 July 2012. The report was published on 29 January 2013[206] and was scathing,[207] describing it as "woefully underequipped and hamstrung in achieving its original objectives. It has neither the powers nor the resources that it needs to get to the truth when the integrity of the police is in doubt."[208]
n 2019, federal prosecutors charged Jeffrey Epstein with one count of sex trafficking of a minor and one count of conspiracy to commit sex trafficking. After pleading not guilty to the crimes, Epstein was denied bail, and was later found dead in his Manhattan jail cell. The cause of death was ruled a suicide. But even after his death, Epstein's high profile social circle has continued to remain in the headlines. Notably, Epstein's associates included not only politicians in both parties, but also royalty. Queen Elizabeth's son Prince Andrew reportedly had close ties to Epstein at one point.
Since Epstein's arrest, the Duke of York has issued several statements regarding their friendship, and in November if 2019, he recorded an interview at Buckingham Palace about their relationship with journalist Emily Maitlis. Following enormous public criticism of their conversation, in which Andrew said he did not regret his friendship with Epstein, the Queen's son voluntarily stepped back from his royal duties.
"I have asked Her Majesty if I may step back from public duties for the foreseeable future, and she has given her permission," he wrote in a statement.
MORE FROM TOWN & COUNTRY
Darren Walker and Ava DuVernay
preview for Society Section Curated
WATCH: Darren Walker and Ava DuVernay
Few details are known about the friendship between Epstein and Prince Andrew, but in August 2021, the royal was accused of sexual abuse in a new lawsuit from alleged Epstein victim Virginia Roberts Giuffre. (Andrew has denied these accusations many times.)
In January of 2022, Buckingham Palace confirmed that Prince Andrew's military titles and patronages had been returned to the Queen in relation to the case.
"With The Queen's approval and agreement, The Duke of York’s military affiliations and Royal patronages have been returned to The Queen. The Duke of York will continue not to undertake any public duties and is defending this case as a private citizen," reads an official statement.
Advertisement - Continue Reading Below
And in February 2022, Andrew and Giuffre settled out of court. In the announcement of the settlement, Prince Andrew said he "regrets his association with Epstein."
The joint statement reads in part: "It is known that Jeffrey Epstein trafficked countless young girls over many years. Prince Andrew regrets his association with Epstein, and commends the bravery of Ms. Giuffre and other survivors in standing up for themselves and others. He pledges to demonstrate his regret for his association with Epstein by supporting the fight against the evils of sex trafficking, and by supporting its victims." He did not admit to any of Giuffre's accusations of sexual abuse. (More on the settlement here.)
In light of the recent news regarding the trial, here's what we do know about the Duke of York's relationship with Epstein:
They met in 1999.
According to the Guardian, their friendship began when Prince Andrew was introduced to Epstein by Ghislaine Maxwell, a British socialite and Epstein's girlfriend at the time. [In December 2021, Maxwell was found guilty of several counts related to her role in Epstein's sexual abuse of young women. In June 2022, she was sentenced to 20 years in prison.]
The extent of Epstein's relationship with Andrew or other members of the royal family is largely unknown, though never-before-seen photos of the Duke of York with Epstein at Royal Ascot in 2000 recently surfaced. The woman wearing green standing between them is Maxwell.
prince andrew and jeffrey epstein at ascot
Prince Andrew with Jeffrey Epstein at Royal Ascot in 2000. The woman in pink is Caroline Stanley, the Countess of Derby, and the woman in green is Gislaine Maxwell.
TIM GRAHAM//GETTY IMAGES
The two men were also photographed walking together in Central Park in 2010 (above), several years after Epstein was released from prison. Two years earlier, Epstein had pleaded guilty to a felony charge of solicitation of prostitution involving a minor, and was sentenced to 18 months in prison; he served 13.
In a statement released on August 24, Prince Andrew shared that he had stayed at several of Epstein's properties, but that he "saw him infrequently and probably no more than only once or twice a year."
Advertisement - Continue Reading Below
Epstein also had a financial relationship with Andrew's ex-wife Fergie.
In 2011, the Telegraph reported that Epstein paid Sarah Ferguson's former personal assistant Johnny O'Sullivan £15,000 at the request of the Duke of York. That payment then reportedly "allowed a wider restructuring of Sarah's £5 million debts to take place."
The Duchess of York has since apologized for her association with Epstein. She told the publication at the time:
"I personally, on behalf of myself, deeply regret that Jeffrey Epstein became involved in any way with me. I abhor paedophilia and any sexual abuse of children and know that this was a gigantic error of judgment on my behalf. I am just so contrite I cannot say. Whenever I can I will repay the money and will have nothing ever to do with Jeffrey Epstein ever again. I cannot state more strongly that I know a terrible, terrible error of judgment was made, my having anything do with Jeffrey Epstein. What he did was wrong and for which he was rightly jailed."
Fergie also confirmed that her ex-husband Andrew facilitated the payment.
Buckingham Palace has issued several statements about Andrew's association with Epstein.
While some of Epstein's associates, including President Bill Clinton, issued statements distancing themselves from Epstein immediately following the news of his arrest, Prince Andrew stayed silent on the matter for several weeks.
But in August of 2019, Buckingham Palace released several statements regarding the Queen's son's relationship with Epstein. In a statement from August 24, Prince Andrew admitted that it was "a mistake and an error" to spend time with Jeffrey Epstein in 2010, after he was already a convicted sex offender. Andrew also said that he did not "see, witness or suspect any behaviour of the sort that subsequently led to [Epstein's] arrest and conviction."
"His suicide has left many unanswered questions and I acknowledge and sympathise with everyone who has been affected and wants some form of closure," the Duke of York writes, before closing with "I deplore the exploitation of any human being and would not condone, participate in, or encourage any such behavior."
Want all the royal news, with none of the malicious gossip?
Sign up for all the latest updates from our inside sources.
Email address
Your email address gets you access.
SIGN ME UP
By signing up, I agree to the Terms of Use (including the dispute resolution procedures) and have reviewed the Privacy Notice.
He signed it simply ANDREW. It was the third statement release by the royal family that month about the Duke of York's relationship with Epstein.
On August 18, a statement from Buckingham Palace says that the Duke of York is "appalled" by Epstein's alleged crimes.
It reads in full:
“The Duke of York has been appalled by the recent reports of Jeffrey Epstein’s alleged crimes. His Royal Highness deplores the exploitation of any human being and the suggestion he would condone, participate in or encourage any such behaviour is abhorrent.”
That statement was released after a 2010 video of Prince Andrew inside Epstein's New York City home (likely taken around the same time as the above photo) was published by the Daily Mail. In the footage, the Duke of York can be seen waving to a woman from the door.
The day before Epstein was found dead by suicide, a number of legal documents relating to his criminal case were unsealed, one of which included allegations about Prince Andrew. When asked about the allegations by NBC News, Buckingham Palace gave the following statement:
“This relates to proceedings in the United States, to which The Duke of York is not a party. Any suggestion of impropriety with underage minors is categorically untrue.”
The same statement was given to the Daily Mail when the publication's reporter inquired if Prince Andrew was going to comment on Epstein's death.
On August 27, one of Epstein's alleged victims, Virginia Roberts Giuffre, held a press conference. When asked specifically about Prince Andrew, she said, "he knows exactly what he's done, and I hope he comes clean about it."
In September, Giuffre sat down with Savannah Guthrie of NBC News for a televised interview in which she said that Prince Andrew "was an abuser." In the segment, Guthrie reports that Giuffre says Prince Andrew sexually abused her a total of three times.
This content is imported from x. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.
Prince Andrew has always denied any accusations of inappropriate behavior against Giuffre and otherwise, and Buckingham Palace issued an additional statement to NBC regarding Giuffre's allegations. It reads, "It is emphatically denied that the Duke of York had any form of sexual contact or relationship with Virginia Roberts. Any claim to the contrary is false and without foundation."
Advertisement - Continue Reading Below
Buckingham Palace did not issue an additional statement following the announcement of Andrew's settlement with Giuffre.
In mid-November 2019, Prince Andrew sat down with journalist Emily Maitlis, for what she called a "no holds barred" interview.
During their conversation at Buckingham Palace, Maitlis and Prince Andrew discussed the his association with Epstein and why he visited the convicted sex offender in New York City in 2010. Notably, The Duke of York said that he did not regret his relationship with Epstein, and perhaps most significantly, he did not explicitly express sympathy for Epstein's victims. He also denied Giuffre's allegations against him several times.
Watch the full interview here:
This content is imported from youTube. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.
Watch on
Watch on YouTube
youtubeThis is an image
Just a few days after the interview aired, Prince Andrew announced he was stepping down from public duties "for the foreseeable future" in a statement.
Read it in full here:
It has become clear to me over the last few days that the circumstances relating to my former association with Jeffrey Epstein has become a major disruption to my family’s work and the valuable work going on in the many organisations and charities that I am proud to support.
Therefore, I have asked Her Majesty if I may step back from public duties for the foreseeable future, and she has given her permission.
I continue to unequivocally regret my ill-judged association with Jeffrey Epstein. His suicide has left many unanswered questions, particularly for his victims, and I deeply sympathise with everyone who has been affected and wants some form of closure. I can only hope that, in time, they will be able to rebuild their lives. Of course, I am willing to help any appropriate law enforcement agency with their investigations, if required.
In early December 2019, Giuffre responded to Andrew's interview with a broadcast of her own.
She sat down with Panorama to discuss both Epstein and Prince Andrew, and called the royal's response to her allegations "BS."
"The people on the inside are going to keep coming up with these ridiculous excuses like his arm was elongated, or the photo was doctored, or he came to New York to break up with Jeffrey Epstein," she said.
"I mean come on. I'm calling BS on this because that's what it is. He knows what happened. I know what happened, and there's only one of us telling the truth, and I know that's me."
This content is imported from x. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.
She also asked the people of the United Kingdom to stand with her. "I implore the people in the U.K. to stand up beside me, to help me fight this fight, to not accept this as being OK. This is not some sordid sex story. This is a story of being trafficked."
Buckingham Palace has issued two statements in response to the program, the first of which is in regard to the Duke of York's association with Epstein. It's quite similar to previous statements issued by the royal family about their friendship, and reads:
“The Duke of York unequivocally regrets his ill-judged association with Jeffrey Epstein. Epstein’s suicide left many unanswered questions, particularly for his victims. The Duke deeply sympathises with those affected who want some form of closure. It is his hope that, in time, they will be able to rebuild their lives. The Duke is willing to help any appropriate law enforcement agency with their investigations, if required."
The second statement focuses more specifically on Giuffre's allegations. It reads:
“It is emphatically denied that The Duke of York had any form of sexual contact or relationship with Virginia Roberts. Any claim to the contrary is false and without foundation.”
n 2019, federal prosecutors charged Jeffrey Epstein with one count of sex trafficking of a minor and one count of conspiracy to commit sex trafficking. After pleading not guilty to the crimes, Epstein was denied bail, and was later found dead in his Manhattan jail cell. The cause of death was ruled a suicide. But even after his death, Epstein's high profile social circle has continued to remain in the headlines. Notably, Epstein's associates included not only politicians in both parties, but also royalty. Queen Elizabeth's son Prince Andrew reportedly had close ties to Epstein at one point.
Since Epstein's arrest, the Duke of York has issued several statements regarding their friendship, and in November if 2019, he recorded an interview at Buckingham Palace about their relationship with journalist Emily Maitlis. Following enormous public criticism of their conversation, in which Andrew said he did not regret his friendship with Epstein, the Queen's son voluntarily stepped back from his royal duties.
"I have asked Her Majesty if I may step back from public duties for the foreseeable future, and she has given her permission," he wrote in a statement.
MORE FROM TOWN & COUNTRY
Darren Walker and Ava DuVernay
preview for Society Section Curated
WATCH: Darren Walker and Ava DuVernay
Few details are known about the friendship between Epstein and Prince Andrew, but in August 2021, the royal was accused of sexual abuse in a new lawsuit from alleged Epstein victim Virginia Roberts Giuffre. (Andrew has denied these accusations many times.)
In January of 2022, Buckingham Palace confirmed that Prince Andrew's military titles and patronages had been returned to the Queen in relation to the case.
"With The Queen's approval and agreement, The Duke of York’s military affiliations and Royal patronages have been returned to The Queen. The Duke of York will continue not to undertake any public duties and is defending this case as a private citizen," reads an official statement.
Advertisement - Continue Reading Below
And in February 2022, Andrew and Giuffre settled out of court. In the announcement of the settlement, Prince Andrew said he "regrets his association with Epstein."
The joint statement reads in part: "It is known that Jeffrey Epstein trafficked countless young girls over many years. Prince Andrew regrets his association with Epstein, and commends the bravery of Ms. Giuffre and other survivors in standing up for themselves and others. He pledges to demonstrate his regret for his association with Epstein by supporting the fight against the evils of sex trafficking, and by supporting its victims." He did not admit to any of Giuffre's accusations of sexual abuse. (More on the settlement here.)
In light of the recent news regarding the trial, here's what we do know about the Duke of York's relationship with Epstein:
They met in 1999.
According to the Guardian, their friendship began when Prince Andrew was introduced to Epstein by Ghislaine Maxwell, a British socialite and Epstein's girlfriend at the time. [In December 2021, Maxwell was found guilty of several counts related to her role in Epstein's sexual abuse of young women. In June 2022, she was sentenced to 20 years in prison.]
The extent of Epstein's relationship with Andrew or other members of the royal family is largely unknown, though never-before-seen photos of the Duke of York with Epstein at Royal Ascot in 2000 recently surfaced. The woman wearing green standing between them is Maxwell.
prince andrew and jeffrey epstein at ascot
Prince Andrew with Jeffrey Epstein at Royal Ascot in 2000. The woman in pink is Caroline Stanley, the Countess of Derby, and the woman in green is Gislaine Maxwell.
TIM GRAHAM//GETTY IMAGES
The two men were also photographed walking together in Central Park in 2010 (above), several years after Epstein was released from prison. Two years earlier, Epstein had pleaded guilty to a felony charge of solicitation of prostitution involving a minor, and was sentenced to 18 months in prison; he served 13.
In a statement released on August 24, Prince Andrew shared that he had stayed at several of Epstein's properties, but that he "saw him infrequently and probably no more than only once or twice a year."
Advertisement - Continue Reading Below
Epstein also had a financial relationship with Andrew's ex-wife Fergie.
In 2011, the Telegraph reported that Epstein paid Sarah Ferguson's former personal assistant Johnny O'Sullivan £15,000 at the request of the Duke of York. That payment then reportedly "allowed a wider restructuring of Sarah's £5 million debts to take place."
The Duchess of York has since apologized for her association with Epstein. She told the publication at the time:
"I personally, on behalf of myself, deeply regret that Jeffrey Epstein became involved in any way with me. I abhor paedophilia and any sexual abuse of children and know that this was a gigantic error of judgment on my behalf. I am just so contrite I cannot say. Whenever I can I will repay the money and will have nothing ever to do with Jeffrey Epstein ever again. I cannot state more strongly that I know a terrible, terrible error of judgment was made, my having anything do with Jeffrey Epstein. What he did was wrong and for which he was rightly jailed."
Fergie also confirmed that her ex-husband Andrew facilitated the payment.
Buckingham Palace has issued several statements about Andrew's association with Epstein.
While some of Epstein's associates, including President Bill Clinton, issued statements distancing themselves from Epstein immediately following the news of his arrest, Prince Andrew stayed silent on the matter for several weeks.
But in August of 2019, Buckingham Palace released several statements regarding the Queen's son's relationship with Epstein. In a statement from August 24, Prince Andrew admitted that it was "a mistake and an error" to spend time with Jeffrey Epstein in 2010, after he was already a convicted sex offender. Andrew also said that he did not "see, witness or suspect any behaviour of the sort that subsequently led to [Epstein's] arrest and conviction."
"His suicide has left many unanswered questions and I acknowledge and sympathise with everyone who has been affected and wants some form of closure," the Duke of York writes, before closing with "I deplore the exploitation of any human being and would not condone, participate in, or encourage any such behavior."
Want all the royal news, with none of the malicious gossip?
Sign up for all the latest updates from our inside sources.
Email address
Your email address gets you access.
SIGN ME UP
By signing up, I agree to the Terms of Use (including the dispute resolution procedures) and have reviewed the Privacy Notice.
He signed it simply ANDREW. It was the third statement release by the royal family that month about the Duke of York's relationship with Epstein.
On August 18, a statement from Buckingham Palace says that the Duke of York is "appalled" by Epstein's alleged crimes.
It reads in full:
“The Duke of York has been appalled by the recent reports of Jeffrey Epstein’s alleged crimes. His Royal Highness deplores the exploitation of any human being and the suggestion he would condone, participate in or encourage any such behaviour is abhorrent.”
That statement was released after a 2010 video of Prince Andrew inside Epstein's New York City home (likely taken around the same time as the above photo) was published by the Daily Mail. In the footage, the Duke of York can be seen waving to a woman from the door.
The day before Epstein was found dead by suicide, a number of legal documents relating to his criminal case were unsealed, one of which included allegations about Prince Andrew. When asked about the allegations by NBC News, Buckingham Palace gave the following statement:
“This relates to proceedings in the United States, to which The Duke of York is not a party. Any suggestion of impropriety with underage minors is categorically untrue.”
The same statement was given to the Daily Mail when the publication's reporter inquired if Prince Andrew was going to comment on Epstein's death.
On August 27, one of Epstein's alleged victims, Virginia Roberts Giuffre, held a press conference. When asked specifically about Prince Andrew, she said, "he knows exactly what he's done, and I hope he comes clean about it."
In September, Giuffre sat down with Savannah Guthrie of NBC News for a televised interview in which she said that Prince Andrew "was an abuser." In the segment, Guthrie reports that Giuffre says Prince Andrew sexually abused her a total of three times.
This content is imported from x. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.
Prince Andrew has always denied any accusations of inappropriate behavior against Giuffre and otherwise, and Buckingham Palace issued an additional statement to NBC regarding Giuffre's allegations. It reads, "It is emphatically denied that the Duke of York had any form of sexual contact or relationship with Virginia Roberts. Any claim to the contrary is false and without foundation."
Advertisement - Continue Reading Below
Buckingham Palace did not issue an additional statement following the announcement of Andrew's settlement with Giuffre.
In mid-November 2019, Prince Andrew sat down with journalist Emily Maitlis, for what she called a "no holds barred" interview.
During their conversation at Buckingham Palace, Maitlis and Prince Andrew discussed the his association with Epstein and why he visited the convicted sex offender in New York City in 2010. Notably, The Duke of York said that he did not regret his relationship with Epstein, and perhaps most significantly, he did not explicitly express sympathy for Epstein's victims. He also denied Giuffre's allegations against him several times.
Watch the full interview here:
This content is imported from youTube. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.
Watch on
Watch on YouTube
youtubeThis is an image
Just a few days after the interview aired, Prince Andrew announced he was stepping down from public duties "for the foreseeable future" in a statement.
Read it in full here:
It has become clear to me over the last few days that the circumstances relating to my former association with Jeffrey Epstein has become a major disruption to my family’s work and the valuable work going on in the many organisations and charities that I am proud to support.
Therefore, I have asked Her Majesty if I may step back from public duties for the foreseeable future, and she has given her permission.
I continue to unequivocally regret my ill-judged association with Jeffrey Epstein. His suicide has left many unanswered questions, particularly for his victims, and I deeply sympathise with everyone who has been affected and wants some form of closure. I can only hope that, in time, they will be able to rebuild their lives. Of course, I am willing to help any appropriate law enforcement agency with their investigations, if required.
In early December 2019, Giuffre responded to Andrew's interview with a broadcast of her own.
She sat down with Panorama to discuss both Epstein and Prince Andrew, and called the royal's response to her allegations "BS."
"The people on the inside are going to keep coming up with these ridiculous excuses like his arm was elongated, or the photo was doctored, or he came to New York to break up with Jeffrey Epstein," she said.
"I mean come on. I'm calling BS on this because that's what it is. He knows what happened. I know what happened, and there's only one of us telling the truth, and I know that's me."
This content is imported from x. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.
She also asked the people of the United Kingdom to stand with her. "I implore the people in the U.K. to stand up beside me, to help me fight this fight, to not accept this as being OK. This is not some sordid sex story. This is a story of being trafficked."
Buckingham Palace has issued two statements in response to the program, the first of which is in regard to the Duke of York's association with Epstein. It's quite similar to previous statements issued by the royal family about their friendship, and reads:
“The Duke of York unequivocally regrets his ill-judged association with Jeffrey Epstein. Epstein’s suicide left many unanswered questions, particularly for his victims. The Duke deeply sympathises with those affected who want some form of closure. It is his hope that, in time, they will be able to rebuild their lives. The Duke is willing to help any appropriate law enforcement agency with their investigations, if required."
The second statement focuses more specifically on Giuffre's allegations. It reads:
“It is emphatically denied that The Duke of York had any form of sexual contact or relationship with Virginia Roberts. Any claim to the contrary is false and without foundation.”
Apartheid was a system of racial segregation enforced through legislation by the National Party governments, the ruling party in South Africa from 1948 to 1994. The rights of the nation’s black majority were curtailed, and white supremacy and Afrikaner-minority rule was maintained.The British did institute some reforms after they seized the Cape from the originally Dutch Boers—such as by repealing the more offensive anti-black Boer laws. But after one hundred years of wars, and having gained complete political control, the British made a decision that doomed many South Africans. They gave Boer republics the green light to disenfranchise all non-whites. The apartheid system was entrenched in the Union constitution, which was drawn and approved by the British government. In 1913, the Native Land Act was brought into force; it pushed black people off the land on which they were either owners or tenants, and relocated them to shantytowns in the cities.
Ad Loading
00:00
12:32
Apartheid would not end until the F. W. de Klerk government moved to lift bans on African political parties, such as the Africa National Congress and Pan African Congress. These actions culminated in multi-racial democratic elections in 1994, which were won by the African National Congress headed by Nelson Mandela.
The British did not start the slave trade or even import the most slaves (both of these dubious distinctions belong to the Portuguese). In the beginning, British traders merely supplied slaves for the Spanish and the Portuguese colonies; but eventually, British slave traders began supplying slaves to the new English colonies in North America. The first record of enslaved Africans landing in British North America occurred in 1619, in the colony of Virginia.In the 1660s, the number of slaves taken from Africa in British ships averaged 6,700 per year. By the 1760s, Britain was the foremost European country engaged in the slave trade, owning more than fifty percent of the Africans transported from Africa to the Americas. The British involvement in the slave trade lasted from 1562 to until the abolishment of slavery in 180—a period of 245 years. History Professor David Richardson has calculated that British ships carried more than 3.4 million enslaved Africans to the Americas during this time.In addition to being a major player in the slave trade, the British supported the pro-slavery Confederates during the Civil War. The British needed cotton to fuel their machines; this caused the demand for cotton to skyrocket, which in turn demanded slave labor. If the Confederates had won at the battle of Antietam, the British would have given full support to the rebels, and may even have tipped the Civil War in favor of the Confederates.And although Great Britain was one of the first nations to abolish slavery, they quickly made up for the loss of human labor by extracting Africa’s raw materials and resources.
Seeing little to gain from trade with European countries, the Chinese Qing emperor permitted Europeans to trade only at the port of Canton, and only through licensed Chinese merchants. For years, foreign merchants accepted Chinese rules—but by 1839 the British, who were the dominant trading group, were ready to flex their muscles.They had found a drug that the Chinese would buy: opium. Grown legally in British India, opium was smuggled into China, where its use and sale became illegal after the damaging effects it had on the Chinese people.With its control of the seas, the British easily shut down key Chinese ports and forced the Chinese to negotiate—marking the beginning of what is known as the “one hundred years of humiliation” for the Chinese. Dissatisfied with the resulting agreement, the British sent a second and larger force that took even more coastal cities, including Shanghai. The ensuing Opium War was settled at gunpoint; the resulting Treaty of Nanjing opened five ports to international trade, fixed the tariff on imported goods at five percent, imposed an indemnity of twenty-one million ounces of silver on China to cover Britain’s war expenses, and ceded the island of Hong Kong to Great Britain.This treaty satisfied neither side. Between 1856 and 1860, Britain and France renewed hostilities with China. Seventeen thousand British and French troops occupied Beijing and set the Imperial Palace on fire. Another round of harsh treaties gave European merchants and missionaries greater privileges, and forced the Chinese to open several more cities to foreign trade.
acism in the United Kingdom refers to negative attitudes and views on race or ethnicity within the viewpoints of groups or individuals or existing systemically in the United Kingdom. The extent and the targets of racist attitudes in the United Kingdom have varied over time. It has resulted in cases of discrimination, riots and racially motivated murders. Racism was uncommon in the attitudes and norms of the British class system during the 19th century, in which race mattered less than social distinction: an African tribal chief was unquestionably superior to an English costermonger.[1] Use of the word "racism" became more widespread after 1936, although the term "race hatred" was used in the late 1920s by sociologist Frederick Hertz. Laws were passed in the 1960s that specifically prohibited racial segregation.[2]
Racism has been observed as having a correlation between factors such as levels of unemployment, immigration and population replacement in an area. Some studies suggest Brexit led to a rise in racist incidents, where locals became hostile to foreigners or immigrants. Poles, Romanians and other European groups have been adversely affected in recent decades.[3][4][5][6]
Studies published in 2014 and 2015 claimed racism was on the rise in the UK, with more than one third of those polled perceiving they were racially prejudiced.[7][needs update] However a 2019 EU survey, the prevalence of perceived racist harassment toward people of African descent in the UK was the second lowest among the 12 Western European countries surveyed.[8]
Sectarianism between British Protestants and Irish Catholics in Northern Ireland has been called a form of racism by some international bodies.[9] It has resulted in widespread discrimination, segregation and serious violence, especially during partition and the Troubles.
History
See also: Slavery in Britain
Thousands of British families were slave owners in the 17th and 18th centuries.[10] By the mid 18th century, London had the largest Black population in Britain, made up of free and enslaved people, as well as many runaways. The total number may have been about 10,000.[11] Some of these people were forced into beggary due to the lack of jobs and racial discrimination.[12][13] Owners of African slaves in England would advertise slave-sales and for re-capture runaways.[14][15]
After abolition
See also: 1919 South Wales race riots
Racism against black people grew after 1860, when race-based discrimination was fed by then-popular theories of scientific racism.[16] Attempts to support these theories cited 'scientific evidence', such as brain size. James Hunt, President of the London Anthropological Society, in 1863 in his paper "On the Negro's place in nature" wrote,"the Negro is inferior intellectually to the European...[and] can only be humanised and civilised by Europeans."[17]
Following disarmament in 1919, surplus of labour and shortage of housing led to dissatisfaction among Britain’s working class, in particular sailors and dock workers. In ports, such as South Shields,[18] Glasgow, London's East End, Liverpool, Cardiff, Barry and Newport there were fierce race riots targeting ethnic minority populations. During violence in 1919 there were five fatalities, as well as widespread vandalism of property. 120 black workers were sacked in Liverpool after whites refused to work with them. A modern study of the 1919 riots by Jacqueline Jenkinson showed that police arrested nearly twice as many blacks (155) as whites (89). While most of the whites were convicted, nearly half of Black arrestees were acquitted. Jenkinson suggests that the courts acknowledged their innocence and were recognising and attempting to correct for police bias.[19]
Racial segregation existed throughout much of the country in the early 20th century. The landmark case Constantine v Imperial Hotels Ltd (1944) established an important step in the development of modern anti-discrimination law[20] and according to Peter Mason, it "was one of the key milestones along the road to the creation of the Race Relations Act of 1965."[21] Popular Trinidadian cricketer Learie Constantine was awarded damages at the High Court after being turned away from the Imperial Hotel in Russell Square, London in 1943. The proprietor believed his presence would offend white American servicemen staying at the hotel, as the United States Armed Forces were still racially segregated. Public and political opinion was in Constantine's favour over the case. In Parliament, then Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs Paul Emrys-Evans said the government: "most strongly condemns any form of racial discrimination against Colonial people in this country."[22] Although racial discrimination continued in England, this case was the first to challenge such practices in court. Critics regard it as a milestone in British racial equality in demonstrating that black people had legal recourse against some forms of racism.[23]
There were further riots targeting immigrant and minority populations in East London and Notting Hill in the 1950s, leading to the establishment of the Notting Hill Carnival.
1970s and 1980s
Demonstration in June 1978, after the killing by racists of Altab Ali, a young Bangladeshi man, in May 1978, against the National Front and other racists who were active in the Brick Lane area
In the 1970s and 1980s, black people and south asian people in Britain were the victims of racist violence perpetrated by far-right groups such as the National Front.[24] During this period, it was also common for black footballers to be subjected to racist chanting from crowd members.[25][26]
In the early 1980s, societal racism, discrimination and poverty—alongside further perceptions of powerlessness and oppressive policing—sparked a series of riots in areas with substantial African-Caribbean populations.[27] These riots took place in St Pauls in 1980, Brixton, Toxteth and Moss Side in 1981, St Pauls again in 1982, Notting Hill Gate in 1982, Toxteth in 1982, and Handsworth, Brixton and Tottenham in 1985.[28]
21st century
Racism in Britain in general, including against black and south asian people, is considered to have declined over time. Robert Ford, professor of politics at Manchester, demonstrates that social distance, measured using questions from the British Social Attitudes survey about whether people would mind having an ethnic minority boss or have a close relative marry an ethnic minority spouse, declined over the period 1983–1996. These declines were observed for attitudes towards both Black and Asian ethnic minorities. Much of this change in attitudes happened in the 1990s. In the 1980s, opposition to interracial marriage was significant.[29][30]
Nonetheless, Ford argues that "Racism and racial discrimination remain a part of everyday life for Britain's ethnic minorities. Black and Asian Britons...are less likely to be employed and are more likely to work in worse jobs, live in worse houses and suffer worse health than White Britons".[29] The University of Maryland's Minorities at Risk (MAR) project noted in 2006 that while African-Caribbeans in the United Kingdom no longer face formal discrimination, they continue to be under-represented in politics, and to face discriminatory barriers in access to housing and in employment practices. The project also notes that the British school system "has been indicted on numerous occasions for racism, and for undermining the self-confidence of black children and maligning the culture of their parents". The MAR profile notes "growing 'black on black' violence between people from the Caribbean and immigrants from Africa".[31]
A report published by the University and College Union in 2019 found that just 0.1% of active professors in the UK are black women, compared with 68% who are white men, and found that the black women professors had faced discriminatory abuse and exclusion throughout their careers.[32]
However a 2019 EU survey, 'Being black in the EU', ranked the UK as the least racist in the 12 Western European countries surveyed.[33]
In June 2020, there were protests throughout the UK, as there were in many countries around the world, following the murder of George Floyd by police in the United States.[34][35][36][37] These protests were accompanied by actions against memorials to people thought to be involved with the slave trade or other historic racism, including protests, petitions, and vandalism of the memorials.[38][39][40]
As a result of these protests the UK Government held a Commission on Race and Ethnic disparities between 26 October and 30 November 2020. On 26 November 2020 the chair of the commission sent a letter to Kemi Badenoch the Minister for Equalities to give the Government an update on the commission’s progress and to furthermore ask for an extension to the deadline of completion.[41]
By ethnicity
Black
Windrush generation
Main article: Windrush generation
Black immigrants who arrived in Britain from the Caribbean in the 1950s faced racism. For many Caribbean immigrants, their first experience of discrimination came when trying to find private accommodation. They were generally ineligible for council housing because only people who had been resident in the UK for a minimum of five years qualified for it. At the time, there was no anti-discrimination legislation to prevent landlords from refusing to accept black tenants. A survey undertaken in Birmingham in 1956 found that only 15 of a total of 1,000 white people surveyed would let a room to a black tenant. As a result, many black immigrants were forced to live in slum areas of cities, where the housing was of poor quality and there were problems of crime, violence and prostitution.[42][43] One of the most notorious slum landlords was Peter Rachman, who owned around 100 properties in the Notting Hill area of London. Black tenants sometimes paid twice the rent of white tenants, and lived in conditions of extreme overcrowding.[42]
Historian Winston James argues that the experience of racism in Britain was a major factor in the development of a shared Caribbean identity amongst black immigrants from a range of different island and class backgrounds.[44]
South Asians
Racism against British Asians is committed not only by long-established white Britons but also by other immigrant races that came to the UK.[45][46]
Xenophobia in modern Britain is also tied to Islamophobia and Hinduphobia, and the growing hate crimes against those within these minority groups.[47] This is fuelled by groups such as the English Defence League (EDL) that target ethnic minorities from countries where Islam is the major religion. This is directly related to the racist notions that have been perpetuated throughout British history. The current hate against these groups can be shown to reflect the attitudes in the sixties by politicians such as Enoch Powell and are still prevalent today in debate and discussion.[48]
British India
Various British historians like James Mills and Charles Grant wrote influentials books and essays portraying Indians as deceitful, liars, dishonest, depraved and incapable of ruling themselves.
The relationship between "Indomania" and "Indophobia" in colonial era British Indology was discussed by American Indologist Thomas Trautmann (1997) who found that Indomania had become a norm in early 19th century Britain as the result of a conscious agenda of Evangelicalism and utilitarianism, especially by Charles Grant and James Mill.[49] Historians noted that during the British Empire, "evangelical influence drove British policy down a path that tended to minimize and denigrate the accomplishments of Indian civilization and to position itself as the negation of the earlier British Indomania that was nourished by belief in Indian wisdom."[50]
In Grant's highly influential "Observations on the ...Asiatic subjects of Great Britain" (1796),[51] he criticized the Orientalists for being too respectful to Indian culture and religion. His work tried to determine the Hindus' "true place in the moral scale" and he alleged that the Hindus are "a people exceedingly depraved". Grant believed that Great Britain's duty was to civilise and Christianize the natives.
Lord Macaulay, serving on the Supreme Council of India between 1834 and 1838, was instrumental in creating the foundations of bilingual colonial India. He convinced the Governor-General to adopt English as the medium of instruction in higher education from the sixth year of schooling onwards, rather than Sanskrit or Persian. He claimed: "I have never found one among them who could deny that a single shelf of a good European library was worth the whole native literature of India and Arabia."[52] He wrote that Arabic and Sanskrit works on medicine contain "medical doctrines which would disgrace an English Farrier – Astronomy, which would move laughter in girls at an English boarding school – History, abounding with kings thirty feet high reigns thirty thousand years long – and Geography made up of seas of treacle and seas of butter".[53]
One of the most influential historians of India during the British Empire, James Mill was criticised for prejudice against Hindus.[54] Horace Hayman Wilson wrote that the tendency of Mill's work was "evil".[55] Mill claimed that both Indians and Chinese people are cowardly, unfeeling and mendacious. Both Mill and Grant attacked Orientalist scholarship that was too respectful of Indian culture: "It was unfortunate that a mind so pure, so warm in the pursuit of truth so devoted to oriental learning, as that of Sir William Jones, should have adopted the hypothesis of a high state of civilization in the principal countries of Asia."[56]
Paki-bashing (1960s–1990s)
Main article: Paki-bashing
Starting in the late 1960s,[57] and peaking in the 1970s and 1980s, violent gangs opposed to immigration took part in frequent attacks known as "Paki-bashing", which targeted and assaulted Pakistanis and other South Asians.[58] "Paki-bashing" was unleashed after Enoch Powell's inflammatory Rivers of Blood speech in 1968,[57] although there is "little agreement on the extent to which Powell was responsible for racial attacks".[59] Powell refused to accept responsibility for any violence, or to disassociate himself from the views when questioned by David Frost in 1969, arguing that they were never associated in the first place.[59]
These attacks peaked during the 1970s–1980s, with the attacks mainly linked to far-right fascist, racist and anti-immigrant movements, including the white power skinheads, the National Front, and the British National Party (BNP).[60][61] These attacks were usually referred to as either "Paki-bashing" or "skinhead terror", with the attackers usually called "Paki-bashers" or "skinheads".[57] "Paki-bashing" was suggested to have been fueled by perceived anti-immigrant and anti-Pakistani rhetoric from the British media at the time.[61] It is also suggested that this was fueled by perceived systemic failures of state authorities, which is alleged to include under-reporting racist attacks, beliefs amongst some communities that the criminal justice system was not taking racist attacks seriously, perceived racial harassment by police, and allegations of police involvement in racist violence.[57]
Pub damaged in the 2001 Bradford riots between White and Pakistani sectors
Mahesh Upadhyaya
In 1968, Mahesh Upadhyaya was the first person in the UK to bring up a case of racial discrimination under the Race Relations Act.[62] He was an Indian shift engineer looking for houses. Upon seeing an advertisement for a house in Huddersfield, he was informed by the CEO of the company that they did not "sell to coloured people".[63][64] Upadhyaya complained to the Race Relations Board the same day (13 December 1968),[65] and they filed a civil action against the company in June 1969, the first of its kind in the country.[64][66] In September, the judge in the case ruled that the company had engaged in unlawful discrimination under the Race Relations Act, but failed the case on a technicality.[67]
Jews
See also: Antisemitism in the United Kingdom, Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party, and Antisemitism in the UK Conservative Party
Since the arrival of Jews in England following the Norman Conquest in 1066, Jews have been subjected to discrimination.[68] Jews living in England from about the reign of King Stephen experienced religious discrimination and it is thought that the blood libel which accused Jews of ritual murder originated in England, leading to massacres and increasing discrimination. An example of early English antisemitism was the York pogrom at Clifford's Tower in 1190 which resulted in an estimated 150 Jews taking their own lives or being burned to death in the tower.[69] The earliest recorded images of anti-semitism are found in the Royal tax records from 1233.[70] The Jewish presence in England continued until King Edward I's Edict of Expulsion in 1290.[71]
1902 rally in London England against Destitute Foreigners
In the late 19th and early 20th century, the number of Jews in Britain greatly increased due to the exodus of Jews from Russia, which resulted in a large community of Jews forming in the East End of London. Popular sentiment against immigration was used by the British Union of Fascists to incite hatred against Jews, leading to the Battle of Cable Street in 1936, at which the fascists were repulsed by Jews, Irish dock workers and communists[72] and anti-fascists who barricaded the streets.[73]
In the 20th century, the UK began restricting immigration under the Aliens Act 1905. Although the Act did not mention Jews specifically, "it was clear to most observers" that the act was mainly aimed at Jews fleeing persecution in Eastern Europe.[74] Winston Churchill, then a Liberal MP, said that the Act appealed to "insular prejudice against the foreigners, to racial prejudice against the Jews, and to labour prejudice against competition".[74]
In the aftermath of the Holocaust, undisguised, racial hatred of Jews became unacceptable in British society.[75] However, outbursts of antisemitism emanating from far right groups continued, leading to opposition by the 43 Group, formed by Jewish ex-servicemen, which broke up fascist meetings. Far-right antisemitism was motivated principally by racial hatred, rather than Christian theological accusations of deicide.
Following an escalation in the Palestinian-Israel crisis in 2021, the number of antisemitic incidents in London increased by 500%. London Rabbis reported a general sense of fear in the community, and four people were arrested for racially aggravated public order offenses whilst brandishing Palestinian flags.[76]
Chinese
Michael Wilkes from the British Chinese Project said that racism against them is not taken as seriously as racism against African, African-Caribbean or South Asian people, and that a lot of racist attacks towards the British Chinese community go unreported, primarily because of widespread mistrust in the police.[77]
Chinese labourers
Chinese merchant seamen memorial, Liverpool's Pier Head
From the middle of the 19th century, Chinese were seen as a source for cheap labourers for the building of the British Empire. However, this resulted in animosity against Chinese labourers as competing for British jobs. Hostilities were seen when Chinese were being recruited for work in the British Transvaal Colony (present day South Africa), resulted in 28 riots between July 1904 to July 1905, and later becoming a key debating point as part of the 1906 United Kingdom general election.[78] This would also be the source of the 1911 seamen's strike in Cardiff, which resulted in rioting and the destruction of about 30 Chinese laundries.[79]
While Chinese were recruited to support British war efforts, after the end of the Second World War, the British Government sought to forcibly repatriate thousands of seamen in a Home Office policy HO 213/926 to "Compulsory repatriation of undesirable Chinese seamen."[80] Many of the seamen left behind wives and mixed-race children that they would never see again.[81] A network has also been established for families of Chinese seamen who were repatriated after the Second World War.[82]
2001 foot-and-mouth outbreak
Government reports in early 2001 highlighted the smuggling of illegal meat as a possible source for the 2001 United Kingdom foot-and-mouth outbreak, some of which was destined for a Chinese restaurant.[83] Chinese catering businesses owners claimed a drop of up to 40% in business, in an industry which had some 12,000 Chinese takeaways and 3,000 Chinese restaurants in the United Kingdom, and made up about 80% of the British Chinese workforce at the time. Community leaders saw this as racist and xenophobic, with a scapegoating of the British Chinese community for the spread of the disease.[84][85]
COVID-19 pandemic
Main article: Xenophobia and racism related to the COVID-19 pandemic § United Kingdom
On 12 February 2020, Sky News reported that some British Chinese said they were facing increasing levels of racist abuse during the COVID-19 pandemic.[86] It was recorded that hate crimes against British Chinese people between January and March 2020 have tripled the amount of hate crimes in the past two years in the UK.[87] According to the London Metropolitan Police, between January and June 2020, 457 race-related crimes had occurred against British East and Southeast Asians.[88]
Verbal abuse has been one of the common forms of racism experienced by British Chinese. Just before the lockdown in February 2020, British Chinese children recalled experiences of fear and frustration due to bullying and name calling in their schools.[89] According to a June 2020 poll, 76% of British Chinese had received racial slurs at least once, and 50% regularly received racial slurs, a significantly higher frequency than experienced by any other racial minority.[90]
Racism during the pandemic has also impacted a number of Chinese-owned business, especially within the catering business,[91][92] as well as an increase in violent assaults against British East and Southeast Asians.[93][94]
White British
Asian on White
Richard Norman Everitt was a White English fifteen-year-old boy who was stabbed to death by a gang of Bangladeshi men who patrolled the streets looking for whites to kill in London in 1994. The gang had stabbed a white sixteen-year-old boy before murdering Richard.
Ross Parker was a White British seventeen-year-old boy who was stabbed, beaten with a hammer and kicked to death by a gang of Pakistani men in Peterborough who in 2001 had planned to find "a white male to attack simply because he was white".[95]
Kriss Donald was a White Scottish fifteen-year-old boy who was kidnapped, stabbed and set on fire, by three Pakistani men in Glasgow in 2004 "for being white".[96]
Institutional Racism
Cheshire Police force were found to have rejected a "well prepared" potential recruit who applied in 2017 because he is a white, heterosexual male. The force was subsequently found guilty of discrimination.[97]
Regarding the anti-white discrimination in the Royal Air Force, chairman of the defence select committee Tobias Ellwood told MPs that the armed force's ex head of recruitment had pointed out that 160 white men had been discriminated against before resigning in protest. Mr Ellwood told MPs that the RAF's prioritisation of ethnic minority and female pilots in a bid to improve diversity could have a significant impact "on the RAF's operational performance".[98]
Eastern Europeans and other European minorities
In the 21st century, following the significant influx of Central, Southern and Eastern European migrants and the economic downturn in 2008, racist and xenophobic attitudes and effects are reported to have risen in Great Britain.[99] There has been a particular sharp increase in xenophobia against Central, Southern and Eastern European immigrants.
Brexit
Since Brexit, there has been a noticeable increase in xenophobia towards Eastern Europeans, especially Poles, Romanians and Bulgarians. After the Brexit referendum resulted in the UK leaving the EU, many Poles reported that they had been verbally abused in public. Romanians living in northern England also reported racist abuse in public and expressed fears they were being stereotyped as 'Gypsies'. People of Eastern European background such as Italians and Greeks have said they don't feel welcome in the country due to xenophobia. There are also reports of members of minority groups of European descent reporting racist abuse to police, with the police not taking action.[4][5][100][101][102][103][104][6][105][106][107]
Between minority groups
Both the Bradford riots[108] and the Oldham Riots occurred in 2001, following cases of racism.[109] These were either the public displays of racist sentiment or, as in the Brixton Riots, racial profiling and alleged harassment by police forces.[110] In 2005, there were the Birmingham riots, derived from ethnic tensions between the British African-Caribbean people and British Asian communities, with the spark for the riot being an unsubstantiated gang rape of a teenage black girl by a group of South Asian men.[111]
Constituent nations
Scotland
In 2006, 1,543 victims of racist crime in Scotland were of Pakistani origin, while more than 1,000 victims were classed as being "White British".[112]
As of 11 February 2011, attacks on ethnic minorities in Scotland had contributed to a 20% increase in racist incidents over the past twelve months. Reports say every day in Scotland, seventeen people are abused, threatened or violently attacked because of the colour of their skin, ethnicity or nationality. Statistics showed that just under 5,000 incidents of racism were recorded in 2009/10, a slight decrease from racist incidents recorded in 2008/9.[113]
From 2004 to 2012, the rate of racist incidents has been around 5,000 incidents per year.[113] In 2011–12, there were 5,389 racist incidents recorded by the police, which is a 10% increase on the 4,911 racist incidents recorded in 2010–11.[113]
White on Asian
In 2009, the murder of an Indian sailor named Kunal Mohanty by a White-Scotsman named Christopher Miller resulted in Miller's conviction as a criminal motivated by racial hatred. Miller's brother gave evidence during the trial and said Miller told him he had "done a Paki".[114]
Northern Ireland
Northern Ireland had in 2004 the highest number of racist incidents per person in the UK,[115][116][117] and has been branded the "race-hate capital of Europe".[118] Foreigners are three times more likely to suffer a racist incident in Northern Ireland than elsewhere in the UK.[119]
According to police, most racist incidents happen in loyalist Protestant areas, and members of loyalist paramilitary groups have orchestrated a series of racist attacks aimed at "ethnically cleansing" these areas.[120] There have been pipe bomb, petrol bomb and gun attacks on the homes of immigrants and people of different ethnic origins.[121][122][123][124][125] Masked gangs have also ransacked immigrants' homes and assaulted the residents.[116] In 2009, more than 100 Roma were forced to flee their homes in Belfast following sustained attacks by a racist mob, who allegedly threatened to kill them.[126][127][128] That year, a Polish immigrant was beaten to death in an apparently racist attack in Newry.[129] Police recorded more than 1,100 racist incidents in 2013/14, but they believe most incidents are not reported to them.[120]
Wales
An anti-Irish race riot took place in 1848 in the largely Irish immigrant Cardiff suburb of Newtown.[130]
At the time of the First World War, Cardiff's docks area had the largest black and Asian population outside of London. In June 1919 riots took place in Newport, Cardiff and Barry with non-whites being attacked and their property destroyed. The events were not acknowledged or recorded until the 1980s.[131]
Institutional
Police
Main article: Institutional racism § United Kingdom
Various police forces in the United Kingdom (such as the Greater Manchester Police, the London Metropolitan Police, the Sussex Police and the West Yorkshire Police services)[132] have been accused of institutionalised racism throughout the late 20th and 21st centuries, by people such as the Chief Constable of the GMP in 1998 (David Wilmot); the BBC's Secret Policeman documentary 5 years later (which led to the resignation of 6 officers);[133] Metropolitan Police Commissioner Bernard Hogan-Howe.
The National Black Police Association which allows only African, African-Caribbean and Asian officers as full members has been criticised as a racist organization by some because of its selective membership criteria based on ethnic origin.[134][135]
However, when looking at 10 years of data up to 2018 of deaths in custody by race compared to number of arrests made, a white individual who had been arrested was about 25% more likely to die in custody than a black individual who had been arrested. Nevertheless, the same IOPC report also found that of the 164 people that have died in or following police custody in England and Wales, 13 were black, a number that is overall disproportionate to the ~3% of the English and Welsh population that identified as black in the 2011 census. When allowing for these numbers, black people are more than twice as likely to die in police custody.[136]
The Lammy Review outlined treatment of Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic individuals in the policing and criminal justice system and found significant racial bias in the UK justice system.[137]
Prison
Prison guards are almost twice as likely to be reported for racism than inmates in the UK, with racist incidents between prison guards themselves being nearly as high as that between guards and prisoners. The environment has been described as a dangerous breeding ground for racist extremism.[138]
Criminal justice system
It has been shown that lower rates of guilty pleas has led to black and Asian teenage boys and young men to be sent to prison at higher rates than white counterparts, and therefore more likely to get long sentences for homicide and other crimes.[139] However, the study does not account for previous convictions. David Lammy stated, "Clearly when someone commits a crime, they need to be punished. However, we cannot have one rule for one group of people and a different rule for another group of people. As I found in my 2017 review of the criminal justice system, some of the difference in sentencing is the result of a 'trust deficit'. Many BAME defendants simply still do not believe that the justice system will deliver less punitive treatment if they plead guilty. It's vital that all parts of the criminal justice system work hard to address these discrepancies, so that the same crime leads to the same sentence, regardless of ethnicity."[140]
Healthcare
An area where racism is pervasive is in healthcare and health-related systems and infrastructure. There is overwhelming evidence of racism in the National Health Service, Medical and Nursing Professional Regulators, and the Healthcare and social care industry. Although the evidence is vast, there is a constant attempt to cover up, suppress, and deny these. Admission of racism in this sector is rare, usually unwholesome, and usually inadequate to effect changes other than superficial and cosmetic 'system changes'. People classified as Black and other minorities are the most severely impacted, consequently, they are the most likely to suffer consequences that criminalize, demote, under-employ, under-promote, harshly, or severely inflict consequences on individuals, families, and communities.[141][142]
Official interventions
The Race Relations Act 1965 outlawed public discrimination, and established the Race Relations Board. Further Acts in 1968 and 1976 outlawed discrimination in employment, housing and social services, and replaced the Race Relations Board with Commission for Racial Equality[143] that merged into the Equality and Human Rights Commission in 2004. The Human Rights Act 1998 made organisations in the UK, including public authorities, subject to the European Convention on Human Rights.[144] The Race Relations Amendment Act 2000 extends existing legislation for the public sector to the police force, and requires public authorities to promote equality.
Polls in the 1960s and 1970s showed that racial prejudice was widespread among the British population at the time.[145] A Gallup poll, for example, showed that 75% of the population were sympathetic to Enoch Powell's views expressed in his Rivers of Blood speech.[60] An NOP poll showed that approximately 75% of the British population agreed with Powell's demand for non-white immigration to be halted completely, and about 60% agreed with his inflammatory call for the repatriation of non-whites already resident in Britain.[145]
A 1981 report identified both "racial discrimination" and an "extreme racial disadvantage" in the UK, concluding that urgent action was needed to prevent these issues becoming an "endemic, ineradicable disease threatening the very survival of our society".[27] The era saw an increase in attacks on black and Asian people by white people. The Joint Campaign Against Racism committee reported that there had been more than 20,000 attacks on British people of colour, including Britons of South Asian origin, during 1985.[146]
Seeing little to gain from trade with European countries, the Chinese Qing emperor permitted Europeans to trade only at the port of Canton, and only through licensed Chinese merchants. For years, foreign merchants accepted Chinese rules—but by 1839 the British, who were the dominant trading group, were ready to flex their muscles.They had found a drug that the Chinese would buy: opium. Grown legally in British India, opium was smuggled into China, where its use and sale became illegal after the damaging effects it had on the Chinese people.With its control of the seas, the British easily shut down key Chinese ports and forced the Chinese to negotiate—marking the beginning of what is known as the “one hundred years of humiliation” for the Chinese. Dissatisfied with the resulting agreement, the British sent a second and larger force that took even more coastal cities, including Shanghai. The ensuing Opium War was settled at gunpoint; the resulting Treaty of Nanjing opened five ports to international trade, fixed the tariff on imported goods at five percent, imposed an indemnity of twenty-one million ounces of silver on China to cover Britain’s war expenses, and ceded the island of Hong Kong to Great Britain.This treaty satisfied neither side. Between 1856 and 1860, Britain and France renewed hostilities with China. Seventeen thousand British and French troops occupied Beijing and set the Imperial Palace on fire. Another round of harsh treaties gave European merchants and missionaries greater privileges, and forced the Chinese to open several more cities to foreign trade.
The Berlin Conference of 1884-1885 began the process of carving up Africa, paying no attention to local culture or the differences between ethnic groups, and often leaving people from the same tribe on opposite sides of artificial, European-imposed borders.Britain was primarily concerned with maintaining its lines of communication with India, hence its interest in Egypt and South Africa. Once these two areas had been secured, imperialists like Cecil Rhodes encouraged the acquisition of further territory, with the goal of establishing a Cape-to-Cairo railway. Britain was also interested in the commercial potential of mineral-rich territories like the Transvaal, where gold was discovered in the mid-1880s.As a result, during the final twenty years of the nineenth century, Britain occupied or annexed territories which accounted for more than thirty-two percent of Africa’s population, making the British the most dominant Europeans on the continent.By 1965, Britain had lost its stranglehold on the continent—but the consequences of imperialism were immense. Firstly, the settler states of Kenya, Rhodesia, and South Africa saw many episodes of violence before African nationalists could forge a return to stability, after the departure of the colonial governments. Corrupt African “strongmen,” or dictators, often gained power—despite ignoring the social needs of the people. Economic dependence on the West, coupled with political corruption, crippled attempts to diversify.Even today, Africa is the least developed region in the world, with poverty and malnutrition running rampant. The idea that Europeans wanted to “civilize” Africa was an utter lie, and a means to justify the exploitation of the continent.
In March 1935, Hitler established a general military draft and declared the “unequal” Versailles Treaty disarmament clauses null and void; some European leaders appeared to understand the danger, and warned him against future aggressive actions.The emerging united front against Hitler quickly collapsed. Britain adopted a policy of “appeasement,” granting Hitler possibly everything he could want in order to avoid war. The last chance to stop the Nazis without world war came in March 1936, when Hitler suddenly marched his armies into the demilitarized Rhineland, brazenly violating the Treaties of Versailles and Locarno. An uncertain France would not move without British support; and the British refused to act.The years that followed led to a far stronger Germany. In 1936, Germany, Italy, and Japan signed the Anti-Comintern Pact. At the same time, Germany and Italy intervened in the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939). Their support helped the Spanish fascists defeat Republican Spain. In 1938, Hitler threatened to invade Austria, and thereby forced the Austrian chancellor to put local Nazis in control of the government. The next day, German armies moved in unopposed, and Austria became part of Greater Germany.Simultaneously, Hitler began demanding that the German-minority area of western Czechoslovakia—called the Sudetenland—be turned over to Germany. In September 1938, British Prime Minister Chamberlain went to Germany to negotiate with the Nazis. The British and French agreed with Hitler that the Sudetenland should be ceded to Germany immediately. Hitler’s armies eventually occupied the remainder of the Czechoslovakia, in 1939. For Hitler everything was set on September 1, 1939, German armies invaded Poland, and Britain and France finally declared war on Germany. The Second World War had begun; in the next six years more than fifty million people would lose their lives.