Women's Views on News |
- The inquiry into police spying needs voices
- Victory with new licensing law
- Fawcett on ways to close the pay gap
| The inquiry into police spying needs voices Posted: 11 Sep 2015 08:06 AM PDT
Over the next two to three years, judge Christopher Pitchford is chairing a public inquiry into undercover policing operations conducted by English and Welsh police forces since 1968. The inquiry is focusing on, but not limited to, two political policing units: the Metropolitan Police's Special Demonstration Squad (SDS), which operated in London from 1968 to 2008, and the National Public Order Intelligence Unit (NPOIU), set up in 1999 and conducting nationwide undercover operations until it was taken over by the Met in 2010. The NPOIU was the unit that undercover officers like Mark Kennedy, Marco Jacobs and Lynn Watson belonged to. While people have few expectations that the Pitchford Inquiry will end undercover policing operations that target protesters, it does provides an unprecedented opportunity to understand and expose one of the most deeply intrusive and disturbing aspects of the police response to political activism. The stories of the women deceived into intimate relationships with undercover officers is an important part of this, but so too is the evidence of everyone who had the misfortune to invite a police spy to their workplaces, into their homes and into their trust. Around the UK there are many who have had such encounters. Individually, each of those stories may seem small or insignificant, but together they amount to a very powerful picture of campaigns disrupted and private lives invaded. Lord Justice Pitchford has invited interested parties to apply to become 'core participants' in the inquiry, which includes legal representation. Network for Police Monitoring – Netpol for short – has decided not to seek this status itself but is instead supporting the work of one of its members, the Undercover Research Group, a collective of grassroots activists that includes many who have themselves been targeted by undercover officers. It is seeking recognition by the inquiry as core participants in order to coordinate the testimonies of individuals or groups who feel their interaction with undercover police is too 'small' to matter, or have concerns about further state intrusion into their work and private life should they give up their anonymity. The idea is that the Undercover Research Group can offer a way for all those affected by undercover police officers to safely and securely ensure their own experiences are heard. The inquiry will be formed of three parts: One will establish what has happened: the motivation for, and the scope of, undercover police activities in practice and their effect upon individuals in particular and the public in general. This will also look at the role of and the contribution made by undercover policing towards the prevention and detection of crime. The second part will be an investigation of systems and procedures: governance and oversight of undercover policing the adequacy of justification, authorisation. This will examine the selection, training, management and care of undercover police officers and the statutory, policy and judicial regulation of undercover policing. This module will also explore the state of awareness of undercover policing within Her Majesty's Government. And the third will look to the future, and informing the Inquiry. This will take evidence from a variety of witnesses, including expert witnesses, about the future of undercover policing and associated matters with a view to informing recommendations. Lord Justice Pitchford will then put together a written report and recommendations, which he is aiming to publish in the summer of 2018. To see The Terms of Reference of the Inquiry which were announced by the Home Secretary on 16 July 2015 click here. If you have been spied on by undercover police, Netpol recommends contacting the Undercover Research Group, who are offering a way for activists to give their testimony to the Pitchford Inquiry. If you are happy for the Undercover Research Group to represent your interests at the inquiry, or if you just want to pass on information anonymously, you can contact them here. If you think you have a strong enough case to become a 'core participant' in your own right, check out this excellent article by the Campaign Opposing Police Surveillance (COPS), which brings together the different campaigns publicising the impact of undercover policing and was instrumental in calling for a public inquiry. Anyone wishing to provide evidence to the inquiry should in the first instance contact the inquiry team and is invited to read the Chairman's opening remarks. The deadline set by Lord Justice Pitchford for requests for core participant status is 4pm on 18 September 2015.  |
| Victory with new licensing law Posted: 11 Sep 2015 06:35 AM PDT
The Scottish Parliament has passed a new law on licensing, which includes a new regime to license sexual entertainment venues (SEVs), or lap-dancing clubs, as most people call them. This is the first time that a regime for the proper regulation of lap-dancing and strip clubs has existed in Scotland. Zero Tolerance thinks that these venues contribute to a sleazy, sexist, objectifying culture, which normalises gender inequality and increases violence against women and would rather they didn't exist. Strip clubs, lap-dancing bars, and pole-dancing clubs are venues which demean women and encourage men to engage in sexual exploitation and call it 'entertainment'. However, when this Bill was first proposed, we all had to recognise that full-scale closure wasn't on the table, and instead engage with the process of securing reform, knowing that the status quo was definitely not an option. Sometimes, change comes in increments. Lap-dancing clubs have never been properly regulated in Scotland, and that has led to all sorts of breaches of the flimsy (non-binding) 'conditions' attached to their alcohol licences such as breaches of the no touching rule, provision of private booths (which facilitates prostitution), and fully nude performances. Local authorities have not had proper powers to refuse licenses, or to police activity within these venues. When Glasgow City Council wanted to withhold a public entertainment licence, the 'Brightcrew' legal ruling confirmed that only the alcohol provision in the venue could be regulated, not the 'entertainment' it provided. Another local authority, Highland, granted a licence for a strip club in Inverness, despite objecting heavily, because it had no legal powers to refuse. So the law in this area desperately needed to change. The final debate on the Air Weapons and Licensing Bill was held on 25 June 2015 and the Bill was passed into law with a healthy majority. The debate was very passionate and many MSPs spoke eloquently about the need to tackle objectification, including Cara Hilton, who worked hard to secure important amendments to the Bill, and who said "We need to challenge a culture where women and girls are viewed and treated as sexualised objects". Sandra White, who has worked on this issue for years and was instrumental in getting this new regime into law, Ken MacIntosh, and Malcolm Chisholm also spoke about the importance of this issue. It is great to have MSPs who really understand the harms of sexual objectification and speak out on these issues in our Parliament. Zero Tolerance is delighted that the Bill was passed and that: Sexual entertainment venues (SEVs) will be properly regulated for the first time Local authorities will have to produce an 'SEV Licensing Policy Statement', meaning councils will have to consider the impact of licensing SEVs in their area Councils will have to consider issues such as 'protecting children and young people from harm' and 'reducing violence against women' so SEVs will not be allowed to operate in a policy vacuum Local authorities will have the power to set a limit on the number venues in their area, which can include a limit of zero SEVs and Communities will need to be properly consulted on the granting of SEV licences. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice said in the final debate on the Bill that the statutory guidance on the bill will indicate the types of bodies to be consulted, "and my intention is that they will certainly include bodies such as violence against women partnerships". This is a huge step forward, and we hope it will lead to a change in the overall number of these venues in Scotland. Change comes slowly, in increments, but it is always worth fighting for; we can change the world, one high street at a time.  |
| Fawcett on ways to close the pay gap Posted: 11 Sep 2015 06:02 AM PDT
The government's commitment to closing the gap between men and women's pay has real benefits for women and the economy, the Fawcett Society has said, and has suggested a number of ways to make it work in practice. In its official response to the government's consultation regarding its promise to require larger employers to publish gender pay information, the Fawcett Society's new chief executive, Sam Smethers, said: "This is a great opportunity to help tackle the wider obstacles to women's progression in the workplace and we welcome this step towards closing the gender pay gap. "The Fawcett Society is keen to work with government and employers to develop this support using our expertise in gender equality to build a fairer and more productive UK economy." The Fawcett Society has suggested that: Any figures published by large companies should give enough information to make a meaningful comparison. A single figure would not give a full picture. The Fawcett Society calls for regulations to include a full pay audit that include financial benefits such as bonuses, overtime and perks; The pay audits should follow best practice outlined by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the independent body established to challenge discrimination and reduce inequality. The Commission offers clear information about how to carry out an effective pay audit and it also has the expertise to oversee the delivery and ensure compliance – but it must be given the resource to take this on; Companies should follow up any pay reviews with an action plan to close any gender pay gap, which should be public and transparent; There should be support and guidance for employers to help them change practices that put women at a disadvantage. Organisations may unwittingly contribute to pay differences as pay and conditions change or through pursuing old HR policies; and The proposed fine of £5,000 for companies that refuse to comply should be higher. And employees should have a right to complain to an employment tribunal in such a situation. Writing on the issue on her blog, Smethers also pointed out that equal pay and the gender pay gap are effectively two different things. That is because the pay gap, the difference in pay between women and men, is an average figure, it smooths out individual differences. And the UK’s equal pay legislation, she explained, is primarily concerned with giving the individual woman a mechanism to pursue a claim if she can find a way to make a meaningful comparison. The gender pay gap is a measure of the difference between the hourly pay of women and men and has a number of causes. An organisation that employs only women in junior roles and men in senior roles will have a large gender pay gap because of where each is concentrated in the hierarchy. But there may not be a case for individual pay discrimination. On the other hand a company could report no pay gap but an individual woman could still have a case if she can identify another employee to compare herself with. It is also possible for an employer to carry out a pay review and report a gender pay gap, but to fail to provide the information the individual employee needs to bring a pay claim. This is likely to be the outcome if the regulations implementing Section 78 of the 2010 Equality Act are drawn sufficiently loosely. For the legislation to have an impact, Smethers pointed out, pay gap data must include pay across specific jobs as well as by other terms, such as bonuses, overtime pay and perks like company cars. So is the answer surely to require employers to be transparent and publish the data? Smether’s thinks so, but it is tricky – for the simple reason that the data could provide employees with the information to bring a claim. Much more attractive for them is the option of transparency about the gap (without the data) and so with none of the risk of litigation, but perhaps with a strongly-worded commitment to equal pay. This begs the question: what are we really trying to achieve? “For me,” Smethers said, “it's two things. Firstly, the individual woman has to be equipped with the information she needs to challenge pay inequality. Secondly, we need employers to be willing partners if we are to genuinely close the pay gap and root out pay inequality.” One way forward, she continued, could be to require employers to publish the data but to combine it with a time-limited window of opportunity for them to put it right. Those willing to tackle the issue should receive support from government and from organisations such as Fawcett to change the way they work. But if they don't address the identified pay inequality an employee would be free to bring their claim in the usual way. The employer could even face an additional penalty for failing to act? At the very least the implementation of Section 78 should be consistent with the statutory code of practice on equal pay. We need a way forward that brings employers with us, she added, but we also need to focus on what achieving equal pay actually means for individual women at work. The consultation on the proposal to publish pay differences in large organisations closed on 6 September – so now we have to wait and see…  |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Women's Views on News. To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States | |