BMA has to pay £815000 in damages for indirect racial discrimination
BMJ 2002; 324 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.324.7353.1541/a (Published 29 June 2002) Cite this as: BMJ 2002;324:1541
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Could any of the Ordinary BMA Members (out there) please kindly tell
me exactly how much money the BMA has actually spent, on woefully avoiding
to pay Dr Chaudhary his long overdue compensation ?
I also sincerely hope that the wonderful Dr Chaudhary is amicably
charging the BMA additional interest , at roughly 8% per annum.
Over a 'wicked delay period' of 2 years, this hefty interest would
hopefully work out at an extra £130,000 ; bringing his total amount to a
sumptuous £945,000.
Well Done , Brother Chaudhary !!!
Competing interests:
Dr Joseph Chikelue Obi MBBS MD MPH DSc FRIPH FACAM is also the Chairman of the General Wellness Assembly (GWA); an International Professional Body for Independent Wellness Consultants.He has recently just accepted an unpaid role as an 'NHS Champion' for the rights of Older People ;and also humbly invented the 'Omnipill'.
Competing interests: No competing interests
In the BMA's press statement(24 March 2004),its Secretary Mr Strachan
says "We are very disappointed with the decision of the Employment Appeal
Tribunal to uphold Mr Chaudhary's appeal." Please get the facts right--Mr
Chaudhary did not appeal,it's the BMA that appealed against Mr
Chaudhary,so the EAT could not possibly "uphold Mr Chaudhary's appeal"---I
think, Mr Strachan(a Lawyer) should have said that the EAT upheld the
original tribunal's decision,or more simply,that the BMA lost its appeal
at the EAT.In fact, it is a 100% defeat for the BMA at the EAT on all the
grounds it appealed. Obviously, BMA must be disappointed as they seem to
be getting mixed up with the facts,already.
In the light of the same, I wonder whether the BMA's view "A
preliminary review of the EAT judgment suggests there may be good grounds
for a further appeal to the Court of Appeal" is also misconceived.
I urge,please do not feed lawyers with BMA members' funds anymore on
this case.Show some humility, at least.Please,please STOP vendettas
against members who make legitimate complaints. I think, Mr
Johnson's(Chairman's) position too, has now become untenable.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) will be handing down their
judgment in the above case on 24 March 2004. It is the BMA's appeal
against the award of £815,000 by an employment tribunal in Manchester for
victimisation and indirect discrimination in breach of Race Relations Act
1976.
A link to the full judgment will appear on www.medical-journals.com
as soon as the judgment is posted on the EAT's website.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Perhaps it hit a raw nerve! Discrimination within the Race Relations
Act has no difference whether it is institutional or within communities.
The act is applied in exactly the same way.
Perhaps the community in question should look at themselves before
criticising others. Its a simple and valid point that you seem to have
missed completely.
R Pal
Competing interests: No competing interests
Long letter but totally out of context!
I am surprised at the authors efforts to equate the frustating
discrimination in the intitutions to her observations on asian
communities.
Obviously somebody's priority is not right.
Thank you
Competing interests: No competing interests
Dear Editor
The finding of indirect racial discrimination against the BMA
highlights the need to do more to make medicine an inclusive profession
(1). Recently I attended a conference on Institutional Racism in Higher
Education, during which many issues about the accessibility and
inclusiveness of higher education were raised (2). Some of these were
highlighted the following day when I attended my school’s Graduation
Ceremony. The ceremony was held at Southwark Cathedral, and continued a
tradition and association between church, hospital and university going
back hundreds of years. On one hand the magnificent building, evocative
organ music, and procession of staff and students in their gowns gave the
ceremony a certain meaning and significance. On the other hand, when I
looked at the very multicultural group of graduating doctors and their
families, some of whom had come in national or religious dress, I wondered
how comfortable and relevant it felt for them.
Such formal events send out messages about the values and culture of
an organisation. It made me wonder how many taken for granted aspects of
medical school life could seem alienating to those from different ethnic,
religious or class backgrounds. If medical schools are serious about
widening access, such events needs to be reviewed, as do many more subtle
ways in which organisations send messages about what and who is
acceptable. A good starting point, suggested by Beverley Bernard at the
conference is to tackle the issues which people in the organisation tell
you are important – and give them the opportunity to tell you.
I would be interested in others’ views and experiences.
Yours sincerely
Mary Seabrook
(1) Dyer C. BMA has to pay £815000 in damages for indirect racial
discrimination. BMJ 2002; 324: 1541a
(2) Institutional Racism in Higher Education, Centre for Ethnicity and
Racism Studies, University of Leeds. 3 July 2002
Competing interests: No competing interests
Regarding "Fried puris and chickpea curry," Dr Anil Sharma writes
"With due respect, you don't have a clue who fries what in my (or indeed
any other person's) kitchen. Indeed we are trying to move away from fried
foods."
It is heartening to see this comment about moving away from fried
foods, the potential consequences of which, and the relevance of who cooks
what in whose kitchen I described in another ebmj response. Sharing of
such imformation privately and publicly sends a powerful message that such
things are not only possible but are being done. This should help to
overcome some of the resistance to change and achieve improved health.
A campaign was initiated ten years ago to achieve just that, change
in the South Asian commmunity for improved heart health, through changing
the high risk aspects of culture, custom and heritage which increase or
even amplify our CVD risk, and also to create a new South Asian heart
healthy thinking. But more important is to show by example that these
things can and are being done, while maintaing a dynamic culture, custom
and heritage. It requires some creativity and innovation, which will be
the topic of two talks in a week at the Trinidad Heart Foundation Day,
"Creating Health in a Capricious World: novel ideas from chaos and
complexity theory" and "South Asian Heart: Another enigma of arrival...and
departure."
"Frying puris and chick pea curry" is thus necessarily a hot topic,
and Dr Sharma writing from drchilli@hotmail.com should be congratulated
for appropriately stimulating this aspect of the discusion.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Regarding Nitin Shori's comments;
Yes I quite agree that the exchange of insults shouldn't take place in the
BMJ's 'chat room'. I don't think of the recent rapid responses as insults.
However, emotive topics do lead to passionate discussion which should be
aired to learn and educate . My concern is that the vast majority of
doctors who have views on topics that are controversial don't actually air
them.
Regarding your feelings about relevance to the subject matter, what
is your contribution to the 'constructive discussion of the article in
question'?
best wishes
Anil Sharma
Competing interests: No competing interests
Who fries what in who's kitchen, and also how it is done are very
important. Chick pea curry without fried puries would be much better since
fried is bad for everyone,regardless of whether they are fried in ghee,
oil, butter or whatever, provided also that the curry is made with as
little oil as possible and not like the curries I see with chick peas
swimming in oil. Despite being male, I do some of the frying, hence my
designation as asistant fryer, but not of puris, and I tend to use a tiny
spray of oil, but more often with a nonstick frypan, sometimes with no oil
at all.
Although of importance to all puri eaters, this should be of
particular importance to South Asians since Raj Bhopal tells in a previous
issue of the BMJ that there is an epidemic of heart disease in South
Asians. You ask any South Asian why and they will say its the food. So the
fryer may hold the key to health.
Averting this epidemic requires an approach from many fronts which
includes creating a more heart healthy South Asian cuisine, even though
this may be seen as tampering with culture and custom, which is something
we should preserve, but not at all costs.
It also does matter who does the cooking. Women still do most of the
shopping and cooking and it means that change will come faster from
talking to women about this. Women should thus stop frying the puris. Men
have a variable record of frying, and left to them, they will give up
early. Trying this cooperative effort of decrying frying puries may well
improve the heart health of future countless generations of South Asians
and whoever eats or rather declines to eat fried puris.
Was it not Kofi Annan who said at his Nobel Lecture "scientists tell
us …a butterfly flapping its wings in the Amazon rainforest can generate a
violent storm on the other side of the earth..[the Butterfly effect]." Mr
Annan would forgive me for changing one letter, just one little letter, a
very slight change in his speech where he also said "Today, we realize,
perhaps more than ever, that the world of human activity also has its own
"Butterfry Effect." Who can tell what the future of the world holds if we
stop frying puries be it in ghee, oil, butter or whatever. This may well
be a matter of extreme importance to the health of nations and the well
being of civilizations, and be worth discussing in the pixels if not the
pages of the BMJ.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Re: BMA Loses at EAT: Mr Strachan's Gaffe and Quiet Replacement
After the BMA lost its appeal at the EAT, in their original press
statement(24 March 2004), Mr Strachan(a lawyer) made a remarkable
gaffe.After I submitted my piece to the Rapid Responses yesterday
regarding the same,the statement with the embarassing blunder was rather
quietly removed from the BMA website and replaced with a newer version;but
no apology or an indication that that is a corrected version.
I also understand that some media institutions were surprised to see
the blunder-riddled statement from the lawyer-Secretary Mr
Strachan.However,rather hurriedly,a new version of the press release had
been sent to media after the original debacle.'Performance Related Pay'
comes to my mind.
While everyone can be prone to error,this latest blunder indicates
the BMA's inability grasp most basic facts in relation to a legal
dispute.It was only very recently that the BMA appointed a Media Director
with a six-figure salary, but seemingly,in vain.
Competing interests:
Gave evidence for Mr Chaudhary at the ET in Manchester;cited in the EAT Judgment of 24.3.04
Competing interests: No competing interests