London Diary: The hullabaloo over 'discriminatory' sentences and BBC's documentary on Gaza

Minority ‘appeasement’?

Should ethnic minorities and transgender convicts be given softer sentences than their white ‘straight’ peers? What an absurd question, you might ask. Why should they be? But this is exactly what ‘straight’ white Brits are asking, provoking a blazing row.

It follows the latest guidelines of the Sentencing Council, an independent body responsible for developing sentencing norms. It advises judges to consider whether an offender is from an ethnic, cultural or religious minority group when deciding to impose a custodial or community sentence.

Critics say this could lead to a ‘two-tier’ regime—one for ethnic minorities and trans people, and another for the rest. Robert Jenrick, the Tory shadow justice secretary, said under the changes to be introduced next month “essentially Christian and straight white men amongst other groups will be treated differently to the rest of society.”

Even the governing Labour Party is opposed to it. Justice secretary Shabana Mahmood wants the guidelines withdrawn. “As someone who is from an ethnic minority background myself, I do not stand for any differential treatment before the law, for anyone of any kind. There will never be a two-tier sentencing approach under my watch,” Mahmood said. But chairman of the Sentencing Council, Lord Justice William Davis, has warned that sentencing guidance must not be “dictated” by ministers.

The Council says a two-tier system already exists as people from ethnic minorities are more likely to be arrested, charged and convicted than their white counterparts. They also receive higher sentences than white people convicted of a similar offence. The guidelines are an attempt not to favour ethnic minorities but to check whether suspects have been subject to racism in the criminal justice system and, where relevant, take that into account.

A pre-sentence report assists the court but does not determine the sentence; it simply ensures decisions are made with the full relevant context. Makes sense now?

BBC pulls out documentary on Gaza

The BBC has been forced to apologise and pull out a documentary about children’s lives in Gaza after it emerged that its 13-year-old narrator was the son of a Hamas official. It admitted “serious flaws” in the making of Gaza: How to Survive a War Zone, and said the incident had “damaged” trust in its journalism. “The processes and execution of this programme fell short of our expectations,” a BBC spokesman said amid a row that saw even Prime Minister Keir Starmer weigh in on the side of critics.

A number of prominent TV figures, including former BBC bosses, also protested, forcing the public broadcaster to order an inquiry. The controversy has been used by Israel’s apologists to accuse the BBC of anti-Israel bias and being anti-semitic. A charge it justifiably denies.

It maintains that the “subject matter of the documentary was clearly a legitimate area to explore.” It was made by a private production company which said it was “important to hear from voices that haven’t been represented onscreen throughout the war with dignity and respect”. To many independent observers however, the row has all the feel of a political storm in a tea cup.

No, minister

It’s not only Indian politicians who are given to polishing up their CVs. In recent years, several top BJP grandees, including cabinet ministers, have been found to have embellished their educational qualifications. But, even the normally honest British politicians are not above temptation when it comes to sexing up their CVs. And the latest to succumb to it is the business secretary Jonathan Reynolds.

He has admitted that he wrongly claimed to have been a solicitor instead of a trainee, after being accused of misrepresenting his legal career before entering Parliament. He said that he “inadvertently” made the error during a debate in the House of Commons in 2014, four years after becoming an MP.

“This was an inadvertent error. And I would like to formally correct the record,” he told MPs after being exposed by the media. The term ‘solicitor’ is legally protected and it is an offence for someone to call themselves a solicitor if they are not qualified and registered with the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA).

Reynolds is one of several cabinet ministers facing allegations of inflating their CVs, alongside Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, for claims about her work at the Bank of England. Reeves left the Bank of England nine months earlier than claimed on her LinkedIn profile.

The Chancellor’s entry in Who’s Who also wrongly claimed that she had her work published in one of the world’s leading economic journals. She’s yet to set the record straight.

And, finally,

Believe it or not, an employment tribunal has ruled that asking senior staff to sit in a part of the office meant for junior employees could “logically” lead them to conclude that they have been demoted. It could “destroy or seriously damage” a senior employee’s relationship with the bosses and lead to a successful legal claim, the tribunal ruled while awarding damages to a senior estate agent who resigned because he wanted to sit at a “symbolically significant” desk.

Nicholas Walker became “upset” when told he would sit at a “middle” rather than the “back” desk, which was typically where the manager sat. No wonder, employers are fuming