THIS SHORT BLOG is titled ‘We Reap What We Sow! 2’ because it follows the first offering, which was published last month – ‘We Reap What We Sow!’
AS A BRIEF RECAP, on 24 May 2024 I spoke at Our Lady of Lourdes Catholic Primary School & Nursery in London as part of its Careers Week. I brought my court attire of wig and gown (robe) with me, which some of the children tried on and they (the children) asked, and were encouraged to ask, me many questions, which, of course, they did. I was questioned about my journey to becoming a barrister and a writer. There were no prohibitions in asking me any question(s). It was an absolute joy to meet these inquiring minds.
The school made sure that these young, keen acorns knew that they could achieve/acquire any profession, trade, skill (and much more) if they so wished and desired to do so. I agree!
At the end of the day, I left the school and returned to work because I was due a reserved judgment later that afternoon. As I drove South I reflected on an enjoyable morning.
SOME TIME LATER, I had cause to visit the school for an unrelated matter. On the desk in front of me was a large white envelope, which bore my name. I was not expecting anything and, therefore, had absolutely no idea what the envelope contained. I opened it cautiously and was met with an amazing set of handmade cards from some of the children thanking me for attending and participating in their Careers Week. What an honour!
ALL CARDS WERE AND ARE EQUALLY SPECIAL and ALL are my FAVOURITES! However, when I read, “Dear Ryan. Thank you so much for coming to speak to us about your wonderful career. You have inspired me to follow my dreams,” it made my horrific journey back, being stuck in my car in traffic jams on the A406 (North Circular), M40 and M25 so much worth it, which I would not hesitate to do all over again.
NOT EVERYONE buys into diversity and inclusion, and not everyone is sold on it either. Some say it does not work. Many believes it does. Some say the benefits, if any, are impossible to measure. Some say the benefits are obvious because there is a wider and diverse pool of talent from which to choose rather than the narrow same old, same old.
AS PART OF A SERIES of podcasts and videos on the working lives of those in various professions, I asked my guests whether they believed diversity and inclusion play or ought to play a role in their professions. The following is what two of them said.
Human Resource Manager, Ruby: I asked Ruby, how was diversity and inclusion part of her practice, if at all? “It is something we are very keen on. I think it is definitely something every employee needs to do. We do training. We have mandatory training. We have classroom training every year, so everybody has to undertake at least one online course. And we do one face to face course for everybody’s ‘mandatory.’”
Detective Constable Shaun: I asked Shaun, as a serving police officer, in his view, what role did diversity and inclusion play or should play in the police force? “It plays a very very important role. For me, we need different perspectives. We need people from different walks of life because it is no point looking at things one-dimensionally because then it will only impact on a small portion of the community. So, we need diverse voices. We need representation because I hate the feeling of anyone feeling left out. It is the worst feeling in the world when you are alone. There is no one speaking for you, and you are not being heard. So, in order to deliver a service that represents everyone fairly, understands individuals and their needs, we need to have an open mindset. And we need representation from the top all the way down. If I was a leader and I had a team around me, I would want a team that challenges me, challenges that forces me to look into myself and challenge my own biases, my own decision making, and not people that just nod and agree with me all the time. That’s no good to me!”
IT MAY NOT BE EVERYONE’S CUP OF TEA but many organisations and businesses we work for function within a diverse community. Such organisations and businesses should reflect the community and environment in which they function. I firmly believe that it is a competitive advantage for a business or an organisation to be as diverse as their customers and clients etc. Speaking for myself, where there is competition, all things being equal in the quality of service provided and cost, I am and would be more attracted to the more diverse of the businesses or organisations. For me, it’s a no brainer! It may not be everyone’s cup of tea, but it may be time to wake up and smell the coffee!
DISGRACEFUL! I am not referring to England football team’s defeat against Iceland at Wembley on 7 June 2024 as part of its preparation for Euro 2024. I am referring to the media coverage, following the defeat. Unfortunately, I missed the game but I assume that England were allowed to use more than one player and at any one time had eleven players on the field. Therefore, collectively, England/We lost their/our home game. That said, it is DISGRACEFUL that I see images in the press (and this may well be replicated in the wider media) focusing on one player. DO YOU SEE WHAT I SEE?
FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! This is neither subtle nor subliminal, it’s BLATANT! This has to STOP! In July 2021, following the late Euro 2020, I had cause to write an article, which I recite in full below. I would love to have thought what I wrote would have been redundant by now and surplus to requirements. Sadly, that does not appear to be the case.
THINKING ALOUD!
Every now and then I would come across an article, which I read at speed of which I get the gist and move on. After all, I practically read for a living. Then it takes a word or phrase to prick the consciousness to the point of, to ignore it would be unhealthy because of the level of examination it demands, commands and or requires. Until now, I have kept out of the public debate about the “blacklash” against the English footballers who missed their penalties in the final of the Euros against Italy. I hadn’t contributed because there were already excellent contributions that either reflected what I thought and would say or were more eloquent than I could have expressed myself and with which, again, I agreed. Firstly, it surprised me how many people shared my immediate instinct that the reaction to those three players not scoring their respective penalties were going to have far wider implications than the game, the penalties themselves or the result. It seemed inevitable based on perception. Secondly, and this is what struck a chord that led me to write this short piece, was an article I read recently that said that black people are accepted as long as they are winning. Like I said, I read many things at speed and move on and, true to form, did so on this occasion. However, untrue to form, I came back with two questions. First, accepted by whom? Second, is winning the same as having won? I tackled these in order.
Saka, Rashford and Sancho
On the first question, I sincerely and genuinely had, and have, no idea. Whom do I approach to thrash it out? Exchange ideas? Understand where that person is coming from? Debate the issues or our differences? In other words, to whom do I make my case for acceptance? I drew a blank on everything. Watching the Euros as I did, I could not help but notice the multiracial composition of the England fans, which, rightly, ought to be the case because supporting a country or ‘your’ country is not based on ‘race.’ Of course, if I am correct then this raises another obvious question, how did ‘race’ come into this? What gives someone the belief that they have the authority or the position to abuse these England and English players based on their socially constructed ‘race’? Part of the answer is in the question, I believe. In my view, Perceived authority and Position are key.
There is a perceived licence to behave this way without fear of any significant repercussions that would move society to a place of respect and dignity for all. For example, it would be inconceivable that supporters of England and English supporters would have racially abused three white players had they missed their penalties. It is so implausible a thought that, thinking of the question alone is laughable if it were not on a serious point. And, let’s face it, we have the samples to test my point. Remember, we have had it drummed into us that we are not good at penalties on the international stage. Yet, I challenge anyone to find evidence of racial abuse aimed towards those ‘heroes’ of the past who adorned the England shirt and stepped up bravely to take a penalty for their country and missed. You will struggle. So, back to the point under examination. I can only conclude that if I cannot go to a single person and ask for acceptance, we must be dealing with an invisible force with its unwritten code that leads one to ‘believe’ that they have the power, authority or licence to act the way in which they do. In other words, one can embark on such a campaign, knowing that the recipient, even if minded to “retaliate” could and would never have the same mass impact or effect let alone power, authority or licence. I accept that I cannot drop in the word ‘licence’ without seeking to define what I mean by that. The licence I am referring to is that granted by some various institutions in which one would feel confident to express themselves in such a way and with the knowledge that it would either have a desired effect or that the victim cannot respond to such a degree that makes the attacker feel as the victim does. If I am wrong then I invite Dr Sewell and friends to put me right with specific reference to what we have witnessed recently.
Now to my second issue. I form the view that winning is not the same as having won. To me, “winning” is fluid. You may have been winning but you lost. After all, England was winning against Italy after only 2 minutes, which would have meant that the players in question (whether they were all on the pitch at the material time or not) were accepted but England lost after 120 minutes, so that acceptance was taken away (as opposed to withdrawn). My point is, even if we – yes, “we” I was born in Chiswick and schooled in Fulham – had won the Euros on penalties with all the said three scoring but, say, lose the World Cup with all three missing, the reaction would be precisely the same. The ‘acceptance’ at the Euros would be taken away at a subsequent defeat. This is somewhat disturbing on many levels. Firstly, if you excuse the pun on a very serious note, there is always a moving goal post. Secondly, which touches partly on the first, who is it that decides the rules? If you can know if you are winning then surely you ought to know when you have won. But the reality is, there appears to be unwritten but changeable rules that those who are potentially most adversely affected by the changes appear not to have a say in that constitution. In that case, the cards are continually stacked against them. They can never win in the eyes of some.
I had planned to leave the above there. Say my piece and leave but I feel compelled to say more. It seems to me, as I cannot go to an individual and reason with that person to any meaningful degree, it would be wise to participate constructively in the institutions that allow this negativity to flourish and to have a seat at the table for a fairer, just and respectable society.
WHEN I WAS GROWING UP, many of my friends wanted to be a footballer, doctor or lawyer. In our minds, the first was a possibility whilst the second and third were merely distant dreams rather than true or real tangible aspirations. They had a ring to them, in that order; doctor or lawyer not vice versa, and highly unlikely.
WHAT I NEVER HEARD was someone say that they would want to be a police officer. I cannot say why that was the case, it just was. I cannot even blame it on my or my family not knowing anyone, personally, from the Force because neither my family nor I knew a doctor, other than the family GP, of course, or a lawyer, either, so it cannot be my or our lack of connection or ties.
Detective Constable Shaun Pascal
SO IT WAS, THEREFORE, A PLEASURE to interview Detective Constable Shaun Pascal recently who gave us an insight into the life of a serving police officer. He began by telling us what led him to join the Met Police, saying, “I joined the Met because I wanted a challenge.” There can be no question that policing the capital can be amongst the most challenging of jobs. However, DC Pascal was very positive on this point. I asked him what was his biggest challenge to which he replied that his biggest, initially, was, “overcoming that fear that had been instilled in me. But, to be honest, there was actually no need for me to worry at all. It was the exact opposite.” He was, “embraced, supported and nurtured.” He stated that, “people are people. As long as you treat them with respect regardless of the race, religion, background. Show empathy. You try and understand their traumas and why they may react to you in the first instance, and you actually take the time to listen and show them that you are listening.” Concluding that, “the public do come around.”
I ASKED DC PASCAL whether, in his opinion, diversity and inclusion plays or should play a role in the police force. He said, “It plays a very important role,” and went on to say, “We need different perspectives. We need people from different walks of life because it is no point looking at things one-dimensionally because then it will only impact on a small portion of the community. So we need diverse voices.” I could not agree more.
FINALLY I asked DC Pascal, in the next 10 years, “What Shaun would I see? What would have happened over those 10 years or what would Shaun like to see?” He replied, amongst other things, “I’d like to say that we’ve made progress, tangible progress, and that we’re in a better place. We are not having the same conversation.” Hear, Hear! I cannot add to that! 👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾
IN THIS BLOG I discuss Protected Disclosures aka ‘whistleblowing’ within the context of employment, which is what a whistleblower has to make in order to be protected from suffering a detriment or be dismissed because they ‘whistleblew.’
A PROTECTED DISCLOSURE is a qualifying disclosure that is made by a worker to, for example, their employer or a body that has legal responsibility for the employer or a person, working for the employer. Such as, for example, for schools, doctors and social workers, it would be Ofsted, the General Medical Council and Social Work England.
“Whistleblowing” in Employment by Ryan Clement
So, if you make a qualifying disclosure to someone outside of those bodies, as interesting as the disclosure might be to the recipient, it will not amount to a protected disclosure. Beware!
So, what is a qualifying disclosure? It is any disclosure of information which, in the reasonable belief of the worker making the disclosure, is made in the public interest and tends to show one or more of the following—
(a) that a criminal offence has been committed, is being committed or is likely to be committed,
(b) that a person has failed, is failing or is likely to fail to comply with any legal obligation to which they are subject,
(c) that a miscarriage of justice has occurred, is occurring or is likely to occur,
(d) that the health or safety of any individual has been, is being or is likely to be endangered,
(e) that the environment has been, is being or is likely to be damaged, or
(f) that information tending to show any matter falling within any one of those I have mentioned has been, is being or is likely to be deliberately concealed.
NOTABLY, it is immaterial whether the relevant failure occurred. So, it is no defence to say that the alleged wrongdoing did not occur so the whistleblower was fairly dismissed. No, one would still be liable if the disclosure, which would have been in the public interest, was made in the reasonable belief of the worker making it. HOWEVER, a disclosure of information is not a qualifying disclosure if the person making the disclosure commits an offence by making it.
TO SUM UP, Firstly, there must be a disclosure of information. Secondly, the disclosure must be a qualifying one. Thirdly, in order to be protected it must be made to the appropriate authority, such as, for example, one’s employer.
UNLIKE within some jurisdictions (where some jurors become celebrities in their own right if chosen for high-profile cases), we in the UK are not privy to the deliberations of a jury. If you haven’t yet watched or heard Channel 4’s experiment in, ‘The Jury; Murder Trial,’ and are in a place where it can be aired, I urge you strongly to invest 200 minutes, spread over four parts, of your time to watch or listen to it. Personally, and professionally, I found it interesting, intriguing and disturbing in many ways.
I often train managers on dealing with evidence when conducting grievance and disciplinary hearings in the workplace, and how to seek to arrive at findings of facts on which to base their conclusions.
HOWEVER, without wanting to spoil it for those yet to watch or listen to The Jury, it soon becomes apparent that the evidence – the starting point or foundation from which one (the juror) is supposed to build and formulate within their own minds what they believed happened, as a matter of fact – gets relegated in place of and substituted for matters unconnected (and at times unrelated) to the actual evidence before them (i.e. based on issues that happened outside of the courtroom itself). We all have our biases, whether we are conscious of them or not – hence the term ‘unconscious bias,’ of course. But, sorry for the spoiler, what struck me, was the degree of influence by the louder (or loudest) and the more frequently spoken of the jurors over the perceivably quieter (or quietest) and less vocal. I can see how one can perceive the former as bullying the latter into coming round to their (the former’s) way of thinking or desired outcome.
ALSO, another thought occurred to me. If not feeling bullied, the latter could mistakenly take the frequently-talking-loudly-former as somehow possessing superior knowledge on the interpretation of the evidence heard or, worse, having special insight on the case and the law. I daresay that this pattern of behaviour is not confined solely to a jury’s room. But what was troubling, amongst many other things, is in a criminal trial, someone’s liberty is often at stake, and if not so, their reputation and or they face future adverse repercussions based on decisions that were influenced by some personal experience of a juror, the aired views of the loudest, the frequency of one’s verbal contribution etc. I would also add, the confidence or the lack of confidence of a juror could (and did, in my view, in The Jury) play a significant part on whether a defendant is deemed to be guilty or not of the offence in question.
But haven’t we forgotten something? Where does the evidence fit it? Answer? I have no idea. Why? Because unlike with civil cases – the jurisdiction within which I practice – juries do not give reasons for their verdict. They are no published facts found by them. We jump from evidence to verdict: ‘Guilty!’ or ‘Not Guilty!’ No ‘Why?’ or ‘How?’ An innocent person could be found to be guilty of an offence and, yet, have absolutely no idea as to how the evidence against them was interpreted or weighed by those 12 privileged members of the jury or why the evidence was found against them. Could you imagine such torment? Innocent and yet found guilty but have no idea how or why your peers arrived at that conclusion beyond the evidence heard – true or false – and, therefore, unable to challenge parts to prove your innocence or fight for your freedom!
You may well, therefore, ask yourself whether the current jury system is fit for purpose! 🤔
My soulmate at the time, Sue, and I went over to Rome for the Easter period. Our hotel was in walking distance of the Colosseum. It’s a memory that remains with me and shall forever. We had this lovely walk down and up as we approached the iconic symbol of imperial Rome.
We arrived early on Good Friday and left late on Easter Monday. After arriving at our hotel, we had something to eat and then went for a leisurely walk. As we approached the Colosseum we saw a congregation of people as far as the eye could see, literally. Being tourists and not wanting to miss out, we somehow managed to weave our way through to as far as we could get, which, to be honest, wasn’t very far! OMG! We could see Pope John Paul II, which got the holiday off to an unexpected start.
There is a second part to this blog, which I shall pen later, but as a spoiler, it involves my son. I told him this story about going to Rome etc., so he asked to see some pictures. I warned him of the ‘poor’ quality of some pictures due to my camera at the time and that I was too far to get clearer pictures of His Holiness; not to mention it was dark! When he viewed them, they were met with both excitement and a noticeable, but subtle hint of horror 😮 I had to explain to him how things were done back in the day, pre-digital.
He looked confused. 😳 I might as well have been explaining in another language what a vinyl record (single or LP) was (45 or 33⅓ RPM), what were cassettes (TDK or BASF or, having a headache to decide whether to buy a C60, C90 or, if brave enough, C120!) or what a VHS was. But I shall leave that there for, like I said, a later blog.
Back to Rome. It was great and one of my favourite holidays at the time. I recall walking around on Easter Sunday and on another day, simply chilling on the Spanish Steps.
Recently, I had a couple, very dear to me, run the Rome Marathon, which I watched in part on tv in the UK. It brought back many fond memories of a great time in the Eternal City, as the runners ran past places I had visited all those many years ago.
This is easy for me. I would be a travel writer. I get two for the ‘zero price’ of one. Travelling and witnessing other cultures and traditions would enhance the writing, and the writing would enhance how I see and engage in new cultures and traditions. It’s a no brainer.
In this short blog, I shall explain what victimisation is as defined under section 27 of the Equality Act 2010.
Ryan Clement YouTibe
Under s.27 of the Equality Act 2010, “victimisation” has a specific legal meaning, which does not necessarily align with common parlance. 🤔
Victimisation occurs when a person is treated badly (subjected to a “detriment”) because they have done a protected act, or because someone believes they have done or may do one. So what is a protected act?
Victimisation by Ryan Clement
Protected acts include:
Bringing a claim of discrimination under the Act.
Giving evidence or information in connection with someone else’s claim.
Making an allegation that a person has contravened the Act.
Doing anything else for the purposes of or in connection with the Act.
Similar to the protection afforded to ‘whistleblowers,’ under the Employment Rights Act 1996, s.27 of the 2010 Act ensures that employees can challenge unfair treatment without the fear of retaliation, such as being passed over for promotion, being excluded from meetings, not receiving a bonus/pay rise, facing dismissal etc.
Put simply, I would improve my community by creating and improving channels of communication, understanding and collaboration with the wider community and other communities.
How have you adapted to the changes brought on by the Covid-19 pandemic?
I approach this question from a professional perspective.
Prior to the pandemic I rarely, if ever (can’t remember), used Teams or Zoom. Skype was a rare indulgence.
Now, almost ALL meetings are held online unless there is a good cause or reason to depart from this new norm, which there rarely is.
The dynamics have changed significantly. Prior to the pandemic, it was inconceivable to think that I would or could represent a client through to a trial and, yet, never actually meet them in person. How? Many trials are also held online. The result is, I may have walked past clients on the streets whom I have represented in the past and, yet, be totally oblivious to who they are and vice versa! 🤔 For me, that could never have happened before the pandemic!
It saddens me to think about the world my son will grow up in during these turbulent times around the globe.
I was communicating with my very good friend, D., today and asked whether we worry ‘more’ (if measurable) about our young today than our parents and guardians did about us? To be clear, I was not questioning the degree and extent of one’s care. That’s been unwavering from the beginning of time. Everything is relative, so the degree of worry or what one was worrying over in the past was different. For example, there was no cyberbullying but there was still bullying etc. When I was younger, you were either told to your face what someone thought about you or you remained oblivious to their thoughts. Today, one can go online, abuse a subject and hide behind the veil of a false name or delete the message after the harm has done. Such can be done by a faceless person, of whom the subject has never met or heard and of whose location or time zone the subject has no knowledge.
Before I had a career at the Bar, I used to travel a lot. I have written about this elsewhere. For me, travelling is an investment in part of my personal growth. Beyond the visual spectacle of new landscapes, immersing myself in different cultures acts as a powerful reminder to confront my own biases that may have evolved through years of media exposure that may not always have aligned with the truth, and learn that “different” does not mean “wrong”—it simply means another way of being. After all, most of what we read and or hear are another person’s perception of how they, themselves, view the world through their own lenses tinted by their own conscious and or unconscious biases.
After all, what is there not to gain from engaging with diverse traditions and histories? What is there not to gain from navigating unfamiliar environments? What is there not to gain or there to fear from sharing a meal or a conversation with locals who have similar or dissimilar complexion to mine that can help bridge the gap between a perception of “us” and “them,” which, ultimately, could aid cross-cultural understanding?
I know that not everyone can do what I am advocating, but with an element of conscious critical thinking, we can still tell ourselves that while our customs vary, our fundamental human emotions are universal. 🕊️
Everybody’s got their opinions. But inclusiveness is always going to be me,” Garth Brooks said. “I think diversity is the answer to the problems that are here and the answer to the problems that are coming. So I love diversity.12 Jun 2023
As for my family in Canada 🇨🇦, as was the case with Porto in 2024, Toronto is calling me. You know who you are. See you soon 🙏🏾
I have been blessed to see many countries and experienced many different cultures that breaks down prejudicial barriers. 🕊️ #Europe#America#Caribbean#Crete#traveltok
There is a specific kind of magic in the stillness of a Bahamian afternoon. I should know. I had the benefit of experiencing it for 8 days this year! Chilling at my second hotel, the British Colonial in Nassau – my first, being The Atlantis on Paradise Island – with a cold Junkanoo punch in hand, I often watched the horizon transform into a moving gallery. From this vantage point on the beach, the massive cruise ships would glide gracefully by. I frequently counted five in a day.
Disney “Wish”
I used to love watching these mega-tonnes of floating steel turn masterly better than most could do a three-point turn in a vehicle on our public roads!
The hum of the distant engines blended with the calm waves of the sea. It was both tranquil and idyllic. It was the ultimate luxury: doing absolutely nothing while the rest of the world sailed by.
I made this experience last right up to the final moment before heading to the local airport for my overnight BA flight to Terminal 3 at Heathrow Airport, London.
Since my return, I have received so many lovely messages from locals, thanking me warmly for visiting their beautiful country in the Caribbean 🏝️ and suggesting where I can visit next. And visit again, I shall! 🇧🇸
In the Employment Tribunal case of Hussain v Armstrong Watson LLP, the tribunal ruled that the ClaImant’s case for unlawful disability-related discrimination under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 was successful. It found that he was subjected to unfavourable treatment due to his epilepsy, which impacted his memory, concentration, and processing ability.
It’s important to grasp that discrimination arising from disability, contrary to section 15 of the 2010 Act is not the same as direct discrimination, contrary to section 13 of the same Act. The latter is based on the concept of treating the complainant less favourablybecause of the protected characteristic in question, whilst the former is based on treating the complainant unfavourablybecause ofsomething arising in consequence of the complainant’s disability and, having done this, the respondent cannot show that the said unfavourable treatment was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. See Days Four and Five of Discrimination in Employment Law in 7 Days.
In the case of Hussain, the Claimant was employed as a Tax Compliance Assistant by the Respondent for less than two months, from July to September 2023. He disclosed his condition, temporal lobe epilepsy, which caused frequent focal seizures that affected his ability to process information and complete tasks efficiently. Despite providing detailed reports about his condition and requesting reasonable adjustments, including extra time to complete tax returns, the tribunal found that the Respondent failed to accommodate his needs adequately.
The Respondent repeatedly questioned the Claimant’s performance, particularly the time he spent on tax returns and his inability to meet the firm’s 80% utilization target. Concerns about his efficiency were raised during multiple meetings, culminating in a probationary review meeting scheduled for 28 September 2023. A letter sent to the Claimant ahead of the meeting stated that dismissal was a possible outcome due to performance concerns but failed to mention that his request for reasonable adjustments would be discussed. Feeling unsupported and fearing imminent termination, the Claimant resigned on 27 September 2023.
The tribunal concluded that the Respondent’s actions were not a proportionate means of achieving its legitimate business aim of ensuring efficient and profitable operations. While the company had a legitimate interest in ensuring timely and cost-effective work, it failed to balance this with its legal obligation to accommodate the Claimant’s disability. The tribunal ruled that the the Respondent’s treatment of the Claimant amounted to unlawful discrimination arising from his disability.
For completion, I should state that the Claimant had raised specific complaints on the same issues under a failure to make reasonable adjustments. However, in this respect, the tribunal recorded, “In light of the findings in respect of the section 15 claim, the Tribunal considers that it is neither necessary nor proportionate to reach a decision on the claimant’s complaint of a failure to comply with the section 20/21 duty to make reasonable adjustments. That complaint relates to exactly the same matters as the section 15 complaint and is an alternative way of asserting that the respondent acted unlawfully in regard to those matters. The Employment Appeal Tribunal commented in Carranza v General Dynamics Information Technology Ltd [2015] ICR 169 that cases brought as reasonable adjustments complaints are sometimes better analysed using section 15. This is such a complaint and is better expressed and dealt with under section 15, and to make findings under section 20/21 would add nothing in terms of outcome and possible remedy and would be a disproportionate use of the Tribunal’s time.”
Finally, therefore, whether one is in a probationary period or not, which generally means there would often be a term in many contacts of employment that employers can dismiss employees, during the latter’s probationary period without following their disciplinary process and procedures, as there is no qualifying period, during which one can be lawfully discriminated against, employers must be vigilant not to discriminate against employees at any stage of their employment whether during or post-probationary.
This story begins on Friday, 20 February 2026, around 8am. I was savouring my double espresso ☕️ while texting a friend who was due to fly to Dubai the following Thursday. After some enquiries, I had booked a flight to Dubai for Saturday 7 March, just two weeks away. I was due to return to the UK on 16 March, and had booked three days in downtown Dubai. I had planned to spend Tuesday afternoon at the Museum of the Future and a night in Abu Dhabi before moving to a hotel in the Marina. Everything was organised and I was ready for culture, sunshine and all that.
On Thursday afternoon, I rang my friend as she and her family headed to the airport for their overnight flight to the UAE. Everything seemed fine.
On Friday 27 February, my son and I drove to Birmingham and stayed overnight at a hotel so we could drive to Anfield on Saturday to watch our football (soccer) team, Liverpool, play West Ham United at home. I listen to BBC World Service every morning, and this Saturday was no exception. I woke up to news of trouble in the Gulf region. Iran is just across the waters (the subject of much recent political discussion) from Dubai. I immediately texted my friend to check if she and her family were safe. Now a big question mark loomed over whether I might have to cancel my trip. As we drove to Liverpool, my son told me that Dubai had been “attacked.” I told him he was mistaken and that he shouldn’t believe everything he saw and heard on TikTok. We all know what happened next!
Chilling in The Bahamas
So, after booking just ten days earlier, on Monday 2 March I reluctantly cancelled everything. My friend and her family were stranded in the UAE beyond their scheduled stay, but, other than to say they are now back safely, that’s their story to tell.
The irony is I stayed at an iconic hotel that’s not much unlike the one I might have stayed in Dubai: The Atlantis!
I was hesitant to return to work and considered visiting Florida, the Dominican Republic or the Bahamas. After much thought, I settled for the Bahamas. As it happens, in 1999 I almost studied there. I only needed to return my application form, but I changed my mind at the last minute. Big Mistake! Having visited Barbados, Antigua, St Lucia, Tobago, St Vincent and, of course, many times, Grenada and Carriacou, I was adding Nassau to my Caribbean list. What a joy! What an experience! It was FAB-U-LOUS!
As for the Bahamas, it is stunning! As for Dubai, I may see you one day (as I landed back at Terminal 3 at Heathrow Airport, I turned to my right and saw a colourful plane, calling me. I say no more!)
As participants, a few of us had the pleasure of witnessing the Closing Ceremony, which was a treat in itself. A scene in John Landis’ icon movie, Trading Places, sprung to mind. Well, it was not quite the same as what I had seen in the movies, regarding the NYSE. Neither did I witness an equivalent to Eddie (Billy Ray Valentine), Dan Aykroyd (Winthorpe) or Jamie Lee Curtis (Ophelia) celebrating nor the brothers, Randolph and Mortimer Duke, fall to their knees over a one dollar bet taken too far and the outcome gone very wrong!
Closing Ceremony at the London Stock Exchange on 6 February 2026
Ethnicity pay gap reporting involves measuring the difference between the average earnings of employees from different ethnic groups across an organisation. While not yet a legal requirement like gender pay gap reporting, many companies are adopting it to build more equitable workplaces. It is a proposal that forms part of the Equality (Race and Disability) Bill, following a consultation process that closed in June 2025, seeking views on how to introduce mandatory ethnicity and disability pay reporting for large employers (those with 250 or more employees). The keynote speaker was Seema Malhotra MP, Minister for Equalities who informed us, amongst other things, that the Government will respond the consultation in due course.
The Summit was a timely and practical event for anyone working in DEI, HR, Reward, Talent, People Analytics, Comms and senior leadership, especially as we prepare for the mandatory Ethnicity Pay Gap reporting legislation.
The summit brought together leaders and specialists across:
✔ Employment law ✔ Data analytics and reporting ✔ Communications and storytelling ✔ Diversity, equity and inclusion
Hopefully, attendees left with a clearer insight into what good looks like, how to approach reporting responsibly, and how to turn data into real action.
This government was elected to deliver change. To improve the lives of working people and strengthen our country. Our Plan for Change sets out the ambitious – but achievable – milestones we aim to reach by the end of this Parliament.
An essential element of this Plan – and our five missions for government – is our commitment to create a more equal society in which people can thrive whatever their background. The reality is far from that goal. For example, currently most ethnic minority groups earn on average less than their White British peers. Similarly, while there has been growth in employment rates for disabled people in recent years, disabled people have, on average, lower incomes than non-disabled people. While previous Labour governments introduced the landmark Equal Pay Act 1970 and the Equality Act 2010, as well as other equality-related legislation, more still remains to be done.
Ryan Clement 