Forgotten white communities in multiracial inner cities feel policy makers do not give them a fair deal, according to new research.

The study found white working class families in Birmingham, Coventry and London complained politicians ignored them.

To help redress the balance, the Joseph Roundtree Foundation urges the government to:

• Make the sharing of community resources like housing and grants more transparent to challenge any perceived unfairness

• Encourage more community events like festivals

• Coordinate local groups to communicate more with each other

At the same time, the report, Community cohesion: the views of white working-class communities [LINK: http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/working-class-views-neighbourhood ] suggests better results will come from not singling out white communities for extra help.

The report explains that white communities feel left out of planning and are ‘last in line’ for resources, with allegations of unfair treatment include offering other communities preferential treatment for social housing.

They also felt let down about promises to improve their communities that failed to materialise.

Report author Harris Beider said: “The way that people from working class white backgrounds are portrayed is often negative, which doesn’t reflect the reality of the pride most hold in their community, nor their strong work ethic, and collective values.

“It is important to confound the negative stereotypes and understand that people in these communities feel their voices are not listened to, and that they have no stake in their community. They want to be valued, heard and connected to government.”

The findings also highlighted that white inner city communities have a strong sense of identity that is not extremist but comes from pride in their neighbourhoods.

JRF chief executive,Julia Unwin said: “We know there are real concerns that many people in traditional white working-class areas are becoming increasingly disconnected with the political system and feel their views, experiences and interests are ignored by policy makers.

“This research highlights the real potential we have to grasp opportunities to engage with and support many of those who feel let down and ‘last in line’.”

Cleaners, carers and cooks are set to pick up thousands in compensation after judges agreed they should share in bonus payments, even though their claims were ruled out of time to go before an employment tribunal.

The Court of Appeal has opened the way for thousands of workers to take their cases to the High Court by agreeing with lawyers for 174 women who had worked for Birmingham City Council that the Equal Pay Act applied to their case.

Effectively, the judgment removes the six month limit on taking an equal pay case to law by extending the time to six years.

Lawyers now expect a flood of claims from hundreds of other employees who missed out on pay and benefits because they were too late in taking their claims to an employment tribunal.

Birmingham City Council had appealed against a lower court ruling that allowed the case to go to the High Court.

Appeal judges Lord Justice Mummery, Lord Justice Davis and Dame Janet Smith dismissed the appeal.

They unanimously ruled the council had failed to convince them that the lower court’s interpretation of the Equal Pay Act was incorrect.

Lord Justice Mummery said the case was “interesting” in terms of the Equality Act.

The arguments may not have ended – the council was granted permission to take the case to the Supreme Court.

The case involves 174 women council workers denied bonus payments in line with those handed to men. The court heard that in 2007 and 2008, women were paid thousands in compensation for the breach of equality laws.

The payments went to current workers or those who had left their jobs no more than six months before.

All the women denied payments had left their council jobs six months or more when the compensation was paid.

A council spokesman said: “We are disappointed by the judgment and are currently considering our next step, which could include an appeal.”

So the cat’s finally out of the bag – and it’s a big, fat smiling Cheshire one at that.

Everyone will welcome the news that the government has decided one of the measures the effect of policies is how happy it makes voters.

Happiness now ranks with alongside money and human rights as a key performance indicator when assessing the impact of policy.

Prime Minister David Cameron has directly ordered the Whitehall mandarins that keeping everyone happy is a top priority.

To push the point home, the Office of National Statistics has issued the first detailed survey of national wellbeing.

The report says: “To measure national well-being it is important not just to rely on traditional indicators of economic progress, but also to collect information from people themselves about how they assess their own well-being. Individual or subjective well-being estimates are an important addition to existing official statistics and this research report presents experimental statistics looking at the levels of subjective well-being in the British population during April to August 2011.”

The findings were distilled from the answers to four questions-

How satisfied are you with your life? – The majority (76%) of adults aged over 16 were estimated to have a rating of 7 out 10 or more. Just 8% were estimated to be below 5 out of 10.

To what extent do you think the things you do in your life are worthwhile? – 78% of adults rated this at 7 or more out of 10. About 6% gave a rating below 5 out of 10.

How happy did you feel yesterday? – 73% of adults responded with 7 or more out of 10.

How anxious did you feel yesterday? – 57% had ratings of less than 4 out of 10, while 27% of people had ratings above 5 out of 10 that were closer to 10, feeling ‘completely anxious’ than 0, ‘not at all anxious’.

If you are not happy with the results, keep smiling anyway because the statisticians are probably having a laugh.

Equality backslappers are queuing up to praise each other over the latest statistics showing the gender pay gap has narrowed.

Unions, management organisations and equality bodies are all celebrating that the difference between men and women’s pay is closing, according to the latest figures from the Office of National Statistics.

Any improvement in pay disparity between men and women is to be cheered – but does the gap closing to less than 10% after 40 years of legislation and campaigning merit such exuberance?

The figures show men’s full time median hourly earnings grew by 0.8% to £13.11, up from £13.00 in 2010.

For women, hourly earnings were £11.91, a 1.9% increase compared with £11.69 the previous year.

The full time gender pay gap decreased from 10.1% to 9.1%.

Kay Carberry, of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, said: “Forty years after the introduction of the Equal Pay Act, today’s figures are a step in the right direction. But we can’t be complacent – as the gap is still there.

“One way to help narrow it would be by removing the secrecy surrounding equal pay. It will help if employers take up the government’s guidance on measuring and reporting their gender pay gap.”

According to equal pay rules, men and women doing equal work or work rated as of equal value should have equal pay.

Employers must give men and women equal pay and conditions if they have:

• ‘like work’ – work that is the same or broadly similar
• work rated as equivalent under a job evaluation study
• work of equal value.

A woman has ‘like work’ with a man if her work is of the same or a broadly similar nature.

Petra Wilton, director of policy at the Chartered Management Institute, said: “It is fantastic news to hear positive steps towards pay equality are being made as women in their 20s achieve pay parity. However it is important not to forget that at a more senior level there are still frequent occurrences of men being paid substantially more than women undertaking comparable roles.”

Human rights laws in Britain are a success and need to be defended and extended, argues the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

The EHRC praised legislation for letting people exercise their human rights without the time and expense of involving European courts.

But the EHRC is keen to point out that lawmakers can sit back and relax because there is room for improvement.

The EHRC was making a submission to the government’s commission on the proposed bill of rights.

In the submission, the EHRC says the mechanism of the Human Rights Act are essential for the protecting human rights inBritain, while arguing that the law is ‘well crafted to balance Britain’s international obligations with its constitutional conventions’.

John Wadham, of the EHRC, said: ‘We welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on a possible UK Bill of Rights. Our position is that if any Bill of Rights were developed it should only build on the rights and mechanisms contained in the Human Rights Act.’

The Commission on a Bill of Rights was established in March to investigate the case for a new British Bill of Rights, with the terms of reference to look at a bill that incorporates and builds on the European Convention on Human Rights, ensuring that these rights continue to be enshrined in UK law while protecting and extending liberties

“The Human Rights Act is essential for the protection of human rights in the United Kingdom and is well crafted to balance Britain’s international obligations with our constitutional conventions. In particular, it maintains parliamentary sovereignty and a primary role for judges in the

interpretation of the Convention,” says the EHRC submission.

“The Equality and Human Rights Commission welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the debate on a possible UK Bill of Rights. However, if a Bill of Rights was developed to replace the Human Rights Act, our position is that it should not be brought into force until and unless it contains at least the same levels of protection of rights and mechanisms as the Human Rights Act, and complies with Britain’s international obligations.”

The Commission on a Bill of Rights is due to report by the end of next year.

Racism in football is back at the top of the agenda as players and officials squabble about what to do about comments on the pitch.

British football heavyweights like former English international captains Rio Ferdinand and David Beckham are speaking out against racism, while FIFA president Sepp Blatter first suggested players should shake hands and forget any abuse during games.

Blatter has now reflected and back-pedalled with an apology for his comments following a broadside of complaints.

The wrangle follows an ongoing police investigation from current England captain John Terry over alleged racist comments to Ferdinand’s brother Anton, during a recent Chelsea/Queens Park Rangers match in the Premier League.

Since then, Liverpool’s Uruguay forward Luis Suarez has been accused of racially abusing the Manchester United defender Patrice Evra during the 1-1 draw between the two clubs on October 15.

“Racism is serious,” said Blatter. “ My words were unfortunate and I deeply regret what I said.”

English football has made great strides to kick racism out of the game with campaigns backed by high profile players.

Clubs, the Professional Footballer’s Association and Football Association have all linked to set football as an anti-racism role model for youngsters.

Despite this, the FA is consulting the US National Football Association about how to encourage clubs to employ more managers with a minority background.

The NFA has operated the Rooney Rule since 2003 which requires clubs to interview minority candidates for coaching and management posts.

The rule was instigated by Pittsburgh Steelers owner Dan Rooney as an example of affirmative action.

No Premier league clubs have managers from a minority background – in the lower league’s only Birmingham City’s Chris Hughton and Chartlon Athletic’s Chris Powell are black, despite more than 25% of players in the league being black and many more are from diverse religious backgrounds.

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg has ordered an immediate probe in to allegations that banks are discriminating against pregnant women by refusing them loans or mortgages.

Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone is charged with investigating banking policies towards women and reporting back with an action plan to fix any problems.

The banks are also accused of charging women in business higher interest rates on finance.

The claims come from a paper for think-tank the Institute for Public Policy Research by Professor Noreena Hertz, which looked at the attitudes of bankers towards women and how this affected lending policies.

She accuses banks of discriminating against pregnant women and those on maternity leave, who are asked whether they are returning to work and about future family plans when seeking to finance a home.

In many cases, the banks insisted women returned to work before they could sanction a loan.

Hertz also reveals women entrepreneurs can expect to pay 1% higher interest on business borrowings than men. Men also have a slightly better chance (5%) of having a loan agreed and less rigorous lending terms.

Noreena Hertz said: “While certain aspects of banks’ behaviour have been interrogated in the wake of the financial crisis, how banks treated and continue to treat women customers is a subject that has received little attention.

“I’ve uncovered evidence which shows that women face discrimination from banks when they are seeking business loans or applying for mortgages. It’s as if we’ve gone back in time to the 1950s. Banks need to be put on notice that such behaviour is both unlawful and unacceptable.

“It is also economically damaging to the UK as a whole.

“The Prime Minister has stressed that if the economy is to grow then entrepreneurs need to be able to access credit. It is imperative that women be able to play their full part in the economic recovery.

“I am calling for an investigation into banks’ treatment of female entrepreneurs, pregnant women and women on maternity leave, and for banks to publish their lending decisions by gender in a transparent fashion.”

Christian hoteliers who banned a gay couple from sleeping in a double bed have told judges that they are entitled to impose their beliefs on guests in their home.

Peter and Hazelmary Bull were found guilty of discrimination and ordered to pay £3,600 damages at Bristol County Court after they turned Martyn Hall and his civil partner Steve Preddy away from their bed-and-breakfast business in September 2008.

The couple want the Appeal Court to overturn the decision because they did not discriminate against the gay couple but believed sex outside marriage was a sin for any couple.

Their lawyers explained to the judges that their objection was to a sexual practice, not a sexual orientation.

James Dingemans QC told the court: “The Bulls have operated a policy of restricting the provision of double rooms to married persons.

“They maintain that their policy is directed towards sexual practice and not sexual orientation, so there is no direct discrimination.

“Mr and Mrs Bull have been attempting to live and act in accordance with their religious beliefs, including the religious belief that, ‘monogamous heterosexual marriage is the form of partnership uniquely intended for full sexual relations between persons’ and that homosexual sexual relations as opposed to homosexual orientation and sexual relations outside marriage are sinful.

“They believed that permitting unmarried persons whether heterosexual or homosexual to share a double bed involved them in promoting a sin.”

Dingemanns suggested gay couple’s rights are not compatible with the Bulls’ rights, but a reasonable balance is not requiring the Bulls to promote the sharing of the room, which they believe to be a sin.

He also suggested that finding against the couple would lead them to close the business rather than be forced to offer rooms with double beds to unmarried couples.

In British law, a civil partnership imparts the same rights to a same-sex couple as marriage offers a heterosexual couple.

Ricky Gervais, the film and TV comic, has apologised to a mother of two Down’s Syndrome children after repeatedly using an abusive term in posts on social media networking site Twitter.

Mum Nicola Clarke was in tears confronting Gervais in a BBC Radio 2 chat show after telling him how her two daughters were regularly insulted by being called ‘mongs’ in public.

Gervais included the derogatory term in Tweets like ‘Good monging’ and ‘Two mongs don’t make a right.’

He contacted Ms Clarke after the show and apologised to her and her daughters, claiming he was naive and did not believe people would be so upsetting as referring to disabled people with the term.

Upset Twitter users lambasted Gervais for his behaviour – which he defended at first as a legitimate use of modern slang, claiming the word is in dictionaries meaning ‘dopey’ or ‘ignorant.’

An internet search of the term throw up entries in the Urban Dictionary as the first page mentioning the word – listing his interpretation as well as the Down’s Syndrome definition.

The comic also tweeted his apology, saying: “’Just to clarify for uptight people stuck in the past, the word mong means Down’s Syndrome about as much as the word gay means happy. I never use the word mong to mean anything to do with Downs Syndrome.”

In tweeting Ms Clarke, she said: “I now understand that you didn’t and wouldn’t intentionally hurt anyone. Do you understand why people got upset by it?”

Gervais responded: “I do now. Never dreamed that idiots still use that word aimed at people with Down’s Syndrome. Still find it hard to believe. I feel a mixture of confusion, anger, terror and disappointment. But mostly naive. Never meant the word like that and never would.”

Meanwhile, mobile technology giant Nokia is also red-faced over a translation of the name of the new Lumia handset in to Spanish.

‘Lumia’ means whore, streetwalker or prostitute in Spanish.

Women are getting a raw deal as government cuts to benefits roll back the clock on years of tough campaigning for equality, according to a new report.

More than 20 charities, unions and academics have put their weight behind calls to stop eroding women’s rights, led by The Fawcett Society.

The society’s report ‘A Life Raft for Women’s Equality’ urges the government to reverse some cuts and to revise policy decisions, including:

• Restoring childcare costs for low-income families to make going to work worthwhile for women who find their finances improve when they give up a job

• Protecting funding for Sure Start children’s centres to give women the chance to work and to maintain other non-financial benefits the centres offer families

• Stopping councils from cutting services to protect women from violence

Fawcett Society chief executive Anna Bird said: “Women have not faced a greater threat to their financial security and rights in living memory. Decades of progress on equality for women are being dismantled as cuts to women’s jobs and the services they rely on turn back women’s equality.

“Women are experiencing greater hardship; for those families affected the cuts to women’s jobs, services and benefits will represent a personal loss.”

“There are signs of hope that the government realises its economic strategy isn’t working for women. Our report identifies a series of targeted and achievable policy measures that could be adopted by or at the 2012 budget, which together offer a life raft for women’s equality – and never has the need been so great.”

Signatories to the report include UNISON, the Child Poverty Action Group and Gingerbread,

UNISON general secretary Dave Prentis said: “We need urgent action to stop women being ground down by the government’s devastating cuts. Two-thirds of public sector workers are women, who are most likely to rely on these vital services.

“Women are being hit hard by unemployment, the rising cost of living and cuts to benefits and services to young people.”