Today's blog post is written by Kam Gill, research and policy analyst at Runnymede

David Cameron last week launched an(other) attack on the European Court of Human Rights, this time arguing that it consumes itself with cases that are too trivial. Leaving aside the unexplained category of ‘trivial’ human rights, this latest salvo, and previous Conservative objections, caused me to reflect on the concept of human rights, and their potential role for race equality. It seems that this, now often maligned, concept suffers from a lack of clarity of its own. This lies behind much criticism of the idea, the treaty which embodies it, and the court established to uphold that treaty.

The convention on human rights is often condemned as a “criminal’s charter”. The root of this criticism is the claim that the convention, with its insistence upon processes and mechanisms which ensure fair and equal treatment, in some way prioritises the rights of the accused at the cost of the victims of their crimes. Exactly what rights should be granted to these “victims” is often left ill-defined. Presumably it is not the right to inflict arbitrary punishment upon anyone accused of crime, though this sometimes seems to be the implication.

Today's blog post is written by Runnymede's head of policy, Omar Khan

There’s been a lot of coverage today of Nick Clegg’s focus on raising the personal threshold of income tax. Given that black and minority ethnic people are disproroprtionately likely to be living in poverty we thought it would be worth considering how this proposed change promotes fairness. While questions remain regarding how the Government can pay for this measure, the wider question of how the tax and benefits system promotes (or undermines) fairness is less well understood. In part this is due to the technical (i.e. boring!) nature of the discussion, though each of the three parties may also have political reasons not to explain the tax and benefits system better.

Put simply, the payment of benefits does much more work in promoting fairness in the UK than the collection of taxes. For example, 49% of the income of the lowest quintile in the UK derives from cash benefits, compared to only 2% for the upper quintile. Overall, benefits are by far the major source of improving fairness in the UK.

Direct taxation generally is somewhat progressive, and in the case of income tax (the target of the government’s proposed policy change), the poorest fifth only pay 3.1% of their income in direct tax, compared to 17.4% for the richest fifth. This suggests that income tax is much less unfair that Nick Clegg’s speech implies.

Today's blog post is written by Phil Mawhinney, Runnymede research and policy analyst

Nearly 4.5 million people over 60 years old, or one in three, can only afford the basics in life, according to a new report by Age UK. The research shows how pensioners maximise every single penny, and the sacrifices they make to get by. This includes living in just one room and going to bed early in order to keep warm and save on energy bills.

Over the last few years, Runnymede has been researching the experiences of older Black and minority ethnic (BME) people. We know that they are more likely to live in pensioner poverty. While one in six white pensioners live in poverty, this rises to nearly half of Bangladeshi and Pakistani pensioners and one in every four Black Caribbeans.

I attended the launch of the Age UK report, which received some press attention, and I have two observations to share.

Today’s post is written by Dr Robin Oakley, a Runnymede Fellow

The successful prosecution of two men for the murder of Stephen Lawrence in 1993 may at last provide some closure for members of the Lawrence family.  However this should not be allowed to justify – as some seem to be arguing – any relaxation of efforts to eliminate racism, whether in its overt forms such as racist violence, or in the more subtle institutional forms identified by the Lawrence Inquiry. 

As regards racist violence, it is also important that continuing to focus on the task of bringing perpetrators to justice should not be allowed to divert attention from the need to address also the issue of prevention.  Nearly 20 years after Stephen’s death, the reality is that racist violence continues to take place extensively across the country, as both official statistics and several recent serious incidents demonstrate.  And the great majority of these incidents are still perpetrated by young people – and in particular by young men, as in the case of Stephen’s murder.

Today's blog post is written by Runnymede's director, Dr Rob Berkeley

Some justice being delivered 19 years after the murder of Stephen Lawrence is, in the words of the indefatigable Doreen Lawrence, ‘not a cause for celebration’.  The successful conviction of these brutal killers after 19 years is a stark reminder about the ways in which racism operates in our society. Stephen Lawrence was killed simply for being black. His family had to wait so long for justice simply because they are black.

In the aftermath of this court case we must resist the temptation to declare mission accomplished on tackling racism in our society. More than 100 people have died at the hands of racists in the UK since Stephen Lawrence’s murder. Many other families are still waiting for justice. The way the Lawrence family were treated was disgraceful; institutional racism, pure and simple. Despite changes in the law, our police, schools, councils and health service still regularly offer a worse service for people from black communities; black people are seven times more likely to be stopped and searched by the police, three times more likely to be excluded from school, have to make twice as many applications before getting a job interview if they have an African or Asian sounding name, and are twice as likely to be unemployed compared to their white neighbours.

Click here to access Runnymede's report The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry 10 Years On

Today's post is written by Kam Gill, Runnymede's Research and Policy Analyst

According to Theresa May the riots were ‘pure thievery’ and we should focus ‘the victims, because they are the ones who really matter’.  Much ink has been spilled in recent months hypothesising about the causes of the riots, and the Home Secretary’s statements demonstrate a key flaw in much of our thinking about the August disturbances and riots in general. If the riots were pure criminality why did it take a police killing to set them off? If they were an act of political defiance, why all the emphasis on trainers and TVs?

At ‘Reading the Riots’, a conference discussing the results of Paul Lewis (Guardian) and Tim Newburn’s (LSE) recent survey of rioters motivations, May’s speech was one of a number of occasions where this attitude surfaced. I believe that two claims form the basis of a lot of the discussion around the August disturbances and that they are premised on mistaken assumptions about the behaviour involved. 

Today's blog post is written by Runnymede's policy and research analyst, Klara Schmitz

Runnymede is part of UK NGOs Against Racism, a group of race equality organisations which are taking their concerns about the government's inaction on race equality to the United Nations.