Dulwich streetspace review

[tedfudge]

hello people

did anyone else receive the DULWICH STREETSPACE REVIEW UPDATE FEBRUARY 2022

today ?

i was reading through it and then read the following bit and it says

Engage with specific protected groups e.g disabled , elderly, black, asian, and minority ethnic communities as well as bus users ... im confused about the protected groups black , asian , and minority ethnic communities part of it not sure why they have included that on the leaflet and also what about white people do they not matter ? its not a race thing so dont put messages on here that im racist etc as that has nothing to do with it iam just confused on why those specific groups of people are mentioned and not white people..

[Sally Eva]

I think it is probably because it refers to "specific protected groups". Under discrimination legislation, groups such as the elderly and disabled must be considered. White people are included in groups of the disabled and elderly.

The council need to consider minority ethnic communities under the Equalities legislation. It's their legal obligation which one hopes would also be recognised as a moral and ethical obligation.

[alice]

Which would be great if it actually happened. Dulwich Village has a very low proportion of such protected groups. Except maybe the elderly who have been specifically hard hit by the road closures.

[march46]

Are children not also a protected group?

[Waseley]

Ted, sorry but this is racism. Casual racism where it is not the intention to offend or the person didn't realise. Even the most right on person has probably been guilty of this. Sally has explained the legal basis.

[legalalien]

They?re protected characteristics rather than groups I believe:

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/equality-act/protected-characteristics

So the protected characteristic of ?age? would capture children as well as old people. ?Race? is also capable of capturing ?white British? in particular circumstances but generally it?s the interests of minority groups that are likely to be overlooked and require specific attention.

From a quick scan of the EHRC webpage, ?There are no express requirements to undertake engagement under the specific duties for England (and non devolved bodies in Scotland and Wales). However, case law states that consultation/involvement/engagement may still be important in ensuring public authorities understand the impacts of some types of decisions on different people.?

More info about this and impact assessment type stuff here https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance-faq/specific-duties-faqs-england-only.

[ianr]

> They?re protected characteristics rather than groups I believe.

Indeed. Part 2 of the Equality Act 2010. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/part/2

It's possible that the leaflet is also bearing in mind the "public sector duty regarding socio-economic inequalities" in Part 1 of the Act. Whatever, I do find its apparently mangled understanding or representation of the law rather depressing.

[legalalien]

I haven?t seen the leaflet. Re socioeconomic equality, as I understand it that part of the Act isn?t in force however Southwark has adopted it as part of its constitution. To great fanfare, which is why I?m not impressed that they seem to think that a brief mention of it in decision making reports, rather than a proper analysis, is sufficient. It?s whatever the equalities equivalent of green washing is.

Was disappointed that the LDs didn?t make more of this when they tried to call in the decision tbh.

[ianr]

> as I understand it that part of the Act isn?t in force

Whoops, I hadn't realised that. Thanks. Now you've reminded me of a fruitless hunt through the London Gazette a few months ago, for the publication of something like an old local TMO.

The leaflet came through the letterbox this afternoon. OP's quotation is there, with a (spring 2022) appended to it, in a Next Steps section.