Why the call to boycott Nottingham Castle is WRONG

 

The Boycott is an extremely powerful tool. An extremely powerful word.   To call upon the general public to withdraw from commercial cultural and social relationships with the target of the boycott requires exceptional grounds to be justifiable.     Originally it was used against Landlords evicting their tenants in Ireland.   It was the 19th-century form of what we know today as being canceled.

I have myself been involved in a number of boycotts, in that I have consciously supported boycotts called by others.     I continue to boycott Israeli goods and services and anything they grow, manufacture or produce and sell from the occupied territories.     I recall supporting the boycott against Apartheid South Africa and spending much time on pickets of banks and other institutions that continued to trade with and engage with South Africa.    And I played a very active role in the 1970s and 1980s Boycott of the   Nottingham Evening Post when they sacked unionised journalists and printers over the introduction of new printing technology.  That boycott went on for several years and was particularly damaging to those of us in the Nottingham community who relied upon the Post to cover our stories, events, and campaigns.

Today I am being called upon to boycott Nottingham Castle.  

 On the face of it the boycott is called because the castle is guilty of racist behavior and is run by, to quote the Nottingham Black Archive group, “a den of privileged and entitled boys” prepared to tolerate and condone racist behavior on their castle premises.

This call to boycott has a direct effect upon me as I am sure it does on many others.    I was hoping to persuade the castle to exhibit and/or perform some of my work on the role of Nottingham soldiers in the 1916 Irish Rising.   Obviously, I would not wish to break the boycott and give succor to the racist tolerating, racist condoning privileged and entitled boys of the Castle.   That’s not what I do.  That is not what most people in the general arts community do.

The effect could be a great tragedy for Nottingham. Should the arts and museum communities throughout the  UK decide to abide by the boycott call, then what we shall see is many refusing to go to Nottingham and exhibit their work, display their art, take part in events, have their poetry read, their dances performed, their brass bands play in the castle gardens or go to juggle and to busk.

All of them, the entire arts community, must now take a side on the boycott call and determine whether they will abide by the call, or continue to engage with the castle.

I felt it worth taking a closer look.

The boycott call comes from a community group called the Nottingham Black Archive.

There should be more such archives.  Women’s archives, Union archives, LGTB archives, Lace market archives, coal miners’ archives, and frame workers archives.  

The aim and objectives of such archive groups are familiar and, in respect of the Nottingham Black Archive group are set out in their founding charter and published on their website

 

“Nottingham Black Archive is dedicated to collecting, preserving and celebrating the histories of people of African descent in Nottingham. The NBA programme of exhibitions and events provide a platform from which to share the diversity of cultures originating from Africa and the Caribbean, past and present. The collection promotes the teaching, learning and understanding of African Caribbean peoples’ contribution to Nottingham and provides an accessible permanent record of the richness of the Black experience in Nottingham.

Aims

– To research, collect and document the Nottingham Black presence from the earliest time to the present day.

– To strengthen the development, accessibility and care of the Nottingham Black Archive Collection

– To promote the teaching and learning of Black history in Nottingham.

– To create opportunities for people to share their own stories.

– To establish Nottingham Black Archive as a leading institution for Black Heritage and Culture in Nottingham.

– To ensure organisational sustainability.”

I looked at these aims and objectives when considering whether this boycott call was valid.

It was of note that the aims and objectives did not include turning the Archive into a campaigning activist group.    But I was not too worried about that.   Not at first anyway.

The material collected and preserved in such archive groups can be used (and should be used) by activist campaigning groups, as appropriate, in advancing their own issues and agendas.   But their primary function is collection and preservation for teaching, for history, for posterity.

Some such groups have turned to activism. always based upon their collected and preserved documents, to right some historical or even contemporary wrong identified in the preserved archive.

The incident which triggered the Nottingham Black Archive call to boycott the castle, originates in a complaint, by a black grandmother, that on an occasion in August 2021, when visiting the castle with her grandchildren, one of the grandchildren was racially attacked in that she was called a “black girl” and, then assaulted by “perpetrators” of a hate crime

The grandmother, on the same day, penned a lengthy letter to the Castle trustees setting out her complaint and confirming to them that the incident was now, at her request,  the subject of a police investigation.    

The full text of her letter of complaint is set out in appendix 1 herein.

It turns out that the black grandmother was and is the founder and leader of the Nottingham Black Archive.   As such, she was able to persuade her nonactivist Archive group to adopt her complaint and grievance and turn itself into an activist platform to advance the grievance and seek justice.

That doesn’t look too good to me.   But perhaps the complaint and grievance are so outrageous that it is understandable that a non-activist community group takes up the personal complaint and grievance of one of its leaders to become the leader’s principal platform.   But it needs to be said, I know of no other community non-activist Archive group, in the UK, that has changed its role into that of an outright activist group in order to pursue an issue of one of its leaders and founders, rather than some ongoing historical grievance identified in their collection of documents.

There are, of course, numerous activist groups that do represent and campaign for aggrieved individuals who have suffered racial discrimination or harassment.   Foremost amongst them is the Equality and Human Rights Commission who have a long and unparalleled history of advising on and fighting both individual and collective discrimination.   And there are lawyers who would willingly pursue such a complaint with full professional vigor and advice, more often than not, on a pro bono basis or a no foal no fee basis.    

But the choice here was for the Nottingham Black Archive to adopt the grievance of their leader and founder, and become her primary platform to call for a boycott and pursue her grievance against the castle.

I believe that was a mistake

One of the joys of having and controlling your own platform means you avoid having to listen to the advice of others.

.

The letter of complaint raises serious matters which demand from the castle, an appropriate response.    At the very least one would expect the castle to conduct an internal investigation.   And given the potential for the complaint to escalate into something even more serious then one would also expect an investigation chaired by an independent authoritative person or body.

It is not clear from the letter of complaint what exactly happened; what was said that was racially offensive and what was done that constitutes an assault.   They would be matters for any investigation to determine, although it was widely discussed on social media and in the pubs adjacent to the castle.

From the record of public statements, mostly on social media, it is possible to conclude that there were at least three investigations.   One by Nottinghamshire Constabulary and two independent investigations commissioned by the castle.

The actual investigation reports are, as far as I can tell, not publicly available, although they are the subject of various public statements and commentary.      The Nottingham Black Archive has a copy of the completed independent investigation report and also advised me that they had a copy of the police report in their archives.   Initially, they agreed to provide me with a copy, subject to the payment of a fee for their time.  I was quite prepared for any such reports to be appropriately redacted and to pay the Black Archives fee.

They did not honour that agreement and have refused to answer any correspondence about the report.   They removed my comments from their Facebook thread about the validity of the boycott call and very quickly blocked me from access to their page.

Despite this lack of transparency, I hope I can throw sufficient light on the issue,  from the many statements that are in the public arena.  And I will try to do so without any prejudice towards the Black Archive for their lack of transparency and for breaking their undertaking to provide me with the reports.

There are two versions, of what happened during the police investigation.

The first is that of the Nottingham Black Archive which asserts that the police closed their investigation because the perpetrator of the hate crime and the assault, was below the age of criminal consent.   She is believed to have been, at the time of the incident, eight years old.

The second version is that of the castle, which says the police closed their investigation because there was no evidence.

I believe both these statements may be true, although without seeing the report it is impossible to be any clearer.

It reports on an incident between the black grandmother’s grandchildren, aged 11 and 9, and a white girl aged 8 who has learning difficulties and suffers from ADHD.

It is still not possible to determine with any accuracy what was said that constituted a race hate crime or what turns the assault, into a hate crime.   The best version of what happened, mostly from social media sources is that the children were playing in the castle playground when the little white girl called one of the grandmother’s grandchildren a black girl and then assaulted her.

There were no witnesses as to what actually occurred.

No one was prosecuted. No one was cautioned.

On that basis, I would have to say that it is difficult to justify an international boycott of the castle for being an institution that condones racism.

The Boycott is a powerful weapon.

 But here no one was unfairly evicted from a castle tenancy;  no one was beaten by baton-wielding white castle guards because they were black;  no one was shot; no necks were kneeled upon.   All it appears to be is an inappropriate exchange between children in which no one was seriously hurt.

A badly behaved child with learning difficulties is hardly solid grounds for an international boycott of the castle.

But there are at least two more independent investigations commissioned by the castle which have to be taken into account.

Both reports were completed by February 2022 and have been furnished to the Nottingham Black Archive through the complainant grandmother.   The Nottingham Black Archive have chosen not to publish them.

From the public statements based on these investigations, by both sides, it is the case that no employees of the castle witnessed any incident or took part in any incident.  Nor is there any CCTV footage of the incident. Nor are there any independent witnesses, or indeed, any witnesses at all.

Neither of the independent investigations has concluded that there was a racially motivated hate crime or an assault

However it is found, by both of the independent investigators that the procedures of the castle in handling the complaints fell far short of best practice, and there are a  number of strong procedural and policy recommendations, all of which have been fully accepted by the Castle Trustees.

There is no finding in either of the independent investigations that the castle is institutionally racist or that it is run by persons who tolerate racism, who condone racism, or who are not fit to serve as trustees.

Without seeing the actual report, it is impossible to confirm that the description of the incident discloses that the aggrieved black grandmother chased the eight-year-old girl, with learning difficulties, (who the Black Archive describes as the hate crime perpetrator), across the castle grounds, the child in such clear distress that a castle security officer felt obliged to step in front of the chasing black grandmother in order to protect the child fleeing in distress.

Unless the Black Archive publishes the report it cannot be confirmed, but the suspicion must arise that this is the principal reason why the report remains unpublished. It may be the case that the castle should publish the report but I suspect they cannot do so without the consent of all the parties.

As an interested party in this, I would t suggest to both the castle and the aggrieved grandmother, and the Nottingham Black Archive that they convene a joint press conference where the reports can be jointly published and they may make their observations and answer questions accordingly. It would also prove a positive forum for the castle to repat their apology to the grandmother and put it firmly on the record.

A key issue in the boycott call is the assertion that no one from the castle has bothered to meet with the black grandmother or to apologise to her. 

As late as July 2022 this assertion was still being made on the Facebook page of the Nottingham Black Archive as it urged its supporters to join in an international boycott of an event associated with the Commonwealth Games.   Their spokesperson called upon all cultural, artistic, and social groups to honour the boycott.

The alleged failure to meet with the black grandmother is contested by the statements from the castle who wished to put on record that they had invited the black grandmother on a number of occasions to see them. She, according to the castle, declined all invitations and continues to do so. 

The black grandmother also refused to attend or engage with the independent investigator investigating the incident.

 So far there has been no rebuttal of the castle’s claim.

To decline to appear before the independent investigator makes no sense.   By declining, a complainant forfeits the opportunity to put their case and to have it properly examined.   They also forfeit the opportunity to examine and or comment and rebut the castle’s representations to the independent investigator.

I am bound to ask that if these findings of mine, are correct then why in July of 2022,  after a police report and two independent investigator reports, all of which are in possession of the Black Archive, am I still being called upon to boycott the castle.

To continue to escalate the playground incident between children into a full-blooded call to the cultural community here, and abroad in the commonwealth, to boycott the castle is simply not justified..

The only people damaged by the continuing call to boycott are those who enjoy the fabulous facilities of the castle which because of the boycott will not be used by visiting performers, be they poets, musicians, playwrights, or artists, who without the full knowledge of the incident, abide by the boycott.

It has become, for the Nottingham Black Archive their rason d’être.   It dominates all their social media, and all their events, often to the detriment of its highly valued original aims and objectives.

It is damaging black/white community relationships in a city renowned for its inclusivity.   It has become the white people in the castle and the black people in the city.   It needs, urgently, to be de-escalated.

The castle was never known for being racist or discriminatory.   Black people were employed in the castle on merit, and in numbers.      The black grandmother herself was employed by the castle, as a curator and she took the job without any qualms or belief that the castle was a racially motivated den of white boys.    Indeed, it is an irony that on the day of the incident the black grandmother was visiting an exhibition at the castle entitled “Don’t blame the Blacks”    

You have to accept, surely, that a racially motivated employer with no interest in equality, run by entitled and privileged white boys who condone racist behavior, would hardly give over its display galleries to a   “Don’t blame the Blacks” exhibition. But that is exactly what these “racists” did.

Nottingham enjoys a deserved reputation for its inclusivity. I remember the first black Lord Mayor, a fellow trade unionist from the TGWU, who worked at City Transport. Can’t quite recall his name but since then I have forgotten how many Black Sheriffs or Black Lord Mayors there have been. It’s so common it is no longer something to note. The black community is powerfully represented on the city council and has been for years. Of course, there have been struggles and fights for rights. I have been involved in some of them myself! I include in this piece, a link at the bottom, to the story of what was one of the most important discrimination struggles in the history of the city council. That’s me beside the legendary Louis Broady!

The complaint was genuine. 

I have no doubt about that.   And the handling of the complaint by the castle fell far short of best practice.   There is no doubt about that.     But on the scale of inflammatory overt racist assaults, it is very small beer.  Children behaving badly in the playground.

Those who now continue to support the boycott must consider this.  They are using or encouraging the use of terms like “race hate crime perpetrator” to describe a little eight-year-old girl with learning difficulties.

The “perpetrator” as she is constantly referred to by the Nottingham Black Archive, was an eight-year-old girl with learning difficulties.    She was chased, in great distress, across the castle grounds by an angry shouting grandmother, to such an effect that a castle security officer felt the need to step in front of the angry shouting grandmother to protect the fleeing eight-year-old child.  She is now publically and repeatedly wheeled out as a racist hate crime perpetrator. She is so in her school, amongst her friends, within her family, and across the city and the commonwealth.  She is being used as a battering ram to lay siege to the castle.

Where, comrades, is the safeguarding in that? Is that not a form of child abuse?

The castle has accepted in full the independent investigators’ strong procedural and policy recommendations.  

They have apologised.

They have not been found, by the independent investigators to be institutionally racist or unfit to run the castle.

For gods’ sake, for Nottingham’s sake, for the sake of race relations, for the sake of the mental health of the eight-year-old child, end the boycott.

 

 

 

Appendix  1

The full original letter of complaint.

Re: Incident at NC on Tuesday 17th August 2021.

I would like to make a complaint regarding the handling of an incident at NC on Tuesday 17, August 2021. The incident took place at approximately 2.30pm during my visit with four of my grandchildren (ages 11, eight, seven, and four) and my adult daughter. The visit had been prearranged with the Castle. It

was connected to sharing with my grandchildren my curated exhibition ‘Don’t Blame the Blacks’. Two of my granddaughters, aged 11 and seven, suffered a racial assault which is now a police matter. NC’s handling of the situation added further trauma and upset. My complaint is about the failure of NC staff to enact the safeguarding procedures outlined on your website. Your safeguarding policy states:

‘Safeguarding and protecting children and young people from abuse is everyone’s responsibility’. No one among Castle staff came to our aid and senior staff stood outside the visitor centre and did not enter to assist us. You state that safeguarding is ‘everyone’s responsibility’ and that ‘protecting children from abuse and neglect is the responsibility of all staff including temporary and agency, freelance and contractors, hereafter referred to as staff, volunteers, and trustees who work for or represent NC Trust. This includes a responsibility to ensure they are informed and trained to an appropriate level’. Staff, including visitor centre staff and volunteers, did not intervene positively, no security intervened, none of the shopworkers supported the children or us as adults in our moment of distress. The perpetrators of the assault were left free to walk from the site unchallenged.

Attempts were made by Rob from the Front of House team to kettle me into a corner. You also state in your ‘Key Principles’ that ‘all staff and volunteers have a shared and individual professional responsibility to take appropriate steps to protect and safeguard children in line with this policy and associated procedure’. No-one did. I encourage my grandchildren to report issues of concern to the appropriate authorities, but you have shown that this will not always be taken seriously.

The Castle’s procedure when informed of a race hate crime was woefully inadequate. I also want to make a complaint about the conduct of Debbie Beardall, Director of Commercial and Customer Services, who referred to me as ‘aggressive’ and who thereby named my distress over how my grandchildren had been treated aggressive. Debbie Beardall was unhelpful. Repeated requests were made for her to enact the Castle’s procedure for dealing with an assault, some of which were captured on film. Debbie Beardall was dismissive, unhelpful, and in labelling me aggressive, she was antagonistic. Only reluctantly after repeatedly being asked ‘what is the procedure when dealing with a racist assault?’,did she agree to call the police. Among your ‘Key Principles’is: ‘The welfare of the child/young person is paramount’. You state that it ‘should be evident in all responses to any concerns of abuse and neglect’. However, Debbie Beardall and the wider staff team failed in their response not only to my granddaughters who were assaulted but also to my grandson, and youngest granddaughter aged 4 who has special needs and suffers from a rare form of epilepsy. NC Trust asserts that: ‘children and young people, including disabled children, have an equal right to protection from all types of harm and abuse; all staff and volunteers should advocate where necessary to ensure this principle is applied by all’, but no-one from your team listened to us or came to our aid even– when informed that the situation was a ‘code red’. You state that ‘keeping of accurate and prompt recording is fundamental to effective safeguarding and that all staff and volunteers have a responsibility to ensure all concerns are recorded appropriately’ and ‘as soon as possible after raising the concern (a maximum of 2 hours)’. Your staff did not investigate what harm or injury was caused to my grandchildren or record it. The failure of your team to act fairly and compassionately has led to further distress for us. It has also led to public scrutiny of the Castle. Along with many members of the Nottingham community, I have now lost confidence in NC Trust as an organization to keep safe all visitors. The Nottingham community is quite rightly outraged.

A number of letters have been written to you as a result of this incident and continue to be written. I know that groups have canceled bookings, and significant numbers of people have stated online and in person that they will not be visiting the Castle until significant and meaningful change occurs. I request a full investigation into the failings of your team to act when an assault on Black children was reported. I would like an investigation into the conduct of Debbie Beardall as a senior member of staff, acting as the duty manager, who failed to recognise distress and instead called it aggression. I would like a written apology to my granddaughters with a reassurance that this situation will never happen again at NC and that their safety will be a priority. I also would like an apology for the mishandling of the situation and for the distress and trauma experienced since. I would like the apology to be placed on your website and social media. In addition, I would like to meet with you and your team, including the Designated Safeguarding Lead and Safeguarding Trustee as well as Debbie Beardall and Rob to

discuss my concerns and explore ways forward.”

 

 

Link to the Black guy who took on Nottingham City Council

https://bit.ly/2xtF2UO