Godfrey Bloom hits Michael Crick, uses word 'sluts'

The Ukip MEP continues to be no stranger to controversy.

Having presumably decided that a catalogue of other offensive speeches (most notably the one in which he referred to the fictional nation of ‘Bongo Bongo Land’) weren’t enough, Ukip MEP Godfrey Bloom has attended an event at the Ukip conference in which he hit Channel 4’s Michael Crick with a brochure and referred to women as ‘sluts’.

Bloom was carrying a copy of the Ukip conference book which promises to ‘change the face of politics’, despite being noticeably adorned with only Caucasian faces. Crick questioned this lack of diversity, only to be smacked over the head with the offending article and told that he was a ‘racist’ for bringing up skin colour. ‘You disgust me,’ Bloom added, before making a swift departure.

The ‘slut’ comment is perhaps more easily forgiven, being as it was connected to a comment about cleaning fridges rather than sexual liberation ('This place is full of sluts!' in response to a woman commenting that she never cleaned behind her fridge.) It seems likely that Bloom was using the old-fashioned term for slovenly people who don't dust properly, admittedly one that fell out of common usage for untidiness a fair few decades ago. Then again, we can safely assume from Bloom’s political opinions that he never did quite catch up with the twenty-first century (or, indeed, the 1980s) in the first place.

Enjoy this delightful gif of the incident, courtesy of Tom Phillips (@flashboy):

Godfrey Bloom. Image: Getty
Holly Baxter is a freelance journalist who writes regularly for The Guardian and The New Statesman. She is also one half of The Vagenda and releases a book on the media in May 2014.
Getty
Show Hide image

How tribunal fees silenced low-paid workers: “it was more than I earned in a month”

The government was forced to scrap them after losing a Supreme Court case.

How much of a barrier were employment tribunal fees to low-paid workers? Ask Elaine Janes. “Bringing up six children, I didn’t have £20 spare. Every penny was spent on my children – £250 to me would have been a lot of money. My priorities would have been keeping a roof over my head.”

That fee – £250 – is what the government has been charging a woman who wants to challenge their employer, as Janes did, to pay them the same as men of a similar skills category. As for the £950 to pay for the actual hearing? “That’s probably more than I earned a month.”

Janes did go to a tribunal, but only because she was supported by Unison, her trade union. She has won her claim, although the final compensation is still being worked out. But it’s not just about the money. “It’s about justice, really,” she says. “I think everybody should be paid equally. I don’t see why a man who is doing the equivalent job to what I was doing should earn two to three times more than I was.” She believes that by setting a fee of £950, the government “wouldn’t have even begun to understand” how much it disempowered low-paid workers.

She has a point. The Taylor Review on working practices noted the sharp decline in tribunal cases after fees were introduced in 2013, and that the claimant could pay £1,200 upfront in fees, only to have their case dismissed on a technical point of their employment status. “We believe that this is unfair,” the report said. It added: "There can be no doubt that the introduction of fees has resulted in a significant reduction in the number of cases brought."

Now, the government has been forced to concede. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of Unison’s argument that the government acted unlawfully in introducing the fees. The judges said fees were set so high, they had “a deterrent effect upon discrimination claims” and put off more genuine cases than the flimsy claims the government was trying to deter.

Shortly after the judgement, the Ministry of Justice said it would stop charging employment tribunal fees immediately and refund those who had paid. This bill could amount to £27m, according to Unison estimates. 

As for Janes, she hopes low-paid workers will feel more confident to challenge unfair work practices. “For people in the future it is good news,” she says. “It gives everybody the chance to make that claim.” 

Julia Rampen is the digital news editor of the New Statesman (previously editor of The Staggers, The New Statesman's online rolling politics blog). She has also been deputy editor at Mirror Money Online and has worked as a financial journalist for several trade magazines.