PERSPECTIVES ON

COMMUNITY COHESION IN
BRADFORD:

A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
OF TWO
NEIGHBOURHOODS

A REPORT PRODUCED BY JUST WEST

YORKSHIRE

Authors: Ratna Lachman and Alyas Karmani

1
 CONTENTS

Acknowledgements

Executive Summary 4

Introduction 6

Structure of the Report 6

The Environmental Context 7

West Bowling Focus Group Responses 16

Holme Wood Focus Group Responses 20

Stakeholder Focus Group Responses 28

Conclusion 35

2
Acknowledgements

JUST West Yorkshire would like to thank those who

participated in the focus groups. Their frankness and
candour around the issue of Community Cohesion have
been critical in presenting the thorny issues that
accompany the practical application of this policy.

We are also grateful to our interviewers Bonnie Berkowitz,

Kamran Mohammed and Huw Illingworth for facilitating the
focus group sessions and working with participants to elicit
the range of responses that have been crucial in framing
this research.

Last but not least, we are indebted to Alyas Karmani for

leading the stakeholder interviews, and making a critical
contribution to the framework and structure of the final
report.

This report is published by Just West Yorkshire with

financial support from Oxfam GB. Opinions expressed do
not necessarily reflect Oxfam’s views. For more information
about Oxfam’s work to end poverty in the UK, go to
www.oxfam.org.uk/uk.

3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This research was carried out by Just West Yorkshire in late 2008. It
conducted three focus groups and a range of individual interviews in
West Bowling, Holme Wood and with stakeholder practitioners in
Bradford and West Yorkshire. The main conclusions from the research
are summarised below, followed by key recommendations.

The community cohesion policy as it is currently configured has proved

to be a very malleable concept; the construction of the terminology
premised around the paradigm of a white ‘us’ and a BME ‘them’ has
served to undermine the vision of an inclusive society which the policy
was designed to create.

The research provides clear evidence that for white communities

interviewed for this study, the government’s definition of Cohesion, has
become the prism through which their views on asylum, migration,
terrorism and extremism are refracted. The xenophobia and racism both
implicit and explicit in the views exhibited by significant members of
this group, as evidenced in this research, provides incontrovertible proof
of the dangers inherent in the current application of the policy, which
locates responsibility for good community relations on BME
communities. Furthermore, Labour’s insistence on equating the notion
of parallel and segregated lives exclusively with the lived experiences of
BME communities, represents a blind-spot in public policy terms. The
reality is that there are estates like Holme Wood across the length and
breadth of England where geographical isolation of White communities
is even more profound than in BME communities, and their attendant
worldviews marked by insularity and parochialism.

The impact of this partial application of the Cohesion policy has meant
that the policy has not elicited the critical buy-in from the very
communities at which the strategy is targeted. As evidenced in the
section on the environmental context, the research clearly highlighted
that the conflation of the terminology of Community Cohesion with the
Prevent, Contest and War on Terror policies has created a schism
between BME and particularly Muslim communities who consider these
approaches as unfairly targeting them. Interview participants have
highlighted how the failure to “take firm action on the racism of the far
right” is evidence of an inherent racial bias in the government’s
approach to BME communities.

The unequivocal message from the research, particularly from

practitioners in the stakeholder group, was that the government’s over-
reliance on community cohesion as the principal public policy tool in
relation to BME communities was doomed to failure. Instead the vision

4
of cohesive communities could be better achieved by addressing the
structural and systemic failures which have contributed to generational
poverty, poor life-chances, discrimination and racial violence
experienced by BME people.

Unemployment, segregation and poor achievement in schools, access to

housing in mixed developments, and tackling perceptions of perceived
BME advantage should be a government policy priority locally and
nationally. Messages about cohesion should apply as much to white
working class communities as Black and Ethnic Minorities. The
benchmark for measuring good community relations should be equality
of outcomes for all, in employment, education and service provision.
It is not Community Cohesion that can provide the answers but a
framework of inter-community relations which is rooted in notions of
equality, social justice, anti-racist and anti-discriminatory practice.

5
INTRODUCTION

This research aims to unpack and challenge the terminology of

Community Cohesion through exploring its impact in the context of the
life experiences of Bradford’s communities. JUST West Yorkshire’s
choice of Bradford as a research area was informed by the fact that it is
one of the five areas in which its work is located. As an organisation
promoting racial justice, civil liberties and human rights, the Oxfam
funded project provided an opportunity to assess the efficacy of
community cohesion as a public policy tool in achieving the
government’s vision of a cohesive society in the context of Bradford

The choice of Bradford was also particularly pertinent in view of the

central role, which the district played in the Northern Riots. The genesis
of the term Community Cohesion as articulated in the Cantle Report
has clear antecedents in the uprisings, which broke out in 2001. The
district also has the largest Muslim population in the Yorkshire and
Humber region and the Muslim community is the third largest in the
UK after London and West Midlands. The clear links between the
terminology of Community Cohesion and the notion of BME
communities (mainly Muslims) living parallel and segregated lives has
particular relevance to Bradford in public policy terms.

The structural factors of poverty, disadvantage and poor life chances

which is widely acknowledged as contributing to the youth disaffection
which sparked the riots, remain a facet of the district’s life. Muslim
communities are disproportionately represented in Bradford’s deprived
inner-city wards and suffer poverty, discrimination and poor life
chances even today.

The presence of the far right that lit the tinderbox that led to the
Bradford uprisings remains a live dynamic informing community
relations in the district.

STRUCTURE OF THE RESEARCH REPORT

This research aims to assess government responses to Community

Cohesion through assessing its efficacy as a public policy tool for
promoting good race relations and integration. While evaluating it
through the prism of the lived experiences of Muslim and Asian
communities in West Bowling in Bradford, the research also covered a
predominantly White community in one of Bradford’s poorest inner-city
estates called Holme Wood.

Through focusing on two inner city wards in Bradford targeting both

Black and White communities, who fulfil the Cantle definition of living
geographically segregated and parallel lives the research seeks to:

6
 • Explore the meaning of community cohesion in terms of Black
and White communities lived experiences;
• Uncover the causes and influences that determine views within
both communities of the ‘Other’;
• Uncover factors that contribute to poor community cohesion and
assess if there are common causal factors in relation to White and
minority ethnic communities or whether there are distinctly
different dimensions;
• Uncover barriers that communities perceive as being obstacles to
cohesion;
• Explore solutions towards achieving positive inter-community
relations from the perspective of the target communities.

In the next section we establish the environmental context for the

research and in the sections which follow, draw on primary evidence
gathered through three separate focus groups and face to face
interviews in West Bowling, Holme Wood, and with stakeholder
practitioners, to highlight the key research themes for the Report.

THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT

Just two years before the Northern Uprisings broke out, the race
relations landscape in the Bradford district bore little resemblance to
the ideology, which was to subsequently define the policy formulation in
relation to BME communities. Ethnic minority groups were celebrating
the advent of a post-Macpherson paradise, which followed the
publication of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Report. The Report’s
requirement that public authorities meet their duties under the Race
Relations Amendment Act and accept the definition of ‘institutional
racism’ was a milestone because it spoke to the historic BME
experiences of discrimination, racism, social exclusion and
marginalisation.

The Northern Riots however resulted in a complete volte-face in the

government’s conduct in the race relations arena. The Cantle Report
which proved to be seminal in re-defining this, ironically echoed the
Lawrence Report in making a link between youth disaffection and
structural failures. However the prescriptions it offered for redressing
inequalities were qualitatively different.

From anti-racism to cohesion, citizenship and integration

In positing the notion of parallel and segregated lives, and calling for
policies which ‘desegregated’ geographically separated and divided
communities, Ted Cantle effectively gave Labour the language on which
it could construct the edifice of its new paradigm on race. By de-
coupling cohesion from the issues of poverty and deprivation that
Cantle identified as the causal factors leading to the uprisings, Labour

7
shifted the responsibilities incumbent on public bodies for good race
relations onto BME communities.

Consequently the old discourses that celebrated ethnic diversity in the

United Kingdom (UK), such as multi-culturalism, anti-racism and
institutional racism were incrementally replaced by policies which fore-
grounded cohesion, citizenship and integration.

David Blunkett’s response (then the Home Secretary) to the Northern

uprisings, gave an early indication that the rules of the ‘race’ game had
changed.

We have norms of acceptability … (and) those who come into our

home – for that is what it is – should accept those norms just as
we would have to do if we went elsewhere. (9 December, 2001,
Independent on Sunday)

Implicit in his commentary was the view that visible minorities,

regardless of whether they were born and bred in the UK were
‘outsiders’. In the Northern cities this sent out a message that society
was clearly bifurcated along the lines of the White ‘us’ and a visibly
minority (BME) ‘them’.

This was a watershed as it signalled the fact that from henceforth the
burden for good community relations would rest on the shoulders of
BME people. According to Pilkington:
3.3 David Blunkett … saw the riots as reflecting the failure of
successive governments effectively to manage immigration and
integration. He focused on the need to forge greater loyalty to the
nation and announced measures to promote shared citizenship …
3.4 What such an analysis fails to acknowledge is not only the
material roots of the disorders but also the degree of cultural
assimilation by second-generation Muslim young men into a
consumer culture that has raised aspirations and into a masculine
culture that valorises violence. Racist exclusion in such a context
can generate a strong sense of relative deprivation and
consequently an assertive commitment to defending Asian
communities against the malicious threat of white racists. (Andrew
Pilkington, From Institutional Racism to Community Cohesion:
the Changing Nature of Racial Discourse In Britain, Sociological
Research Online, Volume 13, Issue 3, 31 May 2008:5)

The presentation of BME and especially Muslim communities, through

the prism of ‘us’ and ‘them’ had a profound impact. As the cohesion
agenda has been rolled-out locally and regionally the Statutory,
Voluntary and Community Sectors have been radically reconfigured.
The speed with which Local Authorities have divested themselves of
their ‘Race’ Equality Departments and Officers and replaced them with
Community Cohesion Directorates, suggests that statutory agencies had

8
never entirely been comfortable with the spotlight that the Macpherson
Report put them under. The resistance by numerous public bodies to
the term ‘institutional racism’ and its prescriptions for a radical reform
of public services, (benign as it was in its proclamation that it was
‘unwitting’), attests to statutory discomfort at being held to account by
BME communities through the duties and obligations contained in the
Race Relations Amendment Act (2000), which accompanied the
Macpherson Report.

The lexicon of community cohesion, as constructed and interpreted by

the Labour Government, has proven to be extremely malleable because
its presentation of race relations predominantly through the prism of
ethnicity – an ‘us’ and ‘them’ - has provided a versatile framework on
which it has been able to tag the other ‘isms’, which inform its policy
formulations towards its ethnic minority communities. This was most
evident following the 2001 attack on the Twin Towers in North America
and the London bombings in 2005, when the Government declared an
all out ‘war on extremism’ and terrorism. The extent to which the
terminologies of cohesion, terrorism and extremism had become
interchangeable is evident in the strategic objectives outlined in the
Government’s pathfinder, Preventing Violent Extremism Fund (PVEF),
which directly implicated ‘the general population of our Muslim
communities’. The strategic objectives of the programme were defined in
these terms:

To develop a community in which Muslims in our communities:

• identify themselves as a welcome part of a wider British
society and are accepted as such by the wider community; …
To deliver these objectives requires concerted action in partnership
across central government, local government, the police and the
security services, the Third Sector and, vitally, local communities
themselves. That action needs to be focused at a number of levels:
• at the general population of our Muslim communities, helping
them to build their resilience to violent extremist messages and
to voice their condemnation of violent extremism;
• at those who are most at risk of being groomed into violent
extremist ideologies, developing specific interventions to help
individuals counter such messages; and,
• at those justifying and/or glorifying violent extremist ideologies
and terrorism, and thereby create an ambiance and
atmosphere of toleration of extremist ideologies and terrorism,
where we will work vigorously to prevent their efforts to
indoctrinate vulnerable members of society. (The Prevent
Strategy: 2008: p.7 & Executive Summary)

No community in the history of race relations in the United Kingdom,

has been targeted thus and the development of public policy based on
the presumption that an entire community is implicated for the actions

9
of a few, has created a breach in the relationship between the Muslim
community and the instruments of government.

The Yorkshire effect

As 3 of the 4 bombers were from West Yorkshire and the region has one
of the largest Muslim communities in England, it is not surprising that
much of the activity undertaken as part of the ‘Prevent’ agenda is
targeted in this region. It is clear from the extract quoted below that
government ministers are in the ‘driving seat’ and have a firm
expectation that public bodies are in the frontline of Labour’s efforts in
‘winning’ the ‘war on terror’.

As the Communities Secretary made clear in her letter to local

authorities of 11 March, the step change in funding for local
partnerships building resilience to violent extremism necessitates
a step change in activity at a local level. Preventing violent
extremism is firmly embedded in performance management
frameworks, including National Indicator 35 (NI 35) and
Assessments of Policing and Community Safety Indicator 63
(APACS 63). The Comprehensive Area Assessment process will
also embrace Prevent work, but local partners themselves should
ensure that arrangements are in place to evaluate the
effectiveness of their response and the way risk is managed. (The
Prevent Strategy, 2008: 7)

Consequently in policing and intelligence terms, the region has

experienced unprecedented activity; 400 counter-terrorist officers have
been lodged at a secret location in Leeds which is next door to Bradford;
neighbourhood policing strategies now routinely include local
intelligence gathering and tension monitoring. Terror hotlines have been
established that encourage the public to become terror sleuths; and
performance management frameworks that traditionally measure the
effectiveness of public services now measure the robustness with which
statutory bodies are able to combat ‘violent extremism and terrorism’

In the aftermath of the London bombings a £5 million fund was

allocated in 2007/08 and West Yorkshire was designated one of 8
pathfinder areas. The 5 Local Authorities in the region, which included
Bradford, were allocated £500,000 to work together to develop effective
counter-extremism/terror strategies. Despite deep disquiet from the
district’s BME communities about the strategic objectives of the fund, it
has been mainstreamed with a further investment of £45 million
nationally between 2008-2011. Given the size of this funding, many
BME and particularly Muslim groups have reluctantly re-calibrated
their activities to ensure their long-term sustainability.

The redirection of funding on community development, capacity

building and youth work from the BME Third Sector to meet the
Government’s core priorities of ‘Cohesion, Prevent and Terror’ agendas

10
has undoubtedly put the BME Sector at a gross disadvantage in terms
of constraining its ability to deliver precisely those ‘bottom-up’ services
designed to ameliorate the poverty and structural disadvantages they
confront.

Arrival of sanctions for ‘single identity’ groups

The Cohesion agenda became embedded as a part of mainstream
government policy following the publication of the Shared Futures
Report. The findings of the government appointed Commission on
Integration and Cohesion led by Ealing Council’s, Chief Executive Darra
Singh, recommended that: ‘the presumption should be against Single
Group Funding’ despite a clear acknowledgement that the issue of
cohesion in the ‘North and Midlands … where longstanding White and
Asian communities are living parallel lives’ is intimately bound up with
‘deprivation’ that has its historical antecedents in ‘manufacturing
decline ... where manufacturing was textiles’ (Our Shared Future
Report, Commission on Integration and Cohesion, Darra Singh, 2007:
58). The Shared Futures report as Pilkington rightly points out ‘avoided
mentioning…policy areas relating to social housing, faith schools, the
marketisation of education or the Iraq war, all of which arguably have a
significant role to play in inhibiting community cohesion’ (Pilkington:
2008).

Instead the Report and its Recommendations were cast in the same
polemics of ‘us’ and ‘them’ that had come to characterise funding
regimes formulated after the publication of the Cantle Report (2001). In
threatening sanctions to ‘single identity groups’ the Commission was
not speaking to organisations delivering services exclusively to the
White Sector; neither was it speaking to other communities of interest,
delivering specialist services to their marginalised constituencies. It was
clear that the Commission had BME groups in its sights.

Our first key recommendation therefore is that if Single Group

Funding is awarded, the reasons behind that award should be
clearly publicised to all communities in the local area.

Secondly, we recommend that it is made clear to the organisation

receiving the grant that any application for renewal of funding or
additional resources will be expected to clearly demonstrate the
progress the organisation has made in becoming more outward-
facing …

Finally, we recommend that guidance for grant-making bodies

and Communities and Local Government, working in partnership
with the Office for the Third Sector, the LGA and other relevant
voluntary bodies, to assist them in making decisions about the
appropriateness of Single Group Funding, should develop Local
Authorities. (Singh, 2007: 163)

11
The Recommendations effectively exposed groups supporting BME
communities to unprecedented scrutiny, without requiring
organisations supporting the ‘White’ communities to open themselves
up to similar examination. The Guidance has since been withdrawn
following deep disquiet from the BME sector and a successful judicial
review in the High Court by the Southall Black Sisters.

On balance the evolution of government policy on race during the last 8

years has been deeply unpopular with BME communities, leading BME
people interviewed for this Report to declare:

The government’s relationship with BME people is an abusive

relationship where we have been repeatedly beaten until we have
had the stuffing taken out of us’.

We are open game as anyone can take pot shots at us and what is
the reason [pointing to his skin], this.

Community Cohesion: a definition

The accepted definition of Community Cohesion agreed by the
Improvement and Development Agency (IDeA), the LGA (Local
Government Association) and the Home Office was first published in the
LGA’s 2002 'Guidance on Community Cohesion', describes a cohesive
community as one where:

• there is a common vision and a sense of belonging for all

communities
• the diversity of people’s different backgrounds and
circumstances is appreciated and positively valued
• those from different backgrounds have similar life
opportunities
• strong and positive relationships are being developed
between people from different backgrounds and
circumstances in the workplace, in schools and within
neighbourhoods.

Although the government’s rhetoric locates the responsibility for

community cohesion on the ‘whole community’, in reality the
government has contributed to the conflation of cohesion with race, as
its guidance document calls on local councils to develop their cohesion
strategy in the context of the Race Relations legislation, the
recommendations of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry and more recently
the Equalities framework (Local Government Association (2004):
Guidance on Community Cohesion, London, LGA). Consequently the
approach to cohesion has tended to place a disproportionate burden for
good race relations on visible minorities while leaving ‘White’
communities off the hook, despite clear evidence of a far-right
resurgence in Bradford and across Yorkshire since the 2001
disturbances.

12
The government’s failure to formulate an appropriate policy response to
the threat to community cohesion from White communities – 78,702 of
whom have voted for the British National Party’s overtly racist electoral
messages in the 2008 local elections in the Yorkshire region and a
significant number who are likely to vote in the forthcoming European
elections - implies a racial bias in Labour’s approach to community
cohesion.

The recent layering of the preventing violent extremism agenda as an

integral part of the cohesion strategy has created an insidious dynamic
that has effectively, if unintentionally criminalised the Muslim
community, and rolled back civil liberties and civil rights in its practical
effects

In fact the electoral victory of the BNP in wards that adjoin largely
inner-city districts with significant Muslim populations, highlights the
extent to which the rhetoric of community cohesion and the war on
terror have played into the hands of the BNP, whose electoral strategy
play to the threat of the ‘other’. Labour’s failure to develop a policy
framework which makes responsibility for good community relations
equally contingent on White communities, has unsurprisingly led BME
communities to regard cohesion as ‘racist’ in its design and
implementation. Those BME communities in Bradford, who have
watched their neighbourhoods turning into ‘Asian ghettos’ as a result of
‘white-flight’, rightly perceive a lack of equity in the debates around
cohesion.

“Cohesion is a two-way street, yet when it comes to segregation of

White communities they say it is poverty, but for Muslims it is
made out that we choose to be segregated. I do not know any
person who will not move out to a nicer area if they could afford it.
I don’t want to live in a deprived area just to be close to my
community. If Asians were all staying put then there would be no
White-flight. Somehow we are the problem not those who want to
keep White areas and White schools White.” (research participant)

The perceived inequity felt by BME groups in relation to both the

Government and local authority’s approach to cohesion, also has a
resonance in relation to the Government’s approaches in its ‘war on
extremism’.

In the post 7/7 environment BME groups in Bradford and across West
Yorkshire have expressed grave concerns to Just West Yorkshire (about
the extent to which statutory energies are being harnessed into the
delivery of the Preventing Violent Extremism (PVE) and more recently
the CONTEST agenda.

13
They regard the Government’s exhortation to local authorities to
monitor Muslim groups subscribing to the Preventing Violent
Extremism fund, as being driven by the terror agenda, rather than the
need for support to these predominantly poor communities. This can be
gauged by the more recent Guidance issued to local authorities by the
Home Office.

The more comprehensively an organisation meets the criteria

below, the more closely we engage with them. … Factors to
consider as part of this criterion include whether the organisation:
• publicly rejects and condemns violent extremism and terrorist
acts, clearly and consistently;
• can show evidence of steps taken to tackle violent extremism
and support for violent extremism;
• can point to preventing violent extremism events it has
supported, spoken at or attended;
• can show that its actions are consistent with its public
statements; and
• can show that its affiliated members or groups to which it is
affiliated meet these criteria. (The Prevent Strategy: A guide for
local partners in England. Stopping people becoming or
supporting terrorists and violent extremists, HM Government,
June 2008: 60)

In policy terms, the ‘Guidance’ is significant because it re-modulates

relationships between the public and statutory organisations that have
been traditionally defined in service delivery and service consumption
terms. Furthermore, it legitimates an unprecedented level of statutory
scrutiny on Muslim groups and communities, which has no parallel in
the context of the White and broader BME Third Sector. Finally, it sets a
threshold that raises the funding bar so high that any Muslim group
who fails to meet the exacting standards is threatened with withdrawal
of funds

Local partners will wish to ensure that they are clear with their
delivery partners about the standards they expect and the need to
work to uphold shared values and prevent violent extremism.
Active monitoring of spending will be important to ensure that
these values are being upheld. Where these standards are not
met, local partners will wish to ensure that they can take action to
withdraw funding or terminate funding agreements. (The Prevent
Strategy, 2008: 61)

The re-definition of relationships between statutory bodies and BME

groups is highly relevant for Bradford; as an area deemed to be at high-
risk of extremist activities, it was one of the first ‘pathfinder districts’
nationally and is currently eligible for a portion of the £45 million
designated to support the PVE agenda between 2008/09 – 2010/11.

14
Clearly the level of investment in cohesion and its associated policy
frameworks tabulated above both by the government and public bodies
have been pursued on the assumption that the policies will yield a
positive inter-community dividend. The extent to which they have in fact
yielded the intended outcomes constitutes a central focus for this piece
of research in the next few sections.

The following sections summarise the responses of three focus groups

and a range of individual interviews in West Bowling, Holme Wood and
with stakeholder practitioners in Bradford and West Yorkshire.

The interview questions included:

• What do you understand by the term “community cohesion”?

• How does the policy affect communities in Bradford, in practice?

• Give your reaction to the following statement about ethnic

minorities

• What are the main obstacles to community cohesion, and how

can they be addressed in the current policy framework?

15
WEST BOWLING FOCUS GROUP RESPONSES

West Bowling is one of four Bradford districts in the ward of Little

Horton which is one square mile and lies to the south of Bradford City
Centre. It incorporates parts of 3 neighbourhoods – West Bowling,
Marshfields and Park Lane. The population of Little Horton is 17,368, of
which nearly 1/3 of the population is under 15 years of age and nearly
½ under the age of 24. In Little Horton, only ½ of all people between the
age of 16 and 74 are either working or seeking work (economically
active). 32.6% of those who are unemployed are aged 16-24 years of age.
Only 10% if of the population have professional or degree level
qualification. 52.7% of the population are from a BME background with
Pakistanis constituting 37.8 % of the ward’s population; the total for
Bradford is14.5%.
(www.bradfordinfo.com/census/WardProfiles/LITTLE%20HORTON.doc)

A focus group was held in November 2008 with nine males from BME
backgrounds (mainly South Asians) between the ages of 21-65. The
focus group was asked for their views on community cohesion and the
responses highlighted considerable scepticism and cynicism of the
agenda. Respondents were aware that the terminology had its roots in
the Northern uprisings and the 9/11 attacks in America. Some
acknowledged that the rhetoric was replete with aspirations aimed at
‘reducing negative stereotypes, tensions and conflicts between
communities and promoting better understanding and good relations’.
While there was an acceptance that the terminology of community
cohesion was here to stay respondents agreed with the view that
‘community relations and community unity are better terms’ to describe
community cohesion.

The majority of the respondents however were cynical of the concept

and considered community cohesion to be a ‘money spinner’, a ‘buzz
word’, a ‘new jargon’, ‘a euphemism for … BME people having to
integrate more’, ‘it is contrived and imposed … it has no real substance’,
‘a tick-box’, and ‘more like community confusion’.

When participants were asked to reflect on the term and what the
terminology meant in terms of its application as a public policy tool. The
responses were unanimous:

• Bringing people together to share activities and community

space
• To address race issues indirectly
• Challenging prejudice borne of ignorance
• Engaging at the community level with all communities
• Creating an environment where we are open on social
issues that affect us all like drug misuse, domestic violence,
race hate crime

16
Notwithstanding the intent of the policy, respondents felt that the
application of the policy presented inherent challenges that centred on
the following articulated concerns:

• Community Cohesion should not just be about race it as much

about class … but this dimension is not incorporated
• Community Cohesion should be about recognising we all have
multiple layers, common interests, similar objectives and
aspirations, we share interests, loyalties, we support the same
teams etc; this is cohesive
• It is contrived and imposed from the top … and it has drawn
attention away from other issues, we have unwittingly accepted
this agenda although it has no real substance
• There used to be recognition that minority communities faced
discrimination and racism in society and that this had to be
challenged and redressed. However with Community Cohesion the
focus has shifted and communities are being blamed for their
disadvantage and discrimination

The Community Cohesion agenda as it is currently configured was

considered to be skewed as it was seen to focus too much on BME
integration without paying sufficient attention to the racism inherent
within wider society and the discrimination experienced by minorities,
new arrivals and migrants.

For the respondents, community Cohesion had become a euphemism

for race and by constructing the policy in a way which ‘problematised’
BME communities, the government had unwittingly created a context
for race relations, which was ‘pandering to far right sentiments’. Against
the backdrop of the cohesion policy, the rhetoric of the press and media,
was exacerbating ethnic divides ‘by reinforcing their own labels on
communities and being anti-Muslim’.

Respondents expressed the view that implementation of the policy was

also limiting as it avoided core issues of inequality and race
discrimination. While there was agreement that Community Cohesion
should be ‘a cross-cutting theme of work of all public officials and hence
mainstreamed through the operations of the local public bodies’, the
centrality of ‘rights and responsibilities’ was considered to be even more
critical in the implementation of the policy.

Participants were then presented the following statement and invited to

respond: “The problem is that these f*****g people are rubbish in their
own country and they come over here; they bring nothing except
problems; they have no interest in us and our ways; they just live among
their own.”

17
Respondents acknowledged that this is a view that is being increasingly
used not only ‘between communities and within communities’ but also
by young people and regrettably ‘is being unchallenged and accepted’.
These sentiments were being particularly expressed by more settled
communities towards ‘new arrivals’, however it was not uncommon to
hear ‘Caribbean people say it about Pakistanis and visa versa’. While it
was acknowledged that it is a view based on ‘ignorance and narrow
mindedness’, one respondent felt strongly that the prevalence of these
attitude stemmed from the fact that

We have lost the values of welcoming those less fortunate instead

we exploit them; but this is also due to leadership; politicians do
not seem to express their welcome for migrants and new arrivals
and recognition of their contribution to the local community.

Focus group members believed these views were a reaction to the rapid
pace of societal change that was breeding a sense of insecurity.

It was also acknowledged that notwithstanding current challenges,

there were historic factors in Bradford, which have been instrumental in
fostering community divides. These included the failure of public bodies
to manage ‘community relations’ and ‘tackle racism and discrimination
appropriately’. Although ‘Islam and Muslims’ are an integral element of
the city’s fabric, they continue to be ‘misunderstood’ and perceived as
‘outsiders’. This separation and difference has been re-enforced because
not enough effort has gone to creating spaces in which communities can
‘interact, exchange and challenge perceptions of each other’.

Respondents acknowledged that while ‘place’ and ethnic identity had an

important role in defining the dynamic of inter-community relations in
the city, ironically, these ‘differences’ were less significant during ‘travel
abroad because in Turkey and Greece we recognise commonality with
other Brits; abroad we have these alliances’. This suggests that the
notion of cultural and ethnic identities is a shifting concept and the
historical memories of a ‘place’ can contribute to perpetuating
oppositional relationships that have a historical basis.

The focus group was next asked to consider the main obstacles to
Community Cohesion and how this could be addressed using the
present policy framework. The dominance of race as a central strand
within the Community Cohesion paradigm was considered to be
unhelpful as it privileged difference rather than commonalities:

there are many layers and levels to yourself and your identity, we
are lots of things but when we define our self in one way and deny
the other parts of our self we create problems fitting in and also
when society denies and fails to recognise the other parts of your
identity then they create barriers for your inclusion; this forces
you into a pigeon hole and label.

18
Participants believed that the narrow definitions prescribed by the
community cohesion framework could not offer solutions; instead the
answers were rooted in notions of equality, social justice and anti-racist
and anti-discriminatory practice.

The role of education was regarded as crucial in ‘exploring difference,

racism and social justice and develop(ing) values of tolerance and
mutual respect’. Unfortunately these issues were being brushed ‘under
the carpet’ out of ‘fear in relation to how issues and debates will be
managed in the classroom’. If educational approaches were to succeed it
had to confront these issues head-on and involve not only ‘young people
in mainstream schools’ but also ‘faith schools and the larger
community’.

Respondents considered the other key successful markers of community

cohesion to be the extent to which women were being ‘engaged and
represented’ and the existence of economic opportunities in which ‘there
are no barriers to employment of BME people.

In attitudinal terms, Cohesion could be measured in terms of the

confidence with which communities felt able to challenge ‘stereotypes
and discrimination’ and ‘abusive comments about other communities’
When BME people no longer felt like ‘outsiders but feel real belonging’ to
Bradford and the UK, then the vision of community cohesion would
have been achieved.

Respondents in the West Bowling focus group were also aware of

another critical dimension to community cohesion that acknowledged
the intra-ethnic diversity under the umbrella heading of BME. In this
respect, ‘unity between Bangladeshi, Kashmiri, Pathan and Gujerati’
was considered to be as critical as the welcome afforded to ‘new
communities’ settling into Asian neighbourhoods in achieving the goals
of community cohesion.

While there was an admission that these issues posed thorny

challenges, which had yet to be resolved, there were strategic
interventions which could me made to overcome some of these barriers.
It was felt that Imams could play a significant role in resolving the intra-
community tensions between the city’s diverse Muslim communities, a
number of respondents agreed that ‘the Friday prayer in Mosques is a
prime opportunity to communicate a social message but it does not
happen because Imams are not competent and lack awareness of the
agenda’.

However, in relation to bridging inter-racial divides, strong and

enlightened leadership was considered to be critical in facilitating
constructive pathways. While in America, the Obama factor had been
critical in beginning to bridge historical divisions between Black and

19
white communities, in the context of the UK, those in power had shown
poor and weak leadership. In the absence of a national leader with a
‘broad appeal’, Obama had ironically become an inspirational figure for
the ‘Black community throughout the UK’ due to the absence of positive
‘role models’ at home.

The leadership qualities which respondents considered to be critical in

promoting cohesive communities was one in which they were ‘positive
about diversity’. The assessment of current political interventions was
decidedly negative; politicians were regarded as contributing to ‘anti-
migrant rhetoric’ and perpetuating views of Muslims as ‘extremists and
terrorists’ resulting in BNP messages being legitimised because ‘no one
is prepared to come out and say they welcome migrants and that we
have to address the needs of ethnic minorities in Bradford’.

Respondents felt that over the last 50 years the Asian community had
made a huge ‘social and economic contribution and cultural investment’
in the city which had been unacknowledged. The restaurant chain
Mumtaz, was cited as an example of a local business which had made
an enormous ‘contribution to the local community and economy’ but
had failed to receive due ‘recognition’ for its efforts. Only a broader and
more representative leadership that promoted messages of unity rather
than division could engender a radical shift from the current status quo.

It was clear from the focus group interviews in West Bowling that for
BME communities (particularly Asian communities) the community
cohesion agenda has been a retrogressive step in terms of promoting
good race relations. Ironically the conception of the policy as a
‘constructive’ response to the Northern riots had backfired because the
failure to adopt a twin-community approach to community cohesion
meant that the policy was viewed as racist in its design and
implementation. Its failure to elicit the critical buy-in from BME
communities meant that it was doomed to failure.

HOLME WOOD FOCUS GROUP RESPONSES

Holme Wood has a population of approximately 10,000, and the estate

has been in existence for almost 50 years. In the mid-nineties it was
singled out as an area suffering high deprivation and crime levels and
received a large amount of investment mainly centring on renovating
housing and improving the architectural look and quality of the area.
Holme Wood has always had a large traveller population who have
settled on the estate since it was established. It also has small numbers
of settled African-Caribbean residents. There are almost no Asian
families living in the area and virtually no long-term residents from an
Asian background. It sits in Bradford South adjacent to another estate
known as Bierly, which is smaller but of a similar ethnic make-up, and
clearly separated by Tong Street, a busy road leading to Leeds and

20
Wakefield. Ethnic minority groups form approximately 5 percent of the
area.

One focus group of 8-10 people and six single interviews were
undertaken in Holme Wood. The core issues and themes to emerge are
presented below.

The responses from the Holme Wood focus group highlighted clearly
that the levels of awareness around the terminology of Community
Cohesion and awareness of the policy framework was markedly lower
than those elicited from the focus group in West Bowling. It was clear
that a significant proportion of those present had ‘never heard of it’, ‘not
heard it at all’, ‘not a great deal’, ‘don’t know what it means’, and were
‘not aware of any activities concerning cohesion’.

Where respondents had come across the term Community Cohesion

they demonstrated a superficial understanding of the term:
‘automatically think of white and black’, ‘means integrating’, it’s about
mixing’, ‘building a multi-cultural society’ and ‘blacks and whites
bringing them together as a group’.

The responses elicited from this group led the interviewer to comment
that that the focus group did not appear to be ‘aware of anything
relating to this policy or programmes’. What did emerge during the
interviews was a constant referencing to a divisive dynamic of inter-
community relations between black and white communities. The
government was implicated for ‘letting in more and more people into the
country’ and comments about asylum seekers, refugees and Muslims
who were deemed to be ‘outsiders’ were decidedly hostile and in some
cases racist.

• Refugees they are here six months then they are taking money
out of the country.
• They come over and take over everything. It affects the way we
(White) people view ourselves as so much has been taken over.
• We are giving them everything that they want. Why can’t they
abide by our rules?
• ‘We live in a small island so I don’t know why they are always
putting more people here.’
• A few years ago if someone wanted to go and pray and take a
break at work they wouldn’t be allowed but now they can go and
pray whenever they want and its all cocked up.
• How many mosques have we got now in Bradford it makes it feel
like they are taking over
• Let’s not forget we are a Christian country.

A stakeholder professional working within the youth service believes

that the hostility to outsiders inherent in such views is because young
people ‘are not used to going out of Holme Wood … they don’t want to

21
meet anyone else’. This observation was supported by statements made
by a number of members of the focus group.
• A lot don’t like going beyond Sticker Lane. For example a youth
centre moved across to Sticker Lane and no kids went there as a
lot of people don’t like leaving the area
• I don’t even socialise with travellers within Holme Wood
• It’s years since I’ve been out in town or into the town centre
• People don’t really want to come out of their houses … it’s very
hard to get anybody to turn up to anything. Even when things are
free or there is food they still don’t want to know.

The dilution of British identity and the emerging dominance of non-

British values was perceived as a grave threat and emerged as a
persistent theme throughout the interviews. In this context the
allegiance of Asians (and non-white citizens) to their ethnic, cultural
and religious identities were regarded as decidedly un-British.

• Some Asian people still value their Bangladeshi or Pakistani

identity above Britishness.
• I don’t think Asians feel British
• Asians don’t really want to join in unless it’s to do with their
culture.
• They take their kids to the Mosque; they aren’t bringing them up
in English culture.
• I think we are losing our identity and the human rights act has
gone crazy.

While one of the respondents acknowledged that culture had a positive

value as Asians ‘have a sense of family and community that we have
lost’, there was general unease at the pace in which the social fabric of
the city was changing. Multi-culturalism was implicated in the ‘dilution’
of the British identity, leading to two of the white interviewees to reject
the notion of Britishness.

• Britishness does not mean much to me anymore.

• Britishness means nothing to me.

Respondents in the Holme Wood focus group clearly perceived

Britishness as appertaining to ‘white communities’ who had a ‘shared
history’, it was seen as an entitlement of those ‘from more traditional
English backgrounds’ and those who are ‘born and bred’ as English’.

Participants often used the term coloured to refer to BME people,

suggesting that the debates around race, ethnicity and language had
not impinged on them in any meaningful way.

The hostility towards people deemed to be ‘outsiders’ is all the more

surprising as Bradford’s economy has been built on the contribution of

22
immigrant labour – from Germany and Ireland in the mid-19th century
and in the 1950s from the West Indies, India, Bangladesh and Pakistan.

The roots of the unease felt towards BME people, especially Asians were
attributed to a range of factors. ‘Political correctness’ was used by the
group to express their unhappiness over the perceived double standards
operating within British society where Asians ‘can say things to us and
accuse us of racism but we can’t say anything to them’.

This perceived inequitable treatment in the way public services were

delivered permeated their responses. The police, judiciary and the NHS
were regarded as giving ‘special privileges’ to BME communities over the
city’s indigenous population. The notion of BME people not playing by
British rules was a strong dominant theme in the focus groups.

• There are no rules for driving for coloured people, they do what
they like. The police see it and they don’t do anything about it.
• The police turn a blind eye when it comes to coloureds then word
goes out that they can get away with more because they can turn
round and say it’s a racist thing.
• They park everywhere even on the verges. Well I know a few years
ago we got a ticket for parking on grass verge
• I think they bend the rules to accommodate others. For example
the rules in hospital are that you can only have two to a bed but
you see eight of them to a bed at times. How is that fair that they
have special privileges because of their cultural differences.
• We have to see (at the hospital) whoever, but THEY can insist on
seeing a lady doctor.
• I was in the hospital and a woman and her child were speaking
Hindustani and the interpreter was asked why the child hadn’t
learnt English to which the woman replied that she didn’t need to
they could just use interpreters.
• Asians receive favourable treatment by the judicial system i.e.
lesser sentences and often the punishments did not fit the crimes.
In Pakistan one could get your hands or fingers chopped off for
the same crime.
• The big thing with coloured people is that they don’t think to obey
the rules.

Respondents’ responses mirrored the messages exploited by the tabloid

press and the far right, which are redolent of images of foreigners
sponging off the state and people not working or ever intending to.
England was considered a soft touch whose beneficence was being
exploited by ‘people coming here, and wanting to get very rich very
quickly’.

• They come over and take over everything. It affects the way we
(white) people view ourselves as so much has been taken over

23
 • So when you see that they come over here with (x) number of kids
and they are living off the state and they are getting so many
hand outs it does make your blood boil
• It comes down to the tension over Asians and blacks when they
came over in the 70s taking jobs from the white man because they
would work for less, it’s the same issue now with Polish coming
over

A couple of the respondents challenged this view, and felt that the
problem of economic inactivity applied both to ‘immigrants’ and to white
young people. Asian young men were however held responsible for
compounding the disadvantage experienced by white young people on
the estate.

• Asian young men are supplying our young men and women with
the nasties (drugs).
• There are so many young Asian males with big flash cars.
• If I saw a few Asians driving in a car through the estate I would
suspect that they were drug dealers

Asian young men, particularly of Pakistani descent were viewed with

suspicion and there were real concerns of terrorist attacks and street
disturbances reminiscent of the riots in the 1990s and 2001.

• I think you will be back to the 90s and have riots on your hands
again.
• There will be problems. I can see riots happening again. I don’t
think it will improve.
• I can see another Bradford riot and I can see a Muslim uprising
as well.
• People in Holme Wood do feel a fear … about the terrorism thing
… I’m not saying they are all like that but it all seems to be
coming from Pakistan at the moment

Interview responses layered the threats of riots and acts of terrorism on

top of the old ‘politics of envy’ based on the perception of BME
communities receiving preferential treatment over white disadvantaged
communities – ‘all the big refurbishment of 2, 3, 5 million pounds have
been spent in Asian areas…and round here gets much less’ - has
created an insidious dynamic which has perpetuated and
institutionalised historical inter-community divides in Bradford.

The evidence from the research clearly points to the fact that ethnic and
racial divides continue to create a corrosive inter-community dynamic
which the government’s policies on Cohesion and Preventing Violent
Extremism and Terrorism have only served to exacerbate through their
focus on Muslim communities. The millions of pounds of investment,
which have been poured into Bradford to bolster these policy
frameworks through Cohesion monies and the Preventing Violent

24
Extremism fund, appear to have failed to yield the positive community
relations dividend, which the government is seeking.

The evidence of the failure of current cohesion approaches which locate

responsibility for good community relations primarily on BME
communities deemed to be living parallel and segregated lives was
apparent from residents response to the question: ‘What would happen
if a person or group of people of Pakistani background would come into
their estate?’

A number of residents candidly admitted that Holme Wood is a ‘racist’

place and it was likely that ‘they may be harassed’ or ‘battered up here’
by ‘white lads going around in packs’. Likewise, they admitted that they
too would feel wary about going into predominantly Asian areas.

• I didn’t feel safe going into Asian areas. I wouldn’t gladly walk in
an area that was predominantly Asian.
• I won’t walk through Manningham Park now and I used to walk
through there as a kid. They will say ‘this is our park’.

A couple of respondents felt that the problems in Holme Wood had been
overstated and that Asians didn’t ‘need to worry’ because they had
‘never heard of any trouble’. It was however acknowledged that
perceptions of Holme Wood being a no-go-area for Asians was likely to
keep them away.

While focus group members were vocal in attributing blame for the city’s
ethnic segregation on Asians, their attitudes towards the prospect of
creating a mixed neighbourhood in Holme Wood was instructive.

• Holme Wood is majority white people, and the feeling from friends
that I get is that anything other than that would not be welcome
• I think that for Holme Wood is predominantly a white area. I
really don’t think you’re going to see it on Holme Wood in terms of
Asians moving here … it’s not just Holme Wood but also any big
mainly white estate.
• I think the council is trying to put foreign nationals into Holme
Wood. It doesn’t really work because the culture is so different so
one side has to compromise. So couldn’t see that mixing groups
would make things better.
• Areas are not mixed, but the groups in those areas like it that
way, don’t they? It does need to change but I don’t think it will.
There will be problems.

What clearly emerged during the interviews was that the ethnic fault-
lines between geographical neighbourhoods were also manifest in the
use of public spaces that mirrored the same ethnic divides.

25
 • Some community events were organised where they get the
opportunity to mix but only a few people went.
• An event was held at a Bradford church which involved both
Asian and white groups. Here the Asian women in attendance
were all put along a table separate to everyone else
• The local high school, Tong School is ethnically split and where
everyone hangs around in cliques.
• There are a lot of all Asian football teams and I’ve seen one club
be treated quite badly by league associations. They thought it was
racism but I feel they (the league) just felt it would cause too
much trouble because there often is with teams from different
racial backgrounds.

The focus group however did yield some surprising responses when it
came to establishing the extent to which they viewed having relatives or
friends from a different background problematic. Although there were
reservations to the idea of mixed-race marriages with Muslims - ‘they
don’t treat their women very well’ and ‘she would have to stay at home’ –
by and large the responses were positive.

• No not really it wouldn’t be a problem for me.

• My niece had just married a Muslim
• Well no problem for me as my granddaughter is half Asian.
• My sister is married to an Asian guy. I have Asian nephews and
nieces
• It wouldn’t bother me that much.

These responses acknowledge the shifting societal dynamics as young

Asians, many of them now third generation descendents, have become
increasingly integrated into the district’s political, economic, cultural
and social life. Furthermore, 1 in 5 of Bradford’s population is of Asian
descent and in relative terms they are growing at a faster rate than the
city’s white population. The identity of the city is integrally tied up with
the physical symbols of its Asian and Muslim heritage – the domes of
mosques, Asian restaurants, shop-windows showcasing latest Asian
fashions, mainstream cinemas screening Bollywood films, established
local businesses set up by BME entrepreneurs – all attesting to
Bradford’s multi-cultural and cosmopolitan heritage.

Despite the city’s deeply rooted multi-cultural heritage focus group

members continually referenced Muslims and Asians as ‘outsiders’. The
vision of a cohesive society that the White focus group offered clearly
placed the responsibility for improved community relations at the door
of non-white communities. This was evident from the call by
respondents for a ‘change in attitude of ethnic groups,’ better
‘inter(action) with the English’, ‘bringing them (children) up in English
culture,’ ‘abid(ing) by our rules’.

26
There was however a recognition that inter-community relations in its
current state did not bode well for the future and in this respect both
national and local government were regarded as having a critical role to
play in bridging community divides.

• They need to bring people together into one area and give
everyone the chance to speak and be listened to. For too long they
have segregated nationalities and only listened to one group at a
time rather than everyone together as individuals. That’s down to
local government.
• Definitely, because whites in one area and Asians in another. Well
it’s not right we all live in Bradford so why can’t we all get along?
• The only way to get to know somebody is to sit down and discuss
things. I don’t think there is the space to mix now though.
• I think it’s going to get worse with our young people. We are quite
tolerant but our young people are more violent so you don’t know
• Integration could start with younger children, especially with
primary school children and parents need to bring up their
children to mix well.
• They should try and mix the schools.
• If education and understanding is right I don’t think you need to
change too much else.

These responses clearly indicate a desire to create a future in which the

‘invisible boundaries’ that divide communities are eliminated. This was
a consistent message emerging out of the West Bowling focus group too
and should offer hope that despite the current ethnic divisions that
there is a unity of vision in terms of the kind of society and city both
BME and white communities wish to inhabit. Despite the ‘racism’
inherent in the views expressed by the Holme Wood residents, what lies
at the root of their xenophobic rhetoric is the failure of government to
make a robust case for immigration, diversity and BME contribution to
the city.

27
STAKEHOLDER FOCUS GROUP RESPONSES

The stakeholder interviews sought to explore constructive prescriptions

that could help Bradford achieve the vision of united communities.
There were 10 participants representing a range of people engaged in
policy formulation and service provision drawn from local authority,
local government, education, criminal justice agencies and the
community and voluntary sector. As this section of the research
attempted to elicit candid views around the limitations of current
approaches the identity of the agencies and respondents has been
anonymised.

As a policy framework it was felt that the effectiveness of Community

Cohesion as a stand-alone tool was limited because it could not be
separated from ‘valuing diversity’ and ‘issues of equality’. The ability of
‘communities to get on with each other’ could not be achieved as long as
one community (Muslims) ‘feels they are discriminated and treated
unfairly by another in actual or perceived terms’. Respondents felt that
the agenda in its current form ‘talks about race more than everything;
it’s about racial tension, racial relations and particularly the racial
relationship between the Muslim population and the rest of the Britain’.
The fact that in its current conception it isn’t defined as a ‘two-way
process’ and places a disproportionate ‘onus on BME communities,
especially Muslim communities to assimilate to a mainstream culture’
means that its ability to achieve its vision of a cohesive society is
severely constrained.

Respondents also regarded the concept of Community Cohesion as

being closely aligned with notions of fairness where ‘every citizen’
perceives that ‘society is fair to them and their family, their community’.
Unfortunately ‘this sense of fairness has been skewed over the years’ on
the back of the government’s responses towards ‘extremism and other
misguided approaches’. A number of contributors considered the
terminology of Community Cohesion to be ‘very confusing’, ‘not
coherent’ and ‘top down’ in its implementation and therefore unable to
secure the community buy-in which is so crucial to the policy’s success.
The Community Cohesion vision was also criticised because ‘the levels
of integration that the government has set is really a utopian ideal’. The
reality is that ‘one will never get communities to integrate to the extent
that they want them to’ as ‘we will always have people living in an Asian
bubble or white bubble’. The critical issue was for both national and
local government to show ‘strong leadership’ and take on ‘challenging
debates’ which do not pander to the far-right rhetoric of ‘(in)equitable
allocation of resources’ as the reality is ‘BME communities have always
received less than white communities’. To illustrate the point, one of the
respondents highlighted that ‘with the SRB (Single Regeneration
Budget) the first three major pots of funds went to white working class
communities - Holme Wood, Royds and Newlands – when it was the
turn of the South Asian communities to receive money there was little

28
funds left’. The failure to make a clear statement based on factual
evidence was attributed to a ‘real reluctance in Bradford to be seen
addressing BME issues as this is regarded as pandering to the Muslim
community so little is done’.

Respondents said that the failure to tackle perceptions of beneficial

treatment towards Asians head on has provided fertile ground for the
‘far right and the BNP’ whose ‘support is increasing’ in the district.
Consequently rather than redress the poverty, disadvantage and
exclusion experienced disproportionately by BME communities, the
local authority and its partners are being drawn into shifting its focus to
‘empowering white working class communities’ thereby exacerbating
BME inequality even further.

The inference from responses is clear; that the formulation of public

policy in such terms has served to obscure the political and systemic
failures at the heart of national and local government approaches which
have been instrumental in dividing BME and white communities.

• There needs to be recognition that it was not BME communities

that created ‘parallel lives’ this is consequence of 30 years of
housing and education policy which resulted in a socially and
economically deprived BME community in the city which did not
have social mobility and it was white people who left the city and
not BME people who pushed them out; survey after survey has
shown BME people want to live in culturally and racially mixed
areas whereas white people want to live in white areas; we need to
be honest and not blame the BME communities for segregation
and ‘ghettoisation’.
• Economic factors contribute to people living parallel lives and this
is not given as much recognition than the riots and extremism;
the fact that we have so many BME graduates who are
unemployed and there is racism in employment

The vision of Community Cohesion respondents felt might be better

served if there was ‘a recognition of the BME contribution to the city
(Bradford) which after 50 years is still not recognised’ and the fact that
in predominantly Asian neighbourhoods like ‘West Bowling people of all
backgrounds are getting on and working with each other’. The
government’s culpability in ‘play(ing) on the fears of the middle classes’
by ‘painting’ the ‘working classes or inner city areas’ as neighbourhoods
proliferated by ‘guns and gangs’ obscured the positive aspects of life in
these neighbourhoods of ‘people caring, helping each other and eating
in each others homes’.

Respondents felt that the Community Cohesion policy carried real risks
of ‘typecasting and alienating a whole generation of Muslim youth’
because it sought to perpetuate myths that ‘stereotyped Asian
communities’ and presented them ‘as the big bad wolf’.

29
A number of stakeholder group members did not regard contemporary
challenges around cohesion to be any worse than prior to the 1990
Bradford riots. There was significant consensus that the Community
Cohesion policy was given ‘added significance’ only after the 2001 riots
and the terrorist attacks in New York and London. In their view ‘there
were the same problems’ between communities ‘but after 9/11 and the
second riots’ ‘it was presented that all the problems were because the
Pakistan Muslim community who could not integrate and were to blame
for all the social problems of the city’. This association is so embedded
in many people’s thinking in agencies and local authority’ that it has
legitimised the demonisation of Muslim communities, leading to what
focus members referred to a ‘siege mentality’.

If a community feels that they have been attacked, they will put
up the barriers for you. A siege mentality has occurred. The
Muslim community feels that they are under attack and they have
put up walls around themselves.

While large sections of the Muslim community remain highly suspicious

of the monies distributed for targeting ‘violent extremists’, the allocation
has had had the effect of fuelling old suspicions from the White
community that Muslims are being singled out for special treatment.

It is an irony as white communities have asked why all the

monies have gone to Muslim communities and why the focus
has been on those communities, the problem is that Muslim
communities don’t want all the attention, it’s just that the
white communities have not engaged in this process and have
not been asked to become engaged.

There was considerable cynicism among focus group members about

the real intention of the government in making Prevent such a dominant
policy and funding strand. A number of participants considered the
policy to be opportunistic which sought to play to the gallery of popular
public opinion.

The agenda has all been about appeasing the far right and
BNP elements in Bradford district to show White
communities that they were not soft with BME communities
and appease the BNP rhetoric at election time

The need for the government to take a more modulated stand in the
present economic climate was considered critical as there was a real
risk that its rhetoric could play into the hands of the BNP; a pattern
that was thought to be reminiscent of the ‘1920s rise of fascism … when
the depression got worse’.

30
In the light of the highly critical assessment of the impact of the
government’s Community Cohesion policy in Bradford by the
stakeholder group, participants were then given the opportunity to
articulate the key community relations challenges facing the city and
from there posit alternative solutions to the one currently being pursued
by the Labour government.

The prescriptions that the stakeholder group identified were wide-

ranging. There was a general consensus that ‘Bradford is a divided
community’ and communications between communities ‘living in
ghettos and separate areas’ was critical to fostering better relations. To
this end communication strategies had to be pursued whereby
‘individuals with their own agendas and gatekeepers’ were by-passed
and opportunities were created which allowed ‘interaction, exchange
and understanding’ not only between ‘different communities’ but
especially with ‘young people’ as most of the tension points emanated
from youth interactions.

Housing was a key issue which presented huge challenges because

Bradford ‘will always have a BME population in the city and white
population in the outer ring; it is down to the last 30 years and can’t be
changed overnight, especially when BME people experience hate crime
when they move into white areas and are forced to leave and go back
into the city’.

The proliferation of ‘mono-cultural schools’ was having a detrimental

impact as it was leading ‘middle class people from all communities
educating their children out of the district’. Education was therefore a
‘core issue’ that needed urgent attention because of the ‘systematic
underachievement of particular communities such as Pakistani,
Bangladeshi and white working class boys’ that translated into
constrained life opportunities.

The lack of BME ‘access to employment opportunities’ meant that they

had to either become ‘self-employed’ or to seek jobs ‘out of the city’. The
same barriers applied to young people of African and Caribbean descent
as their ability to get a job was considered to be ‘highly unlikely’.
Respondents however acknowledged that the problem of educational
underachievement and access to the job market applied equally to
‘white working class communities’.

The failure to target ‘resources and significant funding’ to address these

issues was considered a major failing, leading to a call for the local
authority to be ‘held to account for its failure to communities in
Bradford’. The failures that were catalogued by the stakeholder group
included the following:

• Agencies have not been good at managing the community

cohesion agenda in Bradford.

31
 • I feel that local authority has perpetuated myths by remaining
quiet on the allocation of regeneration funding; they have
perpetrated the idea that disproportionate funds are allocated to
BME in the city compared to white areas this is just not true
• Many people are living in poverty, in low paid jobs. They need to
address jobs and education rather than telling them that they are
terrorists.
• The government is too hung up with religion and identity; they
should be looking at issues of education and poverty.
• It needs to be presented that despite challenges the district overall
has many examples of positive community interaction and
problems are no more greater than elsewhere and overall people
do get on; it is only those on the extremes and margins who fuel
prejudice and hate

Community Cohesion in the context of the problems enumerated above

was considered to be inadequate in addressing the above failures.
Respondents felt that the policy was unlikely to ‘have a long-lasting
impact’ as it was ‘framed negatively rather than positively’ and the
investment had not gone ‘where it is needed’. It was also considered to
be ‘reactive rather than responsive’ and its ability to address ‘core’
issues holistically’ was questioned.

The template which respondents considered more appropriate to

tackling the discrimination experienced by both white and BME
communities included those which fore-grounded ‘equality of
opportunity’ and ‘racial justice’. In this respect the indicators that the
stakeholder group considered to be the benchmark for measuring good
community relations included ‘equality of outcomes’ in relation ‘to
employment and service provision’. In this context ‘narrowing the gap in
educational outcomes’, ‘improved employability’ and ‘attraction by
investors into Bradford’ were considered to be positive indicators which
would not only reduce the differential outcomes ‘between minorities and
the mainstream communities’ but would be of direct benefit to ‘all
communities’.

Many of the indicators highlighted above are already present as

outcome and output measures within Local Area Agreements. These
measures have also been integral to regeneration and neighbourhood
renewal initiatives, which have resulted in millions of pounds being
invested in Bradford over the years. Clearly if poverty, racial violence,
segregation and inequitable life chances continue to be the defining
experience of Bradford’s BME and white communities, they point to
massive failures at the heart of national and local government
approaches.

Focus group members were clear that many of the disparities in BME
outcomes could be tackled through the Race Relations Act and the
amended legislation. It provided a tried and tested framework for

32
determining ‘priority areas for action’ through ‘impact assessments’
through which agencies could be held to account ‘in relation to equality
in particular in relation to employment and education’. Rather than
work in concert with the legislation both government and public
authorities were criticised for undermining it.

We have an excellent Race Equalities Act but it is not acted on or

used to promote community relations; the objective of promoting
community relations has always been there but the Community
Cohesion agenda has undermined the Race Equality Act.

The fact that neither the Equality and Human Rights Commission or the
government are monitoring or prosecuting public bodies for non-
compliance suggests that Race is no longer part of the central or local
government agenda. As evidence, focus group members pointed to the
absence of ‘effective procedures … for dealing with hate crime and
racially motivated crimes’ and the resurgence of anti-immigrant
rhetoric, discrimination and racial violence towards asylum seekers,
refugees and migrants, which ‘elected members, MPs and community
leaders’ have not sought to challenge in accordance with the duties to
promote good race relations prescribed in the Act.

Despite the over-arching issues facing the city, the stakeholder group
acknowledged that Bradford has pockets of best practice that deserve to
be highlighted. These included the nationally acclaimed Schools Linking
Programme, the council magazine entitled ‘Community Pride which
‘celebrates positive achievement’, the Bradford and Keighley Youth
Parliament and sporting initiatives such as midnight football for 13-16
year olds which the Youth service had used to successfully engage
‘young people standing on street corners’.

Notwithstanding the good work that is occurring, there was general

agreement that there were overwhelming challenges, which had to be
overcome as the changes had to be ‘transformational and built into the
mainstream business of all sectors’. Hitherto, efforts made to bridge
community divides as part of the Community Cohesion programme had
been ‘superficial’ and ‘did not deeply touch people’s lives’ because its
approach ‘is too much top-down and is not met by bottom-up
community activity and development’.

Similarly the policy’s efficacy in ‘address(ing) equality, employment,

housing and education’ barriers was limited because it had not been
designed to work in concert with ‘other policies’ aimed at addressing
structural failures. In fact the policy had been retrogressive because ‘the
Community Cohesion agenda has undermined the Race Equality Act’
which could have effectively addressed institutional failures.

The stakeholder group felt that one of the biggest failings of Community
Cohesion had been its failure to include ‘white working class

33
communities on the Bradford estates … especially where there has been
BNP influence’ within its framework.

On balance, the consensus was that the Cohesion framework had failed
to address the key challenges which they considered to be vital in the
context of Bradford: unemployment, segregation and poor achievement
in schools, access to housing in mixed developments and tackling
perceptions of perceived BME advantage which have ‘created and
maintained divisions’ in the city.

Despite the severe limitations of the policy, respondents believe that

Community Cohesion will continue to be ‘on the political agenda of
main political parties’ and will ‘continue to be a priority in the future’. It
was their view that as long as there ‘there is nothing new to replace it’
and ‘as long as the government wants to marginalise race equality’ then
Community Cohesion would continue to be the dominant ideology
defining race relations in the country.

34
CONCLUSION

It is clear that from the responses of the three focus groups, that
community cohesion is a depleted ideology which has not produced the
government’s vision of cohesive communities.

The close alignment of the Asylum, Preventing Violent Extremism and

Anti-terror agendas with the Community Cohesion policy has only
served to strain inter-community relations through ‘problematising’
BME communities. The rhetoric emanating from such approaches has
played into the hands of the far right, thereby undermining those very
values which the government seeks to uphold. Worse it has alienated an
entire generation of young BME people and especially Muslims for
whom the policy has had profoundly negative impact in terms of their
daily lived experiences.

The government’s failure to address the systems which have contributed

to the generational poverty, racism, discrimination and poor life chances
of BME people suggests that 10 years on from the Stephen Lawrence
Inquiry, institutional racism continues to define the conduct of
government vis a vis its BME citizens.

There is a clear need for the government to articulate a vision for Britain
which accords BME people an inalienable and equal status in British
society. Community Cohesion as a policy construct will always locate
minority communities in oppositional terms to the White ‘Us’. If
governments of whatever political hue are serious about positive
community relations, then the basic building blocks on which this
vision must be constructed is one which is based on the principles of
equality, social justice, anti-racism, anti-discriminatory and anti-
institutionally racist practices.

In this respect, the failure of government to take the mantle of

leadership on race issues means that OXFAM and other like-minded
charities and trusts have to be more pro-active in creating alternative
spaces and discourses which challenge current approaches to BME
communities. JUST West Yorkshire’s hope is that this research
contributes to the momentum which is building which seeks to dislodge
community cohesion as a policy construct and replace them with
approaches which re-locate Race back into notions of Equality and
Justice.

Recommendations

• The government should articulate a vision for Britain which

accords BME people an inalienable and equal status in British
society.
• Unemployment, segregation and poor achievement in schools,
access to housing in mixed developments, and tackling

35
 perceptions of perceived BME advantage should be a priority in
Bradford and nationally.
• Disparities in outcomes for Black and Minority Ethnic groups can
and should be tackled through the Race Relations Act. This
provides a tried and tested framework for priority areas for action
through impact assessments in which agencies can be held to
account. The Race Relations Act also has community relations in
its remit.
• The benchmark for measuring good community relations should
be equality of outcomes for all, in employment, education and
service provision.
• As a policy construct community cohesion should apply as much
to white working class communities as Black and Ethnic
Minorities. It should be replaced with approaches relocating Race
back into notions of Equality and Justice.
• If governments are serious about positive community relations,
then the basic building blocks should be based on the principles
of equality, social justice, anti-racist, and anti-discriminatory
practice.

36