U.K.: A one-man bias-suit industry

by Walter Olson on February 4, 2008

“For a decade [Suresh Deman] sued universities – usually claiming racial bias over failed job applications – as he collected nearly £200,000 in payouts and cost the taxpayer an estimated £1million”. After he had brought 40 actions he was declared a vexatious litigant and banned from further proceedings, but the ban did not cover Northern Ireland and he was soon there pursuing an 11-year-old claim against the Association of University Teachers and Officers (AUT). (Chris Brooke, “Race-claims lecturer beats legal ban to carry on suing after 40 discrimination claims”, Daily Mail (U.K.), Nov. 19; A Tangled Web, Nov. 19; “In the news: Suresh Deman”, Times Higher Education Supplement, Mar. 21, 2003).

{ 6 comments }

1 C. Kumar & Mrs S Mahadevan 02.06.08 at 7:17 pm

COUNCIL FOR ETHNIC MINORITY
(England & Wales)
PO Box 17517
London SE9 2ZP
Tel. 0208 265 0536, Fax: 0208 8594657, Mobile 07877008095 http://cemkumar.googlepages.com
26 November 2007

Press Complaints Commission
Halton House
20/23 Holborn
London EC1N 2JD
Fax: 0207 831 0025

Dear Mr. Toumlin:

Further to our complaint of 22 February 2007, which is subject of judicial review, we wish to make another complaint the Daily Mail of November 19 2007. We believe a failure on the part of PCC to investigate our complaint has further instigated the Mail to write an inaccurate, misleading, tainted racially biased story.

RACIALLY & RELIGIOUSLY BIASED REPORTING OF DAILY-MAIL
The reporter in this piece by Mr Brooke demonstrates an appalling lack of balance and appears to wish to erroneously portray Mr Deman as someone who is exploiting the system whereas in reality Mr Deman has been a victim of the system. BUT a victim who has tried to fight back in spite of the overwhelming odds against him. The title of the story is, “Race-claims lecturer beats the legal ban to carry on suing”, which is quite misleading as there is no ban in Northern Ireland therefore there is no question of beating the ban.
Mr Deman’s photograph has been published without his consent and a Cameraman who has been reported to the Police in Lisburn Road subjected him to racial and sectarian harassment. Earlier the report states “Suresh Deman makes mint out of rights culture”. Again Mr Brooke publishes confidential agreements, though inaccurately, how much Mr Deman has won in judgements and settlements but fails to mention that over the last six years it has cost Mr Deman over £350,000 in legal fees. Overall Mr Deman has gained nothing in terms of money but has fought these cases to vindicate his self-esteem.
Further the Daily Mail with its normal sensationalism again reports that it has cost the taxpayer more than 1 million. The reporter gives absolutely no justification for this figure which he has apparently “plucked from the air” to make a sensational headline. He also refers to public expenses, which tend to suggest as if Mr Deman got legal aid to pursue his claims in the tribunals, which is false.
Earlier Daily Mail falsely reported that there was a High Court order against Mr. Deman. The EAT order does not say Mr Deman cannot bring any claims. In fact recently EAT allowed Mr Deman’s appeal against a cost order of one of the most racist Chairman of the Tribunal, Mr. Leahy at Manchester. Clearly the reporter has not taken time to research the difference between a High Court Order and an EAT order. This is just another example of sloppy journalism and inaccurate reporting.
Mr Brooke appears to blame Mr Deman for delay in hearing the case. A somewhat similar story was run by the Sunday Life based on information given by a senior tribunal staff, which is a subject of defamatory and racially biased proceedings in the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland against the Sunday Life and Tribunals. In fact delay in listing was entirely Tribunal’s fault as 2 respondents in the case are lay members of the Tribunals. We do not find any news coverage to that case.
On 14 November 2007 Respondents’ counsel Mr O’Riley assaulted Mr Deman in the Court Room in presence of the witnesses. This incident was reported to Police as a racist and sectarian assault. Surprisingly, there is no reference to the incident in Mr Brooke’s report. Although the Tribunal has to arrange security due to above incident the racial and sectarian harassment by Cameramen continued and further police report was made on 20 November 2007 [C&C No. 344, 14/11/07 and C&C 238, 20/11/07, ‘B’ District South Belfast].
Contrary to Mr Brooke’s report Mrs Carroll was instigate by Mr Jay to make a complaint of sexual harassment in which she did not believe herself. After a through investigation by an Equal Opportunity Manager [Mr Deman boycott the EO due his hostility towards him] dismissed her complaint. There is no reference to this in his story either.
Further Mr Brooke falsely reported that Mr Deman was a part time lecturer. In fact Mrs Carroll was a part time clerical staff and Mr Deman was a full time faculty member on probation. Contrary to Mr Brooke’s report Mrs Carroll never complaint that Mr Deman was abusive as there is noting in her 4 pages long complaint to EO officer and/or in notes of her interview with Mr Nesbitt. It was her AUT Union Representative, Mr Jay who wrote to Dr Geoffrey Talbot, Secretary of the Legal Aid Committee so that Mr Deman did not receive legal aid to pursue his claims of religious/sex and political discrimination and victimisation against Mrs Carroll, Mr Nesbitt and Queen’s University.
Mr Brooke’s report published Mr Deman’s religion and nationality to discredit him which was also in breach of article 8 of the ECHR and the PCC Code.
Further Mr Brook writes that, “Mr Deman has applied for 1,000 academic posts even for though he was often unqualified. If he was not short-listed or interviewed, a racial discrimination claim might follow”. Mr Brooke has produced no evidence to support his false assertions. If this were true there would have been nearly 1,000 claims in the Tribunal. In fact if Daily Mail earlier story was to be believed of claims then only 4% claim were made of which 10 were settled and he has won 56 claims. Therefore how could Mr. Deman be a vexatious litigant? It does not make sense.
He has not produce any evidence that Mr Deman often puts in alternative application under non-Asian name. He has done only once on the advice of CRE Officer and he had been short-listed when he had used a white sounding name although reject 4 times under Indian name.
Mr Brookes refers to a recusal application but does outline the grounds, which are revealing as to bias of the tribunal.
Mr Brooke’s own racial and religious bias can be gleaned by the fact that he was speaking to Mr Daly, Respondents’ solicitor but had no word with the Claimant, Mr Deman.
Earlier the reporter describes Mr Deman as being obsessed about being racially discriminated against. Whereas in fact he has proven that he has been discriminated in terms of the substantial pre trial settlements he has received in some cases, which employers settled after harassing him for a few years and for the fear that if Mr Deman were successful they would have ended up paying more. More importantly by the fact that he has proven his claims of racial discrimination and victimisation to the satisfaction of Tribunals and courts and in his 3 claims against the University of Greenwich & others, 2 claims against Nottingham [Professor Gow, PVC and Director of Business School was found guilty], 1 claim against the European School of Economics and 1 claim against the University of Pittsburgh and its Head Mr. Kevin Sontheimer. Surely such evidence would indicate to any objective observer or reporter that Mr Deman has been a serial victim of Institutionalised Racism in Higher Education.
The Reporter in an earlier report purported to suggests Mr Deman got £42,000.00 [inaccurate figure] in compensation after making a series of claims for being sacked for misconduct in November 999 but he later received £42,000 compensation after making a series of including one that a colleague had made a racially-offensive remark. However the Reporter does not truthfully report that Mr Deman was successful in his claims of racial discrimination, victimisation and unfair dismissal in which both Mr Russell Brockett, Director Personnel, University of Greenwich and his colleague Mr Geddes were found guilty by the tribunal.
Mr Deman never told the Reporter or any newspaper about his private life i.e., marries religious persuasion and citizenship nor ever describes himself as Indian-American. Therefore publication of this information was contrary to the Privacy Clause under PCC Code. In formation about the sums of damages are inaccurate and contrary to the confidentiality clause.
Mr Deman has been a full professor in Japan, Australia and New Zealand and a senior lecturer in UK & US therefore how could anyone say, ‘his candidature was very weak’? If any inconvenience is caused to the employers they are the authors of their own misfortune. He has been kept off shortlists because Academia being closely knitted and people talk on the grapevine.
Further Mr Deman never told the Reporter or any newspaper about his private life i.e., marries, religious persuasion and citizenship nor ever describes himself as Indian-American. Therefore publication of this information was contrary to the Privacy Clause under PCC Code. In formation about the sums of damages are inaccurate and contrary to the confidentiality clause.
As to the Reporter’s assertion that he approached Mr Deman about the banning order and he refused to comment and threatened to ‘sue’. On the contrary the Reporter harassed Mr Deman’s 12-year daughter at his wife’s residence.
In fact, Mr. Deman does not live at his previous address where the Reporter gave a surprised visit without any prior appointment. He visited on Friday at about 5:00 pm at his wife’s address, purported to be from the Daily Mail to harass Mr. Deman’s 12 years old daughter. I have no hesitation to confirm that Mr. Deman was not present at that time. Reporter banged the door so hard that door was chipped open and his daughter was terrified and screamed. He insisted to know whereabouts of Mr. Deman to cover the story about Section 33 Proceedings having assured by the PCC that there was nothing wrong in THES doing it without interviewing him. We wonder where the hell the Daily Mail was for the last 3 months and why he woke up now to report an old story. Mr. Kumar was present at his residence to help his wife so he came downstairs. Mr. Kumar asked the Report of the Daily Mail to show his ID card or some proof of identity but he had none to show him. Mrs. Mayo-Deman and Mr. Kumar asked him to leave shutting door on him but he tried to push it back. We believe the Daily Mail would not have exhibited this sort of conduct without the blessings of the PCC.

Further DailMail story has caused irreparable damage to Mr. Deman as due to sensationalism newspapers, law firms and websites all over the world relied upon Daily-Mail’s version without interviewing Mr. Deman [we are still researching but see, enclosed]. Daily Mail put selective comments on the story under feedback, which appear to be coming from the BNP and NF members who are seeking his deportation. On the other hand a number of academics and member of the public sent comment criticizing the story but none were selected.

You say you do not monitor racial origin of your staff and PCC members we believe this is in breach of the CRE Code of Practice.

We are looking forward to hearing from you ASAP.
Yours sincerely,

Coordinator, C Kumar
Acting Coordinators, S. Mahadevan

CC: Trevor Phillips, Chairman CRE, Fax: 0207 919 0001 & Dr Ian Paisley, MP & MEP & Peter Robinson MP, and Mr S. Deman.

2 C. Kumar & Mrs S Mahadevan 02.06.08 at 7:17 pm

COUNCIL FOR ETHNIC MINORITY
(England & Wales)
PO Box 17517
London SE9 2ZP
Tel. 0208 265 0536, Fax: 0208 8594657, Mobile 07877008095 http://cemkumar.googlepages.com
26 November 2007

Press Complaints Commission
Halton House
20/23 Holborn
London EC1N 2JD
Fax: 0207 831 0025

Dear Mr. Toumlin:

Further to our complaint of 22 February 2007, which is subject of judicial review, we wish to make another complaint the Daily Mail of November 19 2007. We believe a failure on the part of PCC to investigate our complaint has further instigated the Mail to write an inaccurate, misleading, tainted racially biased story.

RACIALLY & RELIGIOUSLY BIASED REPORTING OF DAILY-MAIL
The reporter in this piece by Mr Brooke demonstrates an appalling lack of balance and appears to wish to erroneously portray Mr Deman as someone who is exploiting the system whereas in reality Mr Deman has been a victim of the system. BUT a victim who has tried to fight back in spite of the overwhelming odds against him. The title of the story is, “Race-claims lecturer beats the legal ban to carry on suing”, which is quite misleading as there is no ban in Northern Ireland therefore there is no question of beating the ban.
Mr Deman’s photograph has been published without his consent and a Cameraman who has been reported to the Police in Lisburn Road subjected him to racial and sectarian harassment. Earlier the report states “Suresh Deman makes mint out of rights culture”. Again Mr Brooke publishes confidential agreements, though inaccurately, how much Mr Deman has won in judgements and settlements but fails to mention that over the last six years it has cost Mr Deman over £350,000 in legal fees. Overall Mr Deman has gained nothing in terms of money but has fought these cases to vindicate his self-esteem.
Further the Daily Mail with its normal sensationalism again reports that it has cost the taxpayer more than 1 million. The reporter gives absolutely no justification for this figure which he has apparently “plucked from the air” to make a sensational headline. He also refers to public expenses, which tend to suggest as if Mr Deman got legal aid to pursue his claims in the tribunals, which is false.
Earlier Daily Mail falsely reported that there was a High Court order against Mr. Deman. The EAT order does not say Mr Deman cannot bring any claims. In fact recently EAT allowed Mr Deman’s appeal against a cost order of one of the most racist Chairman of the Tribunal, Mr. Leahy at Manchester. Clearly the reporter has not taken time to research the difference between a High Court Order and an EAT order. This is just another example of sloppy journalism and inaccurate reporting.
Mr Brooke appears to blame Mr Deman for delay in hearing the case. A somewhat similar story was run by the Sunday Life based on information given by a senior tribunal staff, which is a subject of defamatory and racially biased proceedings in the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland against the Sunday Life and Tribunals. In fact delay in listing was entirely Tribunal’s fault as 2 respondents in the case are lay members of the Tribunals. We do not find any news coverage to that case.
On 14 November 2007 Respondents’ counsel Mr O’Riley assaulted Mr Deman in the Court Room in presence of the witnesses. This incident was reported to Police as a racist and sectarian assault. Surprisingly, there is no reference to the incident in Mr Brooke’s report. Although the Tribunal has to arrange security due to above incident the racial and sectarian harassment by Cameramen continued and further police report was made on 20 November 2007 [C&C No. 344, 14/11/07 and C&C 238, 20/11/07, ‘B’ District South Belfast].
Contrary to Mr Brooke’s report Mrs Carroll was instigate by Mr Jay to make a complaint of sexual harassment in which she did not believe herself. After a through investigation by an Equal Opportunity Manager [Mr Deman boycott the EO due his hostility towards him] dismissed her complaint. There is no reference to this in his story either.
Further Mr Brooke falsely reported that Mr Deman was a part time lecturer. In fact Mrs Carroll was a part time clerical staff and Mr Deman was a full time faculty member on probation. Contrary to Mr Brooke’s report Mrs Carroll never complaint that Mr Deman was abusive as there is noting in her 4 pages long complaint to EO officer and/or in notes of her interview with Mr Nesbitt. It was her AUT Union Representative, Mr Jay who wrote to Dr Geoffrey Talbot, Secretary of the Legal Aid Committee so that Mr Deman did not receive legal aid to pursue his claims of religious/sex and political discrimination and victimisation against Mrs Carroll, Mr Nesbitt and Queen’s University.
Mr Brooke’s report published Mr Deman’s religion and nationality to discredit him which was also in breach of article 8 of the ECHR and the PCC Code.
Further Mr Brook writes that, “Mr Deman has applied for 1,000 academic posts even for though he was often unqualified. If he was not short-listed or interviewed, a racial discrimination claim might follow”. Mr Brooke has produced no evidence to support his false assertions. If this were true there would have been nearly 1,000 claims in the Tribunal. In fact if Daily Mail earlier story was to be believed of claims then only 4% claim were made of which 10 were settled and he has won 56 claims. Therefore how could Mr. Deman be a vexatious litigant? It does not make sense.
He has not produce any evidence that Mr Deman often puts in alternative application under non-Asian name. He has done only once on the advice of CRE Officer and he had been short-listed when he had used a white sounding name although reject 4 times under Indian name.
Mr Brookes refers to a recusal application but does outline the grounds, which are revealing as to bias of the tribunal.
Mr Brooke’s own racial and religious bias can be gleaned by the fact that he was speaking to Mr Daly, Respondents’ solicitor but had no word with the Claimant, Mr Deman.
Earlier the reporter describes Mr Deman as being obsessed about being racially discriminated against. Whereas in fact he has proven that he has been discriminated in terms of the substantial pre trial settlements he has received in some cases, which employers settled after harassing him for a few years and for the fear that if Mr Deman were successful they would have ended up paying more. More importantly by the fact that he has proven his claims of racial discrimination and victimisation to the satisfaction of Tribunals and courts and in his 3 claims against the University of Greenwich & others, 2 claims against Nottingham [Professor Gow, PVC and Director of Business School was found guilty], 1 claim against the European School of Economics and 1 claim against the University of Pittsburgh and its Head Mr. Kevin Sontheimer. Surely such evidence would indicate to any objective observer or reporter that Mr Deman has been a serial victim of Institutionalised Racism in Higher Education.
The Reporter in an earlier report purported to suggests Mr Deman got £42,000.00 [inaccurate figure] in compensation after making a series of claims for being sacked for misconduct in November 999 but he later received £42,000 compensation after making a series of including one that a colleague had made a racially-offensive remark. However the Reporter does not truthfully report that Mr Deman was successful in his claims of racial discrimination, victimisation and unfair dismissal in which both Mr Russell Brockett, Director Personnel, University of Greenwich and his colleague Mr Geddes were found guilty by the tribunal.
Mr Deman never told the Reporter or any newspaper about his private life i.e., marries religious persuasion and citizenship nor ever describes himself as Indian-American. Therefore publication of this information was contrary to the Privacy Clause under PCC Code. In formation about the sums of damages are inaccurate and contrary to the confidentiality clause.
Mr Deman has been a full professor in Japan, Australia and New Zealand and a senior lecturer in UK & US therefore how could anyone say, ‘his candidature was very weak’? If any inconvenience is caused to the employers they are the authors of their own misfortune. He has been kept off shortlists because Academia being closely knitted and people talk on the grapevine.
Further Mr Deman never told the Reporter or any newspaper about his private life i.e., marries, religious persuasion and citizenship nor ever describes himself as Indian-American. Therefore publication of this information was contrary to the Privacy Clause under PCC Code. In formation about the sums of damages are inaccurate and contrary to the confidentiality clause.
As to the Reporter’s assertion that he approached Mr Deman about the banning order and he refused to comment and threatened to ‘sue’. On the contrary the Reporter harassed Mr Deman’s 12-year daughter at his wife’s residence.
In fact, Mr. Deman does not live at his previous address where the Reporter gave a surprised visit without any prior appointment. He visited on Friday at about 5:00 pm at his wife’s address, purported to be from the Daily Mail to harass Mr. Deman’s 12 years old daughter. I have no hesitation to confirm that Mr. Deman was not present at that time. Reporter banged the door so hard that door was chipped open and his daughter was terrified and screamed. He insisted to know whereabouts of Mr. Deman to cover the story about Section 33 Proceedings having assured by the PCC that there was nothing wrong in THES doing it without interviewing him. We wonder where the hell the Daily Mail was for the last 3 months and why he woke up now to report an old story. Mr. Kumar was present at his residence to help his wife so he came downstairs. Mr. Kumar asked the Report of the Daily Mail to show his ID card or some proof of identity but he had none to show him. Mrs. Mayo-Deman and Mr. Kumar asked him to leave shutting door on him but he tried to push it back. We believe the Daily Mail would not have exhibited this sort of conduct without the blessings of the PCC.

Further DailMail story has caused irreparable damage to Mr. Deman as due to sensationalism newspapers, law firms and websites all over the world relied upon Daily-Mail’s version without interviewing Mr. Deman [we are still researching but see, enclosed]. Daily Mail put selective comments on the story under feedback, which appear to be coming from the BNP and NF members who are seeking his deportation. On the other hand a number of academics and member of the public sent comment criticizing the story but none were selected.

You say you do not monitor racial origin of your staff and PCC members we believe this is in breach of the CRE Code of Practice.

We are looking forward to hearing from you ASAP.
Yours sincerely,

Coordinator, C Kumar
Acting Coordinators, S. Mahadevan

CC: Trevor Phillips, Chairman CRE, Fax: 0207 919 0001 & Dr Ian Paisley, MP & MEP & Peter Robinson MP, and Mr S. Deman.

3 C. Kumar & Mrs S Mahadevan 02.06.08 at 7:17 pm

COUNCIL FOR ETHNIC MINORITY
(England & Wales)
PO Box 17517
London SE9 2ZP
Tel. 0208 265 0536, Fax: 0208 8594657, Mobile 07877008095 http://cemkumar.googlepages.com
26 November 2007

Press Complaints Commission
Halton House
20/23 Holborn
London EC1N 2JD
Fax: 0207 831 0025

Dear Mr. Toumlin:

Further to our complaint of 22 February 2007, which is subject of judicial review, we wish to make another complaint the Daily Mail of November 19 2007. We believe a failure on the part of PCC to investigate our complaint has further instigated the Mail to write an inaccurate, misleading, tainted racially biased story.

RACIALLY & RELIGIOUSLY BIASED REPORTING OF DAILY-MAIL
The reporter in this piece by Mr Brooke demonstrates an appalling lack of balance and appears to wish to erroneously portray Mr Deman as someone who is exploiting the system whereas in reality Mr Deman has been a victim of the system. BUT a victim who has tried to fight back in spite of the overwhelming odds against him. The title of the story is, “Race-claims lecturer beats the legal ban to carry on suing”, which is quite misleading as there is no ban in Northern Ireland therefore there is no question of beating the ban.
Mr Deman’s photograph has been published without his consent and a Cameraman who has been reported to the Police in Lisburn Road subjected him to racial and sectarian harassment. Earlier the report states “Suresh Deman makes mint out of rights culture”. Again Mr Brooke publishes confidential agreements, though inaccurately, how much Mr Deman has won in judgements and settlements but fails to mention that over the last six years it has cost Mr Deman over £350,000 in legal fees. Overall Mr Deman has gained nothing in terms of money but has fought these cases to vindicate his self-esteem.
Further the Daily Mail with its normal sensationalism again reports that it has cost the taxpayer more than 1 million. The reporter gives absolutely no justification for this figure which he has apparently “plucked from the air” to make a sensational headline. He also refers to public expenses, which tend to suggest as if Mr Deman got legal aid to pursue his claims in the tribunals, which is false.
Earlier Daily Mail falsely reported that there was a High Court order against Mr. Deman. The EAT order does not say Mr Deman cannot bring any claims. In fact recently EAT allowed Mr Deman’s appeal against a cost order of one of the most racist Chairman of the Tribunal, Mr. Leahy at Manchester. Clearly the reporter has not taken time to research the difference between a High Court Order and an EAT order. This is just another example of sloppy journalism and inaccurate reporting.
Mr Brooke appears to blame Mr Deman for delay in hearing the case. A somewhat similar story was run by the Sunday Life based on information given by a senior tribunal staff, which is a subject of defamatory and racially biased proceedings in the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland against the Sunday Life and Tribunals. In fact delay in listing was entirely Tribunal’s fault as 2 respondents in the case are lay members of the Tribunals. We do not find any news coverage to that case.
On 14 November 2007 Respondents’ counsel Mr O’Riley assaulted Mr Deman in the Court Room in presence of the witnesses. This incident was reported to Police as a racist and sectarian assault. Surprisingly, there is no reference to the incident in Mr Brooke’s report. Although the Tribunal has to arrange security due to above incident the racial and sectarian harassment by Cameramen continued and further police report was made on 20 November 2007 [C&C No. 344, 14/11/07 and C&C 238, 20/11/07, ‘B’ District South Belfast].
Contrary to Mr Brooke’s report Mrs Carroll was instigate by Mr Jay to make a complaint of sexual harassment in which she did not believe herself. After a through investigation by an Equal Opportunity Manager [Mr Deman boycott the EO due his hostility towards him] dismissed her complaint. There is no reference to this in his story either.
Further Mr Brooke falsely reported that Mr Deman was a part time lecturer. In fact Mrs Carroll was a part time clerical staff and Mr Deman was a full time faculty member on probation. Contrary to Mr Brooke’s report Mrs Carroll never complaint that Mr Deman was abusive as there is noting in her 4 pages long complaint to EO officer and/or in notes of her interview with Mr Nesbitt. It was her AUT Union Representative, Mr Jay who wrote to Dr Geoffrey Talbot, Secretary of the Legal Aid Committee so that Mr Deman did not receive legal aid to pursue his claims of religious/sex and political discrimination and victimisation against Mrs Carroll, Mr Nesbitt and Queen’s University.
Mr Brooke’s report published Mr Deman’s religion and nationality to discredit him which was also in breach of article 8 of the ECHR and the PCC Code.
Further Mr Brook writes that, “Mr Deman has applied for 1,000 academic posts even for though he was often unqualified. If he was not short-listed or interviewed, a racial discrimination claim might follow”. Mr Brooke has produced no evidence to support his false assertions. If this were true there would have been nearly 1,000 claims in the Tribunal. In fact if Daily Mail earlier story was to be believed of claims then only 4% claim were made of which 10 were settled and he has won 56 claims. Therefore how could Mr. Deman be a vexatious litigant? It does not make sense.
He has not produce any evidence that Mr Deman often puts in alternative application under non-Asian name. He has done only once on the advice of CRE Officer and he had been short-listed when he had used a white sounding name although reject 4 times under Indian name.
Mr Brookes refers to a recusal application but does outline the grounds, which are revealing as to bias of the tribunal.
Mr Brooke’s own racial and religious bias can be gleaned by the fact that he was speaking to Mr Daly, Respondents’ solicitor but had no word with the Claimant, Mr Deman.
Earlier the reporter describes Mr Deman as being obsessed about being racially discriminated against. Whereas in fact he has proven that he has been discriminated in terms of the substantial pre trial settlements he has received in some cases, which employers settled after harassing him for a few years and for the fear that if Mr Deman were successful they would have ended up paying more. More importantly by the fact that he has proven his claims of racial discrimination and victimisation to the satisfaction of Tribunals and courts and in his 3 claims against the University of Greenwich & others, 2 claims against Nottingham [Professor Gow, PVC and Director of Business School was found guilty], 1 claim against the European School of Economics and 1 claim against the University of Pittsburgh and its Head Mr. Kevin Sontheimer. Surely such evidence would indicate to any objective observer or reporter that Mr Deman has been a serial victim of Institutionalised Racism in Higher Education.
The Reporter in an earlier report purported to suggests Mr Deman got £42,000.00 [inaccurate figure] in compensation after making a series of claims for being sacked for misconduct in November 999 but he later received £42,000 compensation after making a series of including one that a colleague had made a racially-offensive remark. However the Reporter does not truthfully report that Mr Deman was successful in his claims of racial discrimination, victimisation and unfair dismissal in which both Mr Russell Brockett, Director Personnel, University of Greenwich and his colleague Mr Geddes were found guilty by the tribunal.
Mr Deman never told the Reporter or any newspaper about his private life i.e., marries religious persuasion and citizenship nor ever describes himself as Indian-American. Therefore publication of this information was contrary to the Privacy Clause under PCC Code. In formation about the sums of damages are inaccurate and contrary to the confidentiality clause.
Mr Deman has been a full professor in Japan, Australia and New Zealand and a senior lecturer in UK & US therefore how could anyone say, ‘his candidature was very weak’? If any inconvenience is caused to the employers they are the authors of their own misfortune. He has been kept off shortlists because Academia being closely knitted and people talk on the grapevine.
Further Mr Deman never told the Reporter or any newspaper about his private life i.e., marries, religious persuasion and citizenship nor ever describes himself as Indian-American. Therefore publication of this information was contrary to the Privacy Clause under PCC Code. In formation about the sums of damages are inaccurate and contrary to the confidentiality clause.
As to the Reporter’s assertion that he approached Mr Deman about the banning order and he refused to comment and threatened to ‘sue’. On the contrary the Reporter harassed Mr Deman’s 12-year daughter at his wife’s residence.
In fact, Mr. Deman does not live at his previous address where the Reporter gave a surprised visit without any prior appointment. He visited on Friday at about 5:00 pm at his wife’s address, purported to be from the Daily Mail to harass Mr. Deman’s 12 years old daughter. I have no hesitation to confirm that Mr. Deman was not present at that time. Reporter banged the door so hard that door was chipped open and his daughter was terrified and screamed. He insisted to know whereabouts of Mr. Deman to cover the story about Section 33 Proceedings having assured by the PCC that there was nothing wrong in THES doing it without interviewing him. We wonder where the hell the Daily Mail was for the last 3 months and why he woke up now to report an old story. Mr. Kumar was present at his residence to help his wife so he came downstairs. Mr. Kumar asked the Report of the Daily Mail to show his ID card or some proof of identity but he had none to show him. Mrs. Mayo-Deman and Mr. Kumar asked him to leave shutting door on him but he tried to push it back. We believe the Daily Mail would not have exhibited this sort of conduct without the blessings of the PCC.

Further DailMail story has caused irreparable damage to Mr. Deman as due to sensationalism newspapers, law firms and websites all over the world relied upon Daily-Mail’s version without interviewing Mr. Deman [we are still researching but see, enclosed]. Daily Mail put selective comments on the story under feedback, which appear to be coming from the BNP and NF members who are seeking his deportation. On the other hand a number of academics and member of the public sent comment criticizing the story but none were selected.

You say you do not monitor racial origin of your staff and PCC members we believe this is in breach of the CRE Code of Practice.

We are looking forward to hearing from you ASAP.
Yours sincerely,

Coordinator, C Kumar
Acting Coordinators, S. Mahadevan

CC: Trevor Phillips, Chairman CRE, Fax: 0207 919 0001 & Dr Ian Paisley, MP & MEP & Peter Robinson MP, and Mr S. Deman.

4 C. Kumar & Mrs S Mahadevan 02.06.08 at 7:17 pm

COUNCIL FOR ETHNIC MINORITY
(England & Wales)
PO Box 17517
London SE9 2ZP
Tel. 0208 265 0536, Fax: 0208 8594657, Mobile 07877008095 http://cemkumar.googlepages.com
26 November 2007

Press Complaints Commission
Halton House
20/23 Holborn
London EC1N 2JD
Fax: 0207 831 0025

Dear Mr. Toumlin:

Further to our complaint of 22 February 2007, which is subject of judicial review, we wish to make another complaint the Daily Mail of November 19 2007. We believe a failure on the part of PCC to investigate our complaint has further instigated the Mail to write an inaccurate, misleading, tainted racially biased story.

RACIALLY & RELIGIOUSLY BIASED REPORTING OF DAILY-MAIL
The reporter in this piece by Mr Brooke demonstrates an appalling lack of balance and appears to wish to erroneously portray Mr Deman as someone who is exploiting the system whereas in reality Mr Deman has been a victim of the system. BUT a victim who has tried to fight back in spite of the overwhelming odds against him. The title of the story is, “Race-claims lecturer beats the legal ban to carry on suing”, which is quite misleading as there is no ban in Northern Ireland therefore there is no question of beating the ban.
Mr Deman’s photograph has been published without his consent and a Cameraman who has been reported to the Police in Lisburn Road subjected him to racial and sectarian harassment. Earlier the report states “Suresh Deman makes mint out of rights culture”. Again Mr Brooke publishes confidential agreements, though inaccurately, how much Mr Deman has won in judgements and settlements but fails to mention that over the last six years it has cost Mr Deman over £350,000 in legal fees. Overall Mr Deman has gained nothing in terms of money but has fought these cases to vindicate his self-esteem.
Further the Daily Mail with its normal sensationalism again reports that it has cost the taxpayer more than 1 million. The reporter gives absolutely no justification for this figure which he has apparently “plucked from the air” to make a sensational headline. He also refers to public expenses, which tend to suggest as if Mr Deman got legal aid to pursue his claims in the tribunals, which is false.
Earlier Daily Mail falsely reported that there was a High Court order against Mr. Deman. The EAT order does not say Mr Deman cannot bring any claims. In fact recently EAT allowed Mr Deman’s appeal against a cost order of one of the most racist Chairman of the Tribunal, Mr. Leahy at Manchester. Clearly the reporter has not taken time to research the difference between a High Court Order and an EAT order. This is just another example of sloppy journalism and inaccurate reporting.
Mr Brooke appears to blame Mr Deman for delay in hearing the case. A somewhat similar story was run by the Sunday Life based on information given by a senior tribunal staff, which is a subject of defamatory and racially biased proceedings in the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland against the Sunday Life and Tribunals. In fact delay in listing was entirely Tribunal’s fault as 2 respondents in the case are lay members of the Tribunals. We do not find any news coverage to that case.
On 14 November 2007 Respondents’ counsel Mr O’Riley assaulted Mr Deman in the Court Room in presence of the witnesses. This incident was reported to Police as a racist and sectarian assault. Surprisingly, there is no reference to the incident in Mr Brooke’s report. Although the Tribunal has to arrange security due to above incident the racial and sectarian harassment by Cameramen continued and further police report was made on 20 November 2007 [C&C No. 344, 14/11/07 and C&C 238, 20/11/07, ‘B’ District South Belfast].
Contrary to Mr Brooke’s report Mrs Carroll was instigate by Mr Jay to make a complaint of sexual harassment in which she did not believe herself. After a through investigation by an Equal Opportunity Manager [Mr Deman boycott the EO due his hostility towards him] dismissed her complaint. There is no reference to this in his story either.
Further Mr Brooke falsely reported that Mr Deman was a part time lecturer. In fact Mrs Carroll was a part time clerical staff and Mr Deman was a full time faculty member on probation. Contrary to Mr Brooke’s report Mrs Carroll never complaint that Mr Deman was abusive as there is noting in her 4 pages long complaint to EO officer and/or in notes of her interview with Mr Nesbitt. It was her AUT Union Representative, Mr Jay who wrote to Dr Geoffrey Talbot, Secretary of the Legal Aid Committee so that Mr Deman did not receive legal aid to pursue his claims of religious/sex and political discrimination and victimisation against Mrs Carroll, Mr Nesbitt and Queen’s University.
Mr Brooke’s report published Mr Deman’s religion and nationality to discredit him which was also in breach of article 8 of the ECHR and the PCC Code.
Further Mr Brook writes that, “Mr Deman has applied for 1,000 academic posts even for though he was often unqualified. If he was not short-listed or interviewed, a racial discrimination claim might follow”. Mr Brooke has produced no evidence to support his false assertions. If this were true there would have been nearly 1,000 claims in the Tribunal. In fact if Daily Mail earlier story was to be believed of claims then only 4% claim were made of which 10 were settled and he has won 56 claims. Therefore how could Mr. Deman be a vexatious litigant? It does not make sense.
He has not produce any evidence that Mr Deman often puts in alternative application under non-Asian name. He has done only once on the advice of CRE Officer and he had been short-listed when he had used a white sounding name although reject 4 times under Indian name.
Mr Brookes refers to a recusal application but does outline the grounds, which are revealing as to bias of the tribunal.
Mr Brooke’s own racial and religious bias can be gleaned by the fact that he was speaking to Mr Daly, Respondents’ solicitor but had no word with the Claimant, Mr Deman.
Earlier the reporter describes Mr Deman as being obsessed about being racially discriminated against. Whereas in fact he has proven that he has been discriminated in terms of the substantial pre trial settlements he has received in some cases, which employers settled after harassing him for a few years and for the fear that if Mr Deman were successful they would have ended up paying more. More importantly by the fact that he has proven his claims of racial discrimination and victimisation to the satisfaction of Tribunals and courts and in his 3 claims against the University of Greenwich & others, 2 claims against Nottingham [Professor Gow, PVC and Director of Business School was found guilty], 1 claim against the European School of Economics and 1 claim against the University of Pittsburgh and its Head Mr. Kevin Sontheimer. Surely such evidence would indicate to any objective observer or reporter that Mr Deman has been a serial victim of Institutionalised Racism in Higher Education.
The Reporter in an earlier report purported to suggests Mr Deman got £42,000.00 [inaccurate figure] in compensation after making a series of claims for being sacked for misconduct in November 999 but he later received £42,000 compensation after making a series of including one that a colleague had made a racially-offensive remark. However the Reporter does not truthfully report that Mr Deman was successful in his claims of racial discrimination, victimisation and unfair dismissal in which both Mr Russell Brockett, Director Personnel, University of Greenwich and his colleague Mr Geddes were found guilty by the tribunal.
Mr Deman never told the Reporter or any newspaper about his private life i.e., marries religious persuasion and citizenship nor ever describes himself as Indian-American. Therefore publication of this information was contrary to the Privacy Clause under PCC Code. In formation about the sums of damages are inaccurate and contrary to the confidentiality clause.
Mr Deman has been a full professor in Japan, Australia and New Zealand and a senior lecturer in UK & US therefore how could anyone say, ‘his candidature was very weak’? If any inconvenience is caused to the employers they are the authors of their own misfortune. He has been kept off shortlists because Academia being closely knitted and people talk on the grapevine.
Further Mr Deman never told the Reporter or any newspaper about his private life i.e., marries, religious persuasion and citizenship nor ever describes himself as Indian-American. Therefore publication of this information was contrary to the Privacy Clause under PCC Code. In formation about the sums of damages are inaccurate and contrary to the confidentiality clause.
As to the Reporter’s assertion that he approached Mr Deman about the banning order and he refused to comment and threatened to ‘sue’. On the contrary the Reporter harassed Mr Deman’s 12-year daughter at his wife’s residence.
In fact, Mr. Deman does not live at his previous address where the Reporter gave a surprised visit without any prior appointment. He visited on Friday at about 5:00 pm at his wife’s address, purported to be from the Daily Mail to harass Mr. Deman’s 12 years old daughter. I have no hesitation to confirm that Mr. Deman was not present at that time. Reporter banged the door so hard that door was chipped open and his daughter was terrified and screamed. He insisted to know whereabouts of Mr. Deman to cover the story about Section 33 Proceedings having assured by the PCC that there was nothing wrong in THES doing it without interviewing him. We wonder where the hell the Daily Mail was for the last 3 months and why he woke up now to report an old story. Mr. Kumar was present at his residence to help his wife so he came downstairs. Mr. Kumar asked the Report of the Daily Mail to show his ID card or some proof of identity but he had none to show him. Mrs. Mayo-Deman and Mr. Kumar asked him to leave shutting door on him but he tried to push it back. We believe the Daily Mail would not have exhibited this sort of conduct without the blessings of the PCC.

Further DailMail story has caused irreparable damage to Mr. Deman as due to sensationalism newspapers, law firms and websites all over the world relied upon Daily-Mail’s version without interviewing Mr. Deman [we are still researching but see, enclosed]. Daily Mail put selective comments on the story under feedback, which appear to be coming from the BNP and NF members who are seeking his deportation. On the other hand a number of academics and member of the public sent comment criticizing the story but none were selected.

You say you do not monitor racial origin of your staff and PCC members we believe this is in breach of the CRE Code of Practice.

We are looking forward to hearing from you ASAP.
Yours sincerely,

Coordinator, C Kumar
Acting Coordinators, S. Mahadevan

CC: Trevor Phillips, Chairman CRE, Fax: 0207 919 0001 & Dr Ian Paisley, MP & MEP & Peter Robinson MP, and Mr S. Deman.

5 C. Kumar & Mrs S Mahadevan 02.06.08 at 7:17 pm

COUNCIL FOR ETHNIC MINORITY
(England & Wales)
PO Box 17517
London SE9 2ZP
Tel. 0208 265 0536, Fax: 0208 8594657, Mobile 07877008095 http://cemkumar.googlepages.com
26 November 2007

Press Complaints Commission
Halton House
20/23 Holborn
London EC1N 2JD
Fax: 0207 831 0025

Dear Mr. Toumlin:

Further to our complaint of 22 February 2007, which is subject of judicial review, we wish to make another complaint the Daily Mail of November 19 2007. We believe a failure on the part of PCC to investigate our complaint has further instigated the Mail to write an inaccurate, misleading, tainted racially biased story.

RACIALLY & RELIGIOUSLY BIASED REPORTING OF DAILY-MAIL
The reporter in this piece by Mr Brooke demonstrates an appalling lack of balance and appears to wish to erroneously portray Mr Deman as someone who is exploiting the system whereas in reality Mr Deman has been a victim of the system. BUT a victim who has tried to fight back in spite of the overwhelming odds against him. The title of the story is, “Race-claims lecturer beats the legal ban to carry on suing”, which is quite misleading as there is no ban in Northern Ireland therefore there is no question of beating the ban.
Mr Deman’s photograph has been published without his consent and a Cameraman who has been reported to the Police in Lisburn Road subjected him to racial and sectarian harassment. Earlier the report states “Suresh Deman makes mint out of rights culture”. Again Mr Brooke publishes confidential agreements, though inaccurately, how much Mr Deman has won in judgements and settlements but fails to mention that over the last six years it has cost Mr Deman over £350,000 in legal fees. Overall Mr Deman has gained nothing in terms of money but has fought these cases to vindicate his self-esteem.
Further the Daily Mail with its normal sensationalism again reports that it has cost the taxpayer more than 1 million. The reporter gives absolutely no justification for this figure which he has apparently “plucked from the air” to make a sensational headline. He also refers to public expenses, which tend to suggest as if Mr Deman got legal aid to pursue his claims in the tribunals, which is false.
Earlier Daily Mail falsely reported that there was a High Court order against Mr. Deman. The EAT order does not say Mr Deman cannot bring any claims. In fact recently EAT allowed Mr Deman’s appeal against a cost order of one of the most racist Chairman of the Tribunal, Mr. Leahy at Manchester. Clearly the reporter has not taken time to research the difference between a High Court Order and an EAT order. This is just another example of sloppy journalism and inaccurate reporting.
Mr Brooke appears to blame Mr Deman for delay in hearing the case. A somewhat similar story was run by the Sunday Life based on information given by a senior tribunal staff, which is a subject of defamatory and racially biased proceedings in the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland against the Sunday Life and Tribunals. In fact delay in listing was entirely Tribunal’s fault as 2 respondents in the case are lay members of the Tribunals. We do not find any news coverage to that case.
On 14 November 2007 Respondents’ counsel Mr O’Riley assaulted Mr Deman in the Court Room in presence of the witnesses. This incident was reported to Police as a racist and sectarian assault. Surprisingly, there is no reference to the incident in Mr Brooke’s report. Although the Tribunal has to arrange security due to above incident the racial and sectarian harassment by Cameramen continued and further police report was made on 20 November 2007 [C&C No. 344, 14/11/07 and C&C 238, 20/11/07, ‘B’ District South Belfast].
Contrary to Mr Brooke’s report Mrs Carroll was instigate by Mr Jay to make a complaint of sexual harassment in which she did not believe herself. After a through investigation by an Equal Opportunity Manager [Mr Deman boycott the EO due his hostility towards him] dismissed her complaint. There is no reference to this in his story either.
Further Mr Brooke falsely reported that Mr Deman was a part time lecturer. In fact Mrs Carroll was a part time clerical staff and Mr Deman was a full time faculty member on probation. Contrary to Mr Brooke’s report Mrs Carroll never complaint that Mr Deman was abusive as there is noting in her 4 pages long complaint to EO officer and/or in notes of her interview with Mr Nesbitt. It was her AUT Union Representative, Mr Jay who wrote to Dr Geoffrey Talbot, Secretary of the Legal Aid Committee so that Mr Deman did not receive legal aid to pursue his claims of religious/sex and political discrimination and victimisation against Mrs Carroll, Mr Nesbitt and Queen’s University.
Mr Brooke’s report published Mr Deman’s religion and nationality to discredit him which was also in breach of article 8 of the ECHR and the PCC Code.
Further Mr Brook writes that, “Mr Deman has applied for 1,000 academic posts even for though he was often unqualified. If he was not short-listed or interviewed, a racial discrimination claim might follow”. Mr Brooke has produced no evidence to support his false assertions. If this were true there would have been nearly 1,000 claims in the Tribunal. In fact if Daily Mail earlier story was to be believed of claims then only 4% claim were made of which 10 were settled and he has won 56 claims. Therefore how could Mr. Deman be a vexatious litigant? It does not make sense.
He has not produce any evidence that Mr Deman often puts in alternative application under non-Asian name. He has done only once on the advice of CRE Officer and he had been short-listed when he had used a white sounding name although reject 4 times under Indian name.
Mr Brookes refers to a recusal application but does outline the grounds, which are revealing as to bias of the tribunal.
Mr Brooke’s own racial and religious bias can be gleaned by the fact that he was speaking to Mr Daly, Respondents’ solicitor but had no word with the Claimant, Mr Deman.
Earlier the reporter describes Mr Deman as being obsessed about being racially discriminated against. Whereas in fact he has proven that he has been discriminated in terms of the substantial pre trial settlements he has received in some cases, which employers settled after harassing him for a few years and for the fear that if Mr Deman were successful they would have ended up paying more. More importantly by the fact that he has proven his claims of racial discrimination and victimisation to the satisfaction of Tribunals and courts and in his 3 claims against the University of Greenwich & others, 2 claims against Nottingham [Professor Gow, PVC and Director of Business School was found guilty], 1 claim against the European School of Economics and 1 claim against the University of Pittsburgh and its Head Mr. Kevin Sontheimer. Surely such evidence would indicate to any objective observer or reporter that Mr Deman has been a serial victim of Institutionalised Racism in Higher Education.
The Reporter in an earlier report purported to suggests Mr Deman got £42,000.00 [inaccurate figure] in compensation after making a series of claims for being sacked for misconduct in November 999 but he later received £42,000 compensation after making a series of including one that a colleague had made a racially-offensive remark. However the Reporter does not truthfully report that Mr Deman was successful in his claims of racial discrimination, victimisation and unfair dismissal in which both Mr Russell Brockett, Director Personnel, University of Greenwich and his colleague Mr Geddes were found guilty by the tribunal.
Mr Deman never told the Reporter or any newspaper about his private life i.e., marries religious persuasion and citizenship nor ever describes himself as Indian-American. Therefore publication of this information was contrary to the Privacy Clause under PCC Code. In formation about the sums of damages are inaccurate and contrary to the confidentiality clause.
Mr Deman has been a full professor in Japan, Australia and New Zealand and a senior lecturer in UK & US therefore how could anyone say, ‘his candidature was very weak’? If any inconvenience is caused to the employers they are the authors of their own misfortune. He has been kept off shortlists because Academia being closely knitted and people talk on the grapevine.
Further Mr Deman never told the Reporter or any newspaper about his private life i.e., marries, religious persuasion and citizenship nor ever describes himself as Indian-American. Therefore publication of this information was contrary to the Privacy Clause under PCC Code. In formation about the sums of damages are inaccurate and contrary to the confidentiality clause.
As to the Reporter’s assertion that he approached Mr Deman about the banning order and he refused to comment and threatened to ‘sue’. On the contrary the Reporter harassed Mr Deman’s 12-year daughter at his wife’s residence.
In fact, Mr. Deman does not live at his previous address where the Reporter gave a surprised visit without any prior appointment. He visited on Friday at about 5:00 pm at his wife’s address, purported to be from the Daily Mail to harass Mr. Deman’s 12 years old daughter. I have no hesitation to confirm that Mr. Deman was not present at that time. Reporter banged the door so hard that door was chipped open and his daughter was terrified and screamed. He insisted to know whereabouts of Mr. Deman to cover the story about Section 33 Proceedings having assured by the PCC that there was nothing wrong in THES doing it without interviewing him. We wonder where the hell the Daily Mail was for the last 3 months and why he woke up now to report an old story. Mr. Kumar was present at his residence to help his wife so he came downstairs. Mr. Kumar asked the Report of the Daily Mail to show his ID card or some proof of identity but he had none to show him. Mrs. Mayo-Deman and Mr. Kumar asked him to leave shutting door on him but he tried to push it back. We believe the Daily Mail would not have exhibited this sort of conduct without the blessings of the PCC.

Further DailMail story has caused irreparable damage to Mr. Deman as due to sensationalism newspapers, law firms and websites all over the world relied upon Daily-Mail’s version without interviewing Mr. Deman [we are still researching but see, enclosed]. Daily Mail put selective comments on the story under feedback, which appear to be coming from the BNP and NF members who are seeking his deportation. On the other hand a number of academics and member of the public sent comment criticizing the story but none were selected.

You say you do not monitor racial origin of your staff and PCC members we believe this is in breach of the CRE Code of Practice.

We are looking forward to hearing from you ASAP.
Yours sincerely,

Coordinator, C Kumar
Acting Coordinators, S. Mahadevan

CC: Trevor Phillips, Chairman CRE, Fax: 0207 919 0001 & Dr Ian Paisley, MP & MEP & Peter Robinson MP, and Mr S. Deman.

6 C. Kumar & Mrs S Mahadevan 02.06.08 at 7:17 pm

COUNCIL FOR ETHNIC MINORITY
(England & Wales)
PO Box 17517
London SE9 2ZP
Tel. 0208 265 0536, Fax: 0208 8594657, Mobile 07877008095 http://cemkumar.googlepages.com
26 November 2007

Press Complaints Commission
Halton House
20/23 Holborn
London EC1N 2JD
Fax: 0207 831 0025

Dear Mr. Toumlin:

Further to our complaint of 22 February 2007, which is subject of judicial review, we wish to make another complaint the Daily Mail of November 19 2007. We believe a failure on the part of PCC to investigate our complaint has further instigated the Mail to write an inaccurate, misleading, tainted racially biased story.

RACIALLY & RELIGIOUSLY BIASED REPORTING OF DAILY-MAIL
The reporter in this piece by Mr Brooke demonstrates an appalling lack of balance and appears to wish to erroneously portray Mr Deman as someone who is exploiting the system whereas in reality Mr Deman has been a victim of the system. BUT a victim who has tried to fight back in spite of the overwhelming odds against him. The title of the story is, “Race-claims lecturer beats the legal ban to carry on suing”, which is quite misleading as there is no ban in Northern Ireland therefore there is no question of beating the ban.
Mr Deman’s photograph has been published without his consent and a Cameraman who has been reported to the Police in Lisburn Road subjected him to racial and sectarian harassment. Earlier the report states “Suresh Deman makes mint out of rights culture”. Again Mr Brooke publishes confidential agreements, though inaccurately, how much Mr Deman has won in judgements and settlements but fails to mention that over the last six years it has cost Mr Deman over £350,000 in legal fees. Overall Mr Deman has gained nothing in terms of money but has fought these cases to vindicate his self-esteem.
Further the Daily Mail with its normal sensationalism again reports that it has cost the taxpayer more than 1 million. The reporter gives absolutely no justification for this figure which he has apparently “plucked from the air” to make a sensational headline. He also refers to public expenses, which tend to suggest as if Mr Deman got legal aid to pursue his claims in the tribunals, which is false.
Earlier Daily Mail falsely reported that there was a High Court order against Mr. Deman. The EAT order does not say Mr Deman cannot bring any claims. In fact recently EAT allowed Mr Deman’s appeal against a cost order of one of the most racist Chairman of the Tribunal, Mr. Leahy at Manchester. Clearly the reporter has not taken time to research the difference between a High Court Order and an EAT order. This is just another example of sloppy journalism and inaccurate reporting.
Mr Brooke appears to blame Mr Deman for delay in hearing the case. A somewhat similar story was run by the Sunday Life based on information given by a senior tribunal staff, which is a subject of defamatory and racially biased proceedings in the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland against the Sunday Life and Tribunals. In fact delay in listing was entirely Tribunal’s fault as 2 respondents in the case are lay members of the Tribunals. We do not find any news coverage to that case.
On 14 November 2007 Respondents’ counsel Mr O’Riley assaulted Mr Deman in the Court Room in presence of the witnesses. This incident was reported to Police as a racist and sectarian assault. Surprisingly, there is no reference to the incident in Mr Brooke’s report. Although the Tribunal has to arrange security due to above incident the racial and sectarian harassment by Cameramen continued and further police report was made on 20 November 2007 [C&C No. 344, 14/11/07 and C&C 238, 20/11/07, ‘B’ District South Belfast].
Contrary to Mr Brooke’s report Mrs Carroll was instigate by Mr Jay to make a complaint of sexual harassment in which she did not believe herself. After a through investigation by an Equal Opportunity Manager [Mr Deman boycott the EO due his hostility towards him] dismissed her complaint. There is no reference to this in his story either.
Further Mr Brooke falsely reported that Mr Deman was a part time lecturer. In fact Mrs Carroll was a part time clerical staff and Mr Deman was a full time faculty member on probation. Contrary to Mr Brooke’s report Mrs Carroll never complaint that Mr Deman was abusive as there is noting in her 4 pages long complaint to EO officer and/or in notes of her interview with Mr Nesbitt. It was her AUT Union Representative, Mr Jay who wrote to Dr Geoffrey Talbot, Secretary of the Legal Aid Committee so that Mr Deman did not receive legal aid to pursue his claims of religious/sex and political discrimination and victimisation against Mrs Carroll, Mr Nesbitt and Queen’s University.
Mr Brooke’s report published Mr Deman’s religion and nationality to discredit him which was also in breach of article 8 of the ECHR and the PCC Code.
Further Mr Brook writes that, “Mr Deman has applied for 1,000 academic posts even for though he was often unqualified. If he was not short-listed or interviewed, a racial discrimination claim might follow”. Mr Brooke has produced no evidence to support his false assertions. If this were true there would have been nearly 1,000 claims in the Tribunal. In fact if Daily Mail earlier story was to be believed of claims then only 4% claim were made of which 10 were settled and he has won 56 claims. Therefore how could Mr. Deman be a vexatious litigant? It does not make sense.
He has not produce any evidence that Mr Deman often puts in alternative application under non-Asian name. He has done only once on the advice of CRE Officer and he had been short-listed when he had used a white sounding name although reject 4 times under Indian name.
Mr Brookes refers to a recusal application but does outline the grounds, which are revealing as to bias of the tribunal.
Mr Brooke’s own racial and religious bias can be gleaned by the fact that he was speaking to Mr Daly, Respondents’ solicitor but had no word with the Claimant, Mr Deman.
Earlier the reporter describes Mr Deman as being obsessed about being racially discriminated against. Whereas in fact he has proven that he has been discriminated in terms of the substantial pre trial settlements he has received in some cases, which employers settled after harassing him for a few years and for the fear that if Mr Deman were successful they would have ended up paying more. More importantly by the fact that he has proven his claims of racial discrimination and victimisation to the satisfaction of Tribunals and courts and in his 3 claims against the University of Greenwich & others, 2 claims against Nottingham [Professor Gow, PVC and Director of Business School was found guilty], 1 claim against the European School of Economics and 1 claim against the University of Pittsburgh and its Head Mr. Kevin Sontheimer. Surely such evidence would indicate to any objective observer or reporter that Mr Deman has been a serial victim of Institutionalised Racism in Higher Education.
The Reporter in an earlier report purported to suggests Mr Deman got £42,000.00 [inaccurate figure] in compensation after making a series of claims for being sacked for misconduct in November 999 but he later received £42,000 compensation after making a series of including one that a colleague had made a racially-offensive remark. However the Reporter does not truthfully report that Mr Deman was successful in his claims of racial discrimination, victimisation and unfair dismissal in which both Mr Russell Brockett, Director Personnel, University of Greenwich and his colleague Mr Geddes were found guilty by the tribunal.
Mr Deman never told the Reporter or any newspaper about his private life i.e., marries religious persuasion and citizenship nor ever describes himself as Indian-American. Therefore publication of this information was contrary to the Privacy Clause under PCC Code. In formation about the sums of damages are inaccurate and contrary to the confidentiality clause.
Mr Deman has been a full professor in Japan, Australia and New Zealand and a senior lecturer in UK & US therefore how could anyone say, ‘his candidature was very weak’? If any inconvenience is caused to the employers they are the authors of their own misfortune. He has been kept off shortlists because Academia being closely knitted and people talk on the grapevine.
Further Mr Deman never told the Reporter or any newspaper about his private life i.e., marries, religious persuasion and citizenship nor ever describes himself as Indian-American. Therefore publication of this information was contrary to the Privacy Clause under PCC Code. In formation about the sums of damages are inaccurate and contrary to the confidentiality clause.
As to the Reporter’s assertion that he approached Mr Deman about the banning order and he refused to comment and threatened to ‘sue’. On the contrary the Reporter harassed Mr Deman’s 12-year daughter at his wife’s residence.
In fact, Mr. Deman does not live at his previous address where the Reporter gave a surprised visit without any prior appointment. He visited on Friday at about 5:00 pm at his wife’s address, purported to be from the Daily Mail to harass Mr. Deman’s 12 years old daughter. I have no hesitation to confirm that Mr. Deman was not present at that time. Reporter banged the door so hard that door was chipped open and his daughter was terrified and screamed. He insisted to know whereabouts of Mr. Deman to cover the story about Section 33 Proceedings having assured by the PCC that there was nothing wrong in THES doing it without interviewing him. We wonder where the hell the Daily Mail was for the last 3 months and why he woke up now to report an old story. Mr. Kumar was present at his residence to help his wife so he came downstairs. Mr. Kumar asked the Report of the Daily Mail to show his ID card or some proof of identity but he had none to show him. Mrs. Mayo-Deman and Mr. Kumar asked him to leave shutting door on him but he tried to push it back. We believe the Daily Mail would not have exhibited this sort of conduct without the blessings of the PCC.

Further DailMail story has caused irreparable damage to Mr. Deman as due to sensationalism newspapers, law firms and websites all over the world relied upon Daily-Mail’s version without interviewing Mr. Deman [we are still researching but see, enclosed]. Daily Mail put selective comments on the story under feedback, which appear to be coming from the BNP and NF members who are seeking his deportation. On the other hand a number of academics and member of the public sent comment criticizing the story but none were selected.

You say you do not monitor racial origin of your staff and PCC members we believe this is in breach of the CRE Code of Practice.

We are looking forward to hearing from you ASAP.
Yours sincerely,

Coordinator, C Kumar
Acting Coordinators, S. Mahadevan

CC: Trevor Phillips, Chairman CRE, Fax: 0207 919 0001 & Dr Ian Paisley, MP & MEP & Peter Robinson MP, and Mr S. Deman.

Comments on this entry are closed.