I read with interest Steve Douglas’ comments on Lord Ouseley’s concerns over the handling of Presentation Housing Association (Inside Housing, 14 November).
It appears that Mr Douglas does not think it is helpful for Lord Ouseley to make a complaint about racial bias in the conduct of the Housing Corporation.
Perhaps he would like to explain why, then, that under his watch Ujima Housing Association has already lost its independence and the same is about to happen to Presentation due to the corporation’s actions. Especially since Presentation is not in the same situation as Ujima was.
One has to ask the question: why did the Housing Corporation appoint three non-black and minority ethnic appointees to the board and why was a non-BME interim chief executive, who happens to be an ex-corporation employee, also appointed?
No doubt the corporation and its statutory appointees have spent huge amounts of money on unnecessary activity to engineer a situation where it can argue that Presentation cannot remain independent.
Surely an attempt to work with Presentation to maintain its independence would have been the right approach for the corporation to take? Has the corporation not learned any lessons from its massive and fundamental failure to regulate Ujima?
When is there going to be a public inquiry into the conduct of the corporation and its institutional racism? How much more evidence needs to be provided, or does the entire movement need to be wiped out?
It is right and proper that Lord Ouseley asks the questions that many interested parties are asking and holds the corporation to account for its incompetence.
S Mukhtar, south east London