Black representation charity defends discrimination claim against intern scheme

[IwantToRetire]

A charity is defending itself against a legal claim that its flagship intern programme for Black students discriminates against white applicants.
Rebecca Ajulu-Bushell, chief executive of the 10,000 Interns Foundation, told Civil Society that her charity had filed a legal defence against a suit brought by commentator Sophie Corcoran.

Corcoran, also an influencer who has appeared on GB News, took legal action against the charity and the Bar Council after claiming she was rejected from a programme for aspiring lawyers aimed at Black people.

Her suit asserts that she faced a loss of employment opportunity since she is white, and was subject to discrimination under the Equality Act

Article continues https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/black-representation-charity-defends-discrimination-claim-against-intern-scheme.html

I thought positive action was allowed up the EA?

Although I see from the Guardian who first wrote about this that they are implying its a political stunt by an influencer, GB News presenter https://www.theguardian.com/law/2026/apr/29/sophie-corcoran-gb-news-sue-charity-not-offering-internships-white-people-legal-action

But the learning still applies - the road to improving things does not go in the direction of making it worse for everyone

Who says I was annoyed?

ETA: I was annoyed I'd wasted a morning when I could have been working. Personally I had no ambition to work for the Media in the first place.

I don’t think anyone did. The reply wasn’t to you. I’d be interested in what your Black friends thought about it though.

Well, if you want to divide people based on their skin colour than that's the way to do it.
Take on a charity that offers opportunities to an specific group (and call it discrimination. And don't forget the words colour & specific can be replaced with low income, disabled, women ... so who's next on that hit list?

mixed race = black, remember?

I've had a quick look at the Equality Act (s.159) and as you say it talks about giving a job to a [black] candidate if they and the [white] candidate are equally qualified for the job. It says that there mustn't be a policy of treating [black] candidates more favourably.

At best she’s making herself look like an idiot - rejected from a scheme she clearly wasn’t eligible for.

At worst she looks like a racist, otherwise why else would she have an issue with black people receiving opportunities they’ve historically not had. Is she going to support male colleagues in applying for women only schemes and then raising legal action when they’re rejected? Or is it only schemes for black people she takes issue with.

I hope all the publicity she’s bringing them generates more support for the charity.

They’d have been speaking to an empty room on my course in the early 2000s

@MyThreeWords I was replying to another post made by @TheywontletmehavethenameIwant. I did not make any comparisons.

It's an intern programme, to give black students experience. So then there is something relevant on your c.v. when you apply for a job. Where you are judged on your own merit against other applicants I presume.

Fair enough.

I would really have benefitted from such an opportunity as a young woman from a working class background back in my day. There was no such thing, it was all about who you knew back then in my profession. (And still is, to a large extent.)

The anecdote about the BBC telling white students to leave a room to play secret squirrels with black students is just an example of the BBC playing at being "worthy" whilst sowing only division. Typical of these institutions.

Yeah I was gonna say that. I was being sarcastic about it being suspicious.

Great. You seemed to be annoyed to have posted about it and dramatically claim all the black people never told a white person what they said. How would you know if they did or not?

.The 10,000 Interns Foundation - 1199061

That's the link to the Charity Commission information. Nothing unlawful about it at all. Corcoran is vexatious and trying to stir up shit. Some people seem keen to swallow it.

What the charity does:
Education/training
Economic/community Development/employment
Human Rights/religious Or Racial Harmony/equality Or Diversity
Who the charity helps:
Elderly/old People
People With Disabilities
People Of A Particular Ethnic Or Racial Origin
Other Defined Groups
How the charity helps:
Provides Services
Provides Advocacy/advice/information
Acts As An Umbrella Or Resource Body

There has been a big lag in the creation of positive action schemes for working-class applicants (class having been carefully and deliberately omitted from the EA2010 as a protected characteristic). I'm glad there are some now but even then they tend to be quite clumsily designed because, as any Brit would attest, the British class system is very convoluted and people aren't necessarily working-class just because they're the first in their family to go to university, for example.

The civil service internship scheme is restricted to working class applicants, as defined by the government.

I hope she wins.

I think the actual use of these sorts of positive action programmes is to filter for applicants who have relevant lived experience in certain areas. In a similar vein, for example, I would expect a disability charity to favour disabled applicants, not so much because of privilege and disprivilege but because they will have more relevant knowledge.

Well good for you. She's got no chance, it all appears within existing legal frameworks. It's a publicity stunt.

Well ive not kept a running survey of every single fle person but my lived experience was 'what happened in there' and got a response of 'welcome arent allowed to tell anyone'.

And none of them ever told me. So not sure what else I can say.

I posted because this sort of thing isnt new. This was about 25 years ago.

It seems to me a lot of posters are conflating the EA with CRT. The EA is a legal mechanism for people to seek justice if they think they've been unjustly discriminated against, hence the Protected Characteristics. I don't think the EA was intended to help address perceived historical injustices.
I thought it was tricky because all the campaigning to get our spaces back has been based on the EA's act and the attempt to use it for this could have implications for women's causes. A wild thought I know, but if they succeed in proving you can't use it to discriminate against White people, it might start off a whole round of lawfare trying to prove that it can't be used to discriminate against faux women.
As for it being a MAGA tactic, Affirmative Discrimination is all USA, the whole rotten ideology is a USA import in all areas, including CRT.

Now do women-only internships.

I went to a BAME playgroup when my dd was born, run by Surestart. Someone complained, it was banished as was the breastfeeding support group. So that was great. 👍

"And don't forget the words colour & specific can be replaced with low income, disabled, women"

Yes, this. Would someone able-bodied who sued a charity because they didn't give her one of the (presumably limited) spaces on a programme intended for wheelchair users get any sympathy at all? Would the law be interested in her case? I somehow doubt it.

How about a charity intended to help residents in Tottenham which refused a place to someone resident in Notting Hill?

If you are not eligible for something, you're not eligible for it, I would have thought.

This makes me so sad. I'm sure the loser who complained is very pleased with themselves.

It was sad. We were ok in a practical sense because we just swapped numbers and met up in parks but the breastfeeding mothers who needed support were screwed. Emotionally it wasn’t so great through. Knowing that someone had complained about some people meeting up in a building designed for exactly that.

I have to admit that I did hope that the complainer was a member of the breastfeeding group.