Thank you for your support. The petition now stands at 13,792 please continue to share with your networks. Below is an update on the situation.
The statement in the above screenshot is not true
As it approaches its 20th anniversary, we have been discussing a celebratory season, and exploring ways to further our commitment to the strand,
This statement can be found on the BFI’s website for the already sold out African Odysseys screening of Soundtrack to a Coup D’etat on 11th January HERE
There have been no meetings/discussions/phone calls about ‘20-year anniversaries or celebratory seasons’. On the contrary, the Steering Committee has explicitly stated that a 20 year anniversary could not take place if the proposed cuts and removal of the co-founder of the programme go ahead.
This is the second time the BFI has made public statements about African Odysseys that are demonstrably false. The first was on their petition update 29th October where they stated.
Having been in close contact with our partners in the African Odysseys steering committee,
At which point there had been no communication at all, as decided by the BFI, since 9th August.
Below is a copy of the BFI responses to the 11 Freedom of Information questions about the cuts and refusal to run a Race Equality Impact Assessment with analysis of the answers in italics
1. Please can you provide details of the role, at the BFI, that will assume responsibility for running the AO programme and when that responsibility will commence.
African Odysseys is a monthly event that takes place at BFI Southbank and is presented by the BFI in partnership with African Odysseys. The BFI Southbank programme is curated by the BFI Cinemas team. This team is currently being restructured. At this stage we cannot provide an answer to this question because recruitment is ongoing, however we do guarantee that the human resource and budget dedicated to the African Odysseys series will not be diminished. BFI Southbank is one of the leading cinematheques in the world, and we would not compromise anything that we present in the programme.
This cannot be true as the reason given for the removal of the only human resource with 17 years knowledge of Black film at the BFI AND the deletion of the post that curates the programme is; ‘to cut costs’ . By definition that means the budget would be diminished and the delivery of the series compromised by the diminished resources.
Six months after the ‘restructuring’ was announced there should be a concrete design of the new structure. It is very inappropriate that on 24th December 2024, a post that has existed for 17 years will no longer exist in 5 weeks and there is no detailed, written explanation as to what would come next. The Steering Committee that founded and runs the programme has stated since June 2024 that the redundancy and post deletion would be catastrophic.
2. In relation to the role identified in (1) above please confirm that:
i. the role holder will be required to have detailed knowledge and experience of the diverse range of films that should be shown as part of the African Odysseys programme as presently evidenced.
ii. the role holder be required to have extensive industry links and contacts with film makers from the African continent, the Caribbean and the America’s
iii. the role and role holder will have the same number of hours attached to it as were allocated to David Somerset’s role in delivering African Odysseys
As we have outlined above, because the restructure process is still in process, we cannot supply definitive answers to these questions, however we can offer assurance that we will be seeking to find candidates with expertise in all areas of Black Film culture.
This is not an answer and makes no sense. Why would an institution get rid of an expert in Black film culture with a proven track record of almost two decades of successful, popular programming to replace them with something that is still undefined 5 weeks before the post is supposed to disappear forever?
A ‘restructure’ suggests that an existing structure is being replaced with a new structure. However, the BFI is saying that they have no idea what the new structure will look like while they are continuing to destroy the structure that supports the existing well-loved, unique, Black film programme.
For example, three African Odysseys events Mugabe and Me (December), Go tell it on the Mountain (November) and Soundtrack to a Coup d’etat (January 2025) all sold out in advance. They were curated by the same person the BFI wish to get rid of.
3 Please confirm whether the AO Steering Committee will play any part in the recruitment/selection of the role holder who is to assume responsibility for AO in the future.
BFI partners are not involved in BFI recruitment processes, although as part of our stakeholder management we do listen and take on board external considerations and thoughts on how we deliver activities
The BFI has not listened to the Steering Committee at all. It has ignored a 13,792 strong petition requesting a basic Race Equality Impact Assessment before proceeding with these catastrophic cuts/redundancies. There has been zero consultation with the huge audience that attends African Odysseys screenings. An audience that was built from nothing since 2007 by Black community activists.
4. Please provide details of the consultation process that took place with the AO Steering Committee regarding the restructure, to include:
i. Dates of meetings
ii. Copy minutes/notes
An online MS Teams meeting was held between members of the African Odysseys steering committee on the 2nd July 2024. I have attached a copy of the transcript of this meeting. We would like to clarify that this transcript is automatically generated by MS Teams and, as such, contains some grammatical, spelling and transcription errors which we have not corrected. This means that it is not a 100% accurate reflection of everything which was said – these automatic script tools can skip or ‘approximate’ words - but it is what was produced at the time, immediately after the meeting. Some names have been redacted as they are considered third-party data, that is personal data under Section s40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 of either non director level BFI staff members or third-party participants.
This is very misleading. The Steering Committee had to fight for this meeting to take place. It was not offered. At that 2nd July meeting the BFI agreed to do a REIA, then on 9th August, after being chased by the Committee for a month, went back on their decision. In addition, they also said that ‘no progress was being made’ and unilaterally, refused to communicate with the Committee until they felt like it, wasting four months of valuable time.
5. Please confirm when the BFI last formally met with the AO Steering Committee in connection with the issues raised in their Change.org petition. If no meetings have taken place, please explain the reasoning.
The BFI has offered a meeting with a member of the African Odysseys Steering committee in relation to this petition but no date has yet been agreed upon.
The BFI told the Committee that no 'progress was being made' and they would get back to them when they saw fit. That email was sent on 9th August.
The petition was launched on 26th September.
On 1st October Professor Gus John, an internationally acclaimed race equality expert with over 50 years of experience, and 15 other race/education/media experts, wrote an open letter to the BFI offering a meeting. This was rejected.
The Committee did not hear from management until 13th November, 13 weeks, 5 days and 13,000 signatures since 9th August. That’s when the BFI asked for a meeting to discuss the petition.
The Committee responded with a detailed list of BFI failures to communicate, disrespectful behaviour, broken promises and contrasted that with examples of the Committee's innovative work, loyalty and good will despite the prolonged shabby mistreatment of a 17-year-old voluntary body.
The Committee agreed to a meeting so long as the BFI answered in detail all questions asked through the Freedom of information request submitted 18th November, questions the Committee had been asking since June.
On 28th November the BFI told the Committee they had agreed to a meeting (which they had not) and also said they were unable to answer any questions.
The committee responded on 4th December informing them of their error, to which the BFI responded on 9th December stating they still could not answer any questions but would like to have a meeting.
On the 10th December the Committee received these responses to the Freedom of Information questions, which as can be seen, are still incomplete and evasive six months after these questions were first asked.
6. Please provide details as to what steps have been taken to ensure that the AO programme will be seamlessly delivered after the departure of David Somerset. To this end, please confirm the timeline from selecting a film to it being shown at the BFI.
African Odyssey events have continued as usual throughout this period and are programmed up to January 2025. The African Odysseys Steering committee have been made aware of our programming deadlines and invited to present a special preview of Raoul Peck's award-winning documentary 'Ernest Cole: Lost and Found' for February, potentially with Raoul Peck in attendance. We have not received a response to this proposal.
Firstly, this is not true. On the 25th November the BFI was sent a detailed response to their proposal stating it was an insult to their intelligence for a variety of reasons. This is quite apart from the fact that it’s the Committee that chooses films not senior BFI management as they have no detailed knowledge of Black film culture as has been proven in the past.
Secondly, this does not answer the question.
Thirdly, the BFI and the Steering Committee work at least 6 months in advance and the events up to January were already programmed ages ago.
If not for the BFI’s cuts/redundancies, the Committee would by now have already programmed up to June 2025. This planning has been made impossible by the BFIs actions. The fact that there is no AO programme past January is evidence of the devastation of the cuts which the BFI were warned about in June
For 17 years the AO programme has required a full time member of staff or 8000 hours of work a year to produce the monthly events. The Committee has repeatedly stated its impossible to run this programme in the future with 200% less resources than before.
7. Please provide specific details of what remaining ‘committed to it [the AO programme]’ means in practice generally and, specifically in relation to resourcing
Our commitment to African Odysseys in practise means that we would like to continue to present the monthly event strand in the programme at BFI Southbank, to the same world-class standard as we have done for the last 17 years. We would wish to continue to do this in partnership with the assistance of the African Odysseys Steering Committee.
This is a not an answer. The committee has already stated that the ‘world class standard' referred to is at major risk due to the proposed cuts and redundancies of the person and post that produced the world class events. The BFI’s ‘commitment’ has no resources behind it.
8. Please provide details of resources previously dedicated to AO and in comparison, resources dedicated to other programmes like Seniors, BFI Flare LGBT films and events , Accessible screenings.
The BFI does not hold this information as it would not be possible to subdivide workloads and resources in this way. African Odysseys is a monthly event whereas BFI Flare is a 12-day festival so the comparison of resources would also not be appropriate. However, African Odysseys is the only part of our monthly programme where the committee has been invited to programme seasons and also has its own section of BFI Player which is not afforded to any of our other monthly strands.
We would also note that in addition to African Odysseys which, of course, forms a key part of our monthly programming, our commitment to exhibiting Black Film culture continues to extend in other areas and includes seasons, events, festivals, online, IMAX and physical media.
This is not an answer. The BFI says the cuts/redundancies are to ‘save money and promote diversity’ but when asked cannot state what budget there is for ANY aspect of diversity. If Flare is a 12 day event just state what is spent on the 12 days.
If one googles ‘who sponsors BFI Flare’ and ‘who sponsors BFI African Odysseys’. The vast difference is obvious however.
The facts are that
- Eight full or part time staff work on the 12 day Flare festival whereas one person works on the 12 month African Odysseys programme.
- Flare is funded by UK Government, 9 special screening sponsors, 2 other sponsors, 2 media partners and 9 in kind sponsors.
- African Odysseys is sponsored by the Steering Committee.
- For the last ten years, each year, Flare has had a BFI trailer to promote films
- For the last seventeen years BFI told African Odysseys they had ‘no resources’ to produce a trailer, so the Committee paid for and produced their own
The comment about ‘its own section on the BFI Player’ is very misleading. That section only exists because the Committee wrote a letter of complaint to CEO Ben Roberts on 23rd June 2020 detailing 13 years of exclusion from the BFI player of African Odysseys titles. It was only after that, and several meetings ,that AO titles began to appear. An extract of that June 2020 letter is below :
**Start quote from letter
The African Odysseys group draws in high profile speakers such as US studio owner Tim Reid, author Imruh Bakari, Chair of the Institute of Race Relations (IRR) Colin Prescod, actor Donna Kroll, Booker prize judge and editor Margaret Busby OBE, US actor Clarke Peters, director and veteran Jamaican British actress Esther Anderson, and a host of up and coming and established talent. At a time of dwindling budgets, we have repeatedly filled up BFI cinemas and generated income.
Our track record should speak for itself. However, it seems that our loyalty, commitment, and expertise have been overlooked and taken for granted. For example, BFI current online viewing content includes material under the banner of Black Star; this was a one-off season that was given considerable marketing and promotion but had limited success. At the same time, the BFI Player online content does not mention or reflect the hundreds of titles and Q&As we have curated in this BFI strand over the last 13 years. We highlight these examples because it seems that African Odysseys (AO) is not worthy of current BFI Player online content. This begs the question of how committed the BFI actually is to diversity and inclusion.
At a time when our sustained focus on the Black British experience over a decade could be invaluable, we have not been consulted as to what the BFI could or should do about the Black Lives Matter international protests. This is odd given our insight in this area. In fact, the African Odysseys programme could have been used as an example of best practice in a public institution
**end quote from letter
9. Please confirm what proportion/percentage of the education budget has been and will in the future be dedicated to the AO programme.
African Odysseys is supported by the budget for the overall BFI Southbank programme. Without knowing the shape of the whole Southbank programme going forward it is not possible to give an estimate of what overall proportion African Odysseys would account for. However, we would reiterate our commitment to support the programme going forward and that any budget provided would enable us to secure films, pay costs related to guests, e.g. travel and accommodation and other costs incurred in supporting this portion of the programme. The budget that supports African Odysseys is the BFI Southbank programme budget. It's impossible to provide an answer to what proportion because we don't know what the programme is or what they want to do. We can say that the budget is there to enable programming including securing films, paying costs attached to guests such as travel and accommodation, hospitality etc.
This is a very confusing ‘answer’ which basically says ‘we don’t know’ but on question 1 they answer ‘there will be no diminishment’ although they are also deleting an entire salaried position.
If the present role that produces African Odysseys will no longer exist in 5 weeks time, this an unacceptable answer for a senior management team that works at least 6 months in advance.
10. We are aware that a decision was made that no Equality Impact Assessment was to be undertaken regarding the changes to the AO delivery as a result of the restructure, please provide an explanation as to:
i. why that decision was made
ii. who made it
iii. and when.
An EIA was not conducted because the programme at stake was not stopping, changing or diminishing. A very small number of staff were affected and because of that, no meaningful analysis could be undertaken. The position was advised by the People team in consultation with an external consultant, to the change programme leads who endorsed it.
The BFI trains its staff in Equality Diversity and Inclusion as well as Anti-Racism via mandatory training programmes. This was the case with the key leaders of this change programme. A clear and transparent programme of governance oversees this and every organisational change programme so decision making is based on objective business criteria and not bias. The BFI works in partnership with its recognised Trade Unions in all aspects of change including equality and inclusion
This is very misleading apart from ii and iii not being answered.
It cannot be true that if the person who created and curated the programme for 17 years is removed that there is no ‘stopping, changing or diminishing’ of the programme.’
It also cannot be true that if the full time, year long, 48 weeks of work/job that has enabled AO to be produced is to be destroyed, that there is ‘no stopping, changing or diminishing’ This is especially so if the Committee who created, and run the programme for 17 years, is stating repeatedly that it will be catastrophic.
The BFI statement is disrespectful as it chooses not to recognise that an REIA is not just about ‘a small number of staff’ internally but about the global majority, public/audience those staff serve.
In this case the under-served Black community in their hundreds of thousands have been attracted to the BFI because of the unique programme provided by African Odysseys, and the dedicated staff member who co-founded the programme. A programme that cannot be found anywhere in Europe.
None of the constituency that pay money to attend the BFI and also pay taxes have, in any way, been consulted about these impactful decisions by the majority white executive.
Of eight executive board members only one is Black. Prior to 2021 and the George Floyd effect there were no Black board members. It is of note that no redundancies to ‘cut costs and promote diversity’ have taken place at the executive level.
A REIA could take two months to do and the BFI would have all the information they need to assist and inform their ‘restructuring’ .From a common sense perspective one wonders why they are so disinterested in the views of almost 14,000 people as opposed to an elite, majority white group, especially as the BFI is a public body with a history of racism.
If the BFI is supposed to be a well trained 'anti-racist' organisation, it is failing massively. Here are three stories from the last two years detailing the BFIs multiple failings on race issues:
Deadline March 2023 BFI admits to systemic racism HERE
Guardian March 2023 BFI accused of taking limited steps to address racism HERE
Deadline October 2024 BFI boss apologises for racism HERE
This is quite apart from the atrocious record of the BFI’s own magazine Sight and Sound. It has never, in 17 years, done a feature on African Odysseys ‘world class; events despite consistently selling out the 450 seat main cinema and despite being asked repeatedly to do so. The October issue did not even mention Black History Month.
The article dated 10 October is compelling as it shows the BFI saying sorry for racism at the very same time as it was ignoring a petition of over 10,000 people and rebuffing the offer of a meeting from world famous anti-racist campaigner, Professor Gus John as sent on 1st October to address issues of race.
Furthermore, as opposed to a single anonymous consultant authorising a decision to NOT run a REIA, Professor Gus John, Dr Patrick Vernon, Dame Elizabeth Anionwu, Professor Paul Gilroy, Yvonne Field OBE, Professor Cecil Gutzmore, all veteran race equality experts with decades of experience, have signed the petition demanding an REIA be done. Why ignore such expertise and almost 14,000 supporters ?
From an ‘objective business criteria’ perspective the BFI’s decision makes no sense as the Steering Committee is voluntary. They are not paid for their expertise. The Steering Committee has been regularly filling up the BFI’s 450-seater at £6.50 a seat for 17 years. If they only did that six times a year that’s at least £298,350.00 in the BFI’s pocket.
Throughout the last 6 months the Committee has been loyally using their considerable expertise, to fill up BFI cinemas, boost BFI diversity statistics, increase BFU paid membership, and put on fantastic, sold-out events as recently as 1st December (Mugabe and me)
If the entire steering committee was worth just one Audience Development Manager as advertised HERE at £35,000 per year x 17 years that’s £595,000.00 of sponsorship.
In January the BFI has scheduled a Sidney Poitier season. They’ve engaged a Black run PR company to promote the month-long season. If they only paid the agency £3000 for their hard work in promoting that season, then it must be pointed out that the Steering Committee, includes various Black groups who have been promoting films at the BFI every month since 2007 at no cost to the BFI. That is to say 12 x 17 x £3000.00 =£612,000 of free promotions.
Black History Walks maybe the best known but Images of Black Women Film Festival did the same thing, as did the Black Cultural Archives, as did the Institute of Race Relations, as did Black History Studies and the Africa Centre.
The person who pulled in all of this in-kind Black sponsorship, which at bare minimum adds up to £1.5 million, is the same person the BFI wish to get rid of to ‘promote diversity and cut costs’.
11. Please detail how, in restructuring, you have met your obligations to the public sector equality duty requirements of sec 149 Equality Act 2010, which state that as a public body the BFI should have due regard to the need to (a) eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under this Act; (b) advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it; (c) foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it
Please see our answer above.
This is not an answer