Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Fen Canary

Racism Report

Recommended Posts

Race report: What are the key points? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56595004
 

Nice to see that we can finally put all this structural/institutional racism myth to bed. Everybody with an ounce of common sense knew that it was all nonsense, a bunch of middle class students trying to import American problems to the UK, despite having completely differing histories regarding race and immigration.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't comment on the report as I haven't read it and have only seen the snippets I presume you have. But having no faith or trust in this government it does look like they are playing fast and loose with the full facts. Again.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bring back bagster or even barbie boy blue 🤪

 

ps best not to bite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Herman said:

Can't comment on the report as I haven't read it and have only seen the snippets I presume you have. But having no faith or trust in this government it does look like they are playing fast and loose with the full facts. Again.

 

Have these people not heard of google?

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/974507/20210331_-_CRED_Report_-_FINAL_-_Web_Accessible.pdf

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

A Prime Minister with a history of making racist comments personally appoints every member of an inquiry into racism. He chooses two Conservative Party supporting individuals to lead the inquiry, each with a long history of denial of institutional racism. Guess what? The inquiry "finds" no evidence for institutional racism. Indeed, the report praises the country as a model for race equality. Yes, the very country guilty of the "Windrush" scandal is regarded by the report as a "model" for other countries to follow in how to treat its citizens from ethnic minorities. Normally, at this point one would say, "You couldn't make it up", except they did, and laughably called it a report.

A colossal waste of time and tax-payers money, with unsupportable pre-determined conclusions that only confirm what it is so desperate to deny. The failure of the report to draw the obvious conclusions from evidence it itself cites is frankly embarrassing. For example, it records that ethnic minority students statistically surpass the achievements of white working class students to a high degree, but fails to explain why that success radically fails to translate into job appointments. So no explanation of why the less qualified John Smith gets the job ahead of the better qualified Muhamad Sehmbi. It really doesn't take an awful lot of "common sense" to spot why that might be does it?

This is a truly pathetic attempt at a white-wash which has already invited ridicule from experts in the field and derision from those ordinary citizens whose daily experiences are missing from the report. It will only fuel the well-founded suspicions that this government has no intention of taking racism seriously. But then many of us pointed out exactly this the moment Johnson appointed Tony Sewell as commision chair, and Downing Street advisor Munira Mirza.

 

Edited by horsefly
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, horsefly said:

A Prime Minister with a history of making racist comments personally appoints every member of an inquiry into racism. He chooses two Conservative Party supporting individuals to lead the inquiry, each with a long history of denial of institutional racism. Guess what? The inquiry "finds" no evidence for institutional racism. Indeed, the report praises the country as a model for race equality. Yes, the very country guilty of the "Windrush" scandal is regarded by the report as a "model" for other countries to follow in how to treat its citizens from ethnic minorities. Normally, at this point one would say, "You couldn't make it up", except they did, and laughably called it a report.

A colossal waste of time and tax-payers money, with unsupportable pre-determined conclusions that only confirm what it is so desperate to deny. The failure of the report to draw the obvious conclusions from evidence it itself cites is frankly embarrassing. For example, it records that ethnic minority students statistically surpass the achievements of white working class students to a high degree, but fails to explain why that success radically fails to translate into job appointments. So no explanation of why the less qualified John Smith gets the job ahead of the better qualified Muhamad Sehmbi. It really doesn't take an awful lot of "common sense" to spot why that might be does it?

This is a truly pathetic attempt at a white-wash which has already invited ridicule from experts in the field and derision from those ordinary citizens whose daily experiences are missing from the report. It will only fuel the well-founded suspicions that this government has no intention of taking racism seriously. But then many of us pointed out exactly this the moment Johnson appointed Tony Sewell as commision chair, and Downing Street advisor Munira Mirza.

 

Is there any evidence that the Windrush debacle was the result of racist policies? It looked more like an all too frequent episode of Home Office incompetence than some sinister plot.

The report shows the pay gap across all ages between whites and ethnic minorities as less than 3%, and for those 30 and under it’s non existent.

Unless you have some facts and figures proving that the findings of this report are false, then you’re not going to convince people of your argument. Some vague notion of “lived experience” or words to that effect are largely meaningless.

Finally what’s wrong with the people mentioned? Are they the wrong type of ethnic minority? I hear more racist abuse at people such as Sewell coming from the new left than I do from almost any other sector of society. Simply because they don’t agree with the whole victimhood status white knights such as yourself bestow upon them, they’re routinely described as race traitors 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

Why use Google when you can simply say it’s all false despite not reading it. It’s similar to Trump crying fake news whenever a paper published something he disagreed with 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I said I hadn't read it and having read Mirza's work before and am highly unlikely to read. You and Rocky haven't read it either, you are just happy to be told something you want to hear.

Personally, I'd rather listen to the people that are affected by it, similar to the Labour/Anti-semitism row, than old white men with dubious political beliefs.

Just to add, when you see a government report, written by the government, that paints the government in a favourable light do you not automatically think something is amiss? Or have you completely lost any sense of cynicism? 

Edited by Herman
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dammit, it's April Fools. Well done Fen you got me. 

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fen Canary said:

Is there any evidence that the Windrush debacle was the result of racist policies? It looked more like an all too frequent episode of Home Office incompetence than some sinister plot.

The report shows the pay gap across all ages between whites and ethnic minorities as less than 3%, and for those 30 and under it’s non existent.

Unless you have some facts and figures proving that the findings of this report are false, then you’re not going to convince people of your argument. Some vague notion of “lived experience” or words to that effect are largely meaningless.

Finally what’s wrong with the people mentioned? Are they the wrong type of ethnic minority? I hear more racist abuse at people such as Sewell coming from the new left than I do from almost any other sector of society. Simply because they don’t agree with the whole victimhood status white knights such as yourself bestow upon them, they’re routinely described as race traitors 

As ever you just push the standard ignorant bigotry that characterises all your posts. You have failed to respond to my point about job appointments that demonstrates very clearly that institutional racism exists, those are the FACTS based on the stats the report itself cites. The FACT that you try to pass off the Windrush scandal as if those objecting to what happened were claiming it involved some conspritorial "sinister plot" is absolutely typical of a racist attempt to deflect from the institutionalised racism involved. The FACT that this scandal happened in the first place, irrespective of any issue of intention, is clear evidence of institutionalised racism. The FACT that you dismissively write off real people's lived experience of confronting racism as "vague" and "meaningless" is clear evidence of your racism. The FACT you see no problem with a PM, who has a long record for making racist comments, appointing Tory party supporters  as the leaders of an inquiry into an issue they have a well documented history of denying exists, demonstrates your ignorance and racism.

You very clearly started this thread in order to stir up discord. Thus I shan't bother responding again to your ignorant racist tripe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of you would do well in North Korea.

'Government report into institutionalised racism in the government says government not racist

'Well that's that settled then'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Herman said:

I said I hadn't read it and having read Mirza's work before and am highly unlikely to read. You and Rocky haven't read it either, you are just happy to be told something you want to hear.

Personally, I'd rather listen to the people that are affected by it, similar to the Labour/Anti-semitism row, than old white men with dubious political beliefs.

Just to add, when you see a government report, written by the government, that paints the government in a favourable light do you not automatically think something is amiss? Or have you completely lost any sense of cynicism? 

You’ve not seen a picture of Tony Sewell have you? Two out of three of your descriptions of him were correct.

As I’ve said previously, if somebody can show me facts that prove this country is structurally racist then I’m happy to listen, but as of yet I’ve never heard one. The BLM mob never mentioned a single law that was discriminatory and should be changed, or offered up any statistics on the matter that weren’t easily explained by other means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, kick it off said:

Yes. The Windrush report.

https://irr.org.uk/product/the-embedding-of-state-hostility-a-background-paper-on-the-windrush-scandal/

Why use Google when you can say its all false though?

That doesn’t say it was motivated by racism though does it, it says it was motivated by a clampdown on illegal immigration. Unfortunately the Home Office some years previously (under a different government) had destroyed the Windrush landing cards which was for many the proof they were here legally.

Anybody who has ever dealt with immigration services will know just how inflexible they are, and all this created a perfect storm which unfortunately should never have happened. 

As I say, it seems to be incompetence rather than some evil scheme to deport people back to the West Indies 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, horsefly said:

As ever you just push the standard ignorant bigotry that characterises all your posts. You have failed to respond to my point about job appointments that demonstrates very clearly that institutional racism exists, those are the FACTS based on the stats the report itself cites. The FACT that you try to pass off the Windrush scandal as if those objecting to what happened were claiming it involved some conspritorial "sinister plot" is absolutely typical of a racist attempt to deflect from the institutionalised racism involved. The FACT that this scandal happened in the first place, irrespective of any issue of intention, is clear evidence of institutionalised racism. The FACT that you dismissively write off real people's lived experience of confronting racism as "vague" and "meaningless" is clear evidence of your racism. The FACT you see no problem with a PM, who has a long record for making racist comments, appointing Tory party supporters  as the leaders of an inquiry into an issue they have a well documented history of denying exists, demonstrates your ignorance and racism.

You very clearly started this thread in order to stir up discord. Thus I shan't bother responding again to your ignorant racist tripe.

I’m curious to know how old you are Horse? I’m guessing you’re at University judging by the tone of all your replies and constant childish accusations of bigotry despite having no evidence of such. If you’re older than that then I’m guessing you’ve lived an extremely sheltered life and never encountered anybody who doesn’t see the world the same way you do.

As for you comment regarding job appointments, in which industry are we talking? As the report said for the under 30s the differences between pay and job prospects are largely non existent. Some disparity still exists for the older generations, possibly due to historical prejudice, but it’s now largely done away with for the youngsters.

If it’s structural racism that’s causing any lingering disparity, which laws in particular do you believe are racist that need changing? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

I’m curious to know how old you are Horse? I’m guessing you’re at University judging by the tone of all your replies and constant childish accusations of bigotry despite having no evidence of such. If you’re older than that then I’m guessing you’ve lived an extremely sheltered life and never encountered anybody who doesn’t see the world the same way you do.

As for you comment regarding job appointments, in which industry are we talking? As the report said for the under 30s the differences between pay and job prospects are largely non existent. Some disparity still exists for the older generations, possibly due to historical prejudice, but it’s now largely done away with for the youngsters.

If it’s structural racism that’s causing any lingering disparity, which laws in particular do you believe are racist that need changing? 

Your standard idiotic reply refusing to address any of the issues raised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The hostile environment policy was specifically racist. Again, using Google, you can find the report that explicitly states that not only is it racist, it also contributed to fostering and embedding racism across society. Whether it was motivated by racism is immaterial, it created various racist practices at an institutional level in addition to supporting and strengthening racism in society, and is therefore racist.

Try and whitewash it all you like, but the fact you're scraping so hard to defend it, despite a wealth of evidence to the contrary and the home Secretary being forced to publicly apologise for the policy, speaks volumes.

https://www.ippr.org/news-and-media/press-releases/hostile-environment-has-fostered-racist-practices-across-society-not-just-by-immigration-officials-says-ippr

Edited by kick it off

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for added spice.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/apr/01/no-10-race-adviser-resigns-day-after-uk-structural-racism-report-published

"The 258-page report from the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities said the term “structural racism” was “too liberally used” and that factors such as socio-economic background, culture and religion have a “more significant impact on life chances”.

Shortly after the report’s publication the government admitted that a “considerable number” of people giving evidence – particularly from ethnic minorities – had in fact told the commission that structural racism was a real problem."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, kick it off said:

The hostile environment policy was specifically racist. Again, using Google, you can find the report that explicitly states that not only is it racist, it also contributed to fostering and embedding racism across society. Whether it was motivated by racism is immaterial, it created various racist practices at an institutional level and is therefore racist.

Try and whitewash it all you like, but the fact you're scraping so hard to defend it despite a wealth of evidence to the contrary and the home Secretary being forced to publicly apologise for the policy speaks volumes.

Spot on KIO. It's the standard practice of the bigot to never respond to any of the issues raised but just keep spouting the same lies repetitively in an attempt to distract from the issues. I've raised several questions not one of which he has remotely attempted to answer. The fact that the report described the UK as a role-model in race relations when the Windrush scandal demonstrated just how far racism penetrates to the core of government and society shows just how appallingly biased and lacking in credibility it is. And the fact that it could even suggest that schools should be narrating a positive understanding of the criminal legacy of slavery tells you all you need to know about the motivation of the producers of the report. A report commissioned by a Tory racist, lead by long term deniers of institutional racism. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Just for added spice.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/apr/01/no-10-race-adviser-resigns-day-after-uk-structural-racism-report-published

"The 258-page report from the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities said the term “structural racism” was “too liberally used” and that factors such as socio-economic background, culture and religion have a “more significant impact on life chances”.

Shortly after the report’s publication the government admitted that a “considerable number” of people giving evidence – particularly from ethnic minorities – had in fact told the commission that structural racism was a real problem."

 

Indeed, but according to the clearly non-bigoted individual who began this thread such claims are merely "vague" and "meaningless". No doubt that's why they left out lots of evidence from people who had the audacity to recount their actual experiences. Not that dismissal of the significance of those experiences could be characterised as a prima facie example of institutionalised racism of course. I mean, it's not as if there is a whole body of evidence showing that the criminal deportation of Windrush generation people continued against  a background of those people being ignored as they screamed out the injustices being perpetrated against them.

Obviously we should recognise that the claim that "structural racism is too liberally used" has far greater clarity and precision than the actual experiences of real people. And who could possibly think that inequalities in socio-economic status, culture, and religion might actually have their origins in racist  attitudes towards the ethnic minorities who disproportionately find themselves populating these groups. Pure coincidence no doubt, as the authors of the report had long before its commission told us structural racism doesn't exist, so clearly it couldn't be that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, kick it off said:

The hostile environment policy was specifically racist. Again, using Google, you can find the report that explicitly states that not only is it racist, it also contributed to fostering and embedding racism across society. Whether it was motivated by racism is immaterial, it created various racist practices at an institutional level in addition to supporting and strengthening racism in society, and is therefore racist.

Try and whitewash it all you like, but the fact you're scraping so hard to defend it, despite a wealth of evidence to the contrary and the home Secretary being forced to publicly apologise for the policy, speaks volumes.

https://www.ippr.org/news-and-media/press-releases/hostile-environment-has-fostered-racist-practices-across-society-not-just-by-immigration-officials-says-ippr

Why is it racist to clamp down on illegal immigration? Surely that’s one of the jobs of the immigration services and the Home Office to effectively police who should and shouldn’t be in the country? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Just for added spice.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/apr/01/no-10-race-adviser-resigns-day-after-uk-structural-racism-report-published

"The 258-page report from the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities said the term “structural racism” was “too liberally used” and that factors such as socio-economic background, culture and religion have a “more significant impact on life chances”.

Shortly after the report’s publication the government admitted that a “considerable number” of people giving evidence – particularly from ethnic minorities – had in fact told the commission that structural racism was a real problem."

 

What form does this structural racism take? What laws would you say are racist and need to be changed? If there are no examples of this structural racism then surely it’s just hearsay? 
Just because people think something is happening doesn’t make it so. Without any supporting evidence then it’s merely an opinion, not something to base government policy on 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Your standard idiotic reply refusing to address any of the issues raised.

Which issues haven’t I addressed? List them without your usual pathetic insults and I’ll answer them 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can carry on promoting the message but hardly any of us have any faith in the messenger so it is wasted energy on your behalf Fen. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see racial hatred being stirred up here everyday by Mad Moy, but sadly he is only repeating the words of the Government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Fen Canary said:

What form does this structural racism take? What laws would you say are racist and need to be changed? If there are no examples of this structural racism then surely it’s just hearsay? 
Just because people think something is happening doesn’t make it so. Without any supporting evidence then it’s merely an opinion, not something to base government policy on 

I always think one of the most informative studies is job applications when the names (and gender) of the applicant are randomized.

All of a sudden the Mohamed's & Sam's get more job offers based on merit. Clearly there is some form of (structural / institutional) racism involved.

Whereas I would agree that 'socio-economic background, culture and religion have a “more significant impact on life chances" these are in themselves often because of that very racism that holds certain sections of society in place. Whereas if you are white working class poor you know if you work / study hard and make yourself presentable (not every other word a f-word etc.) you can achieve almost anything yet its very difficult for others to disguise their skin tone or ethnicity (nor should they need too !).

The report is useful but frankly has been spun by the usual political suspects to emphasize the wrong points and deemphasize those that it should make.  So yes - a missed opportunity and one that will be quietly forgotten. 

Edited by Yellow Fever
Ever wondered why many of an Eastern European Jewish background anglicized their surnames in the past ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't look very good if you publish a report and spin it in such a way that your advisor on race decides to resign.

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The arguments around racism have been hammered on this site and I don't think that either view has been altered.

I know my views, know my intentions and know who opposes them so I have given up being involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Fen may like to read historian Stephen Bourne and his views on the whole shoddy episode. 

Edited by Herman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has a feeling of a very hot potato about it, social distancing on a grand scale, not unsurprisingly by those who seem to appear in the acknowledgements but say they had no involvement whatsoever. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...