Racism Report

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

2 hours ago, Well b back said:

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

This is such a lazy and uniformed comment. The government consists of people from minority groups, from the lowliest assistant clerk right through to the cabinet. In your view all these people are racist despite being from minority groups. 

[Barbe bleu 826]

15 hours ago, Bill said:

bring back bagster or even barbie boy blue 🤪

 

ps best not to bite

I've had to report this I am afraid.

 I have no wish to be linked to anything others may say on this matter or on any other thread.   Please do not bring me into any discussion 'by association'.  If this continues I will press very strongly for whoever does  it to be permanently banned.

I fully appreciate that we have all, myself included, had a bit of a laugh in making links such as these but the areas under discussion  now are far too sensitive for this to happen without evidence.

[Van wink 2,994]

20 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

I've had to report this I am afraid.

 I have no wish to be linked to anything others may say on this matter or on any other thread.   Please do not bring me into any discussion 'by association'.  If this continues I will press very strongly for whoever does  it to be permanently banned.

I fully appreciate that we have all, myself included, had a bit of a laugh in making links such as these but the areas under discussion  now are far too sensitive for this to happen without evidence.

I dont blame you, he has other accounts which are more reasoned and add to the debate, the Bill account seems to be aimed at quashing and abusing posters with an opposing view which adds nothing to the discussion. All it does is put off posters who have an opposing view, but thats probably what he wants. 

[sonyc 5,518]

27 minutes ago, Van wink said:

I dont blame you, he has other accounts which are more reasoned and add to the debate, the Bill account seems to be aimed at quashing and abusing posters with an opposing view which adds nothing to the discussion. All it does is put off posters who have an opposing view, but thats probably what he wants. 

I'm convinced more than I have been for some time that there are a few posters with multiple accounts (identities) who recycle similar tropes and views. Sometimes, the aim is purely to cause outrage. It's interesting trying to navigate for sure but ultimately rather depressing, especially when posters remove themselves from debates. I'm sure this latter thing happens. Debate gets 'thinner' as a result. 

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

1 hour ago, sonyc said:

I'm convinced more than I have been for some time that there are a few posters with multiple accounts (identities) who recycle similar tropes and views. Sometimes, the aim is purely to cause outrage. It's interesting trying to navigate for sure but ultimately rather depressing, especially when posters remove themselves from debates. I'm sure this latter thing happens. Debate gets 'thinner' as a result. 

Totally agreed. Makes me wonder what kind of monitoring is done on new accounts. Paradoxically, it's better that such information is not broadcast as it gives those with a bent of circumventing rules the power to get around them.

[Herman 9,765]

I am Jools and I claim my £5. Lefty scum.😀

 

Anyway here's a good opinion piece on the whole debacle.

https://www.politics.co.uk/comment/2021/04/01/week-in-review-the-national-gaslight/

[Yellow Fever 3,783]

40 minutes ago, Herman said:

I am Jools and I claim my £5. Lefty scum.😀

 

Anyway here's a good opinion piece on the whole debacle.

https://www.politics.co.uk/comment/2021/04/01/week-in-review-the-national-gaslight/

A think this is very fair assessment of the report and indeed an insight into this tribal government.

[Herman 9,765]

3 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

A think this is very fair assessment of the report and indeed an insight into this tribal government.

It does seem they'd rather we argue and divide even further than actually tackle any problems. A nastier version of May's kicking the can down the road.

[Fen Canary 823]

7 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

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. 

I’ll agree that blind CVs would probably be a good thing. I don’t doubt that in a country nearing a population of 70m there are some individual people who hold some racist views, so blind CVs would be a good way of preventing them from discarding out job applications according to their own prejudices. However unless it’s within the law, which it isn’t, or company policy to bin applications with non white sounding names then to me that isn’t structural racism, it’s merely the prejudice of individuals.

I disagree with your point regarding social mobility though, I believe that’s all but disappeared in this country for all races. In something like over 80% of cases a child born to poor parents will earn less over the course of their lives compared to those born to well off parents. A poor white kid growing up on a council estate in Lowestoft will have far fewer opportunities in life than a rich black kid growing up in the wealthier parts of West London, which is what the report states. People’s class and wealth play a much bigger role in where people end up than their race does. 

[Fen Canary 823]

7 hours ago, A Load of Squit said:

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.

 

Ignoring of course that he first tendered his resignation in February 

[horsefly 4,300]

Just now, Fen Canary said:

Ignoring of course that he first tendered his resignation in February 

And what reason did he give for tendering his resignation in February?

[Fen Canary 823]

5 hours ago, Van wink said:

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. 

Apparently he gave a presentation on the matter of race in this country, and parts of it were used in the report. I’m not sure on the rights and wrongs of report writing but I’d imagine it’s  fairly common practice to list the sources of your information when researching a matter? 

[Fen Canary 823]

5 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

I've had to report this I am afraid.

 I have no wish to be linked to anything others may say on this matter or on any other thread.   Please do not bring me into any discussion 'by association'.  If this continues I will press very strongly for whoever does  it to be permanently banned.

I fully appreciate that we have all, myself included, had a bit of a laugh in making links such as these but the areas under discussion  now are far too sensitive for this to happen without evidence.

Race is a sensitive subject, but that doesn’t mean it should be off limits. The accusations of racism have been used for too long to try and shut down any sensible discussion on the matter. It first came to my attention under Blair and the immigration debates, but has seemingly now morphed into something thrown at anybody who doesn’t agree with what the “woke” (for want if a better word) believe. You simply have to see how many times Horsefly has called me bigoted on this thread alone despite no racist posts by any poster to see how widespread it’s use has become amongst the young 

[Van wink 2,994]

8 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

Apparently he gave a presentation on the matter of race in this country, and parts of it were used in the report. I’m not sure on the rights and wrongs of report writing but I’d imagine it’s  fairly common practice to list the sources of your information when researching a matter? 

S I Martin?

[Herman 9,765]

 

[Fen Canary 823]

1 minute ago, Van wink said:

S I Martin?

Again, maybe they used examples in his literature or interviews he has done as a source of their information. You’d have to ask the authors of the report why his name has been included. Not having ever written a report such as this I’ll admit to being fairly clueless as to how you name your sources of information 

[Van wink 2,994]

1 minute ago, Fen Canary said:

Again, maybe they used examples in his literature or interviews he has done as a source of their information. You’d have to ask the authors of the report why his name has been included. Not having ever written a report such as this I’ll admit to being fairly clueless as to how you name your sources of information 

I don't need to ask because I know, he was invited to an event and didn't attend but because his name was on the list of invitees he was included as a name in the report. A desperate attempt to gain some credibility by association. 

[Fen Canary 823]

10 minutes ago, Van wink said:

I don't need to ask because I know, he was invited to an event and didn't attend but because his name was on the list of invitees he was included as a name in the report. A desperate attempt to gain some credibility by association. 

If that’s the case then his name shouldn’t be on there. It’s a mistake at best and a lie at worst 

[sonyc 5,518]

4 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

If that’s the case then his name shouldn’t be on there. It’s a mistake at best and a lie at worst 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/race-report-boris-johnson-authors-b1825516.html

 

[Fen Canary 823]

24 minutes ago, sonyc said:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/race-report-boris-johnson-authors-b1825516.html

 

Those two have already been discussed above. 

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

26 minutes ago, sonyc said:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/race-report-boris-johnson-authors-b1825516.html

 

Probably why they decided to smuggle it in without full scrutiny, as Full Fact noted.

[sonyc 5,518]

3 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Probably why they decided to smuggle it in without full scrutiny, as Full Fact noted.

Agreed.

One thing is for sure.. Jennifer Acuri is now off the front page

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

2 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

A think this is very fair assessment of the report and indeed an insight into this tribal government.

Of course, the more people are divided amongst each other rather than demanding genuine, far-reaching reform of our political system, the easier it is for them to rule.

[horsefly 4,300]

11 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

Race is a sensitive subject, but that doesn’t mean it should be off limits. The accusations of racism have been used for too long to try and shut down any sensible discussion on the matter. It first came to my attention under Blair and the immigration debates, but has seemingly now morphed into something thrown at anybody who doesn’t agree with what the “woke” (for want if a better word) believe. You simply have to see how many times Horsefly has called me bigoted on this thread alone despite no racist posts by any poster to see how widespread it’s use has become amongst the young 

You have not attempted to engage in any form of sensible discussion about racism, all you have done is repeat the same old right wing tropes (that is bigoted behaviour). The fact you simply deny that there is any such thing as institutional racism is precisely why you are being called out as racist. There is copious evidence both from first-hand experiences and statistical data which you patronisingly dismiss as "vague" or "meaningless" (that is bigoted behaviour).  You failed to respond to any of the questions put forward: for example regarding the Windrush scandal, or the disparity between ethnic minority educational achievement and succesfull job applications, or the appointment of individuals to the commission who had already denied the existence of institutional racism, or the attempt to rewrite the history of the slave trade in more positive terms, or the exclusion from the report of many contributors who claimed institutional racism is a real problem (that is bigoted behaviour). 

No wonder Stephen Bourne has said he is horrified to have his name connected to the report, none of which he endorses in any degree. Indeed many other academics named as "stakeholders have likewise claimed the report is utterly misleading and unrepresentative; including SL Martin who expressed deep, "concerns that my name would be attached to such a shameful document and used in such a way as veneer to give some sort of respectability to the report" https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/experts-cited-in-no-10-s-race-report-claim-they-were-not-properly-consulted/ar-BB1fdgLr?ocid=msedgntp. He also pointed out that the Commission had never even contacted him despite being named as a stakeholder on the report. I suggest you read the above link to see how the authority of the report is being trashed by academics and experts from across many fields. They include professor of psychiatry Kamaldeep Bhui (Oxford University) cited in the report but who described it thus “My view is that it’s really poor scholarship and really poor chairmanship and interpretation...There are nuances, that’s no question. This is a difficult topic, but to be so ignorant of what institutional racism means is quite extraordinary."

And finally let's answer the question that you have refused to answer regarding the resignation of Samuel Kasumu. He did indeed indeed offer his resignation in February, but you seem conveniently unwilling to say why he did so. It was because he felt the government was "pushing politics steeped in division” https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/samuel-kasumu-boris-johnson-black-adviser-resigns-race-report-gaslighting-row-938521. Perhaps the timing of his resignation to coincide with the publication of the report isn't quite the coincidence the government would like the gullible to swallow.

Instead of engaging in the "woke" whining of so many right-wing reactionaries who don't want to engage with the realities of people's lives different from their own, perhaps you might just do a bit of research and see what is actually being said by experts in the field. 

 

 

 

[Van wink 2,994]

7 minutes ago, horsefly said:

You have not attempted to engage in any form of sensible discussion about racism, all you have done is repeat the same old right wing tropes (that is bigoted behaviour). The fact you simply deny that there is any such thing as institutional racism is precisely why you are being called out as racist. There is copious evidence both from first-hand experiences and statistical data which you patronisingly dismiss as "vague" or "meaningless" (that is bigoted behaviour).  You failed to respond to any of the questions put forward: for example regarding the Windrush scandal, or the disparity between ethnic minority educational achievement and succesfull job applications, or the appointment of individuals to the commission who had already denied the existence of institutional racism, or the attempt to rewrite the history of the slave trade in more positive terms, or the exclusion from the report of many contributors who claimed institutional racism is a real problem (that is bigoted behaviour). 

No wonder Stephen Bourne has said he is horrified to have his name connected to the report, none of which he endorses in any degree. Indeed many other academics named as "stakeholders have likewise claimed the report is utterly misleading and unrepresentative; including SL Martin who expressed deep, "concerns that my name would be attached to such a shameful document and used in such a way as veneer to give some sort of respectability to the report" https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/experts-cited-in-no-10-s-race-report-claim-they-were-not-properly-consulted/ar-BB1fdgLr?ocid=msedgntp. He also pointed out that the Commission had never even contacted him despite being named as a stakeholder on the report. I suggest you read the above link to see how the authority of the report is being trashed by academics and experts from across many fields. They include professor of psychiatry Kamaldeep Bhui (Oxford University) cited in the report but who described it thus “My view is that it’s really poor scholarship and really poor chairmanship and interpretation...There are nuances, that’s no question. This is a difficult topic, but to be so ignorant of what institutional racism means is quite extraordinary."

And finally let's answer the question that you have refused to answer regarding the resignation of Samuel Kasumu. He did indeed indeed offer his resignation in February, but you seem conveniently unwilling to say why he did so. It was because he felt the government was "pushing politics steeped in division” https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/samuel-kasumu-boris-johnson-black-adviser-resigns-race-report-gaslighting-row-938521. Perhaps the timing of his resignation to coincide with the publication of the report isn't quite the coincidence the government would like the gullible to swallow.

Instead of engaging in the "woke" whining of so many right-wing reactionaries who don't want to engage with the realities of people's lives different from their own, perhaps you might just do a bit of research and see what is actually being said by experts in the field. 

 

 

 

If you keep calling him a bigot and a racist I'm not surprised if he doesn't engage with you. 

[Yellow Fever 3,783]

1 hour ago, Fen Canary said:

Apparently he gave a presentation on the matter of race in this country, and parts of it were used in the report. I’m not sure on the rights and wrongs of report writing but I’d imagine it’s  fairly common practice to list the sources of your information when researching a matter? 

A list of references is easy to incorporate into any report or academic paper. You can reference whatever you like without inferring it's right or wrong. This isn't what was done here it appears for reasons which are all too obvious and partisan.

[horsefly 4,300]

2 minutes ago, Van wink said:

If you keep calling him a bigot and a racist I'm not surprised if he doesn't engage with you. 

On every thread he has behaved the same way (especially the male violence thread). He clearly has no intention of debating any issue, merely pushing the right-wing views he is obviously very comfortable with (I suggest you read the male violence thread to see his obstinate refusal to even consider a different viewpoint). And yet again all we get in response to the genuine questions and points being raised is his standard tactic of calling the opposing views "woke" or using patronising dismissal as a way of distracting from his unwillingness or inability to answer. Frankly, given his past posts I have no expectation that he would even remotely attempt to respond to the issues being raised. So that leaves me with little else to do but to point out the bigotry and racism that lies behind such an attitude (because that is exactly what it is when you refuse to acknowledge the lived experience of real people who have found themselves victims of systematic prejudice).

There is already an enormous amount of literature on the net responding to the seriously flawed nature and failings of this report coming from highly respected academics and experts, including those cited in the report itself. He could read and resond to that literature, but already he has dismissed it.

 

[Herman 9,765]

46 minutes ago, sonyc said:

Agreed.

One thing is for sure.. Jennifer Acuri is now off the front page

Yes, it's very Trumpian. Always keeping us busy so we don't focus on what they are up to. Coldwar Steve came up with a perfect collage earlier on.

 

[Barbe bleu 826]

1 hour ago, Fen Canary said:

Race is a sensitive subject, but that doesn’t mean it should be off limits.

FC I am not criticising you for starting this thread. Whatever one's views there is no doubt that there is a national debate ongoing.

But much as I respect your decision to start a discussion I would like my right to stay out of it respected. I have commented only because one person on here has wrongly ascribed your views to me.  I object to that, and I would object to the same being done in relation to anyone else on here, whatever 'opinion group' they belong to.

I make no comment on the actual points at issue here. 

I have reported every message in which my name is mentioned in the hope and expectation  that they will get taken down. I will report this, my own, message too.

Pleae.dont take this as a criticism of you or anyone else but please don't reply, it will only lead to more reports! 😀

Edited April 1, 2021 by Barbe bleu

[Barbe bleu 826]

.

Edited April 1, 2021 by Barbe bleu