Racism Report

[Fen Canary 869]

39 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. 

 

 

 

As I’ve said, firstly stop being childish and labelling anybody who has a different point of view as bigoted and I’ll try to answer your points. Secondly please explain what you mean by structural racism? The name to me implies that there are laws, rules and protocols in place with the aim of suppressing non white British citizens in work and society. If that’s the case which laws and rules would you change in order to give all ethnicities equal opportunities?

Finally do you believe these perceived barriers are more important than wealth and class when discussing life opportunities? 

[Van wink 2,994]

11 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

As I’ve said, firstly stop being childish and labelling anybody who has a different point of view as bigoted and I’ll try to answer your points. Secondly please explain what you mean by structural racism? The name to me implies that there are laws, rules and protocols in place with the aim of suppressing non white British citizens in work and society. If that’s the case which laws and rules would you change in order to give all ethnicities equal opportunities?

Finally do you believe these perceived barriers are more important than wealth and class when discussing life opportunities? 

I dont think he said "structural" racism, he said institutional racism which is a pretty well understood concept, as Im sure you are aware, have a look at the Stephen Lawrence report, that should explain if you really dont know

[Fen Canary 869]

4 hours 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/

I must say that opinion piece adds absolutely nothing to the argument. It attacks the government for trying to increase the uptake of the vaccine amongst the black community, agrees with the report that for historical reasons some members of that community are reluctant to trust authorities, but describes nothing about what structural racism actually is. It lambasts those who question its existence, yet offers no explanation of what it is, what it looks like and how it should be challenged.

We all know that some people hold racist views, in a country as large and diverse as ours unfortunately that’s always going to happen, but I believe it’s a tiny minority. It’s a long way removed from believing that this countries laws and institutions actively discriminate against non white Brits

[sonyc 5,541]

35 minutes ago, Herman said:

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.

 

I've never forgotten his quote from a few years ago as his modus operandi...it told me a lot about his character and wasn't to be trusted. It was of course funny but certainly quite cynical (or sinister?). It's amazing when things get tough (and we've seen lots of those times recently) how something outrageous arrives in the media.

 

 

[Fen Canary 869]

1 minute ago, Van wink said:

I dont think he said "structural" racism, he said institutional racism which is a pretty well understood concept, as Im sure you are aware, have a look at the Stephen Lawrence report, that should explain if you really dont know

I’ve seen the two words used fairly interchangeably, especially since the summer. OK which rules and laws what would you change to combat any perceived institutional racism in our society?

[sonyc 5,541]

1 minute ago, Fen Canary said:

I’ve seen the two words used fairly interchangeably, especially since the summer. OK which rules and laws what would you change to combat any perceived institutional racism in our society?

There's overt and covert racism. You can legislate for the former more directly and it's very difficult to do for the latter (precisely because it's often hidden, buried even).

Institutional racism is the covert type. If you've worked for any length of time (in most spheres of life) you'll have been able to realise it exists surely? Maybe it's difficult for some to see something when you're in it. Of course it is. Yet...Even knowing about it you take measures if you are a recruiter, you take steps if you are a leader, you make sure folk are trained and there is ongoing occupational training. But it's organisational, societal isn't it? Bigger than us as individuals or even groups of us. 

It's about behaviours, cultures, education, conditioning. I don't think you can change the 'rules' for that. It's very complex isn't it.

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

1 hour 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. 

 

 

 

Of course there is no such thing as institutional racism. The institutions, and you have not described which institutions you are talking about, all include people from different minority groups, from the the very bottom to the very top. Perhaps the most important institution of all, Parliament, is represented by persons of all sorts of cultures, creeds, class and religions. Institutions can only be regarded as racist if those minority groups working within those institutions are somehow complicit with racist practices, which is a ridiculous and patronising assumption that lacks any evidence whatsoever. It is somewhat ironic that you choose to quote from a Mr. Khamaldeep Bhui (Oxford University) who seems to be doing very well in an apparently racist environment. 

You mention the disparity in educational achievement between ethnic groups but fail to note that both people from Asian and Indian origins are the most successful groups for successful attainment. If you read the report you will find that even among those described as Black, those from African origins also outperform those described as White, while those from Caribbean origins fare much worst, while those with Pakistani origins fare the worst of all. Therefore not only is it proven that dividing educational achievement along racial groups is wrong, it is even wrong when you compare African Blacks with Caribbean Blacks or Pakistani vs Indian and discover diverse outcomes.

Different outcomes for diverse racial groups is not confined to education either. In the world of work, both Indians, Chinese and Other ethnic groups all achieve higher hourly income rates than White groups while Pakistani and Bangladeshi groups are at the bottom of the league table. 

This country has a race-relations industry that provides well paid employment and privileges to many, so it is good to see that this report has shaken the tree to see what has fallen out. And if it manages to flush out a few more like Mr. Kasumu, then all the better. For example, Mr. Clive Lewis, MP for Norwich South has today tweeted a picture of a Ku Klux Klansman in response to this report (written overwhelmingly by people from minority backgrounds), forgetting perhaps that Jeremy Corbyn's 2015 leadership contest victory was welcomed by none other than David Duke, KKK Grand Wizard at the time. Let's see how many others crawl from out of their rock.

So yes, this report will upset many of those supping at the trough and are very happy to see the continuation of poverty and misery for large sections of this country. But by listening to people like the authors of this report, people who have connections to real people then hopefully this report may be the beginning of a sea-change in the social administration of the nation.

 

[Yellow Fever 3,839]

Worth looking up the term structural racism. It' the same as societal and is a catch all for all sorts of cultural and subtle attitudes which I think most of us grasp. It does not imply overtly racist laws but more inbuilt dare I say inbred largely unnoticed personal and societal biases.

[Herman 9,829]

20 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

I must say that opinion piece adds absolutely nothing to the argument. It attacks the government for trying to increase the uptake of the vaccine amongst the black community, agrees with the report that for historical reasons some members of that community are reluctant to trust authorities, but describes nothing about what structural racism actually is. It lambasts those who question its existence, yet offers no explanation of what it is, what it looks like and how it should be challenged.

We all know that some people hold racist views, in a country as large and diverse as ours unfortunately that’s always going to happen, but I believe it’s a tiny minority. It’s a long way removed from believing that this countries laws and institutions actively discriminate against non white Brits

Maybe try reading it. He explains what the government and you are trying to do.

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

12 minutes ago, sonyc said:

There's overt and covert racism. You can legislate for the former more directly and it's very difficult to do for the latter (precisely because it's often hidden, buried even).

Institutional racism is the covert type. If you've worked for any length of time (in most spheres of life) you'll have been able to realise it exists surely? Maybe it's difficult for some to see something when you're in it. Of course it is. Yet...Even knowing about it you take measures if you are a recruiter, you take steps if you are a leader, you make sure folk are trained and there is ongoing occupational training. But it's organisational, societal isn't it? Bigger than us as individuals or even groups of us. 

It's about behaviours, cultures, education, conditioning. I don't think you can change the 'rules' for that. It's very complex isn't it.

There is only individual racism. Sometimes those individuals are powerful and it may seem like the institution has a structural racism when it is actually the individuals within it. The only organisation I can think of (off the top of my head) that might have structural racism is the Association of Black Police Officers.

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

7 minutes ago, Herman said:

Maybe try reading it. He explains what the government and you are trying to do.

Hopefully, the government will succeed.

[Christoph Stiepermann 1,153]

All prejudice in this country is based on social status and class. There is no institutional racism in terms of business except for at the very top which is, has and always will be an old boys club. It just so happens that due to starting off as first generation immigrants or living in economically deprived areas that many minority families find themselves working class so they face prejudice from the police/ employers/ the government etc. 

This is the basis for why people think racism is still an issue in society but in reality poor, working class white people face the same problems in life. This is an inconvenient truth for many people, people who are doing well for themselves or got a good break in life don't like to feel like they're part of the problem so when they see oppressed people they look for easy, simple answers like it must be racism or something when in reality the problem is classism. 

 

You're an employer. who are you going to hire? The lower class, chavvy white guy or the well spoken, middle class BAME guy who turns up to an interview well dressed? You're a Police officer on duty, you're looking out for people to search, do you look for people wearing tracksuits, who look chavvy or people well dressed and groomed who may be black or another ethnic group?

 

I fully expect to get criticized for this post because what I've said is really not a popular, trendy thing to say. It's much easier and simpler to think that the government and police forces are all racist (some of them are of course) people nowdays always look for easy answers and when a study like this doesn't confirm their black and white, simplistic view of the world they lash out and say the it must be wrong. 

 

[Fen Canary 869]

28 minutes ago, sonyc said:

There's overt and covert racism. You can legislate for the former more directly and it's very difficult to do for the latter (precisely because it's often hidden, buried even).

Institutional racism is the covert type. If you've worked for any length of time (in most spheres of life) you'll have been able to realise it exists surely? Maybe it's difficult for some to see something when you're in it. Of course it is. Yet...Even knowing about it you take measures if you are a recruiter, you take steps if you are a leader, you make sure folk are trained and there is ongoing occupational training. But it's organisational, societal isn't it? Bigger than us as individuals or even groups of us. 

It's about behaviours, cultures, education, conditioning. I don't think you can change the 'rules' for that. It's very complex isn't it.

The implicit bias training which I’m guessing you’re referring to has been proven to do absolutely nothing, any supposed science behind it has been proven time and again to be false. Firstly the results aren’t replicated even by the same people taking the same tests on consecutive days, and secondly even it’s objectives aren’t verifiable. If unconscious bias does exist (which by its nature is impossible to prove or disprove, which is why it is a favourite and a good earner of the race relations industry) it has been shown that it doesn’t actually affect the way people interact with each other. If unconscious bias does exist, our conscious thought overwhelmingly overpowers it.

I can’t say I’ve ever come across covert institutional racism in my working life. Could you provide examples? 

[Fen Canary 869]

5 minutes ago, Christoph Stiepermann said:

All prejudice in this country is based on social status and class. There is no institutional racism in terms of business except for at the very top which is, has and always will be an old boys club. It just so happens that due to starting off as first generation immigrants or living in economically deprived areas that many minority families find themselves working class so they face prejudice from the police/ employers/ the government etc. 

This is the basis for why people think racism is still an issue in society but in reality poor, working class white people face the same problems in life. This is an inconvenient truth for many people, people who are doing well for themselves or got a good break in life don't like to feel like they're part of the problem so when they see oppressed people they look for easy, simple answers like it must be racism or something when in reality the problem is classism. 

 

You're an employer. who are you going to hire? The lower class, chavvy white guy or the well spoken, middle class BAME guy who turns up to an interview well dressed? You're a Police officer on duty, you're looking out for people to search, do you look for people wearing tracksuits, who look chavvy or people well dressed and groomed who may be black or another ethnic group?

 

I fully expect to get criticized for this post because what I've said is really not a popular, trendy thing to say. It's much easier and simpler to think that the government and police forces are all racist (some of them are of course) people nowdays always look for easy answers and when a study like this doesn't confirm their black and white, simplistic view of the world they lash out and say the it must be wrong. 

 

I agree, wealth and class are the dividing lines in our society much more so than race ever will be. I personally have much more in common with the black brickie on site than I have with many of the white middle class posters on this forum for instance 

[sonyc 5,541]

9 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

The implicit bias training which I’m guessing you’re referring to has been proven to do absolutely nothing, any supposed science behind it has been proven time and again to be false. Firstly the results aren’t replicated even by the same people taking the same tests on consecutive days, and secondly even it’s objectives aren’t verifiable. If unconscious bias does exist (which by its nature is impossible to prove or disprove, which is why it is a favourite and a good earner of the race relations industry) it has been shown that it doesn’t actually affect the way people interact with each other. If unconscious bias does exist, our conscious thought overwhelmingly overpowers it.

I can’t say I’ve ever come across covert institutional racism in my working life. Could you provide examples? 

Best source is the McPherson Inquiry report. It has a strongly worded and clear description and definition of institutional racism.

[horsefly 4,318]

8 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

Of course there is no such thing as institutional racism. The institutions, and you have not described which institutions you are talking about, all include people from different minority groups, from the the very bottom to the very top. Perhaps the most important institution of all, Parliament, is represented by persons of all sorts of cultures, creeds, class and religions. Institutions can only be regarded as racist if those minority groups working within those institutions are somehow complicit with racist practices, which is a ridiculous and patronising assumption that lacks any evidence whatsoever. It is somewhat ironic that you choose to quote from a Mr. Khamaldeep Bhui (Oxford University) who seems to be doing very well in an apparently racist environment. 

Utter piffle! An astonshing display of ignorance and multiple non sequiturs. The claim that "Institutions can only be regarded as racist if those minority groups working within those institutions are somehow complicit with racist practices, which is a ridiculous and patronising assumption that lacks any evidence whatsoever." is one of the most ridiculous things anyone has ever posted on this site. Tell that to the black people who worked under the apartheid regime in South Africa. People typically work out of the necessity to make a living, to suggest they must of necessity therefore be complicit in their own victimisation, wherever that occurs, is both absurd and disgraceful. It is also patently absurd to describe it as "ironic" to quote professor Kamaldeep Bhui (not "a mr Khamaldeep Bhui") because he happens to have "done well for himself". What sort of buffoon concludes that racism is not possible if we can find evidence that someone from an ethnic minority background has done well for himself? Perhaps you should read what he has to say instead of misspelling his name and purposely refusing to give him the title he has earned.

37 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

You mention the disparity in educational achievement between ethnic groups but fail to note that both people from Asian and Indian origins are the most successful groups for successful attainment. If you read the report you will find that even among those described as Black, those from African origins also outperform those described as White, while those from Caribbean origins fare much worst, while those with Pakistani origins fare the worst of all. Therefore not only is it proven that dividing educational achievement along racial groups is wrong, it is even wrong when you compare African Blacks with Caribbean Blacks or Pakistani vs Indian and discover diverse outcomes.

This shows you have failed to read or understand what I said, so of course you completely miss the point. The point is that despite the fact that some ethnic minority groups surpass the educational achievement of some white student groups this is not translated into similar success in job applications. It's a very easy point to understand, but as is typical of your posts you completely fail or refuse to understand it.

 

46 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

This country has a race-relations industry that provides well paid employment and privileges to many, so it is good to see that this report has shaken the tree to see what has fallen out. And if it manages to flush out a few more like Mr. Kasumu, then all the better.

A perfect example of bigotry and racism. I needn't say more, but feel free to explain why you feel the need to talk in terms of "flushing" people out who have expressed deep concerns with the "divisive nature of the politics" being "pushed" by the current government.

 

[Fen Canary 869]

47 minutes ago, Herman said:

Maybe try reading it. He explains what the government and you are trying to do.

Debase the whole institutional racism argument using facts, figures and statistics? 

[sonyc 5,541]

11 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

I agree, wealth and class are the dividing lines in our society much more so than race ever will be. I personally have much more in common with the black brickie on site than I have with many of the white middle class posters on this forum for instance 

Aye.. tell him institutional racism doesn't exist. He is bound to agree given you've got a lot in common. And tell him that you know more than the combined minds that produced the Mcpherson report and studied the Lawrence tragedy let alone the "middle class white" pinkun saddo's who know nothing. I guess I now know my place anyway as a poster (but am I white or middle class?).

[Fen Canary 869]

49 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Worth looking up the term structural racism. It' the same as societal and is a catch all for all sorts of cultural and subtle attitudes which I think most of us grasp. It does not imply overtly racist laws but more inbuilt dare I say inbred largely unnoticed personal and societal biases.

So impossible to prove or disprove? With no measurable effects that can be counted or actions that can be taken to fix the issue? I must say that’s extremely handy for the many organisations making a lot of money from its claimed existence 

[horsefly 4,318]

Just now, sonyc said:

Aye.. tell him institutional racism doesn't exist. He is bound to agree given you've got a lot in common. And tell him that you know more than the combined minds that produced the Mcpherson report and studied the Lawrence tragedy let alone the "middle class white" pinkun saddo's who know nothing. I guess I now know my place anyway as a poster (but am I white or middle class?).

Alas we're wasting our time. There is absolutely no will to investigate the massive amount of literature available on these issues, or simply listen to the life experiences of millions of people with which we share the country and planet.

[horsefly 4,318]

4 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

So impossible to prove or disprove? With no measurable effects that can be counted or actions that can be taken to fix the issue? I must say that’s extremely handy for the many organisations making a lot of money from its claimed existence 

You clearly haven't read a word of the available literature that explains what institutionalised racism is, and which provides enormous amounts of evidence for its existence. Perhaps start with reading some of that. Indeed why not start with Sonyc's suggestion and read the Macpherson report and then explain to us where he got things so badly wrong. If that proves a little bit too taxing for you perhaps try watching this documentary https://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-black-maternity-scandal-dispatches then explain to us how this doesn't show a very clear case of institutionalised racism.

[sonyc 5,541]

4 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Alas we're wasting our time. There is absolutely no will to investigate the massive amount of literature available on these issues, or simply listen to the life experiences of millions of people with which we share the country and planet.

I would agree. Yet the one good thing is that it sharpens your own understanding by reading others' experiences and reports. It has been many years since I even looked at McPherson.

I guess that's what the world is like. And the pinkun is a microcosm of all views.  I think it's a waste of time trying to find agreement generally. When you get patronising or insulting statements it tells you someone has given up on an issue ...for me then its time to do something else. Plenty of interesting other threads too.

And it's not like this is a hill one wants to die on. No harm in not winning an argument anyway or keeping up a tired defence. 

[Bill 1,788]

46 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

I agree, wealth and class are the dividing lines in our society much more so than race ever will be. I personally have much more in common with the black brickie on site than I have with many of the white middle class posters on this forum for instance 

what next ?

some of your best friends are drill artists ?

[Fen Canary 869]

2 minutes ago, sonyc said:

I would agree. Yet the one good thing is that it sharpens your own understanding by reading others' experiences and reports. It has been many years since I even looked at McPherson.

I guess that's what the world is like. And the pinkun is a microcosm of all views.  I think it's a waste of time trying to find agreement generally. When you get patronising or insulting statements it tells you someone has given up on an issue ...for me then its time to do something else. Plenty of interesting other threads too.

And it's not like this is a hill one wants to die on. No harm in not winning an argument anyway or keeping up a tired defence. 

The McPherson report was written over twenty years ago, the latest report was written within the last 6 months, yet you seem happy to almost completely disregard that in favour of the one written a generation ago?

All your posts so far seem to have proven exactly what the new report is saying. We’re all supposed to simply believe this type of racism is prevalent in British society, yet when asked for proof none is ever forthcoming.

Ask what laws or rules need changing and we’re told it’s not the rules it’s the attitude of people.

Ask what attitudes and actions are discriminatory and again we’re told it’s unconscious and hidden so you can’t see it.

Ask for measurable figures or statistics so we can see where this discrimination is occurring and we’re told it’s not possible.

We’re supposed to simply take your word for it that something that’s impossible to see, measure or explain exists, and we’re all guilty of it. 

[Fen Canary 869]

5 minutes ago, Bill said:

what next ?

some of your best friends are drill artists ?

I never said he was a friend, I said I had more in common with him than I would have with people such as yourself, despite the differing skin colours

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

27 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Utter piffle! An astonshing display of ignorance and multiple non sequiturs. The claim that "Institutions can only be regarded as racist if those minority groups working within those institutions are somehow complicit with racist practices, which is a ridiculous and patronising assumption that lacks any evidence whatsoever." is one of the most ridiculous things anyone has ever posted on this site. Tell that to the black people who worked under the apartheid regime in South Africa. People typically work out of the necessity to make a living, to suggest they must of necessity therefore be complicit in their own victimisation, wherever that occurs, is both absurd and disgraceful. It is also patently absurd to describe it as "ironic" to quote professor Kamaldeep Bhui (not "a mr Khamaldeep Bhui") because he happens to have "done well for himself". What sort of buffoon concludes that racism is not possible if we can find evidence that someone from an ethnic minority background has done well for himself? Perhaps you should read what he has to say instead of misspelling his name and purposely refusing to give him the title he has earned.

This shows you have failed to read or understand what I said, so of course you completely miss the point. The point is that despite the fact that some ethnic minority groups surpass the educational achievement of some white student groups this is not translated into similar success in job applications. It's a very easy point to understand, but as is typical of your posts you completely fail or refuse to understand it.

Oh I seeeee. It's despite the facts, you believe something that isn't actually true. You say it doesn't translate into similar success in job applications. I proved you were wrong by showing that it actually translates into higher median incomes for the very groups who did better educationally. And what is more, the most successful groups were minority ethnicities. This could not happen if there was institutional racism.

A perfect example of bigotry and racism. I needn't say more, but feel free to explain why you feel the need to talk in terms of "flushing" people out who have expressed deep concerns with the "divisive nature of the politics" being "pushed" by the current government.

We need to flush out those making excellent careers from maintaining the status quo among poor-performing minority groups by painting false pictures of institutional racism as the source of their problems. Until we address the real issues that causes low achievement, poverty, ill-health, broken families we will never begin to fix them. At last we have a report that may become as significant as Beveridge on the Welfare State, Scarman on Brixton Riots or Taylor on Football Stadiums.

 

[Bill 1,788]

what about dualling the A11 ?

or would that be too 'sclerotic', eh RTB

[Fen Canary 869]

23 minutes ago, horsefly said:

You clearly haven't read a word of the available literature that explains what institutionalised racism is, and which provides enormous amounts of evidence for its existence. Perhaps start with reading some of that. Indeed why not start with Sonyc's suggestion and read the Macpherson report and then explain to us where he got things so badly wrong. If that proves a little bit too taxing for you perhaps try watching this documentary https://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-black-maternity-scandal-dispatches then explain to us how this doesn't show a very clear case of institutionalised racism.

I’ve read enough on the matter from various sources to know I don’t agree it exists. Racism exists, that much is blindingly obvious, but I don’t believe it exists structurally/institutionally.

Also why is the fact black ladies are more likely to die in childbirth a clear case of racism? Seeing as almost a quarter of NHS staff are ethnic minority, and a higher percentage again of doctors and nurses are non white it’s a very strange organism to accuse of being racist. Do you not think the fact that black peoples tend to live in poorer areas with more rundown/crowded hospitals play a part? Or that they are less likely to drive, more likely to live in crowded cities, or have partners present to be able to get to the hospital quickly push the risks up slightly? Maybe there are cultural differences we’re not aware of?

Differences in outcomes are affected by many varying factors. Just because in this instance one group performs much worse than another isn’t proof doctors prioritise white patients over black ones.

By your logic I could prove I’ve creams cause people to drown, as on the days more ice creams are sold more people a killed drowning. In reality it’s obvious that more ice creams are sold on hot days, and more people go swimming on hot days hence the increase in both figures.

You’ve done something similar with these figures, simply looked at the differing outcomes and attributed it to racism without looking at any underlying factors, which is exactly what the Sewell report was saying

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

37 minutes ago, horsefly said:

You clearly haven't read a word of the available literature that explains what institutionalised racism is, and which provides enormous amounts of evidence for its existence. Perhaps start with reading some of that. Indeed why not start with Sonyc's suggestion and read the Macpherson report and then explain to us where he got things so badly wrong. If that proves a little bit too taxing for you perhaps try watching this documentary https://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-black-maternity-scandal-dispatches then explain to us how this doesn't show a very clear case of institutionalised racism.

Macpherson did not get things badly wrong, but it was written over twenty years ago and focuses on policing. The Sewell report is wider ranging covering education, employment, policing and health. So it describes a much more detailed picture than the narrow focus of the Macpherson report. It also draws on a diverse range of authors in terms of ethnicity, politics, class and employment. Some of the reviews written for Sewell include:

• The Timpson Review of School Exclusion • The Children’s Commissioner’s ‘Best beginnings in the early years’ report • The McGregor-Smith Review: Race in the Workplace • The Parker Review: Ethnic diversity of UK boards • The Lammy Review: An independent review into the treatment of, and outcomes for, Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic individuals in the Criminal Justice System • The Angiolini Review: Deaths and serious incidents in police custody • The Marmot Review: Fair Society, Healthy Lives • The Wessely Review: Modernising the Mental Health Act

[sonyc 5,541]

12 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

The McPherson report was written over twenty years ago, the latest report was written within the last 6 months, yet you seem happy to almost completely disregard that in favour of the one written a generation ago?

All your posts so far seem to have proven exactly what the new report is saying. We’re all supposed to simply believe this type of racism is prevalent in British society, yet when asked for proof none is ever forthcoming.

Ask what laws or rules need changing and we’re told it’s not the rules it’s the attitude of people.

Ask what attitudes and actions are discriminatory and again we’re told it’s unconscious and hidden so you can’t see it.

Ask for measurable figures or statistics so we can see where this discrimination is occurring and we’re told it’s not possible.

We’re supposed to simply take your word for it that something that’s impossible to see, measure or explain exists, and we’re all guilty of it. 

It's not my word though. It's what you get told by work colleagues, friends let alone reports you read or the research you do (I've spent 40 years in a multi cultural city and at various times the majority of my contacts, acquaintances, friends are from black/ethnic/minority groups). I don't think we have a debate do we? You state it doesn't exist. Class and gender are of course very relevant too, as are skills etc etc.

I hear and listen and get my experiences from my own milieu. We have very different backgrounds and I don't think I am able to give you anything you'd accept. I can't give you the metrics. Look at many organisations and see who is seated at the top of them. Go to corporate events and see the white middle class men in suits there. It really isn't hard to witness. How you wish to respond to that is your choice isn't it. This thread is like the male violence one. People arguing the seemingly impossible. My reply at that time before leaving was that we should for a start listen to what is being said. Not what we are told or put in a report. But listen, in real time. Do that and you cannot go wrong. You then have a choice in real time on how you react. Arguing here with folk who have defences as strong as those keeping out the North Sea won't get us anywhere on this issue.

Everything starts by real listening. The world would solve all its problems starting with this. The Good Friday agreement was one such political example in recent history. Sorry for going on about listening. I just think I can't get my point across well enough and McPherson seemed to give a really strong definition. Just because it is 20 years old doesn't make it invalid. Not for me anyway. It's sad so little has changed.