Racism Report

[horsefly 4,298]

12 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

Nope, it’s just a feeling. That’s enough to count as evidence is it not? 

What a truly pathetic response. And this from the person who has "argued" throughout that the lived experience of ethnic minority people should be ignored. Rationality requires that all feelings and experiences are tested in the court of critical analysis in response to the evidence that explains their reality. Something you consistently fail to do.

[horsefly 4,298]

12 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

I didn't suggest large sections of this report should be dedicated to it because many of the facts and evidence relating to it are already in the public domain - you know those facts that this reports says there is no evidence of.

I think that the facts that people were rendered unemployable, denied access to medical care they were legally entitled to, and forceably and illegally deported amounts to substantially more than 'simply people’s feelings'.

And let's not forget the fact that the Home Office itself had previously destroyed much of the evidence that would have proved these people had a perfect right to UK citizenship.

[Herman 9,756]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/racism-tory-party-allegations-b1825149.html

No hurry to release this report.

[Creative Midfielder 1,996]

1 hour ago, horsefly said:

And let's not forget the fact that the Home Office itself had previously destroyed much of the evidence that would have proved these people had a perfect right to UK citizenship.

Very true - I think Herman is actually spot on with his point about the major objectives of commissioning the report are to be deliberately divisive and provoke argument as a substitute for action.

Let's face it we could debate the rights and wrongs of this report for weeks or months but the bottom line is that it is a classic divide and rule policy as you might expect from RWNJ (or hard left) governments the world over - it seems to be all they have in their locker which in the case of the UK when you look at the 'talents' of this particular government is not really a surprise 🙄

[sonyc 5,517]

1 hour ago, Herman said:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/racism-tory-party-allegations-b1825149.html

No hurry to release this report.

Here is a perfect example (take note @Fen Canary) of institutional racism? The terms of reference being purely framed to look at the complaints process and nothing less. Despite a deluge of other complaints of Muslim prejudice at "every level". Then there is the anonymous bloke who felt "hounded out".

How can we ignore feelings of groups of people? They do not exist in a vacuum, they are linked to frustration at losing out to others in a recruitment round, on memberships and a sense of fairness ...and so on. Why are they not valid? How can the feelings of a group of people be red lined out as an irrelevance because somehow they cannot be seen as an 'objective reality'? How does one explain grief or any other number of feelings? You can't see it. This is where Fen C's arguments fall completely. I'm guessing he may be an ISTJ (Myers Briggs type) and therefore having an argument is so doomed because there is a level of stubbornness and an insistence to find objectivity and facts in everything. Life isn't like that though. Just because you haven't seen the evidence doesn't mean something doesn't exist!

You are correct with your post before Herman. Nothing actually gets done until people take it seriously. At the risk again of being boring, it starts with a simple acknowledgement and a witnessing of individual and collective experiences. Only then once people get more self-awareness then might they have a chance of hearing something different, something that may just strike a chord that they have looked at the world through one lens for most of the time. Arguing about who reads the Guardian or the Mirror or the Express is mostly irrelevant. Papers reflect a range of responses.

It s very difficult to conclude anything other than institutions are institutionalist. They are self-protective purely by their very existence and many have gate keeping behaviours. I am 100% sure that every poster on this forum will be able to give an example. Race is one of the nine protected characteristics of the sex discrimination act for good reason. Otherwise it wouldn't be there or have been updated  in recent times to include indirect discrimination.

 

 

Edited April 3, 2021 by sonyc

[sonyc 5,517]

1 hour ago, horsefly said:

And let's not forget the fact that the Home Office itself had previously destroyed much of the evidence that would have proved these people had a perfect right to UK citizenship.

Yep, they did an Enron probably. Will we ever get to know?

 

Edited April 3, 2021 by sonyc

[horsefly 4,298]

3 hours ago, Creative Midfielder said:

Very true - I think Herman is actually spot on with his point about the major objectives of commissioning the report are to be deliberately divisive and provoke argument as a substitute for action.

Let's face it we could debate the rights and wrongs of this report for weeks or months but the bottom line is that it is a classic divide and rule policy as you might expect from RWNJ (or hard left) governments the world over - it seems to be all they have in their locker which in the case of the UK when you look at the 'talents' of this particular government is not really a surprise 🙄

Indeed! During their period in power the Tory government has produced several reports on racism and inequality that have since sat gathering dust on the Commons library shelves. The problem with those reports, of course, was that they identified institutional racism as a major problem so didn't come up with the rosy picture of racial harmony that the government craved. No surprise then that Johnson hand-picked long-term deniers of institutional racism to head up the latest commission in order to provide the white-wash he required. The problem is that this was all rather too transparent, with the result that hundreds of experts and academics are already on record describing it as an egregious distortion of the truth. When many of the people you cite as "stakeholders" in the report utterly reject its findings and ridicule its process, then you know it has completely failed to establish any credibility. Even the British Medical Journal has released a statement describing it as a white-wash of the facts that have been established through 30-40 years of peer reviewed research demonstrating clear evidence of the link between institutionalised racism and healthcare inequality. And how interesting to note that a government so obsessed with battling "cancel culture" are quite happy to see the voices of many witnesses to the commission cancelled when they provided evidence that supported the existence of institutional racism. Perhaps it's just a coincidental oversight that these people's evidence couldn't be found anywhere in the report. Sadly it's already evident that this pi*s-poor piece of propoganda will be shelved the moment it loses its ability to distract the news away from the government's pi*s-poor record of governance.

 

Edited April 3, 2021 by horsefly

[sonyc 5,517]

Mark Steele on form here.  Comments worth a read.

 

 

[BigFish 1,986]

1 hour ago, sonyc said:

Mark Steele on form here.  Comments worth a read.

 

 

The report is almost comical in its failure. The Gov hand picked a collection rejectionists of racism to wrap up their views in a whitewash (pun intended) of government policy. The panel promptly wrote up their existing views and played it back as "research" but in such a ham fisted way that the flaws were obvious. Already the British Medical Association has rubbished the medical aspects, academic historians have rubbished the history, one author has asked for his name to be removed, contributors have complained that they have been misrepresented and the highlight was the suggestion that the descendents of slaves should be grateful that slavers turned them into Brits.

[Herman 9,756]

 

[A Load of Squit 5,161]

10 minutes ago, Herman said:

 

Things land badly when the pilot is sh!t. 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

38 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

Things land badly when the pilot is sh!t. 

My thoughts and prayers earnestly, robustly, unequivocally, heartfeltly and with the backing of the British people go out to all his family and friends.

[PurpleCanary 5,558]

There is an axiom in politcs that 'You campaign in poetry but govern in prose.' Johnson and the rest of the incompetent shower playing at runnning one of the world biggest economies hardly pretend to govern at all, and certainly not in proper prose but in fatuous soundbites and vacuous PR slogans.

[Fen Canary 819]

10 hours ago, horsefly said:

FFS your obstinacy in refusing the read or even consider the opinions of experts or people's experiences of racism is truly pathetic. This was supposed to be a report into the evidence for overt and institutionalised racism, to then ignore the evidence generated from one of the biggest scandals involving treatment of the Afro-Carribean community is a complete dereliction of duty of the commission to consider such vital information. Even this government has admitted that the report left out evidence from many experts who claimed that there is indeed ample evidence of institutionalised racism (if you read the links posted instead of dismissing them in your typical bigoted fashion you would indeed encounter the evidence you claim to have never seen).

You're absolutely right that I read the Guardian along with other newspapers, and I read copious articles and books from other experts who have spent great effort in collating and analysing the actual evidence. I prefer my opinions to be informed opinions. That you find it a badge of honour that you soley trust your own personal experience says everything about the worth of your opinions. You have been confronted with plenty of evidence on this thread alone but have not engaged with any of it. You claim that no one posting here has provided evidence of institutionalised racism despite the fact that I posted a video of a police officer's treatment of a black driver that provides an indisputable example, one that is sadly repeated daily as you would be aware if you actually bothered to open your eyes.  Obstinate denial of the facts and refusal to consider evidence provided by others (especially experts) is the very essence of bigotry.

 

 

I can sum up your evidence in a single sentence.

”Some people feel that the UK is institutionally racist, therefore it must be true as it’s their lived experience”

The only problem with this is that when during the Brexit debates many working class people said that in their ‘lived experience’ immigration had created competition for jobs and made their lives harder, many people such as yourself dismissed it as nonsense and refused to believe them.

Why are some people’s lived experience to be believed uncritically, despite any hard proof of their beliefs being correct, while others can be dismissed out of hand?

Finally the actions of a single police officer isn’t evidence of an entire system stacked against ethnic minorities, it’s evidence that a single police officer needs more training or to find another job 

[Fen Canary 819]

10 hours ago, horsefly said:

What a truly pathetic response. And this from the person who has "argued" throughout that the lived experience of ethnic minority people should be ignored. Rationality requires that all feelings and experiences are tested in the court of critical analysis in response to the evidence that explains their reality. Something you consistently fail to do.

If you care to look back through 6 pages of this thread, I’ve been the one constantly asking for critical analysis and proof of institutional racism, to explain the feelings that those who believe it to be true. You claim to have read many books on the subject, however I’d wager not too many of them have been critical of viewpoint. You can’t claim to be well read if every book you read merely confirms your existing point of view 

[horsefly 4,298]

1 hour ago, Fen Canary said:

Why are some people’s lived experience to be believed uncritically, despite any hard proof of their beliefs being correct, while others can be dismissed out of hand?

If you bothered to do any research you would find that no one's "lived experience" is accepted uncritically. The problem is you haven't read any of the masses of reports and articles available but feel entitled to dismiss it in complete ignorance of the depth of analysis involved in producing such work. If you even bothered to read just some of the criticisms of this report coming from hundreds of academics and experts you would see that their anger is focused upon a common theme, that the work they have done analysing data in relation to the "lived experience" of ethnic minority people has been entirely disregarded by the report. Why don't you at least read the BMJ response to the report and attempt to understand why they are so angry that 30-40 years of peer-reviewed research in this area has been completely ignored by its authors. But let's be honest, there's not a chance in hell that you will bother yourself with such an onerous task, far easier to persist in claiming that because you haven't seen any institutionalised racism it doesn't exist.

[Creative Midfielder 1,996]

1 hour ago, Fen Canary said:

Finally the actions of a single police officer isn’t evidence of an entire system stacked against ethnic minorities, it’s evidence that a single police officer needs more training or to find another job 

No it isnt, but then it isn't an isolated example is it? It just happens to be a recent one that @horsefly quoted. If this review had actually wanted to find evidence then they wouldn't have had to look very far in the Met to find reams of it.

Of course if they actually wanted to find evidence then they could have just strolled over to the Home Office whose actions, some illegal and some just totally immoral, over many years and directed specifically against an ethnic minority are clear cut evidence of an entire system stacked against ethnic minorities.

[BigFish 1,986]

2 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

If you care to look back through 6 pages of this thread, I’ve been the one constantly asking for critical analysis and proof of institutional racism, to explain the feelings that those who believe it to be true. You claim to have read many books on the subject, however I’d wager not too many of them have been critical of viewpoint. You can’t claim to be well read if every book you read merely confirms your existing point of view 

This report pretty much proves there is Instituitional Racism, a pre-selected panel was charged with delivering a prescribed outcome and to do so had the misrepresent the evidence and contributions.

[horsefly 4,298]

11 hours ago, BigFish said:

This report pretty much proves there is Instituitional Racism, a pre-selected panel was charged with delivering a prescribed outcome and to do so had the misrepresent the evidence and contributions.

Perhaps most astonishing of all is that the report writers were naive enough to think that the academics and experts they cited wouldn't express their rage at having their work associated with views they utterly reject. And now they are so woke and hypocritical they're whining about having their own views misrepresented. 

[Herman 9,756]

1 hour ago, horsefly said:

Perhaps most astonishing of all is that the report writers were naive enough to think that the academics and experts they cited wouldn't express their rage at having their work associated with views they utterly reject. And now they are so woke and hypocritical they're whining about having their own views misrepresented. 

Another  one.

 

[nevermind, neoliberalism has had it 159]

this 6th.or seventh report into the causes of racism in the UK is another lazy time saving exercise that fails to see that there are trees in the forest. The amount of incredulity at this fairytale make it obvious that even with Ms. Munea Mirza's help ,nobody would ever identify or agree to this cobbled up grand report of nothing at all.

[horsefly 4,298]

And yet another academic named as a stakeholder in the report trashes its process and conclusions:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/race-report-professor-named-as-contributor-left-deeply-troubled-by-findings/ar-BB1fiaWE?ocid=msedgntp

Race report: Professor named as contributor left ‘deeply troubled’ by findings

 The fallout from the highly controversial Government-backed race report is continuing after a Harvard University professor named as a contributor distanced himself from the review. David R. Williams, a professor of African and African American studies, said he was “shocked and deeply troubled” by some of the conclusions from the independent Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities. 

It has since emerged that figures named as giving evidence to the report in fact had nothing to do with it or had no idea about the existence of the Commission.

Dr Williams, who also teaches public health, is listed as one of the stakeholder the Commission has thanked for their participation.

He told i he had a conversation about the racial and ethnic disparities in health and the role of racism with two individuals representing the Commission for one hour in November.

“I had no idea that they were writing a specific report,” he said.

He added that he was “shocked and deeply troubled by some of material in the report”.

Frankly, this report is seriously corrupt in its misrepresentation of the views of many of the people it cites in its support. Had this been produced as a university document its authors would undoubtedly find themselves the subject of a serious academic misconduct charge. 

 

Edited April 4, 2021 by horsefly

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Why is anybody surprised or why is Fen defending it?

The institution we all talk about is the ruling class. Its not democratic. Its not concerned with welfare. Its not concerned with the future.

It exists to keep its existence perpetual.

[ricardo 7,385]

An E U survey so probably can't  be trusted😉(joke)

Edited April 5, 2021 by ricardo

[Herman 9,756]

Nobody is suggesting the UK is the most racist country in the world, it clearly isn't, but to pretend it doesn't exist, like this shoddy report suggests, is a complete nonsense.

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

Wonder if this is strategically timed to put the potential anti-protest laws in the background? A way of "burying bad news", to use a phrase from further back?

[Bill 1,788]

20 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

Why is anybody surprised that Fen is defending it?

sorted

[horsefly 4,298]

1 hour ago, Herman said:

Nobody is suggesting the UK is the most racist country in the world, it clearly isn't, but to pretend it doesn't exist, like this shoddy report suggests, is a complete nonsense.

Absolutely! The UK has improved considerably from the days in which a politician could make his election slogan "If you want a n****r for a neighbour vote Labour", and landlords could adorn their properties with signs saying "No blacks". However, it hardly takes much awareness or subtlety of thought to understand that racism still blights the lives of so many of  our fellow citizens who face unequal treatment on a daily basis. Imagine if it were only white professionals who found themselves being pulled over by the police on a regular basis because they happen to be driving a "posh" car in a "posh" area of town. I get the feeling awareness of bias rather than the obstinacy of denial might suddenly become the order of the day.

[Rest3 0]

On 02/04/2021 at 09:39, kick it off said:

 

https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/poverty-rates-among-ethnic-groups-great-britain#:~:text=The income poverty rate varies,%) have the lowest rates.

Read that.

You're right that class and class discrimination is very real in this country. Where you are falling down at the moment is that you seem to think the structural class inequality replaces structural racism when in fact the two not only co-exist but also are actually inextricably linked.

My partner is from the rough end of Nottingham, I'm from a middle class background. We have very different lived experiences and perspectives on some things. Being from a council estate in Nottingham means that her school was a melting pot of races. There was one black kid at my middle class white school. Currently (20 years later) one of those schools is rated "Outstanding" by Ofsted, and the other is "Special Measures" (The tier below inadequate) - I'll let you guess which way round that goes. The disparity in education affects kids of all of colours, however there is literally no way to deny it disproportionately affects children from other races, and benefits white kids in the middle class schools whilst kids from other races don't have the same opportunities.

I agree with you that poverty and class is the driving factor in inequality in this country rather than overt racism, the disagreement we have here, is you are refusing to accept that poverty disproportionately affects non-white people and that in itself is where you can find the beginnings of the structural racism. The system is set up for the poor to fail, but there are various institutional level issues that are directly or indirectly racist that keep people of other ethnic origins poor and you're not seeming to grasp that fact. Nobody is saying if you're white then you have it easy, but I have literally never been stopped by the police for anything. I know black people who have been stopped 20+ times for just walking in the street - including black people you would consider to be "middle class"... In education, look at where the poorly attaining schools are and look at the demographics from the surrounding areas.... why is more not being done to support those schools (who have white pupils too, nobody is trying to erase them from the conversation, again the point is that there is a multiplier effect on people of colour due to poverty being disproportionately drawn on racial lines).

The statistics exist all over society if you look for them. Here are a few questions for you.

1) Black Caribbean kids are 3.5 times more likely to be excluded from school. Why?

2) 46% of Black households are in poverty. Less than 20% of white households are. Why?

3) Black Children are 4 times more likely to be arrested than White children. Why?

4) Black people are more than 10 times more likely to be stopped and searched than White people. Why? (85% of searches never result in a charge by the way)

5) 54% of BAME teachers say they have experienced situations they felt was demeaning to their racial heritage. Why?

 

Try reading this too - https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/politics/article/institutional-racism

 

 

I agree with where you are coming from. I don't have the answers for you but I think in part this is why it's so complicated. its not true to say white boys are not being left behind. https://www.bbc.com/news/education-54278727

"But for "male, white British, free school meals" pupils, the figure is 13% - even lower than the year before, and to put it in context, it's below "looked after" children who have been in council care and far below those speaking English as a second language."

I think we need to address deprivation at source before using statistics such as those you took above as it can paint a misleading picture. 

To add a sixth question to the five you posed above...

6) "The number of males searched in London was 227,470 according to this research, and the number of females was 16,078." - So the percentages are 93% vs 7%. Is the answer similar to the questions posed above - where are the calls of sexism?

 

 

[Herman 9,756]

2 hours ago, TheGunnShow said:

Wonder if this is strategically timed to put the potential anti-protest laws in the background? A way of "burying bad news", to use a phrase from further back?

You can't see the dead cats for all the dead cats. And it's a deliberate policy.