No evidence the UK is institutionally racist

[JeffreyD]

F1GTRUeno said:

Is this an independent commission or a government one?

If it’s the latter then it’s not worth the paper it’s printed on.

Government.

[Blib]

So, the UK IS institutionally racist?

I wish people would make up their minds.

[bitchstewie]

JuanCarlosFandango said:

bhstewie said:

Fair enough so what term would you use for that sort of discrimination?

I'm no grievance nomenclaturist, but I'd probably call it a rational decision in a case where nothing else differentiates 2 candidates but one has a higher risk (however small) of causing serious problems, and is potentially more difficult to get rid of.

The perception of the risk is probably greater than the actual risk but I suspect that reasoning is at least as common as out and out 'don't like brown people' racism in reasons for rejecting CVs. Although I'm sure the latter exists to some degree.

You see a job application from someone you know nothing about and make a judgement that they're a "higher risk" simply because they're called Mohammed.

And the term you'd use for that is a "rational decision".

Seriously?

[rscott]

F1GTRUeno said:

Is this an independent commission or a government one?

If it’s the latter then it’s not worth the paper it’s printed on.

No 10's special adviser for civil society and communities (Johnson's advisor on race) has quit - https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/apr/01/n...

[BobsPigeon]

We should call out "unconscious bias" if we see it, to highlight it and its effects. I've worked in big corporate businesses most of my career and it is a recognised and addressable phenomenon.

But we shouldn't call it racism, you can't be unconsciously racist, if anything is a primordial phychological hangover from the days when you were a very real danger from people outside of your clan or tribe. Don't make people guilty for inheriting 30,000 year old brain chemistry and genetics.

Reasoned, understanding and logical persuasion will win the day not guilt tripping people with nonsense.

[bitchstewie]

BobsPigeon said:

We should call out "unconscious bias" if we see it, to highlight it and its effects. I've worked in big corporate businesses most of my career and it is a recognised and addressable phenomenon.

Good thing the Government are leading the way.

'Unconscious bias training' to be scrapped by ministers

[Johnnytheboy]

bigothunter said:

KingNothing said:

The demand for racism outstrips the supply available.

Comment of the day

Oh I am so stealing that.

[Greg_D]

JuanCarlosFandango said:

Perhaps some employers look at the name and think the risk of getting into a wrangle about prayer rooms, types of food available, offensive jokes or something else with someone who can cry racism at any point is not worth the trouble?

Exactly, it risks becoming a risk assessment in much the same way as any other threat to your business.

if someone doesn't have 'a card' to play, they don't play it.

It's one of the downsides of such rampant activism, it ends up ultimately being counter-productive to your cause...

[BobsPigeon]

bhstewie said:

BobsPigeon said:

We should call out "unconscious bias" if we see it, to highlight it and its effects. I've worked in big corporate businesses most of my career and it is a recognised and addressable phenomenon.

Good thing the Government are leading the way.

'Unconscious bias training' to be scrapped by ministers

I think it's a recognition of what I said above, you can't guilt trip people for their unconscious behaviour without people getting a bit uppety about it.

It's like blaming a kid for bed wetting, it's just not a solution. If it's genuinely unconscious then something more "Derren Brown" is going to need to occur to get people to change, just calling them racist won't help. It's not a great message to give those on the other end either, telling them that the culture is unconsciously predesposed to victimise them... Even if its true I can't see what help it is.

[Pooh]

F1GTRUeno said:

Is this an independent commission or a government one?

If it’s the latter then it’s not worth the paper it’s printed on.

Independent but set up by the government and yes that is possible.

List of Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities members:
Dr Tony Sewell (head of charity);
Dr Maggie Aderin-Pocock MBE (broadcaster);
Keith Fraser (Chair of the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales);
Dr Samir Shah CBE (CEO of Juniper TV);
Lord Ajay Kakkar (surgeon and chair of the King’s Fund);
Dr Dambisa Moyo (economist);
Martyn Oliver(CEO of Outwood Grange Academies Trust);
Naureen Khalid (school governor);
Aftab Chughtai MBE (businessman);
Mercy Muroki (commentator, and columnist)

Co-opted members:
Kunle Olulode, (director, Voice4Change),
Blondel Cluff CBE, (chief executive of the West India Committee)

[DeepEnd]

bhstewie said:

JuanCarlosFandango said:

bhstewie said:

Fair enough so what term would you use for that sort of discrimination?

I'm no grievance nomenclaturist, but I'd probably call it a rational decision in a case where nothing else differentiates 2 candidates but one has a higher risk (however small) of causing serious problems, and is potentially more difficult to get rid of.

The perception of the risk is probably greater than the actual risk but I suspect that reasoning is at least as common as out and out 'don't like brown people' racism in reasons for rejecting CVs. Although I'm sure the latter exists to some degree.

You see a job application from someone you know nothing about and make a judgement that they're a "higher risk" simply because they're called Mohammed.

And the term you'd use for that is a "rational decision".

Seriously?

Quite remarkable. Though consistent with many other posts so no surprise.

This is textbook racism, whilst interestingly proving that for many perps they are also very clear in their own mind that their racism isn't real racism.

In the same way Nigel doesn't think he is a racist/xenophobic when he demonises Romanians next door. But most can see that he is.

I'm not sure this report is moving the country forward as it has already clearly allowed those who want to claim "see there is no problem" to argue it supports their view. It certainly seems to have gone down well with many of "Boris' supporters" and letter box defenders - which perhaps should tell us all something.

[JuanCarlosFandango]

bhstewie said:

You see a job application from someone you know nothing about and make a judgement that they're a "higher risk" simply because they're called Mohammed.

And the term you'd use for that is a "rational decision".

Seriously?

All else being equal Mohammed has a more obvious way to claim discrimination from a white employer than does James, so presents a higher risk. If that perception is widely held then it could explain some or all of the results.

[Crackie]

El stovey said:

Isn’t it possible that neither party, nor their leaders (even corbyn) are actually ‘racist parties’ or institutionally racist but the issue is that race gets politicised and weaponised. I expect if the greens or libdems were more of a threat, they’d be smeared with racist accusations too.

Boris has said some things which are a bit racist and Corbyn wasn’t quick enough to respond to accusations of racism but I don’t think the U.K. main parties are obviously racist.

Farage on the other hand seems more racist or certainly xenophobic in the way that he uses imagery and speeches to stoke up fear about foreigners arriving.

It’s likely most people have all kinds of different levels of -ism going on to varying extents but nobody thinks we’re racist ourselves though and it’s likely all about where we see ourselves and others on the “racist scale”. Farage probably looks at the BNP or EDL etc and says they’re the racists.

It’s impossible for everyone to remove every bit of or prejudices, so when does it become a problem? Id say that in Britain chances and opportunities exist for everyone, the kind of ‘institutional racism’ people are arguing about nowadays is pretty hard to quantify or do much about and we’re likely reaching a point where the overt search for racism is becoming a problem itself and issues (based on thoughts and feelings) are being overblown and politicised instead of actual problems.

Like the report says, outcomes are likely more to do with income and socio economic issues than race. There’s poor outcomes for white people too based on their parents or where they’re born. As said above, white working class boys are having poor outcomes but that’s not seen as race related.

Excellent post.

[bitchstewie]

BobsPigeon said:

I think it's a recognition of what I said above, you can't guilt trip people for their unconscious behaviour without people getting a bit uppety about it.

It's like blaming a kid for bed wetting, it's just not a solution. If it's genuinely unconscious then something more "Derren Brown" is going to need to occur to get people to change, just calling them racist won't help. It's not a great message to give those on the other end either, telling them that the culture is unconsciously predesposed to victimise them... Even if its true I can't see what help it is.

I get that to a degree but I'm surprised how quickly people get very uppity about it.

Though when Government set the tone for this kind of thing and that's the message they've chosen to send perhaps it's because they feel validated that there's nothing to be gained or learned from that sort of thing.

[Blib]

DeepEnd said:

bhstewie said:

JuanCarlosFandango said:

bhstewie said:

Fair enough so what term would you use for that sort of discrimination?

I'm no grievance nomenclaturist, but I'd probably call it a rational decision in a case where nothing else differentiates 2 candidates but one has a higher risk (however small) of causing serious problems, and is potentially more difficult to get rid of.

The perception of the risk is probably greater than the actual risk but I suspect that reasoning is at least as common as out and out 'don't like brown people' racism in reasons for rejecting CVs. Although I'm sure the latter exists to some degree.

You see a job application from someone you know nothing about and make a judgement that they're a "higher risk" simply because they're called Mohammed.

And the term you'd use for that is a "rational decision".

Seriously?

Quite remarkable. Though consistent with many other posts so no surprise.

This is textbook racism, whilst interestingly proving that for many perps they are also very clear in their own mind that their racism isn't real racism.

In the same way Nigel doesn't think he is a racist/xenophobic when he demonises Romanians next door. But most can see that he is.

I'm not sure this report is moving the country forward as it has already clearly allowed those who want to claim "see there is no problem" to argue it supports their view. It certainly seems to have gone down well with many of "Boris' supporters" and letter box defenders - which perhaps should tell us all something.

A VERY close family member works as Associate General Counsel, Employment Law at a major City financial institution that employs many thousands of people here in the UK and tens of thousands worldwide.

Part of their remit is dealing with claims brought by sacked employees. 99 out of 100 women who bring a grievance cite sex discrimination and 99 out of 100 workers from an ethnic minority cite racism. It is part of the process: one grabs whatever legislation one can to win one's case.

Claims of racism that are upheld by tribunal are vanishingly rare.

However, what these claims do is what is described above. Put in its simplest terms it is less risky to employ the white, 30ish male as he is less likely to bring a complicated claim against his manager if he's fired.

Racist or pragmatic? You decide.

[Vanden Saab]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Smokist... Typing this while having a fag break...

[bitchstewie]

Blib said:

Racist or pragmatic? You decide.

When you have enough people making the "pragmatic" and apparently totally rational decision that people called Mohammed (or women or anyone else that might pose a "risk") can't be trusted, at what point does it go from a bunch of people all deciding something independently and being "pragmatic" and turn into something else?

If you were Mohammed and you sent off 50 job applications and they landed on the desk of 50 people with those views do you think that after 50 rejection letters you might start to wonder if there was something people were holding against you and might you start to use words like "systematic" or "institutional" to describe it?

Edited by bhstewie on Thursday 1st April 12:51

[deeen]

JuanCarlosFandango said:

bhstewie said:

You see a job application from someone you know nothing about and make a judgement that they're a "higher risk" simply because they're called Mohammed.

And the term you'd use for that is a "rational decision".

Seriously?

All else being equal Mohammed has a more obvious way to claim discrimination from a white employer than does James, so presents a higher risk. If that perception is widely held then it could explain some or all of the results.

In law, the race of the employer is irrelevant.

For your thinking to be "rational", you'd need statistically significant analysis of the percantage of employees with one name who made claims against the percentage of employees with the other. Or the rate of claims form one name against the national average (claims per 1000 staff, for example). It would be wrong to just focus on racisim as there are other forms of discrimination, for example there would be very few claims of sexism from Mohammeds.

Then you might think "what is the real reason I'm considering this" and if it's basically your perceived threat to the business, well claims of all types are a threat, not just claims about discrimination... do people called James make more claims of wrongful dismissal than average? Do people called Mohammed make more claims for accidents at work than average?

[mpkayeuk]

bhstewie said:

there's nothing to be gained or learned from that sort of thing.

To be fair to the government, that's what the evidence shows. It simply doesn't work. When you have a diversity grifter admitting, " for it to be effective, it has to be ongoing and long-term." you know you're not onto a winner.

[Greg_D]

bhstewie said:

Blib said:

Racist or pragmatic? You decide.

When you have enough people like JuanCarlosFandango above all making the "pragmatic" and apparently totally rational decision that people called Mohammed (or women or anyone else that might pose a "risk") can't be trusted, at what point does it go from a bunch of people all deciding something independently and being "pragmatic" and turn into something else?

If you were Mohammed and you sent off 50 job applications and they landed on the desk of 50 JuanCarlosFandango's do you think that after 50 rejection letters you might start to wonder if there was something people were holding against you and might you start to use words like "systematic" or "institutional" to describe it?

and therein lies the rub...

as counter-intuitive as it may seem, if the government outlawed any employment claims on race/gender/sexuality grounds, then the problem would ease almost overnight as people could employ with confidence based PURELY on ones ability to complete the task.

The point being made is that the landscape has tilted so far in favour of the minority that joe average white boy employer is scared witless to employ them in case you end up in court if you need to get rid of them.

it obviously won't happen, but it would solve the problem. it's got to be worth a try!!!! or don't the aggrieved actually want a pragmatic solution?