Quite interesting what you can find when browsing a poker forum.
A few things strike me when reading through this exchange, but I'm glad someone has posted Maajid's thoughts.
This is an emerging problem with the 'far left'. It's so ****-bent on not causing offence to anyone, that when issues such as this arise no-one from the mainstream media wants to risk going anywhere near it for fear of the backlash.
This perversely leaves the void in which rotters like Tommy Robinson can step in and start getting traction.
Certain facts or statistics are ignored or manipulated to ensure the message is not misunderstood.
The key word here is 'gang' - Therefore the statistic merely suggests a difference in the way in which the crime is committed by people within that demographic.
"Merely"! The 'modus operandi' as you say, is the important thing here. If, as suggested, these groups are operating within a cultural norm then that needs highlighting. Similarly, where crime rings exist within other cultures (which we've seen in the Savile/celeb exploitation), then it's vitally important that it's shut down and people are made aware of what's gone on.
One girl abused by a gang is no more or less important than one abused by a single family member, but clearly the scale is different. If the culture is supporting and reinforcing networks of offenders, it should be dealt with as a priority. One good bit of policing could save thousands of future offences.
institutional racism is still very much a thing in the UK.
Source? Institutional racism in the past, yes, various inquiries have concluded this. But the view that the system is still fundamentally corrupt is now being cited as the reason why police didn't want to intervene, they didn't want to appear to be racist.
Of course, it's easier for the left to hear this from Maajid, than any random white guy.
So we land in an interesting place where anyone who says they're outraged by these crimes has to fear being grouped up with the far right nationalists because of everyone's knee-jerks to ringfence everyone in this massive game of identity politics.
"Merely"! The 'modus operandi' as you say, is the important thing here. If, as suggested, these groups are operating within a cultural norm then that needs highlighting. Similarly, where crime rings exist within other cultures (which we've seen in the Savile/celeb exploitation), then it's vitally important that it's shut down and people are made aware of what's gone on.
One girl abused by a gang is no more or less important than one abused by a single family member, but clearly the scale is different. If the culture is supporting and reinforcing networks of offenders, it should be dealt with as a priority. One good bit of policing could save thousands of future offences.
institutional racism is still very much a thing in the UK.
Source? Institutional racism in the past, yes, various inquiries have concluded this. But the view that the system is still fundamentally corrupt is now being cited as the reason why police didn't want to intervene, they didn't want to appear to be racist.
Of course, it's easier for the left to hear this from Maajid, than any random white guy.
So we land in an interesting place where anyone who says they're outraged by these crimes has to fear being grouped up with the far right nationalists because of everyone's knee-jerks to ringfence everyone in this massive game of identity politics.
(Inb4 anyone says "Lol more Guardian links" - Naturally a right wing paper isn't going to cover such things. Fwiw I don't actually go out of my way to read The Guardian or any other paper. Journalism is far too often negative and with significant bias, cba with one-sided views on depressing issues being part of my daily routine. Life's too short.)
Thanks for those links Pingu. You're right, it's all pretty depressing really. If the UK knows and is open right now that there is institutional racism at its core, then it has two options, continue being racist in full view of everyone (doesn't seem to make sense as the public feeling and that expressed when they 'found out' what that this should be dealt with), put measures in place to minimise whatever racist behaviour (explicit or implicit could possibly take place, e.g. equal opportunities to join the force (sure this has been law for long long time), judge not to know the ethnicity of the defendant when sentencing (not sure how practical that is, but must be plenty of other things could be done)).
Just wow! I can only assume that she is confusing institutional racism (that the operations and systems that are put in place in the organisation are racist), with being able to state that the force can be free of racists and racist behaviour.
I don't think it's difficult to ensure your organisational policies are not racist, far harder to ensure this with individuals. I don't know what they've gone and changed since the Macpherson inquiry to clean up their act, but we do need to be careful when the litmus test of institutional racism is based on numbers of outcomes.
Journalism now more than ever appears to be, "look at those numbers, something must be wrong" without further thought to fit an agenda.
Let's look at those links: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/27/racism-british-society-minority-ethnic-people-dying-excessive-force 3 times more likely to have a stun gun used on you if you're from the background they've highlighted. The headline doesn't tell you how they arrive at their statistic, but let's say it's valid. What it still doesn't tell you is if these people are more likely to be volatile when approached by the police because they're sensing injustice is about to occur, they're expecting heavy-handedness from the racists? I don't know by the way, but it's worth considering.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-justice-system-racist-ethnic-minority-judges-peter-herbert-lutfur-rahman-tower-hamlets-a7518176.html This guy is the chair of the Society of Black Lawyers. Calling out your identity as a differentiator is an interesting way to go if you're concerned with people dealing with you based on that difference. And yes, it can be as a reaction to gain solidarity fighting injustice, but it perpetuates segregation. At the end of this piece it states that 5% of judges are white. It doesn't frame this statistic. I don't have the numbers, but earlier in the piece we'd said 84% of the population where white. I'd expect this to be skewed further towards the older ages where all the judges are, so perhaps this 5% is representative (and may also, of course, reflect past institutional racism as a barrier to entry into this work from decades past). Do they want black judges for black defendants? I don't know.
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/statement-from-the-new-prime-minister-theresa-may I don't know what 'treated harshly' means. If it's just that black people are getting awarded longer sentences, or that they're having more stun guns shot at them, then that all needs breaking down further. A lot of this is trying to get people to do the maths honestly to support a proper debate. The key of this speech though was that she was basically saying it doesn't matter what pool of people you sit in, you'll be being discriminated against in some way. That's always going to be the case if you put the basis of discrimination not on the opportunities and systems, but on the outcomes. It's a failing of the Left to think that everyone is identical and so we should have 50% of women and men in every job industry, and a representative proportion of races the same. Of course, if we did have that, we'd seemingly have far less to worry about with pay gaps.
Not being allowed to talk about differences it hugely damaging to getting the right outcomes.
Quite interesting what you can find when browsing a poker forum.
A few things strike me when reading through this exchange, but I'm glad someone has posted Maajid's thoughts.
This is an emerging problem with the 'far left'. It's so ****-bent on not causing offence to anyone, that when issues such as this arise no-one from the mainstream media wants to risk going anywhere near it for fear of the backlash.
This perversely leaves the void in which rotters like Tommy Robinson can step in and start getting traction.
Certain facts or statistics are ignored or manipulated to ensure the message is not misunderstood.
The key word here is 'gang' - Therefore the statistic merely suggests a difference in the way in which the crime is committed by people within that demographic.
"Merely"! The 'modus operandi' as you say, is the important thing here. If, as suggested, these groups are operating within a cultural norm then that needs highlighting. Similarly, where crime rings exist within other cultures (which we've seen in the Savile/celeb exploitation), then it's vitally important that it's shut down and people are made aware of what's gone on.
One girl abused by a gang is no more or less important than one abused by a single family member, but clearly the scale is different. If the culture is supporting and reinforcing networks of offenders, it should be dealt with as a priority. One good bit of policing could save thousands of future offences.
institutional racism is still very much a thing in the UK.
Source? Institutional racism in the past, yes, various inquiries have concluded this. But the view that the system is still fundamentally corrupt is now being cited as the reason why police didn't want to intervene, they didn't want to appear to be racist.
Of course, it's easier for the left to hear this from Maajid, than any random white guy.
So we land in an interesting place where anyone who says they're outraged by these crimes has to fear being grouped up with the far right nationalists because of everyone's knee-jerks to ringfence everyone in this massive game of identity politics.
Define support? I gather he has a large following on Social media but im not on Faceache or any of the others so dont support him that way. Havent bought any of his books. Didn't know about the rallies either. Much prefer to read what Milo has to say. https://www.dangerous.com/ *reader discretion advised*
Quite interesting what you can find when browsing a poker forum.
A few things strike me when reading through this exchange, but I'm glad someone has posted Maajid's thoughts.
This is an emerging problem with the 'far left'. It's so ****-bent on not causing offence to anyone, that when issues such as this arise no-one from the mainstream media wants to risk going anywhere near it for fear of the backlash.
This perversely leaves the void in which rotters like Tommy Robinson can step in and start getting traction.
Certain facts or statistics are ignored or manipulated to ensure the message is not misunderstood.
The key word here is 'gang' - Therefore the statistic merely suggests a difference in the way in which the crime is committed by people within that demographic.
"Merely"! The 'modus operandi' as you say, is the important thing here. If, as suggested, these groups are operating within a cultural norm then that needs highlighting. Similarly, where crime rings exist within other cultures (which we've seen in the Savile/celeb exploitation), then it's vitally important that it's shut down and people are made aware of what's gone on.
One girl abused by a gang is no more or less important than one abused by a single family member, but clearly the scale is different. If the culture is supporting and reinforcing networks of offenders, it should be dealt with as a priority. One good bit of policing could save thousands of future offences.
institutional racism is still very much a thing in the UK.
Source? Institutional racism in the past, yes, various inquiries have concluded this. But the view that the system is still fundamentally corrupt is now being cited as the reason why police didn't want to intervene, they didn't want to appear to be racist.
Of course, it's easier for the left to hear this from Maajid, than any random white guy.
So we land in an interesting place where anyone who says they're outraged by these crimes has to fear being grouped up with the far right nationalists because of everyone's knee-jerks to ringfence everyone in this massive game of identity politics.
Define support? I gather he has a large following on Social media but im not on Faceache or any of the others so dont support him that way. Havent bought any of his books. Didn't know about the rallies either. Much prefer to read what Milo has to say. https://www.dangerous.com/ *reader discretion advised*
Just want to pick up with the discussion about numbers involved. I'm going to revise my estimate of number of victims from 1000's to possible tens of thousands. How can this be? you ask. 1. Number of girls i think we agree is in the 1000's 2. Family members of the girls are also victims as these crimes as it would have affected them too (guestimate - 10 family members per girl?). 3. Family memebers of the perpertrators (hard to put a figure on that). 4. Last but not least, the members of staff at various organisations who tried to report these crimes who were either ignored or in some cases sacked.
Quite interesting what you can find when browsing a poker forum.
A few things strike me when reading through this exchange, but I'm glad someone has posted Maajid's thoughts.
This is an emerging problem with the 'far left'. It's so ****-bent on not causing offence to anyone, that when issues such as this arise no-one from the mainstream media wants to risk going anywhere near it for fear of the backlash.
This perversely leaves the void in which rotters like Tommy Robinson can step in and start getting traction.
Certain facts or statistics are ignored or manipulated to ensure the message is not misunderstood.
The key word here is 'gang' - Therefore the statistic merely suggests a difference in the way in which the crime is committed by people within that demographic.
"Merely"! The 'modus operandi' as you say, is the important thing here. If, as suggested, these groups are operating within a cultural norm then that needs highlighting. Similarly, where crime rings exist within other cultures (which we've seen in the Savile/celeb exploitation), then it's vitally important that it's shut down and people are made aware of what's gone on.
One girl abused by a gang is no more or less important than one abused by a single family member, but clearly the scale is different. If the culture is supporting and reinforcing networks of offenders, it should be dealt with as a priority. One good bit of policing could save thousands of future offences.
institutional racism is still very much a thing in the UK.
Source? Institutional racism in the past, yes, various inquiries have concluded this. But the view that the system is still fundamentally corrupt is now being cited as the reason why police didn't want to intervene, they didn't want to appear to be racist.
Of course, it's easier for the left to hear this from Maajid, than any random white guy.
So we land in an interesting place where anyone who says they're outraged by these crimes has to fear being grouped up with the far right nationalists because of everyone's knee-jerks to ringfence everyone in this massive game of identity politics.
Define support? I gather he has a large following on Social media but im not on Faceache or any of the others so dont support him that way. Havent bought any of his books. Didn't know about the rallies either. Much prefer to read what Milo has to say. https://www.dangerous.com/ *reader discretion advised*
Well dodged.
Do you agree with his anti-Muslim stance?
Do enlighten me, you seem to know more about him than i do.
Just want to pick up with the discussion about numbers involved. I'm going to revise my estimate of number of victims from 1000's to possible tens of thousands. How can this be? you ask. 1. Number of girls i think we agree is in the 1000's 2. Family members of the girls are also victims as these crimes as it would have affected them too (guestimate - 10 family members per girl?). 3. Family memebers of the perpertrators (hard to put a figure on that). 4. Last but not least, the members of staff at various organisations who tried to report these crimes who were either ignored or in some cases sacked.
Do you apply that logic/theory to every crime or just this crime?
Quite interesting what you can find when browsing a poker forum.
A few things strike me when reading through this exchange, but I'm glad someone has posted Maajid's thoughts.
This is an emerging problem with the 'far left'. It's so ****-bent on not causing offence to anyone, that when issues such as this arise no-one from the mainstream media wants to risk going anywhere near it for fear of the backlash.
This perversely leaves the void in which rotters like Tommy Robinson can step in and start getting traction.
Certain facts or statistics are ignored or manipulated to ensure the message is not misunderstood.
The key word here is 'gang' - Therefore the statistic merely suggests a difference in the way in which the crime is committed by people within that demographic.
"Merely"! The 'modus operandi' as you say, is the important thing here. If, as suggested, these groups are operating within a cultural norm then that needs highlighting. Similarly, where crime rings exist within other cultures (which we've seen in the Savile/celeb exploitation), then it's vitally important that it's shut down and people are made aware of what's gone on.
One girl abused by a gang is no more or less important than one abused by a single family member, but clearly the scale is different. If the culture is supporting and reinforcing networks of offenders, it should be dealt with as a priority. One good bit of policing could save thousands of future offences.
institutional racism is still very much a thing in the UK.
Source? Institutional racism in the past, yes, various inquiries have concluded this. But the view that the system is still fundamentally corrupt is now being cited as the reason why police didn't want to intervene, they didn't want to appear to be racist.
Of course, it's easier for the left to hear this from Maajid, than any random white guy.
So we land in an interesting place where anyone who says they're outraged by these crimes has to fear being grouped up with the far right nationalists because of everyone's knee-jerks to ringfence everyone in this massive game of identity politics.
Define support? I gather he has a large following on Social media but im not on Faceache or any of the others so dont support him that way. Havent bought any of his books. Didn't know about the rallies either. Much prefer to read what Milo has to say. https://www.dangerous.com/ *reader discretion advised*
Well dodged.
Do you agree with his anti-Muslim stance?
Do enlighten me, you seem to know more about him than i do.
Well dodged again.
It's ok though, its a rhetorical question. Anyone reading this thread and others of a similar nature you've posted in can see you don't like brown people.
I don't think it's difficult to ensure your organisational policies are not racist, far harder to ensure this with individuals. I don't know what they've gone and changed since the Macpherson inquiry to clean up their act, but we do need to be careful when the litmus test of institutional racism is based on numbers of outcomes.
Journalism now more than ever appears to be, "look at those numbers, something must be wrong" without further thought to fit an agenda.
Definitely agree with this - A good example would be the number of black/ethnic managers in English football atm. People get upset about how few black/ethnic managers there are and blaming it on racism in football. However, they: - Forget that the previous generation had no black/ethnic managers as role models to motivate retiring black/ethnic players - It's not as simple as implementing the "Rooney Rule" (Should be attributed to Al Davis as IMO he did far more than Dan Rooney or anyone else to give minorities opportunity in coaching American Football, way before the Rooney Rule was even born, but I digress...) and suddenly everything is fixed overnight; - Ignore that there are black/ethnic owners of clubs who are also only hiring white managers; - Fail to mention people like Paul Ince who have had about 9000 jobs, failed in all of them, and is out of football management on merit; - Ignore some of the things that Sol Campbell has said in the media regarding why he hasn't been hired which would put clubs off hiring him in the future because he is Sol Campbell, rather than because he is black.
It is very easy to read a news article, not think critically about the issue and simply agree or disagree with it based on whether the particular paper aligns with our pre-existing political views. (Confirmation bias)
I'm certainly guilty of it at times with (usually left wing) stuff that aligns more closely with my views, and that's probably true of everyone to some extent. From a publisher's point of view, why bother with any kind of balance or discussion in your paper when you can sell plenty of papers or get plenty of clicks to your website by preaching to the converted?
The thing that's changed with social media is whereas previously you wouldn't sell a paper to someone who opposed the views of that paper, nowadays you'll get people clicking through to a website or commenting on a Facebook post just to oppose the views of that publication and/or journalist, and from their perspective, any response is a good thing. I think that only perpetuates one-sided journalism nowadays.
The key of this speech though was that she was basically saying it doesn't matter what pool of people you sit in, you'll be being discriminated against in some way. That's always going to be the case if you put the basis of discrimination not on the opportunities and systems, but on the outcomes. It's a failing of the Left to think that everyone is identical and so we should have 50% of women and men in every job industry, and a representative proportion of races the same. Of course, if we did have that, we'd seemingly have far less to worry about with pay gaps.
Not being allowed to talk about differences it hugely damaging to getting the right outcomes.
Solid points regarding validity - Personally I suspect the first one is a number of a number of factors with some small amount of racism by individuals involved. In the second link the age of judges and the smaller % of black people within that group as you mentioned is definitely a contributing factor, as well as number of black people studying law degrees 20-30 years ago to obtain necessary qualifications which I would definitely expect to be lower still. Suspect that in my lifetime this'll catch up with itself somewhat.
Definitely agree with the whole "We need x% female" or "We need y% minority" representation thing. There's situations where yes, that would certainly be a good thing and should be something we look to achieve over time. For instance, gender and ethnic balance in Parliament is something that I think is much needed, although it needs to happen naturally through encouraging more women into politics and them being voted for a particular constituency on merit.
But in many cases, there's going to be jobs that are better suited to certain groups of society over others. To seek equal representation of all genders, races and so on in all things is unrealistic and does nobody any favours. Do we really want manual labour jobs that involve heavy lifting to consist of 50% women despite men being naturally better suited for the job? I'm all for women doing jobs like that if that's what they want to do and if they're physically capable of doing what is needed, but equal representation in spots like that just sounds silly to me.
The pay gap thing is one thing that I find frustrating, and is the reason I deliberately didn't mention ethnic pay gaps anywhere above - As long as we are paying everyone £X/hour for the same job regardless of ethnicity and gender, then the pay gap isn't a problem in itself, but rather a symptom of other issues within society, such as people not hiring young women because they're likely to have extended time off work due to things like pregnancy, and lack of women in STEM subjects which happen to be some of the highest paid jobs around atm. With ethnic minorities, many come here with very little, and class divide is self-perpetuating if you can't afford to live in the catchment area for the best schools, or do as much as white families with more money to give your child the best opportunity to succeed.
The whole issue of how taboo it is becoming to speak about differences, again I totally agree. How can we possibly expect to have a sensible discussion about gender roles and gender equality without acknowledging biological differences?
Just want to pick up with the discussion about numbers involved. I'm going to revise my estimate of number of victims from 1000's to possible tens of thousands. How can this be? you ask. 1. Number of girls i think we agree is in the 1000's 2. Family members of the girls are also victims as these crimes as it would have affected them too (guestimate - 10 family members per girl?). 3. Family memebers of the perpertrators (hard to put a figure on that). 4. Last but not least, the members of staff at various organisations who tried to report these crimes who were either ignored or in some cases sacked.
Newsflash: Men get raped too, and indeed were by grooming gangs.
This logic can be extended to the point where we can then count victims' close friends, then we count people who were affected by their friends being affected, and people who were upset because they saw it on the news and it made them sad, and so on until we reach the conclusion that there are seven billion plus victims of rape (and virtually every other crime in the world), as we all have to deal with the ongoing non-zero chance of it happening to us or someone close to us, and therefore it affects us.
It makes no sense to count victims of a crime in this way.
I live in the west of Scotland , the town I stay in has a population of about 35,000 to 40,000, very working class , I know the town really well, I would say the town is 99% white, I am in my mid / late fifties the first time I ever saw a black/brown person was when I first went to Ibrox in 1969, first time in the underground, it seemed to be staffed by black/brown men, Its weird but I can remember it quite vividly, being brought up in the town I was starting to relize in my early teens how racist people were, including my parents, ( who were the nicest people you could meet) mates, eveybody seemed to be racist it seemed to be the norm, thinking about it it, I probably was as well thinking about it, it was a case of ( I dont mean to offend anybody here ) but I will say it as it was, " Go to the Pakis and get me **** " there was one Pakistani shop in the town , well we all asumed they were from Pakistan or it was go down town and get a ( chinky ) there was two Chinese restaurants in town, as I got to legal drinking age and had a few quid and I used to go for Chinese carry out ,the abuse at the end of the night these people used to get was terrible , to a point that they shut early ( A lot of the places still closes early today), anyway I moved to London for work during the Thatcher years, worked in the city for a wee while , ended up as a bus driver (driving a routemaster great job) , met people from around the world and it changed my way of thinking about people, London was, maybe still is a racist hot pot. After a few years I came back home, when I go in to my local pubs there is still racism but I dont think its as bad as what it used to be, but its a different world where I stay compared to London, Birmingham, Manchester and the like, we should all be able to live together but sadly that will never happen, Up here we have a wee religion problem but thats another story. Bit of a ramble , dont know if what ive written has anything to do with the the original post, but just saying it as I see it, hope I havent offend anybody by my puncuation or what I have said, but thats drink for you.
Just want to pick up with the discussion about numbers involved. I'm going to revise my estimate of number of victims from 1000's to possible tens of thousands. How can this be? you ask. 1. Number of girls i think we agree is in the 1000's 2. Family members of the girls are also victims as these crimes as it would have affected them too (guestimate - 10 family members per girl?). 3. Family memebers of the perpertrators (hard to put a figure on that). 4. Last but not least, the members of staff at various organisations who tried to report these crimes who were either ignored or in some cases sacked.
Newsflash: Men get raped too, and indeed were by grooming gangs.
This logic can be extended to the point where we can then count victims' close friends, then we count people who were affected by their friends being affected, and people who were upset because they saw it on the news and it made them sad, and so on until we reach the conclusion that there are seven billion plus victims of rape (and virtually every other crime in the world), as we all have to deal with the ongoing non-zero chance of it happening to us or someone close to us, and therefore it affects us.
It makes no sense to count victims of a crime in this way.
Was just highlighting the victims of this particular crime as you were the one questioning the numbers.
Double standards by the state ! Not only this but they have moved TR to a prison with a majority of muslim inmates. Not exactly a duty of care, putting someone in harms way. If he gets killed a lot of people will see it as state sponsored murder.
Comments
Vespa, you support Tommy Robinson?
Leeds tomorrow or the one in London weekend after this?
(Inb4 anyone says "Lol more Guardian links" - Naturally a right wing paper isn't going to cover such things. Fwiw I don't actually go out of my way to read The Guardian or any other paper. Journalism is far too often negative and with significant bias, cba with one-sided views on depressing issues being part of my daily routine. Life's too short.)
Article on comments made by Peter Herbert, a non-white judge in the UK - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-justice-system-racist-ethnic-minority-judges-peter-herbert-lutfur-rahman-tower-hamlets-a7518176.html
Theresa May, in her first statement as PM, stated that black criminals are treated more harshly than white ones - https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/statement-from-the-new-prime-minister-theresa-may
(I can't name one thing that she's actually done about it though... Standard politicians.)
---
Pretty much agree with whole of first quote.
Will respond more about the second part some other time when I'm not so tired.
Worryingly, here's a link in which Cressida **** (in 2003) states that "It's very difficult to imagine the situation where we will say we are no longer institutionally racist" and also "I would say there is not an institution out there that could say, 'We are not racist'."
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/we-are-still-racist-police-chief-admits-116145.html
Just wow! I can only assume that she is confusing institutional racism (that the operations and systems that are put in place in the organisation are racist), with being able to state that the force can be free of racists and racist behaviour.
I don't think it's difficult to ensure your organisational policies are not racist, far harder to ensure this with individuals. I don't know what they've gone and changed since the Macpherson inquiry to clean up their act, but we do need to be careful when the litmus test of institutional racism is based on numbers of outcomes.
Journalism now more than ever appears to be, "look at those numbers, something must be wrong" without further thought to fit an agenda.
Let's look at those links:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/27/racism-british-society-minority-ethnic-people-dying-excessive-force
3 times more likely to have a stun gun used on you if you're from the background they've highlighted. The headline doesn't tell you how they arrive at their statistic, but let's say it's valid. What it still doesn't tell you is if these people are more likely to be volatile when approached by the police because they're sensing injustice is about to occur, they're expecting heavy-handedness from the racists? I don't know by the way, but it's worth considering.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-justice-system-racist-ethnic-minority-judges-peter-herbert-lutfur-rahman-tower-hamlets-a7518176.html
This guy is the chair of the Society of Black Lawyers. Calling out your identity as a differentiator is an interesting way to go if you're concerned with people dealing with you based on that difference. And yes, it can be as a reaction to gain solidarity fighting injustice, but it perpetuates segregation. At the end of this piece it states that 5% of judges are white. It doesn't frame this statistic. I don't have the numbers, but earlier in the piece we'd said 84% of the population where white. I'd expect this to be skewed further towards the older ages where all the judges are, so perhaps this 5% is representative (and may also, of course, reflect past institutional racism as a barrier to entry into this work from decades past). Do they want black judges for black defendants? I don't know.
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/statement-from-the-new-prime-minister-theresa-may
I don't know what 'treated harshly' means. If it's just that black people are getting awarded longer sentences, or that they're having more stun guns shot at them, then that all needs breaking down further. A lot of this is trying to get people to do the maths honestly to support a proper debate. The key of this speech though was that she was basically saying it doesn't matter what pool of people you sit in, you'll be being discriminated against in some way. That's always going to be the case if you put the basis of discrimination not on the opportunities and systems, but on the outcomes. It's a failing of the Left to think that everyone is identical and so we should have 50% of women and men in every job industry, and a representative proportion of races the same. Of course, if we did have that, we'd seemingly have far less to worry about with pay gaps.
Not being allowed to talk about differences it hugely damaging to getting the right outcomes.
I gather he has a large following on Social media but im not on Faceache or any of the others so dont support him that way.
Havent bought any of his books.
Didn't know about the rallies either.
Much prefer to read what Milo has to say.
https://www.dangerous.com/
*reader discretion advised*
Do you agree with his anti-Muslim stance?
I'm going to revise my estimate of number of victims from 1000's to possible tens of thousands.
How can this be? you ask.
1. Number of girls i think we agree is in the 1000's
2. Family members of the girls are also victims as these crimes as it would have affected them too (guestimate - 10 family members per girl?).
3. Family memebers of the perpertrators (hard to put a figure on that).
4. Last but not least, the members of staff at various organisations who tried to report these crimes who were either ignored or in some cases sacked.
It's ok though, its a rhetorical question. Anyone reading this thread and others of a similar nature you've posted in can see you don't like brown people.
- Forget that the previous generation had no black/ethnic managers as role models to motivate retiring black/ethnic players - It's not as simple as implementing the "Rooney Rule" (Should be attributed to Al Davis as IMO he did far more than Dan Rooney or anyone else to give minorities opportunity in coaching American Football, way before the Rooney Rule was even born, but I digress...) and suddenly everything is fixed overnight;
- Ignore that there are black/ethnic owners of clubs who are also only hiring white managers;
- Fail to mention people like Paul Ince who have had about 9000 jobs, failed in all of them, and is out of football management on merit;
- Ignore some of the things that Sol Campbell has said in the media regarding why he hasn't been hired which would put clubs off hiring him in the future because he is Sol Campbell, rather than because he is black.
It is very easy to read a news article, not think critically about the issue and simply agree or disagree with it based on whether the particular paper aligns with our pre-existing political views. (Confirmation bias)
I'm certainly guilty of it at times with (usually left wing) stuff that aligns more closely with my views, and that's probably true of everyone to some extent. From a publisher's point of view, why bother with any kind of balance or discussion in your paper when you can sell plenty of papers or get plenty of clicks to your website by preaching to the converted?
The thing that's changed with social media is whereas previously you wouldn't sell a paper to someone who opposed the views of that paper, nowadays you'll get people clicking through to a website or commenting on a Facebook post just to oppose the views of that publication and/or journalist, and from their perspective, any response is a good thing. I think that only perpetuates one-sided journalism nowadays. Solid points regarding validity - Personally I suspect the first one is a number of a number of factors with some small amount of racism by individuals involved. In the second link the age of judges and the smaller % of black people within that group as you mentioned is definitely a contributing factor, as well as number of black people studying law degrees 20-30 years ago to obtain necessary qualifications which I would definitely expect to be lower still. Suspect that in my lifetime this'll catch up with itself somewhat.
Definitely agree with the whole "We need x% female" or "We need y% minority" representation thing. There's situations where yes, that would certainly be a good thing and should be something we look to achieve over time. For instance, gender and ethnic balance in Parliament is something that I think is much needed, although it needs to happen naturally through encouraging more women into politics and them being voted for a particular constituency on merit.
But in many cases, there's going to be jobs that are better suited to certain groups of society over others. To seek equal representation of all genders, races and so on in all things is unrealistic and does nobody any favours. Do we really want manual labour jobs that involve heavy lifting to consist of 50% women despite men being naturally better suited for the job? I'm all for women doing jobs like that if that's what they want to do and if they're physically capable of doing what is needed, but equal representation in spots like that just sounds silly to me.
The pay gap thing is one thing that I find frustrating, and is the reason I deliberately didn't mention ethnic pay gaps anywhere above - As long as we are paying everyone £X/hour for the same job regardless of ethnicity and gender, then the pay gap isn't a problem in itself, but rather a symptom of other issues within society, such as people not hiring young women because they're likely to have extended time off work due to things like pregnancy, and lack of women in STEM subjects which happen to be some of the highest paid jobs around atm. With ethnic minorities, many come here with very little, and class divide is self-perpetuating if you can't afford to live in the catchment area for the best schools, or do as much as white families with more money to give your child the best opportunity to succeed.
The whole issue of how taboo it is becoming to speak about differences, again I totally agree. How can we possibly expect to have a sensible discussion about gender roles and gender equality without acknowledging biological differences?
*Edits for spelling/grammar/typos
This logic can be extended to the point where we can then count victims' close friends, then we count people who were affected by their friends being affected, and people who were upset because they saw it on the news and it made them sad, and so on until we reach the conclusion that there are seven billion plus victims of rape (and virtually every other crime in the world), as we all have to deal with the ongoing non-zero chance of it happening to us or someone close to us, and therefore it affects us.
It makes no sense to count victims of a crime in this way.
You going on the march tomorrow?
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/morrissey-tommy-robinson-edl-uk-politics-prison-interview-a8386136.html?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1528311166
Not only this but they have moved TR to a prison with a majority of muslim inmates.
Not exactly a duty of care, putting someone in harms way.
If he gets killed a lot of people will see it as state sponsored murder.
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/scottish-daily-record-fined-for-contempt-over-two-stories-including-one-showing-dramatic-arrest-pic-with-got-him-caption/