It was mentioned above that John Barnes "had it a lot worse that 90% of these protesters"...
This point is entirely irrelevant, unless there is an acceptable level of racism. We do not have an equal society.
Regarding the 'does racism still exist in the UK' question...
This is not a hard question to answer. One simple metric that highlights that racism still exists in the UK is arrests...
Arrest rate per 1000 people by ethnicity: All = 12 Asian = 12 Black = 35 Mixed = 19 White = 10 Others inc Chinese = 11 (Ethnicity Fact and Figures Service, 2018)
Some might suggest that this is just because black people are more likely to commit crime. There are 2 avenues that are worthwhile exploring when trying to understand why the arrest rates for certain ethnic groups are higher than others...
Those avenues are genetics or environment.
Often referred to as 'nature or nurture'. Those of a racist persuasion would like to suggest that the explanation for the above figures lay in the area of genetics or nature. This is a very outdated view, thankfully, as it is quite absurd to suggest that people of certain ethnic origins are genetically hard-wired for crime. This view is further debunked by a little research. In countries with greater levels of equality (income, housing & health) there is less disparity between crime figures for people of different ethnic origins. Conversely, in countries with lower levels of equality there is greater levels of disparity in the crime figures for people of different ethnic origins.
If anyone wants to argue with the above data then I would suggest looking out other metrics such as longevity, income, health, education and housing. Across these metrics in the UK people of non-white ethnic origin fare worse.
The above information makes it very clear that it is environment - not genetics - that explains the disproportionate differences in the above figures. In other words it is institutional racism. People of non-white ethnicity simply do not have equality of opportunity in the UK, some individuals might but on average they do not, hence the figures.
Racism definitely exists in the UK. Whether one individual has it worse than another; or whether some countries are worse than others; is irrelevant (unless we are accepting of racism as long as it 'isn't too bad').
Will get a look at this later or tomorrow. One for digesting fully I reckon
Regarding the John Barnes comment, he seems to have a sensible viewpoint on what he deems to be racist while he had racist terms and object flung at him while playing football. Racism may always exist in some form however is the issue as bad as we are told in this country. I am not sure.
The having it worse that 90% of protesters comment was not a good way to put my thoughts down of course.
One of the disadvantages of social media is that it allows people to express their views on any subject, including those they are not qualified to talk about. If they just stuck to their area of expertise, they wouldn't make themselves look foolish, and cause a distraction.
You could of course argue that Marcus Rashford is an exception to this argument. Although I commend his efforts, and appreciate his concern, I think The Government would have got there anyway, eventually. All they seem to be doing these days is u-turning.
There are much worse things out there than people expressing their views on a subject, even if it can be deemed offensive or foolish to some. It can be distracting of course however we don't need to read or acknowledge.
It's a platform for people to give opinions on subject they want to type about which is fine. Can't give carte blanche of course as certain things are hard to defend. I would agree with education and upbringing being key factors in how best to conduct yourself on social media platforms.
Social Media or anti-social media for the vast amount of users is a bit of a time thief. They can be very useful if used sensibly without overindulging. Can say that about anything really!
The biggest one, Facebook, themselves admit on built-in addictive features to get people hooked on the site while data mining people's private data. There are plenty of articles and videos on this so don't need to go into much detail in this thread.
Much more concerned about the lack of privacy social media sites provide than people I don't have any feelings towards and likely will never meet talk a lot of b*llocks!
Maybe we will see Sky News shooting down to see Anthony Joshua, and Tyson Fury, straight after PMQs on Wednesday to get their views on how it went.
Positive discrimination is fine, provided it is proportionate, i.e is measurable according to advantage.
Let's use a simple example.
Suppose you are a good University, say Nottingham. You have 2 candidates.
Candidate A goes to Eton, and is predicted to get BBB. Candidate B goes to an inner-city Comp. and is predicted BCC.
Which to take? B. Every time.
Because if Candidate A is only a few points better with all those advantages, Candidate B will be far better going forward, when each would have identical teaching. A is below average at Eton, whereas B is probably top 5% at the Comp.
I remember years ago there was a debate on TV where this black woman argued that black people can't be called racists by white people because white people have never suffered what black people have suffered, I understand what she means, but does this mean there is different degrees of racism ?, or is a racist a racist ?.
I lived in London for a while and I was called a jock, sweat sock, haggistani and the like, I get on poker sites as well, It's never really bothered me, water off a ducks erse, but then I read this article... THE application of the law regarding racially-aggravated offences is eroding freedom of speech and threatening the objectivity of the criminal law, according to legal and human rights experts.
An increase in the number of people being prosecuted for insulting others on the basis of their nationality has raised the question of when verbal insults cross the line and become criminally racist.
Is it merely the choice of adjective, or the manner in which they are uttered?
Since the creation of raciallyaggravated offences seven years ago there has been a proliferation of prosecutions of people who use national, not ethnic, slurs against others.
However, many legal experts believe racially aggravated offences were introduced to protect ethnic minorities - not the sensitivities of the Scots, Welsh, Irish or English.
Nevertheless, a whole new group of people have been branded racists in the eyes of the law, from the councillor in Lanarkshire who called a Welsh constituent "boyo" to the Frenchman in Argyll who said a business rival was a "fat, f***ing English c***".
Legal experts and human rights activists are concerned the way the law on raciallyaggravated offences is being applied is eroding freedom of speech as more and more people are facing court for using adjectives such as English, Irish, Scottish and Welsh when they insult others.
Racially-aggravated offences were introduced into the criminal justice system by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, a year before devolution.
According to the Home Office, they were created "to make it clear that racial crime will not be tolerated".
For the purposes of the Act, a racial group is "a group of persons defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins."
While it was expected that the creation of the offence would criminalise people who attacked ethnic minorities, it was not foreseen that so many cases of people uttering slurs on nationality would end up in court.
Last week Kevin Bonar, a Hearts fan, was convicted of a racially-aggravated breach of the peace for calling Craig Bellamy, the former Celtic player, a "wee Welsh ****" at a football match.
This is not, believes Paul McBride, a leading criminal QC, the kind of person the act was supposed to criminalise.
"It was to deal with black and Asian people being abused in the street, " he said. "I don't think they foresaw it being applied to national slurs in the way it has been.
"The act was a good idea.
There is no doubt ethnic minorities were being abused and the penalties were not fitting the crime.
"There is no problem with the legislation - the problem is that, in the current climate, if you add certain banned adjectives in front of an insult you are branded a racist.
"Now you have people involved in relatively trifling circumstances finding themselves branded a racist and as a result barred from every public sector job in the country.
"The guy who called Bellamy a Welsh **** was going to call him a **** anyway. He just happened to be Welsh.
"He could have called him a Celtic **** and it wouldn't be racially aggravated."
He warned that if the law continues to be applied as it is at present, the interpretation of "racial" could be unnecessarily widened.
He added: "Although it has never been tested in court, I suppose calling someone a dirty European Union **** would be a racial slur as it refers to their nationality and citizenship.
"To call someone a 'sheepshagging Aberdonian ****' may be interpreted as a racial slur, that's where we are going with this."
The policeman who arrested Bonar told Glasgow Sheriff Court that he would not have done so had he merely called Craig Bellamy a ****, and that it was the inclusion of "Welsh" that provoked the arrest.
A different officer, using his discretion, could conceivably have arrested Bonar for a normal breach of the peace if he had not used the word "Welsh".
Although Colin Boyd QC, the Lord Advocate, has issued guidelines on what constitutes a racially-aggravated breach of the peace to Scottish police forces, they are not available to the public.
However, a spokeswoman said that the perception of a victim or a witness to an incident is taken into consideration.
This, according to John Scott, chairman of the Scottish Human Rights Centre, is an unwelcome development in the criminal law.
He said: "Breach of the peace is generally approached on an objective basis, so under normal circumstances there is an objectivity test.
"When you start considering the reaction of witnesses, that becomes extremely subjective.
One person or police officer may react differently to another.
"How thick a person's skin is starts coming into play. The law should never be so subject to the whim or sensitivities of individuals, it has to be more robust.
"The objective test of a breach of the peace is that the reasonable man would be alarmed by the behaviour, but now we are sidelining the reasonable man and allowing the thin-skinned individual to be the test, which is new.
"That results in obvious problems with inconsistency and there is potential for the law to stray too far into the area of an attack on freedom of speech."
He added: "We are possibly in danger of creating artificial racial groups that don't actually exist and of having an aggravation for almost every group and individual. The majority of offences should be able to be dealt with by existing criminal law."
However, Christopher Gane, professor of Scots law at the University of Aberdeen, does not believe unnecessary subjectivity is creeping into the criminal law.
He said that he too believed parliament's intention when creating racially aggravated offences was to protect ethnic minorities, but has no qualms over how the law is now being applied.
"People can be attacked by others because it is assumed they are something, whether or not that assumption turns out to be true, " he added.
"The discriminatory motivation that lies behind these attacks is sometimes subjective itself, and if you look at it from the perspective of the victim, does it matter if you are attacked because you are X or because someone thinks you are X?
"That is why you might want to consider perceptions."
Gordon Jackson, a QC and Labour MSP, has misgivings about the application of the law, and fears it could lessen the significance of raciallyaggravated charges in general.
He said: "The law was created, very importantly, to stop people being bullied or discriminated against because of race, which most people in this country, I suppose, understand in relation to skin colour and minorities.
"If you use something too much, there is the danger that you lessen the force of it, which is what seems to be happening.
"If this is used for over-protection, the result is you water down its significance and the seriousness of racism.
"Is calling someone Welsh, or Irish, or English really any more offensive than calling them fat?".
Positive discrimination is fine, provided it is proportionate, i.e is measurable according to advantage.
Let's use a simple example.
Suppose you are a good University, say Nottingham. You have 2 candidates.
Candidate A goes to Eton, and is predicted to get BBB. Candidate B goes to an inner-city Comp. and is predicted BCC.
Which to take? B. Every time.
Because if Candidate A is only a few points better with all those advantages, Candidate B will be far better going forward, when each would have identical teaching. A is below average at Eton, whereas B is probably top 5% at the Comp.
What if candidate A was black, and B was white?
Well that’s easy, you’d take the black one as the white one would be coming from a place of privilege! The whole thing is absurd and a distortion. Why should an employer have to calibrate for scores based on where those scores were attained? If you believe the principle we might as well be more lenient on worse performing schools such that the output is already calibrated.
Plus there’s no real way of seeing identical candidates to make such a distinction. You think you can deduce from their CV an individual’s privilege? And weight this successfully against another? It’s a nonsense. Having money might be one privilege, being attractive might be another, or how sociable you are. One privilege might be an asset for one situation but a hindrance in another.
You can’t bunch everyone together into groups and point to their differences. This is the inversion that the extreme left can’t seem to grasp.
Going back to the OP, I haven’t seen any evidence that would make me conclude George Floyd’s death was racially motivated. The way that BLM have jumped on it to further their agenda is blatant, yet everyone is so scared to offend that they don’t want to ask the question.
I also don’t accept some reports that believe the right wing maniac minority coming out for a fight proves that the U.K. is ‘full of racists’. It’s extremely tiring to defend yourself against perceived thinly veiled micro-aggressions that manifest from unconscious bias due to privilege.
When BLM push #defundthepolice and our police are attacked by both the extreme left and the extreme right, it’s time to stop bending the knee to them and start enforcing the law.
Anyone wondering how life is going in the haven of Chaz? Apparently being able to call someone to help you protect your property is also a privilege.
Positive discrimination is fine, provided it is proportionate, i.e is measurable according to advantage.
Let's use a simple example.
Suppose you are a good University, say Nottingham. You have 2 candidates.
Candidate A goes to Eton, and is predicted to get BBB. Candidate B goes to a n inner-city Comp. and is predicted BCC.
Which to take? B. Every time.
Because if Candidate A is only a few points better with all those advantages, Candidate B will be far better going forward, when each would have identical teaching. A is below average at Eton, whereas B is probably top 5% at the Comp.
You wont stop the other candidate feeling resentful, and maybe racist where he may not have been before, because of the incident.
What if you were talking about a prestigious job. The top three candidates based on performance, and experience, are all white. You choose someone else because they aren't. All three leading candidates are furious, feel robbed, and quite rightly so.
Wouldn't the decision be racist?
No discrimination should be acceptable?
The racism argument is surely about equality?
All lives matter.
That ignores the fact that otherwise the inner-city kid will feel resentful because the deck is stacked against him.
Your example ignores the very sensible parameters I provided. It needs to be measurable. So the weight should only be there to redress the imbalance already present.
Equality is impossible to achieve. Equality of opportunity is not.
Positive discrimination is fine, provided it is proportionate, i.e is measurable according to advantage.
Let's use a simple example.
Suppose you are a good University, say Nottingham. You have 2 candidates.
Candidate A goes to Eton, and is predicted to get BBB. Candidate B goes to an inner-city Comp. and is predicted BCC.
Which to take? B. Every time.
Because if Candidate A is only a few points better with all those advantages, Candidate B will be far better going forward, when each would have identical teaching. A is below average at Eton, whereas B is probably top 5% at the Comp.
What if candidate A was black, and B was white?
Then that would be the exception where the black kid had the advantages. Choose B. Again.
Not that Eton is famous for its diversity policy. Unless you are a billionaire, of course.
Positive discrimination is fine, provided it is proportionate, i.e is measurable according to advantage.
Let's use a simple example.
Suppose you are a good University, say Nottingham. You have 2 candidates.
Candidate A goes to Eton, and is predicted to get BBB. Candidate B goes to an inner-city Comp. and is predicted BCC.
Which to take? B. Every time.
Because if Candidate A is only a few points better with all those advantages, Candidate B will be far better going forward, when each would have identical teaching. A is below average at Eton, whereas B is probably top 5% at the Comp.
What if candidate A was black, and B was white?
Well that’s easy, you’d take the black one as the white one would be coming from a place of privilege! The whole thing is absurd and a distortion. Why should an employer have to calibrate for scores based on where those scores were attained? If you believe the principle we might as well be more lenient on worse performing schools such that the output is already calibrated.
Plus there’s no real way of seeing identical candidates to make such a distinction. You think you can deduce from their CV an individual’s privilege? And weight this successfully against another? It’s a nonsense. Having money might be one privilege, being attractive might be another, or how sociable you are. One privilege might be an asset for one situation but a hindrance in another.
You can’t bunch everyone together into groups and point to their differences. This is the inversion that the extreme left can’t seem to grasp.
Going back to the OP, I haven’t seen any evidence that would make me conclude George Floyd’s death was racially motivated. The way that BLM have jumped on it to further their agenda is blatant, yet everyone is so scared to offend that they don’t want to ask the question.
I also don’t accept some reports that believe the right wing maniac minority coming out for a fight proves that the U.K. is ‘full of racists’. It’s extremely tiring to defend yourself against perceived thinly veiled micro-aggressions that manifest from unconscious bias due to privilege.
When BLM push #defundthepolice and our police are attacked by both the extreme left and the extreme right, it’s time to stop bending the knee to them and start enforcing the law.
Anyone wondering how life is going in the haven of Chaz? Apparently being able to call someone to help you protect your property is also a privilege.
It’s absolutely mental.
Thanks so much for whitesplaining the situation.
I'm a white, public school-educated, former employer as a Solicitor.
And you are just so 1950's.
PS-not saying John Barnes had it easy. Racism was worse when he played football. But he wasn't exactly without opportunities-his father was an Army Colonel who moved to this country in a diplomatic capacity.
It was mentioned above that John Barnes "had it a lot worse that 90% of these protesters"...
This point is entirely irrelevant, unless there is an acceptable level of racism. We do not have an equal society.
Regarding the 'does racism still exist in the UK' question...
This is not a hard question to answer. One simple metric that highlights that racism still exists in the UK is arrests...
Arrest rate per 1000 people by ethnicity: All = 12 Asian = 12 Black = 35 Mixed = 19 White = 10 Others inc Chinese = 11 (Ethnicity Fact and Figures Service, 2018)
Some might suggest that this is just because black people are more likely to commit crime. There are 2 avenues that are worthwhile exploring when trying to understand why the arrest rates for certain ethnic groups are higher than others...
Those avenues are genetics or environment.
Often referred to as 'nature or nurture'. Those of a racist persuasion would like to suggest that the explanation for the above figures lay in the area of genetics or nature. This is a very outdated view, thankfully, as it is quite absurd to suggest that people of certain ethnic origins are genetically hard-wired for crime. This view is further debunked by a little research. In countries with greater levels of equality (income, housing & health) there is less disparity between crime figures for people of different ethnic origins. Conversely, in countries with lower levels of equality there is greater levels of disparity in the crime figures for people of different ethnic origins.
If anyone wants to argue with the above data then I would suggest looking out other metrics such as longevity, income, health, education and housing. Across these metrics in the UK people of non-white ethnic origin fare worse.
The above information makes it very clear that it is environment - not genetics - that explains the disproportionate differences in the above figures. In other words it is institutional racism. People of non-white ethnicity simply do not have equality of opportunity in the UK, some individuals might but on average they do not, hence the figures.
Racism definitely exists in the UK. Whether one individual has it worse than another; or whether some countries are worse than others; is irrelevant (unless we are accepting of racism as long as it 'isn't too bad').
This is a very poor analysis. What would you do if you were in power and shown these findings? What does it point to that needs to change? The point being you’ve not gone to a low enough level of detail to pinpoint the contributory factors. “Environment” leaves a lot of scope. You can’t leap from the outcomes to ‘they don’t have equality of opportunity, hence the figures’. Do you think it’s a help or hindrance to tell young black people that the system is rigged against them, or is it better to show there are opportunities to succeed in this country if you work hard.
The two most predictive factors to future earnings are intelligence and conscientiousness. I don’t see how pushing the victim narrative is going to turn these outcome figures around, if it were me I’d probably give up. What’s the point you’re not going to give me that job anyway.
It is relevant that things are better today that 30-50 years ago. It takes time for things to earn through. If there were real blockers to social mobility that have been rectified it would take a generation or two to close the gap. Once you standardise for poverty, race drops out of the models. Reducing poverty and keeping kids fed and read are the keys to improving these outcomes. Not coming from a single parent family helps in this regard too (simply because there is more household income and opportunity).
I'm a white, public school-educated, former employer as a Solicitor.
And you are just so 1950's.
PS-not saying John Barnes had it easy. Racism was worse when he played football. But he wasn't exactly without opportunities-his father was an Army Colonel who moved to this country in a diplomatic capacity.
Lol, sorry, were you replying to me only I don’t see you engaging with any of points made.
The main point is that you can never isolate an individual’s opportunity and pit them against another’s. That’s only ever going to be a biased appraisal and discriminatory, former employer as a solicitor or not. Surely that’s the whole point of having standardised entry criteria and hiring processes.
I'm a white, public school-educated, former employer as a Solicitor.
And you are just so 1950's.
PS-not saying John Barnes had it easy. Racism was worse when he played football. But he wasn't exactly without opportunities-his father was an Army Colonel who moved to this country in a diplomatic capacity.
Lol, sorry, were you replying to me only I don’t see you engaging with any of points made.
The main point is that you can never isolate an individual’s opportunity and pit them against another’s. That’s only ever going to be a biased appraisal and discriminatory, former employer as a solicitor or not. Surely that’s the whole point of having standardised entry criteria and hiring processes.
Only if you want to perpetuate class inequality. Decision-makers at large employers are typically white and middle-aged. They tend towards favouring people similar to themselves.
I have had the advantage of studying this topic in considerable detail. As, i know, has Mark.
If you genuinely believe that someone winth BBB from Eton is as naturally intelligent as a BCC from a bad Comp, then I pity you.
1 had class sizes of 15, the finest teachers in the land, and a peer group others can only dream of. Supportive parents, no money worries, an army of influential referees and internships.
It is ignoring the background that is discriminatory. As I have spent many pleasurable hours explaining, while cross-examining people with your beliefs in employment tribunals.
Look Phil, I understand your example, and I don’t need your pity.
My objection to your example was only that it is a simplification, if all else is equal then yes we can credibly determine that the achievement from the Comp is greater than that from Eton. The objection was based all of the factors you need to standardise that you just imply given Eton vs Comp.
Perhaps that’s what they thought in the 1950s, I’ve no idea.
The recruitment process needs to test aptitude, and it’s never going to be decided on a grade here or there. You’re assessing character and potential. One left leaning member of staff told me if he saw another CV from Oxford Uni it was going straight in the bin. He’d decided we had enough of those and that this move was pro-diversity, regardless of background or anything other than the fact they’d studied at Oxford.
Positive discrimination is fine, provided it is proportionate, i.e is measurable according to advantage.
Let's use a simple example.
Suppose you are a good University, say Nottingham. You have 2 candidates.
Candidate A goes to Eton, and is predicted to get BBB. Candidate B goes to an inner-city Comp. and is predicted BCC.
Which to take? B. Every time.
Because if Candidate A is only a few points better with all those advantages, Candidate B will be far better going forward, when each would have identical teaching. A is below average at Eton, whereas B is probably top 5% at the Comp.
Reject A unless there's a strong argument to consider them. BBB isn't good enough if you're coming from Eton. Invite B to take a course with a foundation year see how they perform with better teaching for a year, let them sink or swim.
If I had to choose one to start a degree in September, I'd pick B but I wouldn't be particularly excited about either.
FWIW, the practice at my Uni is to apply for a reduced offer based on your circumstances, then if you meet two or more of their criteria, they drop two grades from the offer if the candidate passes an assignment set after A-level exams (e.g. an AAB offer would become BBB or ABC).
There's a ton of things that they will accept, like: - Attending below average secondary schools and colleges - Living in an area with low progression to higher education - Being fostered/adopted - Time out of education for various reasons (e.g. having a child, mental/physical health issues) - Household income below a certain threshold - Neither of your parents going to University
I'd imagine most Universities have something similar to help identify disadvantaged candidates during the application process.
It's more likely for a black student to meet those kinds of those criteria than a white student (for obvious reasons). But it doesn't automatically mean "Black = Reduced offer", or any other similar misconceptions that people sometimes have about positive discrimination.
EDIT: Added some stuff and a misplaced full stop was tilting me.
Look Phil, I understand your example, and I don’t need your pity.
My objection to your example was only that it is a simplification, if all else is equal then yes we can credibly determine that the achievement from the Comp is greater than that from Eton. The objection was based all of the factors you need to standardise that you just imply given Eton vs Comp.
Perhaps that’s what they thought in the 1950s, I’ve no idea.
The recruitment process needs to test aptitude, and it’s never going to be decided on a grade here or there. You’re assessing character and potential. One left leaning member of staff told me if he saw another CV from Oxford Uni it was going straight in the bin. He’d decided we had enough of those and that this move was pro-diversity, regardless of background or anything other than the fact they’d studied at Oxford.
I am sure 1 employer did that.
I have seen lots of employers who have done the reverse-too many candidates, so just ditch the non-Oxbridge ones. The City has an amazingly high proportion of white, public school-educated Solicitors.
But it is not just the Professions.
The police? 86% of the population are white. 93.1% of police officers are white. Asian? 6.8% population, 2.9% of the force. Black? 3.3%/1.2%.
At "Senior Officer" level it is worse. Just 48 Asian and 24 Black officers. That is about 2.5% total.
Or we could take football. I used to believe that it was only a matter of time before all those great 70s/80s black footballers changed management. Very few ever got a chance. Those that did, on average, lasted half as long as the average white manager.
We still have never had a BAME Prime minister. We have a Government with no Black person in it.
Do you believe that no Black person is worthy of helping to run our country? No British BAME footballer anywhere near managing a top club?
It could be that none of them have been good enough. Or it could be that the system needs changing.
I have seen lots of employers who have done the reverse-too many candidates, so just ditch the non-Oxbridge ones. The City has an amazingly high proportion of white, public school-educated Solicitors.
But it is not just the Professions.
The police? 86% of the population are white. 93.1% of police officers are white. Asian? 6.8% population, 2.9% of the force. Black? 3.3%/1.2%.
At "Senior Officer" level it is worse. Just 48 Asian and 24 Black officers. That is about 2.5% total.
Or we could take football. I used to believe that it was only a matter of time before all those great 70s/80s black footballers changed management. Very few ever got a chance. Those that did, on average, lasted half as long as the average white manager.
We still have never had a BAME Prime minister. We have a Government with no Black person in it.
Do you believe that no Black person is worthy of helping to run our country? No British BAME footballer anywhere near managing a top club?
It could be that none of them have been good enough. Or it could be that the system needs changing.
But it has to be one or the other.
We now have a situation where the Home Secretary, a member of the BAME community if you see things in those terms is having her personal experience of racism questioned because she’s not the right colour. Not the right sort of racism. Doesn’t sound like a progressive debate to me. Public office would be the place where it is most important to have a reflective makeup though.
Public schools and wealthy backgrounds also dominate government.
With football managers, there could be racism within the institution, there does seem to be a disproportionate number of racists amongst fans! Could it not also be the case that it takes time to earn through? I don’t know the figures but presumably the number of BAME players has risen in the past 20/30 years and it follows that we should be seeing these fruits after a lag?
Giving equal opportunity and breaking barriers is most important. After that there is still freedom of choice, and if we ticked all diversity quotients across all industries I suspect something along the way had gone wrong. Like how do you get more men into teaching? Pay them more?
Positive discrimination is fine, provided it is proportionate, i.e is measurable according to advantage.
Let's use a simple example.
Suppose you are a good University, say Nottingham. You have 2 candidates.
Candidate A goes to Eton, and is predicted to get BBB. Candidate B goes to an inner-city Comp. and is predicted BCC.
Which to take? B. Every time.
Because if Candidate A is only a few points better with all those advantages, Candidate B will be far better going forward, when each would have identical teaching. A is below average at Eton, whereas B is probably top 5% at the Comp.
Reject A unless there's a strong argument to consider them. BBB isn't good enough if you're coming from Eton. Invite B to take a course with a foundation year see how they perform with better teaching for a year, let them sink or swim.
If I had to choose one to start a degree in September, I'd pick B but I wouldn't be particularly excited about either.
FWIW, the practice at my Uni is to apply for a reduced offer based on your circumstances, then if you meet two or more of their criteria, they drop two grades from the offer if the candidate passes an assignment set after A-level exams (e.g. an AAB offer would become BBB or ABC).
There's a ton of things that they will accept, like: - Attending below average secondary schools and colleges - Living in an area with low progression to higher education - Being fostered/adopted - Time out of education for various reasons (e.g. having a child, mental/physical health issues) - Household income below a certain threshold - Neither of your parents going to University
I'd imagine most Universities have something similar to help identify disadvantaged candidates during the application process.
It's more likely for a black student to meet those kinds of those criteria than a white student (for obvious reasons). But it doesn't automatically mean "Black = Reduced offer", or any other similar misconceptions that people sometimes have about positive discrimination.
EDIT: Added some stuff and a misplaced full stop was tilting me.
Applying for mitigating circumstances seems a good compromise to be honest.
Some would have greater weight than others, makes sense to look at it at the individual level. Surprised that this one is on the list for Oxford though.
I have seen lots of employers who have done the reverse-too many candidates, so just ditch the non-Oxbridge ones. The City has an amazingly high proportion of white, public school-educated Solicitors.
But it is not just the Professions.
The police? 86% of the population are white. 93.1% of police officers are white. Asian? 6.8% population, 2.9% of the force. Black? 3.3%/1.2%.
At "Senior Officer" level it is worse. Just 48 Asian and 24 Black officers. That is about 2.5% total.
Or we could take football. I used to believe that it was only a matter of time before all those great 70s/80s black footballers changed management. Very few ever got a chance. Those that did, on average, lasted half as long as the average white manager.
We still have never had a BAME Prime minister. We have a Government with no Black person in it.
Do you believe that no Black person is worthy of helping to run our country? No British BAME footballer anywhere near managing a top club?
It could be that none of them have been good enough. Or it could be that the system needs changing.
But it has to be one or the other.
We now have a situation where the Home Secretary, a member of the BAME community if you see things in those terms is having her personal experience of racism questioned because she’s not the right colour. Not the right sort of racism. Doesn’t sound like a progressive debate to me. Public office would be the place where it is most important to have a reflective makeup though.
Public schools and wealthy backgrounds also dominate government.
With football managers, there could be racism within the institution, there does seem to be a disproportionate number of racists amongst fans! Could it not also be the case that it takes time to earn through? I don’t know the figures but presumably the number of BAME players has risen in the past 20/30 years and it follows that we should be seeing these fruits after a lag?
Giving equal opportunity and breaking barriers is most important. After that there is still freedom of choice, and if we ticked all diversity quotients across all industries I suspect something along the way had gone wrong. Like how do you get more men into teaching? Pay them more?
I thought this would happen. But it didn't.
Compare/contrast Frank Lampard/Steven Gerrard, with Sol Campbell/Paul Ince (or, indeed, any Black footballer. Ashley Cole? 107 caps. And seemingly lost to the game.
What do you fancy? Derby/Chelsea and Rangers, and time even without winning trophies? Or Macclesfield/Southend?
I remember years ago there was a debate on TV where this black woman argued that black people can't be called racists by white people because white people have never suffered what black people have suffered, I understand what she means, but does this mean there is different degrees of racism ?, or is a racist a racist ?.
I lived in London for a while and I was called a jock, sweat sock, haggistani and the like, I get on poker sites as well, It's never really bothered me, water off a ducks erse, but then I read this article... THE application of the law regarding racially-aggravated offences is eroding freedom of speech and threatening the objectivity of the criminal law, according to legal and human rights experts.
An increase in the number of people being prosecuted for insulting others on the basis of their nationality has raised the question of when verbal insults cross the line and become criminally racist.
Is it merely the choice of adjective, or the manner in which they are uttered?
Since the creation of raciallyaggravated offences seven years ago there has been a proliferation of prosecutions of people who use national, not ethnic, slurs against others.
However, many legal experts believe racially aggravated offences were introduced to protect ethnic minorities - not the sensitivities of the Scots, Welsh, Irish or English.
Nevertheless, a whole new group of people have been branded racists in the eyes of the law, from the councillor in Lanarkshire who called a Welsh constituent "boyo" to the Frenchman in Argyll who said a business rival was a "fat, f***ing English c***".
Legal experts and human rights activists are concerned the way the law on raciallyaggravated offences is being applied is eroding freedom of speech as more and more people are facing court for using adjectives such as English, Irish, Scottish and Welsh when they insult others.
Racially-aggravated offences were introduced into the criminal justice system by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, a year before devolution.
According to the Home Office, they were created "to make it clear that racial crime will not be tolerated".
For the purposes of the Act, a racial group is "a group of persons defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins."
While it was expected that the creation of the offence would criminalise people who attacked ethnic minorities, it was not foreseen that so many cases of people uttering slurs on nationality would end up in court.
Last week Kevin Bonar, a Hearts fan, was convicted of a racially-aggravated breach of the peace for calling Craig Bellamy, the former Celtic player, a "wee Welsh ****" at a football match.
This is not, believes Paul McBride, a leading criminal QC, the kind of person the act was supposed to criminalise.
"It was to deal with black and Asian people being abused in the street, " he said. "I don't think they foresaw it being applied to national slurs in the way it has been.
"The act was a good idea.
There is no doubt ethnic minorities were being abused and the penalties were not fitting the crime.
"There is no problem with the legislation - the problem is that, in the current climate, if you add certain banned adjectives in front of an insult you are branded a racist.
"Now you have people involved in relatively trifling circumstances finding themselves branded a racist and as a result barred from every public sector job in the country.
"The guy who called Bellamy a Welsh **** was going to call him a **** anyway. He just happened to be Welsh.
"He could have called him a Celtic **** and it wouldn't be racially aggravated."
He warned that if the law continues to be applied as it is at present, the interpretation of "racial" could be unnecessarily widened.
He added: "Although it has never been tested in court, I suppose calling someone a dirty European Union **** would be a racial slur as it refers to their nationality and citizenship.
"To call someone a 'sheepshagging Aberdonian ****' may be interpreted as a racial slur, that's where we are going with this."
The policeman who arrested Bonar told Glasgow Sheriff Court that he would not have done so had he merely called Craig Bellamy a ****, and that it was the inclusion of "Welsh" that provoked the arrest.
A different officer, using his discretion, could conceivably have arrested Bonar for a normal breach of the peace if he had not used the word "Welsh".
Although Colin Boyd QC, the Lord Advocate, has issued guidelines on what constitutes a racially-aggravated breach of the peace to Scottish police forces, they are not available to the public.
However, a spokeswoman said that the perception of a victim or a witness to an incident is taken into consideration.
This, according to John Scott, chairman of the Scottish Human Rights Centre, is an unwelcome development in the criminal law.
He said: "Breach of the peace is generally approached on an objective basis, so under normal circumstances there is an objectivity test.
"When you start considering the reaction of witnesses, that becomes extremely subjective.
One person or police officer may react differently to another.
"How thick a person's skin is starts coming into play. The law should never be so subject to the whim or sensitivities of individuals, it has to be more robust.
"The objective test of a breach of the peace is that the reasonable man would be alarmed by the behaviour, but now we are sidelining the reasonable man and allowing the thin-skinned individual to be the test, which is new.
"That results in obvious problems with inconsistency and there is potential for the law to stray too far into the area of an attack on freedom of speech."
He added: "We are possibly in danger of creating artificial racial groups that don't actually exist and of having an aggravation for almost every group and individual. The majority of offences should be able to be dealt with by existing criminal law."
However, Christopher Gane, professor of Scots law at the University of Aberdeen, does not believe unnecessary subjectivity is creeping into the criminal law.
He said that he too believed parliament's intention when creating racially aggravated offences was to protect ethnic minorities, but has no qualms over how the law is now being applied.
"People can be attacked by others because it is assumed they are something, whether or not that assumption turns out to be true, " he added.
"The discriminatory motivation that lies behind these attacks is sometimes subjective itself, and if you look at it from the perspective of the victim, does it matter if you are attacked because you are X or because someone thinks you are X?
"That is why you might want to consider perceptions."
Gordon Jackson, a QC and Labour MSP, has misgivings about the application of the law, and fears it could lessen the significance of raciallyaggravated charges in general.
He said: "The law was created, very importantly, to stop people being bullied or discriminated against because of race, which most people in this country, I suppose, understand in relation to skin colour and minorities.
"If you use something too much, there is the danger that you lessen the force of it, which is what seems to be happening.
"If this is used for over-protection, the result is you water down its significance and the seriousness of racism.
"Is calling someone Welsh, or Irish, or English really any more offensive than calling them fat?".
Many Welsh people have the same view of Craig Bellamy.
Comments
Regarding the John Barnes comment, he seems to have a sensible viewpoint on what he deems to be racist while he had racist terms and object flung at him while playing football. Racism may always exist in some form however is the issue as bad as we are told in this country. I am not sure.
The having it worse that 90% of protesters comment was not a good way to put my thoughts down of course.
If they just stuck to their area of expertise, they wouldn't make themselves look foolish, and cause a distraction.
You could of course argue that Marcus Rashford is an exception to this argument.
Although I commend his efforts, and appreciate his concern, I think The Government would have got there anyway, eventually.
All they seem to be doing these days is u-turning.
There are much worse things out there than people expressing their views on a subject, even if it can be deemed offensive or foolish to some. It can be distracting of course however we don't need to read or acknowledge.
It's a platform for people to give opinions on subject they want to type about which is fine. Can't give carte blanche of course as certain things are hard to defend. I would agree with education and upbringing being key factors in how best to conduct yourself on social media platforms.
Social Media or anti-social media
The biggest one, Facebook, themselves admit on built-in addictive features to get people hooked on the site while data mining people's private data. There are plenty of articles and videos on this so don't need to go into much detail in this thread.
Much more concerned about the lack of privacy social media sites provide than people I don't have any feelings towards and likely will never meet talk a lot of b*llocks!
Maybe we will see Sky News shooting down to see Anthony Joshua, and Tyson Fury, straight after PMQs on Wednesday to get their views on how it went.
I lived in London for a while and I was called a jock, sweat sock, haggistani and the like, I get on poker sites as well, It's never really bothered me, water off a ducks erse, but then I read this article... THE application of the law regarding racially-aggravated offences is eroding freedom of speech and threatening the objectivity of the criminal law, according to legal and human rights experts.
An increase in the number of people being prosecuted for insulting others on the basis of their nationality has raised the question of when verbal insults cross the line and become criminally racist.
Is it merely the choice of adjective, or the manner in which they are uttered?
Since the creation of raciallyaggravated offences seven years ago there has been a proliferation of prosecutions of people who use national, not ethnic, slurs against others.
However, many legal experts believe racially aggravated offences were introduced to protect ethnic minorities - not the sensitivities of the Scots, Welsh, Irish or English.
Nevertheless, a whole new group of people have been branded racists in the eyes of the law, from the councillor in Lanarkshire who called a Welsh constituent "boyo" to the Frenchman in Argyll who said a business rival was a "fat, f***ing English c***".
Legal experts and human rights activists are concerned the way the law on raciallyaggravated offences is being applied is eroding freedom of speech as more and more people are facing court for using adjectives such as English, Irish, Scottish and Welsh when they insult others.
Racially-aggravated offences were introduced into the criminal justice system by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, a year before devolution.
According to the Home Office, they were created "to make it clear that racial crime will not be tolerated".
For the purposes of the Act, a racial group is "a group of persons defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins."
While it was expected that the creation of the offence would criminalise people who attacked ethnic minorities, it was not foreseen that so many cases of people uttering slurs on nationality would end up in court.
Last week Kevin Bonar, a Hearts fan, was convicted of a racially-aggravated breach of the peace for calling Craig Bellamy, the former Celtic player, a "wee Welsh ****" at a football match.
This is not, believes Paul McBride, a leading criminal QC, the kind of person the act was supposed to criminalise.
"It was to deal with black and Asian people being abused in the street, " he said. "I don't think they foresaw it being applied to national slurs in the way it has been.
"The act was a good idea.
There is no doubt ethnic minorities were being abused and the penalties were not fitting the crime.
"There is no problem with the legislation - the problem is that, in the current climate, if you add certain banned adjectives in front of an insult you are branded a racist.
"Now you have people involved in relatively trifling circumstances finding themselves branded a racist and as a result barred from every public sector job in the country.
"The guy who called Bellamy a Welsh **** was going to call him a **** anyway. He just happened to be Welsh.
"He could have called him a Celtic **** and it wouldn't be racially aggravated."
He warned that if the law continues to be applied as it is at present, the interpretation of "racial" could be unnecessarily widened.
He added: "Although it has never been tested in court, I suppose calling someone a dirty European Union **** would be a racial slur as it refers to their nationality and citizenship.
"To call someone a 'sheepshagging Aberdonian ****' may be interpreted as a racial slur, that's where we are going with this."
The policeman who arrested Bonar told Glasgow Sheriff Court that he would not have done so had he merely called Craig Bellamy a ****, and that it was the inclusion of "Welsh" that provoked the arrest.
A different officer, using his discretion, could conceivably have arrested Bonar for a normal breach of the peace if he had not used the word "Welsh".
Although Colin Boyd QC, the Lord Advocate, has issued guidelines on what constitutes a racially-aggravated breach of the peace to Scottish police forces, they are not available to the public.
However, a spokeswoman said that the perception of a victim or a witness to an incident is taken into consideration.
This, according to John Scott, chairman of the Scottish Human Rights Centre, is an unwelcome development in the criminal law.
He said: "Breach of the peace is generally approached on an objective basis, so under normal circumstances there is an objectivity test.
"When you start considering the reaction of witnesses, that becomes extremely subjective.
One person or police officer may react differently to another.
"How thick a person's skin is starts coming into play. The law should never be so subject to the whim or sensitivities of individuals, it has to be more robust.
"The objective test of a breach of the peace is that the reasonable man would be alarmed by the behaviour, but now we are sidelining the reasonable man and allowing the thin-skinned individual to be the test, which is new.
"That results in obvious problems with inconsistency and there is potential for the law to stray too far into the area of an attack on freedom of speech."
He added: "We are possibly in danger of creating artificial racial groups that don't actually exist and of having an aggravation for almost every group and individual. The majority of offences should be able to be dealt with by existing criminal law."
However, Christopher Gane, professor of Scots law at the University of Aberdeen, does not believe unnecessary subjectivity is creeping into the criminal law.
He said that he too believed parliament's intention when creating racially aggravated offences was to protect ethnic minorities, but has no qualms over how the law is now being applied.
"People can be attacked by others because it is assumed they are something, whether or not that assumption turns out to be true, " he added.
"The discriminatory motivation that lies behind these attacks is sometimes subjective itself, and if you look at it from the perspective of the victim, does it matter if you are attacked because you are X or because someone thinks you are X?
"That is why you might want to consider perceptions."
Gordon Jackson, a QC and Labour MSP, has misgivings about the application of the law, and fears it could lessen the significance of raciallyaggravated charges in general.
He said: "The law was created, very importantly, to stop people being bullied or discriminated against because of race, which most people in this country, I suppose, understand in relation to skin colour and minorities.
"If you use something too much, there is the danger that you lessen the force of it, which is what seems to be happening.
"If this is used for over-protection, the result is you water down its significance and the seriousness of racism.
"Is calling someone Welsh, or Irish, or English really any more offensive than calling them fat?".
Plus there’s no real way of seeing identical candidates to make such a distinction. You think you can deduce from their CV an individual’s privilege? And weight this successfully against another? It’s a nonsense. Having money might be one privilege, being attractive might be another, or how sociable you are. One privilege might be an asset for one situation but a hindrance in another.
You can’t bunch everyone together into groups and point to their differences. This is the inversion that the extreme left can’t seem to grasp.
Going back to the OP, I haven’t seen any evidence that would make me conclude George Floyd’s death was racially motivated. The way that BLM have jumped on it to further their agenda is blatant, yet everyone is so scared to offend that they don’t want to ask the question.
I also don’t accept some reports that believe the right wing maniac minority coming out for a fight proves that the U.K. is ‘full of racists’. It’s extremely tiring to defend yourself against perceived thinly veiled micro-aggressions that manifest from unconscious bias due to privilege.
When BLM push #defundthepolice and our police are attacked by both the extreme left and the extreme right, it’s time to stop bending the knee to them and start enforcing the law.
Anyone wondering how life is going in the haven of Chaz? Apparently being able to call someone to help you protect your property is also a privilege.
It’s absolutely mental.
Your example ignores the very sensible parameters I provided. It needs to be measurable. So the weight should only be there to redress the imbalance already present.
Equality is impossible to achieve. Equality of opportunity is not.
Not that Eton is famous for its diversity policy. Unless you are a billionaire, of course.
I'm a white, public school-educated, former employer as a Solicitor.
And you are just so 1950's.
PS-not saying John Barnes had it easy. Racism was worse when he played football.
But he wasn't exactly without opportunities-his father was an Army Colonel who moved to this country in a diplomatic capacity.
The two most predictive factors to future earnings are intelligence and conscientiousness. I don’t see how pushing the victim narrative is going to turn these outcome figures around, if it were me I’d probably give up. What’s the point you’re not going to give me that job anyway.
It is relevant that things are better today that 30-50 years ago. It takes time for things to earn through. If there were real blockers to social mobility that have been rectified it would take a generation or two to close the gap. Once you standardise for poverty, race drops out of the models. Reducing poverty and keeping kids fed and read are the keys to improving these outcomes. Not coming from a single parent family helps in this regard too (simply because there is more household income and opportunity).
The main point is that you can never isolate an individual’s opportunity and pit them against another’s. That’s only ever going to be a biased appraisal and discriminatory, former employer as a solicitor or not. Surely that’s the whole point of having standardised entry criteria and hiring processes.
Decision-makers at large employers are typically white and middle-aged. They tend towards favouring people similar to themselves.
I have had the advantage of studying this topic in considerable detail. As, i know, has Mark.
If you genuinely believe that someone winth BBB from Eton is as naturally intelligent as a BCC from a bad Comp, then I pity you.
1 had class sizes of 15, the finest teachers in the land, and a peer group others can only dream of. Supportive parents, no money worries, an army of influential referees and internships.
It is ignoring the background that is discriminatory. As I have spent many pleasurable hours explaining, while cross-examining people with your beliefs in employment tribunals.
My objection to your example was only that it is a simplification, if all else is equal then yes we can credibly determine that the achievement from the Comp is greater than that from Eton. The objection was based all of the factors you need to standardise that you just imply given Eton vs Comp.
Perhaps that’s what they thought in the 1950s, I’ve no idea.
The recruitment process needs to test aptitude, and it’s never going to be decided on a grade here or there. You’re assessing character and potential. One left leaning member of staff told me if he saw another CV from Oxford Uni it was going straight in the bin. He’d decided we had enough of those and that this move was pro-diversity, regardless of background or anything other than the fact they’d studied at Oxford.
Invite B to take a course with a foundation year see how they perform with better teaching for a year, let them sink or swim.
If I had to choose one to start a degree in September, I'd pick B but I wouldn't be particularly excited about either. As above.
---
FWIW, the practice at my Uni is to apply for a reduced offer based on your circumstances, then if you meet two or more of their criteria, they drop two grades from the offer if the candidate passes an assignment set after A-level exams (e.g. an AAB offer would become BBB or ABC).
There's a ton of things that they will accept, like:
- Attending below average secondary schools and colleges
- Living in an area with low progression to higher education
- Being fostered/adopted
- Time out of education for various reasons (e.g. having a child, mental/physical health issues)
- Household income below a certain threshold
- Neither of your parents going to University
I'd imagine most Universities have something similar to help identify disadvantaged candidates during the application process.
It's more likely for a black student to meet those kinds of those criteria than a white student (for obvious reasons). But it doesn't automatically mean "Black = Reduced offer", or any other similar misconceptions that people sometimes have about positive discrimination.
EDIT: Added some stuff and a misplaced full stop was tilting me.
I have seen lots of employers who have done the reverse-too many candidates, so just ditch the non-Oxbridge ones. The City has an amazingly high proportion of white, public school-educated Solicitors.
But it is not just the Professions.
The police? 86% of the population are white. 93.1% of police officers are white.
Asian? 6.8% population, 2.9% of the force. Black? 3.3%/1.2%.
At "Senior Officer" level it is worse. Just 48 Asian and 24 Black officers. That is about 2.5% total.
Or we could take football. I used to believe that it was only a matter of time before all those great 70s/80s black footballers changed management. Very few ever got a chance. Those that did, on average, lasted half as long as the average white manager.
We still have never had a BAME Prime minister. We have a Government with no Black person in it.
Do you believe that no Black person is worthy of helping to run our country? No British BAME footballer anywhere near managing a top club?
It could be that none of them have been good enough. Or it could be that the system needs changing.
But it has to be one or the other.
Public schools and wealthy backgrounds also dominate government.
With football managers, there could be racism within the institution, there does seem to be a disproportionate number of racists amongst fans! Could it not also be the case that it takes time to earn through? I don’t know the figures but presumably the number of BAME players has risen in the past 20/30 years and it follows that we should be seeing these fruits after a lag?
Giving equal opportunity and breaking barriers is most important. After that there is still freedom of choice, and if we ticked all diversity quotients across all industries I suspect something along the way had gone wrong. Like how do you get more men into teaching? Pay them more?
Some would have greater weight than others, makes sense to look at it at the individual level. Surprised that this one is on the list for Oxford though.
http://archive.is/Jnsid
Compare/contrast Frank Lampard/Steven Gerrard, with Sol Campbell/Paul Ince (or, indeed, any Black footballer. Ashley Cole? 107 caps. And seemingly lost to the game.
What do you fancy? Derby/Chelsea and Rangers, and time even without winning trophies? Or Macclesfield/Southend?
https://www.facebook.com/terrencekwilliams/videos/730926214310677