|
|
Post by dappy on Sept 25, 2023 11:09:50 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Sept 25, 2023 11:18:53 GMT
If you don't think that discrimination is real how do you account for the fact 36% of the recruits for the Civil Service Fast Stream are BME?
As for suing, when was the last time you heard of a white British person receiving compensation for racial discrimination in either the public or the private sector?
Matthew Furlong is the latest I can recall from the police without doing any research, and there are 30 to 40 RAF employees (white and heterosexual, not sure on the British) currently negotiating damages.
That said, if I am able to quote specific cases without any research, it suggests there is a problem with public sector recruitment unlawfully discriminating against, in particular, white, heterosexual men.
Is Matthew Furlong receiving any compensation in addition to the job he should been given in the first place?
I think you are correct in suggesting there is a problem with unlawful public sector discrimination against white, heterosexual men but the reality is it took a high-ranking whistle-blower with in-depth inside knowledge to expose an extremely egregious instance. An individual candidate who is discriminated against is not likely to learn the reasons for not being hired let alone have influential allies inside who can support his case. The overwhelming majority I imagine will just try somewhere else.
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Sept 25, 2023 11:19:55 GMT
Just as I was posting that, Dan provides a link. Aagghh.
He seems to have mixed up his figures again - whether on purpose or to deliberately falsely prove a point, who knows.
Anyway it seems that the percentage of white british accepted has dropped marginally in 2022 from 69.8 to 66.4.
in 2021 the number of other white people was 6.8%. If we assume that number has stayed roughly constant, that would take percentage of white people to 73.2% compared to a proportion of white people aged 18-24 in population of 75.8%
Again hard to see the point Dan is trying to make here.
Incidentally in 2021 at least a higher proportion of white british applicants were accepted than the total for others. (applications was 63.1% acceptances 69.8%). Again hard to see evidence of anti white British bias in the recruitment process.
|
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on Sept 25, 2023 11:31:24 GMT
Matthew Furlong is the latest I can recall from the police without doing any research, and there are 30 to 40 RAF employees (white and heterosexual, not sure on the British) currently negotiating damages.
That said, if I am able to quote specific cases without any research, it suggests there is a problem with public sector recruitment unlawfully discriminating against, in particular, white, heterosexual men.
Is Matthew Furlong receiving any compensation in addition to the job he should been given in the first place?
I think you are correct in suggesting there is a problem with unlawful public sector discrimination against white, heterosexual men but the reality is it took a high-ranking whistle-blower with in-depth inside knowledge to expose an extremely egregious instance. An individual candidate who is discriminated against is not likely to learn the reasons for not being hired let alone have influential allies inside who can support his case. The overwhelming majority I imagine will just try somewhere else.
I haven't checked on Furlong's compensation and while I agree in principle that the number of cases is likely to be the tip of the iceberg, various police forces have been paying compensation in cases of this nature for at least the last 15 years or so. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Sept 25, 2023 11:49:38 GMT
Just as I was posting that, Dan provides a link. Aagghh. He seems to have mixed up his figures again - whether on purpose or to deliberately falsely prove a point, who knows. Anyway it seems that the percentage of white british accepted has dropped marginally in 2022 from 69.8 to 66.4. in 2021 the number of other white people was 6.8%. If we assume that number has stayed roughly constant, that would take percentage of white people to 73.2% compared to a proportion of white people aged 18-24 in population of 75.8% Again hard to see the point Dan is trying to make here. Incidentally in 2021 at least a higher proportion of white british applicants were accepted than the total for others. (applications was 63.1% acceptances 69.8%). Again hard to see evidence of anti white British bias in the recruitment process. It is the white British who are being discriminated against, white 'Other' are not white British. 66.4% recruited versus 74.5% of the population (England and Wales). If we add the WB population of Scotland and NI (both > 92%) then the WB population of the UK (which is what the Civi Service recruits from) is 76% of the whole.
The point I'm trying to make, if it's not too obvious, is that the white British are seriously under-represented amongst Fast Stream recruits to the Civil Service. If BME were similarly under-represented we'd never hear the last of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Sept 25, 2023 12:01:23 GMT
Politics (and by extension laws) is about balancing peoples conflicting rights - in this case prioritising individuals rights not to be discriminated against on the basis of their sex, race, sexuality etc over other peoples rights to discriminate. As ever its about finding the best balance between the two. People can't have a right not to be 'discriminated against'. Such a 'right' is in logical contradiction to anyone else having rights. IMO, there is only a problem where or when there is excessive discrimination against one group or another. If that discrimination is based upon colour or sexual orientation, or whatever else that may be an infringement of the rights and civil liberties of any person, it needs to be held to account. Civil Liberty. __"a person's rights to be subject only to laws established for the good of the community:"__ which does not include being subjected to or controlled by racism or prejudice. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Sept 25, 2023 12:10:01 GMT
Of course the reason why we see black faces everywhere is deliberate racial policy and not just at the BBC. The 'diversity and inclusion' section of the annual report of the Home Office includes a proud boast that the 2025 target for ethnic minority staff (24%) was already met in 2022. In 2022 the proportion of white British recruits in the Civil Service Fast Stream was 66% compared to 81% of the population of England and Wales (2021). It's institutional racism. It may be OTT in some cases, but it is an attempt to change the innate racism that has existed in this country for too long. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Sept 25, 2023 12:11:23 GMT
As usual Dan you are not comparing like with like.
If you wish evidence of discrimination, you need to compare numbers accepted against the proportion of white British in the age group around the age of 21-23 from which fast track applicants are selected.
While figures for overall white people are available for this age group as far as I know there is no split between white British and white other.
We do know however that total white people proportion for 18-24yo is 75.8% and the total acceptees into the Fast Track Civil Service for white people is 76.6% (in 2021). There is no evidence of anti white bias in those statistics. We also know that in 2021 a higher proportion of white people applying were accepted than other races. Again no evidence of anti-white bias there.
Actually to get a fully authentic comparison, you would have to compare the proportion of white (white british if you prefer) graduates to the proportion of acceptees. Not sure those statistics exist.
Much as you wish to fulfill your desire for anti-white discrimination, the statistics simply do not back up your claims.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 25, 2023 12:18:35 GMT
People can't have a right not to be 'discriminated against'. Such a 'right' is in logical contradiction to anyone else having rights. IMO, there is only a problem where or when there is excessive discrimination against one group or another. If that discrimination is based upon colour or sexual orientation, or whatever else that may be an infringement of the rights and civil liberties of any person, it needs to be held to account. Civil Liberty. __"a person's rights to be subject only to laws established for the good of the community:"__ which does not include being subjected to or controlled by racism or prejudice. You are using words in that definition incorrectly - ie the word subjectIf you ask a person to marry you, you are (of course) subject to their refusal. However, there is no law that creates such a refusal and your civil liberties have not been negated by it. The definition you quoted uses the word subject as a shorthand to describe the actions of government on citizens.. Winding back a bit - I don't see discrimination on any basis as an infringement of rights, because the right not be discriminated against isn't a coherent right (as explained earlier in the thread) |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Sept 25, 2023 12:33:50 GMT
The Government has decreed Dan, rightly in my view, that there must be no discrimination based on race in employment decisions. That applies equally in both directions and applies as much to publlc sector jobs as private sectors. You keep saying this dappy but it's simply not true, as I've told you. The Equality Act has many exemptions - through which people can drive a coach and horses The Equality Act says discrimination can be justified if the person who's discriminating against you can show it's a " proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim". Whatever that means. For example the police might deliberately recruit Blacks to police a predominantly Black area because they claim they need to "represent the people they're policing". ET cetera. There are lots of cases of this exemption being used - although I don't recall anyone using the exemption to employ whites instead of ethnics. That would be "Racist".  |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Sept 25, 2023 12:41:53 GMT
Politics (and by extension laws) is about balancing peoples conflicting rights - in this case prioritising individuals rights not to be discriminated against on the basis of their sex, race, sexuality etc over other peoples rights to discriminate. As ever its about finding the best balance between the two. Why is it wrong to discriminate on race, is there a moral argument that says this must not happen. We know the Declaration of Human Rights says an individual has a right not to be discriminated against but that is an obligation on government as regards law it is not an obligation on other citizens. I cannot remove your human rights in law through government but I have no obligation to supply them as with each of us being discrete individuals. |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Sept 25, 2023 12:43:30 GMT
The free-school-meals civil service intake is an interesting category — is there a racial breakdown for this…?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Sept 25, 2023 12:45:33 GMT
Of course the reason why we see black faces everywhere is deliberate racial policy and not just at the BBC. The 'diversity and inclusion' section of the annual report of the Home Office includes a proud boast that the 2025 target for ethnic minority staff (24%) was already met in 2022. In 2022 the proportion of white British recruits in the Civil Service Fast Stream was 66% compared to 81% of the population of England and Wales (2021). It's institutional racism. It may be OTT in some cases, but it is an attempt to change the innate racism that has existed in this country for too long. And in your view a good way to address that problem is to punish young white British people by denying them employment in the Civil Service? Even though it's highly likely they're as commited to the cause of anti-racism as you or anyone else? |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Sept 25, 2023 12:47:14 GMT
Like I said Sandy, its a political choice balancing conflicting rights - just like for example speeding laws. Our representatives have decided that the need to prevent people from being treated unfairly based on race, sex, sexuality etc is more important than protecting the rights of those who wish to discriminate based on those characteristics. Choosing between conflicting rights is the essence of what politics is about.
Hence we have jointly decided that it is not allowed under the law to base recruitment decisions on race - (in any direction)
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Sept 25, 2023 12:48:59 GMT
It may be OTT in some cases, but it is an attempt to change the innate racism that has existed in this country for too long. And in your view a good way to address that problem is to punish young white British people by denying them employment in the Civil Service? Even though it's highly likely they're as commited to the cause of anti-racism as you or anyone else? But Dan, as we have seen, young white British people are not punished by denying them employment in the Civil Service - whether in fast track or the main body. You got your numbers wrong (again) |
|
