Anti discrimination law are an abuse of civil liberties

I think the argument is that people can't help being Black so it should be a "protected characteristic". But they also list religion as a protected characteristic when it's entirely possible for people to change the way they think - or even start to think. I'm all in favour of a complete rethink of protected characteristics. Like maybe there shouldn't be any.

Personally I think there is a moral case - we should seek to judge people as people and seek to equalise their opportunities rather than those opportunities being limited based on their race, sex, sexuality etc.  You are free of course to have a different moral judgement emphasising the rights of the discriminator over the rights of the discriminated.  That's perfectly legitimate too.  
As I said the role of politics (and from that the law) is to balance those rights and decide which to prioritise.  I think in this case we have broadly got it right but you are perfectly entitled to argue the opposite case. Its what a democracy is. 

As I explained Dan, the Civil Service Fast Track service recruits almost exclusively from new graduates who are mostly aged 21-23.  

So if you are looking for evidence of under or over representation, you need to compare offers made to white British people to population of white British people aged 21-23.  (You seem to be factoring in ethnic split of for example 70 year olds - that is simply not comparing like with like and hence your conclusions based on that data are false).   

Just to illustrate the point - over 50% of Britons are currently married, yet the percentage of offerees to the Civil Service Fast Track scheme who are married is likely to be less than 10%. You would be seeking to claim this is evidence of discrimination against married people. That would be false. 

The facts are that the proportion of white people offered jobs in the fast track system is almost exactly proportionate to the racial mix of the talent pool from which they are selected.   

 Indeed. The moment you say, "we need to aim for this racial outcome and modify our behavior to get it", you are employing racism.

If innate racism becomes a worthless phrase and racism is accepted by more people as wrong, then racism will eventually be reduced and perhaps even fade away. But if it is ignored it will will continue to raise its ugly head specifically every now and then.  

dappy: you seem to want to bring in all kinds of new variables for which no meaningful data exists, but I'll play along for now.

"The facts are that the proportion of white people offered jobs in the fast track system is almost exactly proportionate to the racial mix of the talent pool from which they are selected."

You suggest that talent pool consists of university graduates in their early 20s, which seems feasible on the face of it. Do you know what the racial mix of that pool was in, say, 2021 and does that confirm your thesis?

I know Dan as I have said that in 2021 (i dont have figures for 2022) that 76.6% of offers made to Fast Track applicants were made to white people.
I also know that 75.8% of people aged between 18 and 24 had white skin.  On that basis there is no obvious sign of any discrimination.  

Of the 76.6% white offerees 69.8% were White British and 6.8% White other.  

I also know that white applicants made up 70.3% of total applications but that white applicants made up 76.6% of offerees.  

Nowhere in those figures is any suggestion of racial bias.