PM Launches Double Attack On Racial Bias

David Cameron has launched a double attack on racial bias: in the courts and prisons and in Britain's elite universities.

He has appointed a Labour MP, David Lammy, to hold an inquiry into why more black and ethnic minority criminals end up in prison that white offenders. And he is planning new laws to force universities like his own, Oxford, to reveal how many black applicants and students from poor backgrounds are accepted. "If you’re black, you're more likely to be in a prison cell than studying at a top university," said Mr Cameron. "There are no black generals in our armed forces and just 4% of chief executives in the FTSE 100 are from ethnic minorities. These examples should shame our nation and jolt us into action." "And if you're black, it seems you're more likely to be sentenced to custody for a crime than if you're white. We should investigate why this is and how we can end this possible discrimination," he added.


http://news.sky.com/story/1632923/pm-launches-double-attack-on-racial-bias

The answer is simple... they are more likely to do crime and are less likely to get 4 A's in A levels!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:The answer is simple... they are more likely to do crime and are less likely to get 4 A's in A levels!!!

So when crime was prevalent in the UK when there was mass poverty, child labour ect, you are saying this has no connection to do with poverty, discrimination and that English white people according to the completely backward beliefs of Tommy and that white English people commit crimes to the tune of tens of thousands even today . Even more so as humans are biologically one race, what reason does Tommy have based on English/British people, no matter whether born to this society of any ethnicity, with no ideology they believe in make them in some cases turn to crime?

Is your answer really simple, or more accurately to describe your views as simpleminded?

Waffle Dodge. .. there are plenty of rich people who commit crime as well as plenty of poor people who don't!

Plus there are plenty of crimes that don't have any financial motivation or gain...

Tommy Monk wrote:

Waffle Dodge. .. there are plenty of rich people who commit crime as well as plenty of poor people who don't!

Plus there are plenty of crimes that don't have any financial motivation or gain...

Plenty?

Really?

And yet you fail to show up any evidence on this. You do realities the specific types of crimes associated and connected with discrimination, poverty, that leads to an increased risk of people turning to crime? Or do you want me to dumb this down, so that you can understand?
Not only that, the example was to show what groups are of a higher risk in turning to crime based on empirical evidence that has centuries of evidence to back with discrimination and poverty. It does not excuse any of the crimes, but shows how inequality can lead to an increased risk of crimes specific to these problems. So yes some rich people commit crimes, like crimes of passion, crimes of hate etc. Though this just further proves how much of a lack of understanding that you have on criminology and why it was very appropriate to define your answers as simpleminded.

More waffle...


Plenty of rich people commit crimes of financial gain and plentg of poorer people commit crimes of violence and rape...

Tommy Monk wrote:More waffle...


Plenty of rich people commit crimes of financial gain and plentg of poorer people commit crimes of violence and rape...

Which the above is even more empirical evidence that your reasoning is simpleminded

I suggest you get an education in understanding psychology before engaging in a debate, on something you have absolutely no understanding on and is not driven by any evidence, but your backward racist beliefs

So again you fail to back up your claim, where again if they have money the reason for their crimes in not financial gain is it? It would be greed. Again all the above shows how you fail to understand how somethings lead to an increased level of risk to criminality

I do love watching those led by an ignorant illogical hate make the most profoundly absurd points when even given off the examples you have given, not once have you even understood the possible motivational factors behind the many specific types of crime

To help educate Tommy:



Social and economic disadvantage
Education and skills

In 2012 47% of prisoners said that they had
no qualifications. This compares to 15% of the
working age general population in the UK.124
21% of prisoners reported needing help with
reading and writing or ability with numbers,
41% with education, and 40% to improve workrelated
skills.125
41% of men, 30% of women and 52% of young
offenders were permanently excluded from
school.126
Some 9,700 prisoners are employed in
workshops across the prison estate from
printing to commercial laundry, textile
production, manufacturing and distribution. In
2012/13 they worked 13.1 million hours.127
The most recent annual report by HM Chief
Inspector of Prisons found that both “the
quantity and quality of purposeful activity in
which prisoners are engaged [has] plummeted”
in 2012-13, reporting the worst outcomes in six
years. In over half of prisons results were judged to
be not sufficiently good or poor.128

Housing and employment

15% of newly sentenced prisoners reported
being homeless before custody. 9% were
sleeping rough. 44% of prisoners reported living in
their accommodation prior to custody for less than
a year and 28% for less than six months.129
12% of prisoners released from custody in
2012/13 had no settled accommodation.130
However, HM Chief Inspector of Prisons remains
“concerned that in too many cases release
addresses were not stable and that prisons made  
32% of prisoners reported being in paid
employment in the four weeks before custody.
13% reported never having had a job.132
In 2012-13 just 26% of prisoners entered
employment on release from prison.133
In 2010 only 12% of employers surveyed said
that they had employed somebody with a
criminal record in the past three years, and
around one in five employers (19%) said they did
exclude or were likely to exclude them from the
recruitment process.134

Financial exclusion and debt

Assessments for 2005 suggest over 23,000
offenders had financial problems linked to their
offending.135 48% of people in prison have a history
of debt.136
Almost three-quarters (72%) of prisoners
interviewed for a 2010 report by Prison Reform
Trust and UNLOCK said they had not been asked
about their finances while in prison. A third said
they did not have a bank account; of whom 31%
had never had one.137
Most families interviewed said they were in
debt, of whom two thirds said their debts had
increased since the imprisonment of their
relative.138
Over four in five former prisoners surveyed
said their conviction made it harder to get
insurance and four-fifths said that when they
did get insurance, they were charged more. The
inability to obtain insurance can prevent access to
mortgages and many forms of employment or selfemployment.139
The amount of discharge grant has remained
fixed at £46 since 1997.


http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/Prison%20the%20facts%20May%202014.pdf

...
No.. it shows that your reasoning is apologist waffle...



Half of all the blacks in England and Wales live in London, making up 10% of Londons population...


"...In June 2010 The Sunday Telegraph, through aFreedom of Information Act request, obtained statistics on accusations of crime broken down by race from the Metropolitan Police Service.[n 2] The figures showed that the majority of males who were accused of violent crimes in 2009–10 were black. Of the recorded 18,091 such accusations against males, 54 percent accused of street crimes were black... Similar statistics were recorded for females. On knife crime, 45 percent of suspected female perpetrators were black; for gun crime, 58 percent; and for robberies, 52 percent..."

Tommy Monk wrote:
...
No.. it shows that your reasoning is apologist waffle...



Half of all the blacks in England and Wales live in London,  making up 10% of Londons population...


"...In June 2010 The Sunday Telegraph, through aFreedom of Information Act request, obtained statistics on accusations of crime broken down by race from the Metropolitan Police Service.[n 2] The figures showed that the majority of males who were accused of violent crimes in 2009–10 were black. Of the recorded 18,091 such accusations against males, 54 percent accused of street crimes were black... Similar statistics were recorded for females. On knife crime, 45 percent of suspected female perpetrators were black; for gun crime, 58 percent; and for robberies, 52 percent..."

Again your reasoning is not based scientifically, but emotionally, based off a racist hate you have as seen above, because the above does not explain the increased risks of specific types of crime, where again the above fails to even highlight where white people in this country are far more likely to get away without a sentence on conviction even if they reoffend. So again you are proving to the forum how not only is your thought process no better than that of a 5 year old, but fails to understand criminology itself.



The MoJ document, Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System 2012, was published without fanfare on the department’s website. It shows that over the past four years black criminals have been less likely to receive police cautions and more likely to have been proceeded against in court, than any other ethnic groups. The most common outcome for a white criminal was a community sentence; for Black, Asian and Chinese offenders it was custody. The statistics are broken down by types of crime, ruling out the possibility that black defendants might be being proportionally found guilty of more serious offences. Disturbingly, in every year studied, a higher proportion of white defendants had previous convictions – which would normally result in a greater number of prosecutions and harsher sentences. But this does not appear to be the case. The proportion of white criminals sentenced to immediate custody by the courts was 26 per cent while the proportion of black criminals sent to prison was 31 per cent and Asians 32 per cent. The average custodial sentence for white offenders was 15.9 months; for black prisoners it was 23.4 months.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/courts-are-biased-against-blacks-with-white-offenders-less-likely-to-be-jailed-for-similar-crimes-8959804.html


So not only have you just brushed aside the damning evidence of racial and religious biased discrimination against minorities within the judicial system. You still fail to back up any of your claims, because again it fundamentally shows how your reasoning is emotionally driven and not reasoned with any scientific or empirical evidence. To go off London, and not provide details like on other cities, like Glasgow, where criminality with gangs is prevalent in white poverty areas. How it was the same in London before in white predominately areas, shows again how you just ignore an abundance of evidence. Not only that London which has high areas of poverty, shows how you even back up further my reasoning with the above link. As if you are correct Tommy, you would be able to show people living in richer areas to having a high level of people with previous convictions.


Can you do that Tommy?


Like I say, the below also shows how child minded your views are on understanding crime


Social and economic disadvantage
Education and skills

In 2012 47% of prisoners said that they had
no qualifications. This compares to 15% of the
working age general population in the UK.124
21% of prisoners reported needing help with
reading and writing or ability with numbers,
41% with education, and 40% to improve workrelated
skills.125
41% of men, 30% of women and 52% of young
offenders were permanently excluded from
school.126
Some 9,700 prisoners are employed in
workshops across the prison estate from
printing to commercial laundry, textile
production, manufacturing and distribution. In
2012/13 they worked 13.1 million hours.127
The most recent annual report by HM Chief
Inspector of Prisons found that both “the
quantity and quality of purposeful activity in
which prisoners are engaged [has] plummeted”
in 2012-13, reporting the worst outcomes in six
years. In over half of prisons results were judged to
be not sufficiently good or poor.128

Housing and employment

15% of newly sentenced prisoners reported
being homeless before custody. 9% were
sleeping rough. 44% of prisoners reported living in
their accommodation prior to custody for less than
a year and 28% for less than six months.129
12% of prisoners released from custody in
2012/13 had no settled accommodation.130
However, HM Chief Inspector of Prisons remains
“concerned that in too many cases release
addresses were not stable and that prisons made  
32% of prisoners reported being in paid
employment in the four weeks before custody.
13% reported never having had a job.132
In 2012-13 just 26% of prisoners entered
employment on release from prison.133
In 2010 only 12% of employers surveyed said
that they had employed somebody with a
criminal record in the past three years, and
around one in five employers (19%) said they did
exclude or were likely to exclude them from the
recruitment process.134

Financial exclusion and debt

Assessments for 2005 suggest over 23,000
offenders had financial problems linked to their
offending.135 48% of people in prison have a history
of debt.136
Almost three-quarters (72%) of prisoners
interviewed for a 2010 report by Prison Reform
Trust and UNLOCK said they had not been asked
about their finances while in prison. A third said
they did not have a bank account; of whom 31%
had never had one.137
Most families interviewed said they were in
debt, of whom two thirds said their debts had
increased since the imprisonment of their
relative.138
Over four in five former prisoners surveyed
said their conviction made it harder to get
insurance and four-fifths said that when they
did get insurance, they were charged more. The
inability to obtain insurance can prevent access to
mortgages and many forms of employment or selfemployment.139
The amount of discharge grant has remained
fixed at £46 since 1997.


[url=http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/Prison the facts May 2014.pdf]http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/Prison%20the%20facts%20May%202014.pdf[/url]

The statistics speak for themselves!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:The statistics speak for themselves!!!

Your emotional based illogical claims speak volumes how you blatantly ignore evidence.

Anyway as seen as per usual you avoid countless evidence to why there is an increased risk level of criminality with discrimination and poverty. And this is not just based on the present,as you will find the same evidence throughout history

Well as seen you are now just wasting my time, by wanting to say the last word

So be my guest and have the last word Tommy. 
You have been shown to be utterly lacking in understanding any of this, which is easy to understand why you do, as its emotive hate that is leading your reasoning.

Ta

See you later

And what about the Oxford and Cambridge discrimination claims! ?


It is a meritocracy!!!


Get the good A level grades and you have a chance!!!



It's all racist nonsense to claim not enough non whites etc when they simply aren't getting good enough grades!!!


Don't hear the protests about this...


"...not one pupil eligible for free school meals in cambridgeshire hot into an oxbridge university in 2014 and no oxfordshire pupil managed it in 2013..."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-35439891


Maybe it's cos they is white...?

And Dodge. .. it's not that I don't UNDERSTAND what you are posting... it's just that I don't BELIEVE IT!!!

Well that is even more relevant the Oxford and Cambridge claims and its not just racial discrimination but class discrimination and has been for decades
And by posting up that not one person was eligible for free meals, further shows how very much prejudiced their entry system is based on class as well. Its no good going off one aspect Tommy, on free meals as if that somehow then moots on where there is clear evidence of racial discrimination by members of the University on how they determine who gains entry.
The problem you also have is again failing to even see that nearly half of those in prison had no qualifications, which to me is  a massive failing in this country where there is areas of high poverty. Its not something new either and has gone of for centuries. we are failing a percentage of children at their earliest ages, which if where the 47% in prison without any qualifications were instead lucky enough to be born not subjected to poverty, discrimination, social problems like broken homes in again areas of high levels of poverty. 

How much less do you think would be the number would be of people convicted and in prison in this country?

You do realise that poverty increase the risks of mental health issues

Mental health
49% of women and 23% of male prisoners in
a Ministry of Justice study were assessed as
suffering from anxiety and depression. This
can be compared with 16% of the general UK
population (12% of men and 19% of women).99
25% of women and 15% of men in prison
reported symptoms indicative of psychosis.100
The rate among the general public is about 4%.101
26% of women and 16% of men said they had
received treatment for a mental health problem
in the year before custody.102
In the 12 months ending December 2013, there
were a total of 23,183 incidents of self-harm
in prisons, 25 more than in the previous 12
months.103 27% of self-harm incidents occurred
within the first month of arriving in a prison -
10% in the first week.104
Women accounted for 26% of all incidents of
self-harm in 2013 despite representing just 5%
of the total prison population. This has fallen
sharply over the last four years when women

http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/Prison%20the%20facts%20May%202014.pdf



At 16%, the proportion of working-age people who are deemed to be at a high risk of developing a mental illness is similar to a decade ago.
Women are more at risk than men, by an average of around 4 percentage points.
Adults in the poorest fifth are much more likely to be at risk of developing a mental illness as those on average incomes: around 24% compared with 14%.
People from manual backgrounds are at somewhat higher risk of developing a mental illness than those from non-manual backgrounds.
The risk of mental illness is similar across all the regions in England, except for Yorkshire & The Humber (where it is lower).

http://www.poverty.org.uk/62/index.shtml


Do you then not think many of these people who are at risk of becoming dependent on alcohol and drugs, which leads to a further increase risk to criminality. To those in poverty, many of which are already suffering from mental health illnesses like depression.


Drugs
Levels of drug use are high amongst offenders,
with highest levels of use found amongst most
prolific offenders. 64% of prisoners reported
having used drugs in the four weeks before
custody.115
At the end of March 2014, 15% of men and 13%
of women in prison were serving sentences for
drug offences.116
Over half of prisoners (55%) report committing
offences connected to their drug taking,
with the need for money to buy drugs most
commonly cited. 48% of women prisoners said
they committed their offence to support the drug
use of someone else, compared to 22% of men in
prison.117
Of those prisoners who had used heroin on a
daily basis, on average women spent £50 per
day on heroin compared to £30 for men.118
Reconviction rates more than double for
prisoners who reported using drugs in the four
weeks before custody compared with prisoners
who had never used drugs (62% vs. 30%).119
19% of those prisoners who said they had ever
used heroin reported having used heroin for the
first time in a prison.120

Alcohol
In 47% of violent crimes the victim believed
the offender(s) to be under the influence of
alcohol.121
46% of female prisoners surveyed compared
to 37% of men stated that they perceived their
drinking to be a big problem. 58% of women
(compared to 72% of men) saying that drinking
contributed to their offending behaviour

http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/Prison%20the%20facts%20May%202014.pdf


So as can be seen, poverty itself is so fundamentally damaging to peoples lives, that from the moment they are born into poverty, they are hugely disadvantaged from the start.
So are you seriously going to make the same illogical emotive views, motivated by a prejudice, when as seen the evidence of how damaging poverty can be is overwhelming?

Anyway its evident you are now placing your fingers in your ears to the overwhelming evidence that easily refutes your views, going


"la la la la la la la la"

My points stand and you have not been able to refute a single point I have made to the increase risk levels of those born into and living within poverty levels

So until you address all my points, your views are and have been easily sunk

Right have better things to do than go around in circles, just because your negative prejudiced motivations are denying you the ability to understand any of this


Laters

If blacks did not commit crime they would not be in jail, it is their own fault they are in jail if they commit crimes.
See how simpul the answer is?

Stormee wrote:If blacks did not commit crime they would not be in jail, it is their own fault they are in jail if they commit crimes.
See how simpul the answer is?

Moot reasoning, the same can be said for all racial groups.

So if I said:

If humans did not commit crime they would not be in jail, it is their own fault they are in jail if they commit crimes.


Would be about the best way to explain to someone of 5 years old or less, that people who do seriouss crimes go to jail. However none of this wouldd exaplin how and why people turn or at a higher risk of falling into crime.
Of which there is no biological evidence that proves that having darker skin, different hair types do not make people more suceptible to criminal activity. If you think that is the reason to a higher risk of turning to criminal acts. Then using this illogical racial methodology that people are more likley to commit a crime based on an invented social construct to define different groups of Humans. You would then have to place whites, followed by Asians and then Blacks least of all at susceptability to committing genocide and mass murder, based on centuries of historical evidence.


So thi is why there is a mass of studies to see not only the root causes of specific types of crime, and more importantly how many things like, poverty, which increases the risk of people having mental health problems, leading and increasing also the risk to then be prolific drug and alcohol abuse and leading even further to an increaed risk of committing criminal acts.
The evidence is staggering and its not just based off today, but centuries of history will show the same patterns constantly repeated, when there is a huge divide between the rich and the poor

Right now I have to go lol

See everyone later

Whitiz are fed up with far too many blacks/forunuz in their country committing crimes.

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

Crime is virtually endemic to them, you only have to watch the news, youtube, read the papuz or live in the same community with them to know this.

Dodge.. you have not come up with evidence... just a poor opinion...


It is down to the individual whether they commit crime or not... and getting in to oxbridge is about attainment... not quotas!!!



Get 4 A's at in good A level subjects and you stand a chance!

There's no evidence of racial bias until the inquiry has been completed, and even then it's difficult to prove any bias.

Raggamuffin wrote:There's no evidence of racial bias until the inquiry has been completed, and even then it's difficult to prove any bias.

There is and has already been evidence to show racial bias
The inquiry will merely will verify what is already known

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:There's no evidence of racial bias until the inquiry has been completed, and even then it's difficult to prove any bias.

There is and has  already been evidence to show racial bias
The inquiry will merely will verify what is already known

I haven't seen any evidence that non-white people are prevented from being Chief Executives because of their skin colour.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


There is and has  already been evidence to show racial bias
The inquiry will merely will verify what is already known

I haven't seen any evidence that non-white people are prevented from being Chief Executives because of their skin colour.

May i suggest you then just simple open your eyes Rags

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I haven't seen any evidence that non-white people are prevented from being Chief Executives because of their skin colour.

May i suggest you then just simple open your eyes Rags

You think I'll be able to see every Chief Executive by looking around? How am I supposed to know if they're a Chief Executive because of their skin colour, and how will I know that someone isn't because of their skin colour?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

May i suggest you then just simple open your eyes Rags

You think I'll be able to see every Chief Executive by looking around? How am I supposed to know if they're a Chief Executive because of their skin colour, and how will I know that someone isn't because of their skin color?

well as I find you blind to many things and as I have already posted up some empirical evidence where is as clear as day racial discrimination going on sentencing and convictions and this was compiled by the Ministry of Justice, let alone the countless evidence found within Policing as well, let alone countless more evidence. It proves you fundamentally have blinkers on

Like I say, open your eyes and then you will be able to see

In order to prove this, they'd have to prove that more non-white people actually want to be Chief Executives, and then prove that they're not because of their colour. It's not enough to say that just 4% of chief executives in the FTSE 100 are from ethnic minorities and then claim that proves some kind of racial bias.

Raggamuffin wrote:In order to prove this, they'd have to prove that more non-white people actually want to be Chief Executives, and then prove that they're not because of their colour. It's not enough to say that just 4% of chief executives in the FTSE 100 are from ethnic minorities and then claim that proves some kind of racial bias.

Illogical nonsense

There is staggering evidence of women being denied top jobs.
Claiming more individuals of the gender want the top roles is just plain absurd in order to prove a bias
As say 25% want these roles and only 4% obtain them
There is your variance straight away, next it would be compared what percent of men have these roles

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:In order to prove this, they'd have to prove that more non-white people actually want to be Chief Executives, and then prove that they're not because of their colour. It's not enough to say that just 4% of chief executives in the FTSE 100 are from ethnic minorities and then claim that proves some kind of racial bias.

Illogical nonsense

There is staggering evidence of women being denied top jobs.
Claiming more individuals of the gender want the top roles is just plain absurd in order to prove a bias
As say 25% want these roles and only 4% obtain them
There is your variance straight away, next it would be compared what percent  of men have these roles

This isn't about women.

My post was completely logical. Assuming that someone doesn't get a job because of their colour is more illogical - unless you can prove it, and unless you can prove that it applies to every single non-white person who actually wants to be a CE.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

Illogical nonsense

There is staggering evidence of women being denied top jobs.
Claiming more individuals of the gender want the top roles is just plain absurd in order to prove a bias
As say 25% want these roles and only 4% obtain them
There is your variance straight away, next it would be compared what percent  of men have these roles

This isn't about women.

My post was completely logical. Assuming that someone doesn't get a job because of their colour is more illogical - unless you can prove it, and unless you can prove that it applies to every single non-white person who actually wants to be a CE.

It was blatantly absurd,m as your methodology claimed the only way to obtain this was based on how many people wanted to become an executive or apply for Oxford

In neither case do you need to know of not how many black people want roles like this, but actual evidence from where they have applied fore these roles and Universities and been turned down and then to examine if and why they never received an interview or why they could have been given a place or job
So yes your point was nonsense

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

This isn't about women.

My post was completely logical. Assuming that someone doesn't get a job because of their colour is more illogical - unless you can prove it, and unless you can prove that it applies to every single non-white person who actually wants to be a CE.

It was blatantly absurd,m as your methodology claimed the only way to obtain this was based on how many people wanted to become an executive or apply for Oxford

In neither case do you need to know or not how many black people want roles like this, but actual evidence from where they have applied fore these roles and Universities

So yes your point was nonsense

I didn't mention Oxford.

Obviously, if people don't apply to be a Chief Executive, no conclusion re racial bias can be drawn from the fact that they're not one. Clearly, if they want to be one but don't apply, you can't draw any conclusion. That's logical.

This isn't just about black people by the way.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

It was blatantly absurd,m as your methodology claimed the only way to obtain this was based on how many people wanted to become an executive or apply for Oxford

In neither case do you need to know or not how many black people want roles like this, but actual evidence from where they have applied fore these roles and Universities

So yes your point was nonsense

I didn't mention Oxford.

Obviously, if people don't apply to be a Chief Executive, no conclusion re racial bias can be drawn from the fact that they're not one. Clearly, if they want to be one but don't apply, you can't draw any conclusion. That's logical.

This isn't just about black people by the way.

Which shows you did not even bother to read the link then did you Rags?

So your point on needing to know who wants to be something when people change their mind was just bonkers, where they will be able to look at where people have applied. Under this new duty, which will be introduced in legislation, wide-ranging data will be published showing the ethnic, gender and socio-economic breakdown for applications, entry, and retention in key disciplines at all higher education institutions.
The Government says analysing this data will help tackle one of the biggest challenges currently in higher education: low entry and poor retention among black groups and white working class boys. Writing in The Sunday Times, the Prime Minister attacked Oxford University where he attended Brasenose College as a student: "I know the reasons are complex, including poor schooling, but I worry that the university I was so proud to attend is not doing enough to attract talent from across our country.

"White British men from poor backgrounds are five times less likely to go into higher education than others."


So this on the many forms of bias

I'm talking about these Chief Executives. Saying that only 4% are from ethnic minorities proves nothing.

Perhaps white British men from "poor" backgrounds don't want to go into higher education.

Raggamuffin wrote:I'm talking about these Chief Executives. Saying that only 4% are from ethnic minorities proves nothing.

Oh right and all the other issues are then not relevant then

wow

Even them your reasoning on executives was nonsense

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I'm talking about these Chief Executives. Saying that only 4% are from ethnic minorities proves nothing.

Oh right and all the other issues are then not relevant then

wow

Why are you ignoring the Chief Executives?

It's like someone complaining that they didn't get a job they didn't even apply for ...

The Labour MP for Tottenham told Sky's Murnaghan programme: "You go to court, you're found guilty, it's the same charge - but if you are Muslim, if you are black, you will have a longer time in prison.

How does a judge know if someone is a Muslim?

In order to prove the allegation, they'd have to examine the sentences passed by the same judge for exactly the same offence, including all the mitigating circumstances.

Raggamuffin wrote:

The Labour MP for Tottenham told Sky's Murnaghan programme: "You go to court, you're found guilty, it's the same charge - but if you are Muslim, if you are black, you will have a longer time in prison.

How does a judge know if someone is a Muslim?

In order to prove the allegation, they'd have to examine the sentences passed by the same judge for exactly the same offence, including all the mitigating circumstances.

Are you kidding me
They have done this and the fact you ask how the religion is known just made me crack ujp

I think the ministry of Justice with all the evidence damning themselves in this report might give you a clue


As to judge knowing, do the Police and the CPS not record such things?

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

How does a judge know if someone is a Muslim?

In order to prove the allegation, they'd have to examine the sentences passed by the same judge for exactly the same offence, including all the mitigating circumstances.

Are you kidding me
They have done this and the fact you ask how the religion is known just made me crack ujp

I think the ministry  of Justice with all the evidence damning themselves in this report might give you a clue


As to judge knowing, do the Police and the CPS not record such things?

I don't see why a judge would know what religion someone followed. Do Muslims have "Muslim" stamped on their forehead?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

Are you kidding me
They have done this and the fact you ask how the religion is known just made me crack ujp

I think the ministry  of Justice with all the evidence damning themselves in this report might give you a clue


As to judge knowing, do the Police and the CPS not record such things?

I don't see why a judge would know what religion someone followed. Do Muslims have "Muslim" stamped on their forehead?

I am beginning to cringe at your poor replies now lol

Again religion is recorded on arrests and charging.
The judge will have seen all the relevant documentation from both the defense and the CPS

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't see why a judge would know what religion someone followed. Do Muslims have "Muslim" stamped on their forehead?

I am beginning to cringe at your poor replies now lol

Again religion is recorded on arrests and charging.
The judge will have seen all the relevant documentation from both the defense and the CPS

I didn't know that religion was recorded. There's no need to be so defensive.

In any case, my point still stands. They would have to compare the sentences given by the same judge, not different judges. Different judges might give different sentences anyway.

Anyway, Cameron has no idea if there is any bias at Universities regarding entrance to them. If he did, he wouldn't need a new law to find out the figures.

The Ministry of justice has all the relevant information.
Also that their study in the end condemned themselves
You are offing up speculative claims to where you have not even read the study

I suggest you do that first and save everyone and myself wasting time trying to explain to you

Night Rags

Didge wrote:The Ministry of justice has all the relevant information.
Also that their study in the end condemned themselves
You are offing up speculative claims to where you have not even read the study

I suggest you do that first and save everyone and myself wasting time trying to explain to you

Night Rags

Relevant information about what? Can you link to the study?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:The Ministry of justice has all the relevant information.
Also that their study in the end condemned themselves
You are offing up speculative claims to where you have not even read the study

I suggest you do that first and save everyone and myself wasting time trying to explain to you

Night Rags

Relevant information about what? Can you link to the study?

Now that he has rushed back on, thinking he can slay dragons in his path lol, perhaps you can get him to tell you.  I can hear the sound of the hoof beats of the white charger now.