Black Workers On Average Are Earning 23% Less Than White Counterparts, As PM Launches Anti-Discrimination Push

by Guest Tue Feb 02, 2016 9:02 am

Black workers earn much less than similarly qualified white workers, at all levels of education, with an average pay gap of 23%, according to research.The figures, from the Trades Union Congress (TUC), come as education chiefs were on Monday summoned to Downing Street by David Cameron as part of an anti-discrimination drive. They are due to meet with business secretary Sajid Javid to discuss why young black men are more likely to be in prison than studying at a top university. As part of Cameron's plans, universities will be required to disclose what proportion of ethnic minority applicants get places. He has also warned police, the courts and the armed forces that they were all the focus of his plan to tackle social inequality, suggesting it might be fuelled by "ingrained, institutional and insidious" racism.

Labour MP David Lammy has also been recruited by Number 10 to carry out a major review into discrimination in the criminal justice system, including why black offenders are more likely to be jailed for the same offences as their white criminal counterpart. According to TUC figures quoted by the BBC, black graduates earn on average £14.33 an hour, compared with £18.63 earned by white graduates.The average pay gap between black and white workers with A-levels is 14%, the TUC says. At GCSE level it is 11%. The TUC's general secretary Frances O'Grady said race "still plays a huge role in determining pay" and the "harsh reality" is that black and Asian workers are getting paid less than their white counterparts.

O'Grady told the BBC that the government "cannot afford" to ignore the TUC figures, and "must now take genuine action to tackle pay discrimination". The Runnymede Trust, a leading race equality think tank, has previously found that pay gaps are not due to the type of university attended, as they even extend to black workers with degrees from the most selective Russell Group of universities. TUC's analysis, of Labour Force Survey figures from 2014 and 2015, shows the pay gaps are widest for those with higher qualifications. "This suggests that education alone will do little to address racial inequalities, and the need for interventions that directly challenge racial inequalities in the workplace," it said.

The TUC is calling on the government to recognise the scale of the problem and to urgently develop a race equality strategy.

The Prime Minister said on Sunday that the transparency rules should prompt institutions such as Oxford to work harder to broaden their intake, something it said Monday that it does "not see the need" for. Cameron said the absence of any black generals, the fact that just 4% of FTSE 100 chief executives were from ethnic minorities and that young black men were more likely to be in prison than at a top university "should shame our country and jolt us to action".

"I don't care whether it's overt, unconscious or institutional – we've got to stamp it out."

Javid said it was "striking" that the 2,500-strong 2014 intake at his own university - Oxford - included only 27 black students and suggested it was "not doing enough to attract talent from across our country". Oxford said it did "not see the need" for such legislation and insisted the effects of social inequality were "already pronounced before children begin formal schooling" and could not be addressed by higher education alone. "Any serious solution to the problem of unequal educational progression must take into account the unequal distribution of high attainment across schools, socio-economic groups, even geography," a spokesman said. He said 367 undergraduates from ethnic minority backgrounds were accepted in 2015, 15% more than in 2010 - 64 of those being black students, up from 39 five years ago.

"We are constantly working to update what information we provide and although we do not see the need for further legislation, we would welcome discussions on what more information we could publish," the spokesman said. Wendy Piatt, director general of the Russell Group of elite universities, said universities invested a "huge amount of time, effort and resources" into broadening the student mix but needed more help from others. "There are still far too many children from disadvantaged backgrounds underachieving at school and receiving poor advice and guidance.

"It will take time, commitment, and sustained action from a range of agencies to raise pupils' aspirations, increase attainment and improve the advice and guidance offered." Sir Anthony Seldon, University of Buckingham vice-chancellor, welcomed the push by Cameron, one of several prime ministers of whom the historian has written biographies.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/02/01/black-workers-earning-23-less-than-white-counterparts_n_9129226.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

by Raggamuffin Tue Feb 02, 2016 9:27 am

According to TUC figures quoted by the BBC, black graduates earn on average £14.33 an hour, compared with £18.63 earned by white graduates.The average pay gap between black and white workers with A-levels is 14%, the TUC says. At GCSE level it is 11%. The TUC's general secretary Frances O'Grady said race "still plays a huge role in determining pay" and the "harsh reality" is that black and Asian workers are getting paid less than their white counterparts.

As I said in another thread, qualifications do not guarantee jobs and are not necessarily related to how much someone gets paid, so this is the wrong way to look at it. The right way to look at it is to compare white and black people doing exactly the same job.

by Guest Tue Feb 02, 2016 9:37 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
According to TUC figures quoted by the BBC, black graduates earn on average £14.33 an hour, compared with £18.63 earned by white graduates.The average pay gap between black and white workers with A-levels is 14%, the TUC says. At GCSE level it is 11%. The TUC's general secretary Frances O'Grady said race "still plays a huge role in determining pay" and the "harsh reality" is that black and Asian workers are getting paid less than their white counterparts.

As I said in another thread, qualifications do not guarantee jobs and are not necessarily related to how much someone gets paid, so this is the wrong way to look at it. The right way to look at it is to compare white and black people doing exactly the same job.

Saying something may not necessarily be related is not proving that it is not rags.
So its false to claim this is the wrong way to look at when you cannot discount the relation

by Raggamuffin Tue Feb 02, 2016 9:53 am

Didge wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

As I said in another thread, qualifications do not guarantee jobs and are not necessarily related to how much someone gets paid, so this is the wrong way to look at it. The right way to look at it is to compare white and black people doing exactly the same job.

Saying something may not necessarily be related is not proving that it is not rags.
So its false to claim this is the wrong way to look at when you cannot discount the relation

Yes, but they seem to be taking those figures as some kind of proof that there's discrimination Didge. It's a hopelessly vague way to look at things.

For a start it just says "graduates" without specifiying what kind of degrees they're talking about. It doesn't break it down into which area of the country they're talking about. For example, one can earn twice as much in London as in other areas, depending on the job obviously. They're not taking into account things like ambition, how much responsibility people want at work, etc. They're averaging out the amounts, which doesn't really tell you much. There could be a few white people earning huge amounts, and then loads earning much less - less than a lot of black or Asian people. They're not talking about the same numbers of graduates in each group either, so that's going to affect the figures.

If they found that in a particularly company, people doing the same job were being paid different rates based on their race, that would be a different thing, but they're not.

by Raggamuffin Tue Feb 02, 2016 9:56 am

Are they even taking into account people with degrees who don't actually work? I'd like to know where they've got the figures from in the first place.

by Guest Tue Feb 02, 2016 10:00 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Didge wrote:

Saying something may not necessarily be related is not proving that it is not rags.
So its false to claim this is the wrong way to look at when you cannot discount the relation

Yes, but they seem to be taking those figures as some kind of proof that there's discrimination Didge. It's a hopelessly vague way to look at things.

For a start it just says "graduates" without specifiying what kind of degrees they're talking about. It doesn't break it down into which area of the country they're talking about. For example, one can earn twice as much in London as in other areas, depending on the job obviously. They're not taking into account things like ambition, how much responsibility people want at work, etc. They're averaging out the amounts, which doesn't really tell you much. There could be a few white people earning huge amounts, and then loads earning much less - less than a lot of black or Asian people. They're not talking about the same numbers of graduates in each group either, so that's going to affect the figures.

If they found that in a particularly company, people doing the same job were being paid different rates based on their race, that would be a different thing, but they're not.

All irrelevant, as can you rule out they are not related?

If not, then you are merely speculating and where you again have not seen have they have come to these conclusions, its jumping the gun what on your part

Considering we are seeing many correlations to the same discrimination is damning itself

by Raggamuffin Tue Feb 02, 2016 10:05 am

Didge wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes, but they seem to be taking those figures as some kind of proof that there's discrimination Didge. It's a hopelessly vague way to look at things.

For a start it just says "graduates" without specifiying what kind of degrees they're talking about. It doesn't break it down into which area of the country they're talking about. For example, one can earn twice as much in London as in other areas, depending on the job obviously. They're not taking into account things like ambition, how much responsibility people want at work, etc. They're averaging out the amounts, which doesn't really tell you much. There could be a few white people earning huge amounts, and then loads earning much less - less than a lot of black or Asian people. They're not talking about the same numbers of graduates in each group either, so that's going to affect the figures.

If they found that in a particularly company, people doing the same job were being paid different rates based on their race, that would be a different thing, but they're not.

All irrelevant, as can you rule out they are not related?

If not, then you are merely speculating and where you again have not seen have they have come to these conclusions, its jumping the gun what on your part

Considering we are seeing many correlations to the same discrimination is damning itself

How on earth can it be irrelevant? Of course it's relevant. A degree in medicine or law is more likely to lead to a better paid job than a degree in history, for example. Then again, if the person who has a degree in medicine or law doesn't use it to their best ability, they'll earn zero.

When I lived in London, I earned twice as much as I could have earned doing a similar job in another town or city, and so did the other people I worked with.

An ambitious person is likely to end up earning more because they're more likely to actually apply for high-paying jobs, or perhaps they're more likely to stay in a company and work their way up.

I'm a graduate, so have they taken my earnings into account? I bet they haven't. Are they looking at a small sample of recent graduates or what? Are they looking at graduates who have had a degree for 20 years or more, or what? Of course that would make a difference.

by Raggamuffin Tue Feb 02, 2016 10:09 am

He has also warned police, the courts and the armed forces that they were all the focus of his plan to tackle social inequality, suggesting it might be fuelled by "ingrained, institutional and insidious" racism.

Take this paragraph, for example. I assume he's not suggesting that a police constable who is black is actually paid less than a police constable who is white at the same police station. If he's saying that a black police constable is less likely to be promoted because of their colour, that's a different issue, and is not really anything to do with what they're paid.

by Guest Tue Feb 02, 2016 10:12 am

Again its you asserting how you think where the disparity will be, which is flawed within itself rags. Someone can be ambitious but be also incompetent, so ambition should not even be a measure for pay. You fail to see that this is not just on pay, but education, the Police, the armed forces, arrests, sentencing. The list is endless and hence further work is required into all of this, but you are making assertions, when you cannot rule out if racism is very much related.

Lots of articles on here for you to read

http://www.runnymedetrust.org/currentPublications.html

by Guest Tue Feb 02, 2016 10:14 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
He has also warned police, the courts and the armed forces that they were all the focus of his plan to tackle social inequality, suggesting it might be fuelled by "ingrained, institutional and insidious" racism.

Take this paragraph, for example. I assume he's not suggesting that a police constable who is black is actually paid less than a police constable who is white at the same police station. If he's saying that a black police constable is less likely to be promoted because of their colour, that's a different issue, and is not really anything to do with what they're paid.

That is not talking about pay
Disparity of stop and search
Arrests.
Cautions
Sentencing
Employment

by Raggamuffin Tue Feb 02, 2016 10:14 am

This is going to end up in a right mess with no real conclusion.

How is he going to prove that someone is promoted because of their colour, or not promoted because of their colour? It will be a waste of the tax payers' money once again. There are laws to prevent racial discrimination, and they can be used in individual cases. There's no need for some daft, vague "inquiry" which will do nothing except create yet another pointless committee which will end up harassing people and accusing them of being "racist" in order to justify its existence.

by Guest Tue Feb 02, 2016 10:17 am

Again you are making unfounded claims, this will be a mess.
So if the findings do prove racism, how wil this turn out as a mess, when it will then be able to tackle a social injustice
There maybe laws to prevent racial discrimination, that does not mean it still does not happen within society and we should never shy away from further investigating whether they is a big problem, which so far is pointing that way

Catch you later

by Raggamuffin Tue Feb 02, 2016 10:22 am

Didge wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Take this paragraph, for example. I assume he's not suggesting that a police constable who is black is actually paid less than a police constable who is white at the same police station. If he's saying that a black police constable is less likely to be promoted because of their colour, that's a different issue, and is not really anything to do with what they're paid.

That is not talking about pay
Disparity of stop and search
Arrests.
Cautions
Sentencing
Employment

Well employment involves pay doesn't it? There have already been some high-profile cases of alleged discrimination when it comes to promotion issues in the police - which largely ended in a mess as usual.

As I said in another thread, if they want to compare the sentencing issues, they would need to look at the sentencing history of the same judge, and they have to be sure they're talking about exactly the same crime, which would be virtually impossible anyway. There's no point comparing different judges and then saying - oooooh, one judge sent a black person to prison, and another judge didn't send a white person to prison - that must prove there's racial bias.

by Raggamuffin Tue Feb 02, 2016 10:23 am

Didge wrote:Again you are making unfounded claims, this will be a mess.
So if the findings do prove racism, how wil this turn out as a mess, when it will then be able to tackle a social injustice
There maybe laws to prevent racial discrimination, that does not mean it still does not happen within society and we should never shy away from further investigating whether they is a big problem, which so far is pointing that way

Catch you later

My point is that it won't prove racism, and it won't do that because it's too vague.

by Raggamuffin Tue Feb 02, 2016 10:37 am

I also note that the issue of age is being ignored when it comes to this kind of issue. So many people say that they can't get a job because they're "too old". I haven't experienced anything like that myself, and it's possible that it's just a perception on the part of those people. However, with the rise in the State pension age and the introduction of the living wage for people only over the age of 25, it must be worth considering.

The trouble is - how do you prove that someone didn't a job which they applied for because of their age?

A lot of companies pay minimum wage, and in that case it's in their interests to employ people who are under a certain age - especially with the new "living wage". They save even more money if they employ people under the age of 21, or even under the age of 18. However, to prove that companies are deliberately employing people under those ages to save money would be very difficult to do.

Basically, the Government are encouraging companies to discriminate on the basis of age by sticking with these minimum rates based on age, so how they can suddenly get all outraged about other types of discrimination is a bit of a mystery.

by Guest Tue Feb 02, 2016 10:53 am

Again you are making assumption after assumption Rags, where there is already many studies on this of which I have given you links to

Again the view on the Police will be around where already these is know discrimination

Ageism is also wrong

by Raggamuffin Tue Feb 02, 2016 10:56 am

Didge wrote:Again you are making assumption after assumption Rags, where there is already many studies on this of which I have given you links to

Again the view on the Police will be around where already these is know discrimination

Ageism is also wrong

No, I'm introducing variables which they probably won't bother to do.

Discrimination on the basis of age is against the law, but you see how the Government encourages it. A company can pay two people doing the same the job different amounts, and it's all legal. How then can they get outraged about other kinds of discrimination?

by Guest Tue Feb 02, 2016 10:58 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Didge wrote:Again you are making assumption after assumption Rags, where there is already many studies on this of which I have given you links to

Again the view on the Police will be around where already these is know discrimination

Ageism is also wrong

No, I'm introducing variables which they probably won't bother to do.

Discrimination on the basis of age is against the law, but you see how the Government encourages it. A company can pay two people doing the same the job different amounts, and it's all legal. How then can they get outraged about other kinds of discrimination?

You are just fundamentally making things up, where again from the off the one thing you cannot do is rule out racism itself

by Raggamuffin Tue Feb 02, 2016 11:02 am

Didge wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

No, I'm introducing variables which they probably won't bother to do.

Discrimination on the basis of age is against the law, but you see how the Government encourages it. A company can pay two people doing the same the job different amounts, and it's all legal. How then can they get outraged about other kinds of discrimination?

You are just fundamentally making things up, where again from the off the one thing you cannot do is rule out racism itself

What have I made up? Go on - tell me what I've made up. You won't be able to.

I haven't ruled anything out, I'm saying that their way of ascertaining if there's discrimination or not is way too vague. Taking some figures and then saying - oh, black people are paid less so it must be because of discrimination - is just nonsense unless they do it properly and look at all the variables as well. It's my opinion that they won't do that.

by Raggamuffin Tue Feb 02, 2016 11:04 am

If they did the same study re age, they wouldn't be able to prove anything either - as I've pointed out. They can speculate that companies employ younger people in order to save money, but they wouldn't be able to prove it because they would need to take into variables which are not set in stone.

by Guest Tue Feb 02, 2016 11:04 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Didge wrote:

You are just fundamentally making things up, where again from the off the one thing you cannot do is rule out racism itself

What have I made up? Go on - tell me what I've made up. You won't be able to.

I haven't ruled anything out, I'm saying that their way of ascertaining if there's discrimination or not is way too vague. Taking some figures and then saying - oh, black people are paid less so it must be because of discrimination - is just nonsense unless they do it properly and look at all the variables as well. It's my opinion that they won't do that.

Everything, as can you substantiate your claims to any of this?

Then can you rule out racism?

Good Luck

by Raggamuffin Tue Feb 02, 2016 11:06 am

Didge wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

What have I made up? Go on - tell me what I've made up. You won't be able to.

I haven't ruled anything out, I'm saying that their way of ascertaining if there's discrimination or not is way too vague. Taking some figures and then saying - oh, black people are paid less so it must be because of discrimination - is just nonsense unless they do it properly and look at all the variables as well. It's my opinion that they won't do that.

Everything, as can you substantiate your claims to any of this?

Then can you rule out racism?

Good Luck

I just told you - I haven't ruled it out. Are you reading someone else's posts?

I'm not wasting any more time on you re this one. I've actually made an effort to discuss it properly, but you're being belligerent and stupid about it as usual.

by Guest Tue Feb 02, 2016 11:08 am

You made no effort but tried ever so badly as if to diminish and even argue as if there was no possibility of racism at all. You offered up nothing that you could substantiate and you did so off denying that there could fundamentally be a big problem

by eddie Tue Feb 02, 2016 9:59 pm

Unless and until, the inquiry or report breaks down the whole thing into categories, some of which Rags has outlined, I'm afraid theirs is speculation on an overall view rather than a pie chart view.

by Guest Tue Feb 02, 2016 10:07 pm

Too many of the same correlating coincidences Eddie for this not to have at least some validity. There is simply lots of empirical evidence

by eddie Tue Feb 02, 2016 10:10 pm

Well I'm on the fence a little here because I do think that this happens a lot so swing toward believing the article, but, Rags does have a very valid point.

by Guest Tue Feb 02, 2016 10:14 pm

No worries Eddie

Have to go, so have a lovely evening

x

by Raggamuffin Tue Feb 02, 2016 10:43 pm

It all sounds horribly like an attempt to introduce more positive discrimination to me, and more quotas. What is Cameron doing to do if he looks at the figures for university applicants and thinks that there aren't enough non-white people being accepted? Is he going to insist that more are accepted regardless of their exam results or whatever criteria the universities look at?

Why does it shame this country that young black men are more likely to be in prison than at a top university? Why should it be assumed that they're victims of some kind of persecution or discrimination? Even if the courts do send black people to prison, they have to have committed a jailable offence in the first place - something they should be ashamed of themselves, not the country.

by Raggamuffin Tue Feb 02, 2016 10:55 pm

eddie wrote:Unless and until, the inquiry or report breaks down the whole thing into categories, some of which Rags has outlined, I'm afraid theirs is speculation on an overall view rather than a pie chart view.

It's just so vague eddie. Let's take the example of black guys being more likely to go to prison for the same offence as a white guy. How are they going to look at that? Will they just look at sentences for "burglary", for example? There are a lot of variables there for a start. Was it a first offence? Did the burglar kick the door in and steal tons of stuff and trash the house, or did he/she nip in an open window and nick a tenner? They'd have to look at each and every one in order to ascertain if there was a difference in the crimes or not.

They would have to look at burglaries which were exactly the same with no variation at all, and where the burglars were sentenced by the same judge.

Do you really think they're going to do all that? I don't.

by veya_victaous Wed Feb 03, 2016 12:17 am

Raggamuffin wrote:It all sounds horribly like an attempt to introduce more positive discrimination to me, and more quotas. What is Cameron doing to do if he looks at the figures for university applicants and thinks that there aren't enough non-white people being accepted? Is he going to insist that more are accepted regardless of their exam results or whatever criteria the universities look at?

Why does it shame this country that young black men are more likely to be in prison that at a top university? Why should it be assumed that they're victims of some kind of persecution or discrimination? Even if the courts do send black people to prison, they have to have committed a jailable offence in the first place - something they should be ashamed of themselves, not the country.

the country should be ashamed for having a society that so disadvantages minorities from the very early stages of life that by the time they are adult the accumulative effect of the disadvantage renders them excluded from higher education and the workforce and disassociated from the society in general. Which makes them far more likely to commit crimes against a society that has abandoned them at best, actively oppressed them is more accurate.

by Raggamuffin Wed Feb 03, 2016 12:20 am

veya_victaous wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:It all sounds horribly like an attempt to introduce more positive discrimination to me, and more quotas. What is Cameron doing to do if he looks at the figures for university applicants and thinks that there aren't enough non-white people being accepted? Is he going to insist that more are accepted regardless of their exam results or whatever criteria the universities look at?

Why does it shame this country that young black men are more likely to be in prison that at a top university? Why should it be assumed that they're victims of some kind of persecution or discrimination? Even if the courts do send black people to prison, they have to have committed a jailable offence in the first place - something they should be ashamed of themselves, not the country.

the country should be ashamed for having a society that so disadvantages minorities from the very early stages of life that by the time they are adult the accumulative effect of the disadvantage renders them excluded from higher education and the workforce and disassociated from the society in general. Which makes them far more likely to commit crimes against a society that has abandoned them at best, actively oppressed them is more accurate.

There's no proof that they're disadvantaged though. If someone commits a crime, that's a choice they made, and one they should be ashamed of. It's people like you who blame everyone except the perpetrator who are enabling them and encouraging them to play the victim, even if they kill someone.

by veya_victaous Wed Feb 03, 2016 1:19 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:It all sounds horribly like an attempt to introduce more positive discrimination to me, and more quotas. What is Cameron doing to do if he looks at the figures for university applicants and thinks that there aren't enough non-white people being accepted? Is he going to insist that more are accepted regardless of their exam results or whatever criteria the universities look at?

Why does it shame this country that young black men are more likely to be in prison that at a top university? Why should it be assumed that they're victims of some kind of persecution or discrimination? Even if the courts do send black people to prison, they have to have committed a jailable offence in the first place - something they should be ashamed of themselves, not the country.

the country should be ashamed for having a society that so disadvantages minorities from the very early stages of life that by the time they are adult the accumulative effect of the disadvantage renders them excluded from higher education and the workforce and disassociated from the society in general. Which makes them far more likely to commit crimes against a society that has abandoned them at best, actively oppressed them is more accurate.

There's no proof that they're disadvantaged though. If someone commits a crime, that's a choice they made, and one they should be ashamed of. It's people like you who blame everyone except the perpetrator who are enabling them and encouraging them to play the victim, even if they kill someone.

So your explanation is that colour of the skin is the root cause Suspect

Clearly we see the statistics, there is a higher number, so the cause is the extra melanin in their skin? or the fact they are raised in poor areas with less education and less employment opportunities?

this doesn't even take into account if they are raised in areas with higher crime rates they will often have negative views of police due to the nature of the society they were raised in. An aspect that comes down to failure of a nation to provide for all it's citizens.

And I can see from the 'history' didge spouts that if they don't answer with the extremely Anglo centric propaganda that the Uk education system tries to indoctrinate people with they will be marked incorrect and get poor marks. And thus reject from University.

You should be ashamed as it attitudes like yours that make minority group youth feel rejected by the society they were born into. And Due to your rejection of them, that YOU have drilled into them with all your actions and opinions expressed since they were tiny children, they know they do not belong, you do not consider them the same as you. you will always judge them harsher than you will a white Brit(just like the courts)

So when they grow up and don’t respect your tribes rules and customs because YOU made it so apparent You don’t accept them into your tribe, DON’T COMPALIN! You reap what you sow... you sowed hate and distrust toward minorities so now you reap hate and distrust from minorities.

by Raggamuffin Wed Feb 03, 2016 1:21 am

veya_victaous wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

There's no proof that they're disadvantaged though. If someone commits a crime, that's a choice they made, and one they should be ashamed of. It's people like you who blame everyone except the perpetrator who are enabling them and encouraging them to play the victim, even if they kill someone.

So your explanation is that colour of the skin is the root cause

Clearly we see the statistics, there is a higher number, so the cause is the extra melanin in their skin? or the fact they are raised in poor areas with less education and less employment opportunities?

this doesn't even take into account if they are raised in areas with higher crime rates they will often have negative views of police due to the nature of the society they were raised in. An aspect that comes down to failure of a nation to provide for all it's citizens.

And I can see from the 'history' didge spouts that if they don't answer with the extremely Anglo centric propaganda that the Uk education system tries to indoctrinate people with they will be marked incorrect and get poor marks. And thus reject from University.

You should be ashamed as it attitudes like yours that make minority group youth feel rejected by the society they were born into. And Due to your rejection of them, that YOU have drilled into them with all your actions and opinions expressed since they were tiny children, they know they do not belong, you do not consider them the same as you. you will always judge them harsher than you will a white Brit(just like the courts)

So when they grow up and don’t respect your tribes rules and customs because YOU made it so apparent You don’t accept them into your tribe, DON’T COMPALIN! You reap what you sow... you sowed hate and distrust toward minorities so now you reap hate and distrust from minorities.

I have nothing to be ashamed of. You should be ashamed for excusing criminals, but only if they're black ones. I daresay that if a white person was murdered by a black person, you'd blame the white person for being white.

I didn't say that the root cause of anything was the colour of their skin. That's something you just invented, as usual.

by Raggamuffin Wed Feb 03, 2016 1:22 am

And Veya, you're another one who supports the removal of people from their homes based on the colour of their skin, so you're another hypocrite, and you should be ashamed of your blatant racism.

by veya_victaous Wed Feb 03, 2016 1:56 am

Actually I excuse Criminals from low socio economic backgrounds... Wink

skin colour is not the number 1 factor, being poor is.

It is people like you that do everything you can to make sure non-anglos are kept in the lower socioeconomic groups. So there is that part of it too.

So what is the root cause?
your post basically amounts to "they are black what do you expect" which implies you think it is their blackness that causes the crime not the being raised in a disadvantaged area or being ostracised by the Anglo community.

I get the feeling you think Minorities should be grateful to have You treat them as poorly as you do, because it is better than before. It may be an Improvement but it is still not fair and the inequity is seen and felt by minorities that become disassociated and do not respect the law. so why should they feel shame when they disobey something they see as being against them from the start because of their experiences growing up in an Anglo society.

AND before you try and blame them again, they were little kids when you did wrong by them, stop pretending they should be grown up enough to accept their fate as a 2nd class citizens, a pre-schooler only knows it is not fair that you treat the others better.

by Raggamuffin Wed Feb 03, 2016 2:02 am

veya_victaous wrote:Actually I excuse Criminals from low socio economic backgrounds... skin colour is not the number 1 factor, being poor is.

It is people like you that do everything you can to make sure non-anglos are kept in the lower socioeconomic groups. So there is that part of it too.

So what is the root cause?
your post basically amounts to "they are balck what do you expect" which implies you think it is their blackness that causes the crime not the being raised disadvantaged area or being ostricised by the anglo community.

I get the feeling you think Minorities should be grateful to have You treat them as poorly as you do, because it is better than before. It may be an Improvement but it is still not fair and the inequity is seen and felt by minoirities that becoem dissasicated and do not repsect the law. so why should they feel shame when they disobey something they see as being against them from the start because of their experiences growing up in an anglo society.

AND before you try and blame them again, they were little kids when you did wrong by them, stop pretending they should be grown up enough to accpet their fate as a 2nd class citzens, a preschooler only knows it is not fair that you treat the others better.

The BIB is a total lie. I'd like you to find the post where I even implied such a thing. I have not talked about the "root cause" of anything. In fact, I have no patience with all these excuses at all, and I don't take "root causes" into account. All I've said is that there are variables to be taken into account when examining these crimes with regard to sentences, otherwise it's a pointless exercise. I've also said that criminals should be ashamed of themselves rather than the country taking the blame. That applies to white criminals too.

by veya_victaous Wed Feb 03, 2016 2:20 am

So you just said YOU DO NOT WANT to solve crime rates. you are happy to continue to have these statistics since you do not want to even look at the root cause which is the first step to finding a solution.
Again don't complain then. If you are happy for things to be exactly as they are because if you are not going to change why will anything else.

And Why would someone that be ashamed of ignoring a system that fails in it's duties towards them FIRST. They are not the ones that dropped the ball Society DID. it is stupid to expect them to keep picking up the ball when you keep throwing it on the ground. then to have the nerve to say “It's their ability to catch that is the problem not the fact I am throwing it as far away from them as i can.”

by Raggamuffin Wed Feb 03, 2016 2:31 am

veya_victaous wrote:So you just said YOU DO NOT WANT to solve crime rates. you are happy to continue to have these statistics since you do not want to even look at the root cause which is the first step to finding a solution.
Again don't complain then. If you are happy for things to be exactly as they are because if you are not going to change why will anything else.

And Why would someone that be ashamed of ignoring a system that fails in it's duties towards them FIRST. They are not the ones that dropped the ball Society DID. it is stupid to expect them to keep picking up the ball when you keep throwing it on the ground. then to have the nerve to say “It's their ability to catch that is the problem not the fact I am throwing it as far away from them as i can.”

No, I said that any conclusions about racial disparity re sentencing cannot be drawn without looking at a lot of variables - basic statistics are not enough.

We're not talking about the root causes of crime, we're talking about alleged differences in sentencing once a crime has been committed. The cause of those crimes is irrelevant. However, the cause of burglary, for example, is generally that someone wants to nick something which doesn't belong to them. Hope that helps.

Of course someone should be ashamed of committing a crime. They are usually hurting others who have done nothing to them, and that's not something to be proud of, and it's not something which should be excused.

by veya_victaous Wed Feb 03, 2016 3:26 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:So you just said YOU DO NOT WANT to solve crime rates. you are happy to continue to have these statistics since you do not want to even look at the root cause which is the first step to finding a solution.
Again don't complain then. If you are happy for things to be exactly as they are because if you are not going to change why will anything else.

And Why would someone that be ashamed of ignoring a system that fails in it's duties towards them FIRST. They are not the ones that dropped the ball Society DID. it is stupid to expect them to keep picking up the ball when you keep throwing it on the ground. then to have the nerve to say “It's their ability to catch that is the problem not the fact I am throwing it as far away from them as i can.”

No, I said that any conclusions about racial disparity re sentencing cannot be drawn without looking at a lot of variables - basic statistics are not enough.

We're not talking about the root causes of crime, we're talking about alleged differences in sentencing once a crime has been committed. The cause of those crimes is irrelevant. However, the cause of burglary, for example, is generally that someone wants to nick something which doesn't belong to them. Hope that helps.

Of course someone should be ashamed of committing a crime. They are usually hurting others who have done nothing to them, and that's not something to be proud of, and it's not something which should be excused.

You have done something to them. (or failed to as a society to) They are disspossed for a reason.

You seem to think that Because You think the way you treat them is fine that they agree.
They Do not Agree, they Do not view their victim as having done "nothing to them", they view thier victim profiting from their suffering. so in their head they are just going '2 wrongs make a right' I suffer and they profit so, they can suffer for me to profit.
they see other Brits Expressing this opinon all the time
And Besides maybe they listen to stormee and Nicko and "do unto other before they do to you."
And they are just robbing them first, after all it reasonable for any Minority to think that a Brit is only moment away from robbing them. Brits have traditionally done so.

by Raggamuffin Wed Feb 03, 2016 3:34 am

veya_victaous wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

No, I said that any conclusions about racial disparity re sentencing cannot be drawn without looking at a lot of variables - basic statistics are not enough.

We're not talking about the root causes of crime, we're talking about alleged differences in sentencing once a crime has been committed. The cause of those crimes is irrelevant. However, the cause of burglary, for example, is generally that someone wants to nick something which doesn't belong to them. Hope that helps.

Of course someone should be ashamed of committing a crime. They are usually hurting others who have done nothing to them, and that's not something to be proud of, and it's not something which should be excused.

You have done something to them. (or failed to as a society to) They are disspossed for a reason.

You seem to think that Because You think the way you treat them is fine that they agree.
They Do not Agree, they Do not view their victim as having done "nothing to them", they view thier victim profiting from their suffering. so in their head they are just going '2 wrongs make a right' I suffer and they profit so, they can suffer for me to profit.
they see other Brits Expressing this opinon all the time
And Besides maybe they listen to stormee and Nicko and "do unto other before they do to you."
And they are just robbing them first, after all it reasonable for any Minority to think that a Brit is only moment away from robbing them. Brits have traditionally done so.

No, the victims did nothing to them. I had done nothing to the black chap who kicked my door down, trashed my house, and nicked my telly. If I'd been at home I would have done something to him though. I don't suppose he even knew what colour I was when he decided to take something he wasn't entitled to. He didn't get away with it though - stupid twat.

It's interesting that you talk about minorities in such a touching way, and yet you consider the minority white people in Zimbabwe deserve to be treated badly. I presume that if the Rankins had stolen the farm, you would have approved of that, what with them being part of a minority, and what with a Brit trying to rob them.

To be honest, your posts are so completely absurd that you can't possibly be genuine. Either that, or you're completely barking mad and ignorant, as well as racist.

by veya_victaous Wed Feb 03, 2016 4:29 am

Again with the Deserved Neutral

Rankin was 'stealing'(illegally occupying and utilising) stateland for 10 years...

He thought the Government was unjust so became dispossed and Ignored the laws.
Like the Black Chap that trashed your house was quite probably dispossed of British society because he saw all the hatred and scorn some Anglos put on him for the colour of his skin.

Where have I said Rankin did anything wrong I said he did dumb things not wrong things because it is dumb to not cut your loses when it is apprant you are going to lose.

by Raggamuffin Wed Feb 03, 2016 12:26 pm

veya_victaous wrote:Again with the Deserved

Rankin was 'stealing'(illegally occupying and utilising) stateland for 10 years...

He thought the Government was unjust so became dispossed and Ignored the laws.
Like the Black Chap that trashed your house was quite probably dispossed of British society because he saw all the hatred and scorn some Anglos put on him for the colour of his skin.

Where have I said Rankin did anything wrong I said he did dumb things not wrong things because it is dumb to not cut your loses when it is apprant you are going to lose.

The black chap kicked the door in because he wanted to nick my telly - probably because he wanted to sell it and make some money without earning it. It's as simple as that. He also threatened a witness with a knife. You can make all the excuses you want, and make up all kinds of "root causes". In fact, it's you who's saying that the root case of the crime was that he's black, not me.

Rankin bought the farm, and the State stole it off him to give it to another person.

by Raggamuffin Wed Feb 03, 2016 12:45 pm

Anyway, Cameron will spend years chasing his tail and setting up committees to "research" the issue, but then again, that means he's leaving foxes, stags, and hares alone..

by Raggamuffin Wed Feb 03, 2016 3:06 pm

veya_victaous wrote:

You should be ashamed as it attitudes like yours that make minority group youth feel rejected by the society they were born into. And Due to your rejection of them, that YOU have drilled into them with all your actions and opinions expressed since they were tiny children, they know they do not belong, you do not consider them the same as you. you will always judge them harsher than you will a white Brit(just like the courts)

I'm going to address this bit, even though I know that Veya will reply with some more shite.

I do sometimes encounter little black children you know. Maybe they're 2, 3, or 4, or whatever. They don't know about this shit. They don't know that they're apparently "repressed". They don't know that some people sit there bleating on about how they're "disadvantaged" because of their colour. If someone fills their head with that nonsense at a young age, they are the ones to blame. They're the ones who are telling little children that they will discriminated against and not accepted, and that will influence them later on.

That pisses me off, and it's people like you Veya who are filling their heads with this kind of crap. You're also filling children's heads with some shite that if another child has more toys than them, it's because they're "privileged", and that they're entitled to steal off those people when they grow up.

Stop it - you're doing a lot of damage.

by Major Wed Feb 03, 2016 4:24 pm

Maybe they do not put in the an equivalent effort to be paid top rate.

Where equal jobz are on piecework they would have the opportunity to earn same or better other production workuz.

by Raggamuffin Wed Feb 03, 2016 4:36 pm

Stormee wrote:Maybe they do not put in the an equivalent effort to be paid top rate.

Where equal jobz are on piecework they would have the opportunity to earn same or better other production workuz.

That's another variable which would need to be looked at Stormee. I doubt that would apply to the "graduate" rates mentioned though. In fact, Cameron is there telling people that if they get a degree they'll earn loads of money, and telling black graduates that they won't earn as much because they're black. Stupid man.

by Major Wed Feb 03, 2016 5:23 pm

I firmly believe that in most cases a whitee will get a job over a blackee, seen it loads of times.
My FIL was BWC over 3 major engineering factories and he was forced by government to employ so many blacks who did not come up to scratch, even on purely manual work they were behind on effort, he used to say that you need 2 blacks to do the work of one whitee, mind you back then they did not get top rate of pay.

by veya_victaous Wed Feb 03, 2016 9:37 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:

You should be ashamed as it attitudes like yours that make minority group youth feel rejected by the society they were born into. And Due to your rejection of them, that YOU have drilled into them with all your actions and opinions expressed since they were tiny children, they know they do not belong, you do not consider them the same as you. you will always judge them harsher than you will a white Brit(just like the courts)

I'm going to address this bit, even though I know that Veya will reply with some more shite.

I do sometimes encounter little black children you know. Maybe they're 2, 3, or 4, or whatever. They don't know about this shit. They don't know that they're apparently "repressed". They don't know that some people sit there bleating on about how they're "disadvantaged" because of their colour. If someone fills their head with that nonsense at a young age, they are the ones to blame. They're the ones who are telling little children that they will discriminated against and not accepted, and that will influence them later on.

That pisses me off, and it's people like you Veya who are filling their heads with this kind of crap. You're also filling children's heads with some shite that if another child has more toys than them, it's because they're "privileged", and that they're entitled to steal off those people when they grow up.

Stop it - you're doing a lot of damage.

I would steal your toys in a heart beat Raggs pirat

Just like we are supposed to in capitalism, If the rich ignore the 'rules' when it suits them why shouldn't everyone?

ever think I want to not just damage but destroy the system that gives people like you priviledge.
It is Just as Fair as all the advantages the rich kid will have in life under the current system.

And I am not telling them what you are doing!
they will see that already because you are doing it,
I mean how could anyone not read stormees post and see what is thought of them?

by Raggamuffin Wed Feb 03, 2016 9:44 pm

veya_victaous wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I'm going to address this bit, even though I know that Veya will reply with some more shite.

I do sometimes encounter little black children you know. Maybe they're 2, 3, or 4, or whatever. They don't know about this shit. They don't know that they're apparently "repressed". They don't know that some people sit there bleating on about how they're "disadvantaged" because of their colour. If someone fills their head with that nonsense at a young age, they are the ones to blame. They're the ones who are telling little children that they will discriminated against and not accepted, and that will influence them later on.

That pisses me off, and it's people like you Veya who are filling their heads with this kind of crap. You're also filling children's heads with some shite that if another child has more toys than them, it's because they're "privileged", and that they're entitled to steal off those people when they grow up.

Stop it - you're doing a lot of damage.

I would steal your toys in a heart beat Raggs
Just like we are supposed to in capitalism, If the rich ignore the 'rules' when it suits them why shouldn't everyone?

ever think I want to not just damage but destroy the system that gives people like you priviledge.
It is Just as Fair as all the advantages the rich kid will have in life under the current system.

And I am not telling them what you are doing!
they will see that already because you are doing it,
I mean how could anyone not read stormees post and see what is thought of them?

There's that word "fair" again - the one you used last night and said that Brits were crazy to expect things to be fair. Now you want things to be fair - as long as you're being unfair to white Brits of course.

Anyway, you are the sort of person who is whipping up hatred, and you are the sort of person who is filling the heads of black people with the idea that they are inferior in some way in the hope that they'll turn on white people. I daresay you see them as collateral damage in your quest to destroy British society.

by veya_victaous Wed Feb 03, 2016 10:40 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I'm going to address this bit, even though I know that Veya will reply with some more shite.

I do sometimes encounter little black children you know. Maybe they're 2, 3, or 4, or whatever. They don't know about this shit. They don't know that they're apparently "repressed". They don't know that some people sit there bleating on about how they're "disadvantaged" because of their colour. If someone fills their head with that nonsense at a young age, they are the ones to blame. They're the ones who are telling little children that they will discriminated against and not accepted, and that will influence them later on.

That pisses me off, and it's people like you Veya who are filling their heads with this kind of crap. You're also filling children's heads with some shite that if another child has more toys than them, it's because they're "privileged", and that they're entitled to steal off those people when they grow up.

Stop it - you're doing a lot of damage.

I would steal your toys in a heart beat Raggs
Just like we are supposed to in capitalism, If the rich ignore the 'rules' when it suits them why shouldn't everyone?

ever think I want to not just damage but destroy the system that gives people like you priviledge.
It is Just as Fair as all the advantages the rich kid will have in life under the current system.

And I am not telling them what you are doing!
they will see that already because you are doing it,
I mean how could anyone not read stormees post and see what is thought of them?

There's that word "fair" again - the one you used last night and said that Brits were crazy to expect things to be fair. Now you want things to be fair - as long as you're being unfair to white Brits of course.

Anyway, you are the sort of person who is whipping up hatred, and you are the sort of person who is filling the heads of black people with the idea that they are inferior in some way in the hope that they'll turn on white people. I daresay you see them as collateral damage in your quest to destroy British society.

No the Minorities just tend to make up the Poor for which I wish a Successful Revolution.
A revolution against those that focus on the fact they a black or yellow or whatever.
Against the useless rich that spoil the world with their greed and incompetence.
they get to hold the rubber stamps of approval cause their daddies were rich.
and they refuse to stamp anything that will in any way negatively impact their wealth
so push on their loses to the public making the average person pay for the excesses and failures.

Historically this happens
Beware you are not caught telling them to eat cake miss raggs Wink

VIVA LA REVOLUTION

by Sponsored content