''Diversity'' and ''Inclusion'' in the UK: the rise of the Racist White Liberals

[mongrel]

All the same, it’s foolhardy to weaponise anthropology as a political tool to say we are an ‘immigrant nation’ or that the original Britons were Black Africans.

The English are obviously immigrants. The Romans spent a lot of effort failing to keep them out.

1/3 of BAME voters voted Leave. Just like 1/3 of Labour voters voted Leave. Of course the Brexit party includes them. Because the claim that Brexiteers are just racist and sexist is retarded.

Also for accepting that people won't agree, maybe you can start by accepting that people do not agree with ''diversity and inclusion'' policies that in the end are always about discriminating against straight white males?

Discriminating against straight white males breaks the law according to 3 elements of the Equality Act. It's a fact.

[Basil II the B.S]

The Equality Act was one of the last acts done by the Labour party government, which is on record for wanting to open the borders to change the ethnic composition of the UK. It's the government that initiated the ethnic cleansing of the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish. ''Equality'' when done by RACIST LIBERAL HUMAN GARBAGE like them means discriminating against whites to achieve whatever outcome they set with their racist parameter as demonstrated by all the cases posted in the OP.

[mongrel]

The Equality Act was one of the last acts done by the Labour party government, which is on record for wanting to open the borders to change the ethnic composition of the UK. It's the government that initiated the ethnic cleansing of the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish. ''Equality'' when done by RACIST LIBERAL HUMAN GARBAGE like them means discriminating against whites to achieve whatever outcome they set with their racist parameter as demonstrated by all the cases posted in the OP.

Such bollocks. As any fool knows, the Act simply stitched together existing UK laws and EU directives, some of whom date back to the 1960s. It describes discrimination as unlawful against all races, genders etc. It says nothing about migration,which is subject to separate laws under a different ministry.


And certainly no English, Scots, Welsh and Irish men have been harmed by the act , unless they broke the law by being a massive racist or groped a strange lady's arse, (the same penalties would apply to anyone else). I know that you can't cope with the RL version of the world, it's a syndrome which led to one white genocide type to kill scores of people in Christchurch. And guess what, nothing changed, the cult is still derided.

[95thrifleman]

The Equality Act was one of the last acts done by the Labour party government, which is on record for wanting to open the borders to change the ethnic composition of the UK. It's the government that initiated the ethnic cleansing of the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish. ''Equality'' when done by RACIST LIBERAL HUMAN GARBAGE like them means discriminating against whites to achieve whatever outcome they set with their racist parameter as demonstrated by all the cases posted in the OP.

The British governemnt is involved in the ethnic cleansing of Britain? Where is the proof for that one?

[Basil II the B.S]

The demographics of the UK.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...r-8600262.html

and the policies of the Blair government, specifically advocated by Barbara Roche.
I'm copy pasting from Murray's Strange Death of Europe:

For instance, it was clear from the moment of her appointment as Minister for Asylum and Immigration during Tony Blair’s first term that Barbara Roche was seeking a complete rethink of Britain’s immigration and asylum policies. While the Prime Minister was concentrating on other matters, Roche changed every aspect of the British government’s policies. From here onwards all people claiming to be asylum seekers would be allowed to stay in Britain – whether they were genuine or not – because as she informed one official, ‘Removal takes too long, and it’s emotional.’ Roche also thought the contemporary restraints on immigration were ‘racist’ and that the whole ‘atmosphere’ around the immigration debate ‘was toxic’. Over her period in office she repeatedly stated her ambition to transform Britain. As one colleague said, ‘Roche didn’t see her job as controlling entry into Britain, but by looking at the wider picture “in a holistic way” she wanted us to see the benefit of a multicultural society.’Neither the Prime Minister nor the Home Secretary, Jack Straw, were interested in questioning the new asylum policy, nor the fact that under Roche everyone entering Britain, whether he or she had a job to go to or not, was turned into an ‘economic migrant’. Wherever there was any criticism of her policy, either internally or externally, Roche dismissed it as racist. Indeed Roche – who criticised colleagues for being too white – insisted that even the mention of immigration policy was racist.¹⁴

The activities of Roche and a few others in the 1997 Labour government backs up the idea that theirs was a deliberate policy of societal transformation: a culture war being waged against the British people using immigrants as some kind of battering ram. Another theory, not running entirely counter to this view, is that the whole thing was a bureaucratic cock-up that had already run out of control under successive governments, and only did so spectacularly under New Labour. The disparity between the figures of new arrivals into the country that the Labour government claimed to expect as compared to those who actually came is evidence for this case. For instance, when it allowed free entry to the United Kingdom for the new EU accession countries in 2004, the British government announced that it expected around 13,000 people a year to take advantage of the scheme. A study commissioned by the government claimed that it would be able to ‘totally control’ the flood once restrictions had been lifted. It did no such thing. Rules around work permits, among others, were reformed so that skilled and unskilled immigrants could enter the country and stay under the guise of being ‘foreign workers’. Most would stay. Entirely predictably the numbers soon ran away even from the estimates of the greatest advocates of mass migration. The numbers of non-EU nationals were expected only to double between 100,000 a year in 1997 and 170,000 in 2004. In fact over five years the government’s predictions for the number of new arrivals would be off by almost a million people.¹⁶ Among other things the government’s experts wholly failed to anticipate that the UK might be an especially attractive destination for people from countries with significantly lower average income levels or without a minimum wage. In the event, because of these policies the number of Eastern Europeans living in Britain rose from 170,000 in 2004 to 1.24 million in 2013.¹⁷

[95thrifleman]

The demographics of the UK.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...r-8600262.html

and the policies of the Blair government, specifically advocated by Barbara Roche.
I'm copy pasting from Murray's Strange Death of Europe:

For instance, it was clear from the moment of her appointment as Minister for Asylum and Immigration during Tony Blair’s first term that Barbara Roche was seeking a complete rethink of Britain’s immigration and asylum policies. While the Prime Minister was concentrating on other matters, Roche changed every aspect of the British government’s policies. From here onwards all people claiming to be asylum seekers would be allowed to stay in Britain – whether they were genuine or not – because as she informed one official, ‘Removal takes too long, and it’s emotional.’ Roche also thought the contemporary restraints on immigration were ‘racist’ and that the whole ‘atmosphere’ around the immigration debate ‘was toxic’. Over her period in office she repeatedly stated her ambition to transform Britain. As one colleague said, ‘Roche didn’t see her job as controlling entry into Britain, but by looking at the wider picture “in a holistic way” she wanted us to see the benefit of a multicultural society.’Neither the Prime Minister nor the Home Secretary, Jack Straw, were interested in questioning the new asylum policy, nor the fact that under Roche everyone entering Britain, whether he or she had a job to go to or not, was turned into an ‘economic migrant’. Wherever there was any criticism of her policy, either internally or externally, Roche dismissed it as racist. Indeed Roche – who criticised colleagues for being too white – insisted that even the mention of immigration policy was racist.¹⁴

The activities of Roche and a few others in the 1997 Labour government backs up the idea that theirs was a deliberate policy of societal transformation: a culture war being waged against the British people using immigrants as some kind of battering ram. Another theory, not running entirely counter to this view, is that the whole thing was a bureaucratic cock-up that had already run out of control under successive governments, and only did so spectacularly under New Labour. The disparity between the figures of new arrivals into the country that the Labour government claimed to expect as compared to those who actually came is evidence for this case. For instance, when it allowed free entry to the United Kingdom for the new EU accession countries in 2004, the British government announced that it expected around 13,000 people a year to take advantage of the scheme. A study commissioned by the government claimed that it would be able to ‘totally control’ the flood once restrictions had been lifted. It did no such thing. Rules around work permits, among others, were reformed so that skilled and unskilled immigrants could enter the country and stay under the guise of being ‘foreign workers’. Most would stay. Entirely predictably the numbers soon ran away even from the estimates of the greatest advocates of mass migration. The numbers of non-EU nationals were expected only to double between 100,000 a year in 1997 and 170,000 in 2004. In fact over five years the government’s predictions for the number of new arrivals would be off by almost a million people.¹⁶ Among other things the government’s experts wholly failed to anticipate that the UK might be an especially attractive destination for people from countries with significantly lower average income levels or without a minimum wage. In the event, because of these policies the number of Eastern Europeans living in Britain rose from 170,000 in 2004 to 1.24 million in 2013.¹⁷

Might i suggest that when you claim ethnic cleansing you actualy do some homework and figure out what the term actualy means.

[Basil II the B.S]

Is ethnic replacement a form of ethnic cleansing? I'd say so.

[mongrel]

Is ethnic replacement a form of ethnic cleansing? I'd say so.

You say is not good enough. Besides the Tories have been in power since 2010. Who precisely has been harmed by UK policies only as a result of being white and male.I bet you can't name a single person.

[Basil II the B.S]

Lmao, in the OP we had a dude who actually had to sue for being racially discriminated by the policies you defend and he won, meaning they are racist.

''You can't name a single person''.

I can and I just did. So you either didn't read the OP or you are just selectively ignoring everything that proves you are wrong.

Which one is it?

----------
Back to the topic, this is a newly published paper which follows the same ideological arguments on which ''diversity and inclusion'' policies are based on:
https://ssir.org/articles/entry/the_...lism_standards
The Bias of ‘Professionalism’ Standards

''Professionalism has become coded language for white favoritism in workplace practices that more often than not privilege the values of white and Western employees and leave behind people of color.''

So, professionalism is the next target for RACIST WHITE LIBERALS who will never stop until they have completely destroyed Western societies. These people are insane and evil and they must be stopped.

[mongrel]

Lmao, in the OP we had a dude who actually had to sue for being racially discriminated by the policies you defend and he won, meaning they are racist.

''You can't name a single person''.

I can and I just did. So you either didn't read the OP or you are just selectively ignoring everything that proves you are wrong..

No you named no one, that is no one who suffered detriment as a result of the Act.


The man you mentioned used the Equality Act to defend his rights and he won. By any sense of the word he did not suffer detriment, he recieved justice as a result of those policies and that law. My baby child can work that out. So could my cat.


Are you telling us that this stupid thread arose because you don't know how justice works?

Now give us some real examples.


----------

Back to the topic, this is a newly published paper which follows the same ideological arguments on which ''diversity and inclusion'' policies are based on:
https://ssir.org/articles/entry/the_...lism_standards
The Bias of ‘Professionalism’ Standards

So, professionalism is the next target for RACIST WHITE LIBERALS who will never stop until they have completely destroyed Western societies. These people are insane and evil and they must be stopped.

.

Did yiou read the article, which btw is American and has nothing to do with policy or legislation?

It seems to be a listing of commomplace things HR journals have commented on for years.

[Basil II the B.S]

Critical race theory, which is the ideological framework behind ''diversity, equity and inclusion'' policies doesn't have a nationality. It's also almost exclusively popular in the Anglo-Saxon world, namely the US, the UK, Australia and Canada. Given that academic research doesn't have a nationality, it's irrelevant whether it was published in the US or the UK, it still works as ideological argument for the racist policies adopted by your side, which you defend.

The rest is of your post is complete garbage peppered with intellectual dishonesty.
-give me one guy who was racially discriminated
-it's in the OP
-give me one guy!

Not going to address further garbage. I will just continue to denounce the absolute evil promoted by racist garbage before your side starts putting ''gammons'' into gulags to purify their whiteness.

[mongrel]

Critical race theory, which is the ideological framework behind ''diversity, equity and inclusion'' policies doesn't have a nationality. It's also almost exclusively popular in the Anglo-Saxon world, namely the US, the UK, Australia and Canada. Given that academic research doesn't have a nationality, it's irrelevant whether it was published in the US or the UK, it still works as ideological argument for the racist policies adopted by your side, which you defend.

The rest is of your post is complete garbage peppered with intellectual dishonesty.
-give me one guy who was racially discriminated
-it's in the OP
-give me one guy!

Not going to address further garbage. I will just continue to denounce the absolute evil promoted by racist garbage before your side starts putting ''gammons'' into gulags to purify their whiteness.

What is this rubbish? I said who is suffering detriment from the Equality Act and all you can give me is some white person using the act to actually protect his own rights. The forum can read what you posted, and will no doubt consider your argument destroyed. Your failure to demonstrate any detriment is duly noted.

Talking about destroying fascism, here's some West Indians who volunteered to do just that. This ''Diversity'' and ''Inclusion'' helped topple an actual real life genocidal regime. What it didn't do is create your fictional one. No amount of mosque shootings will change that.

[Spitfire -WONDERBOLT!]

What is this rubbish? I said who is suffering detriment from the Equality Act and all you can give me is some white person using the act to actually protect his own rights. The forum can read what you posted, and will no doubt consider your argument destroyed. Your failure to demonstrate any detriment is duly noted.

Talking about destroying fascism, here's some West Indians who volunteered to do just that. This ''Diversity'' and ''Inclusion'' helped topple an actual real life genocidal regime. What it didn't do is create your fictional one. No amount of mosque shootings will change that.

And in case you want to dismiss this a propaganda:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Manners_Street
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/...acist-GIs.html

[Basil II the B.S]

Mongrel post:
1) Ignore core argument proving that everything he supports comes from Marxist Race and Gender theory, and we all know what it results in. Mass genocide. See Holodomor
2) Strawman my argument
3) Posts something completely irrelevant to the topic

What an asinine post. Let's go stick to the topic shall we? How the policies he supports are promoted by Racist White Liberals who think that Western societies are inherently ''white supremacist'' and need to be burned to the ground to build yet another glorious dystopia.

[mongrel]

Mongrel post:
1) Ignore core argument proving that everything he supports comes from Marxist Race and Gender theory, and we all know what it results in. Mass genocide. See Holodomor
2) Strawman my argument
3) Posts something completely irrelevant to the topic

What an asinine post. Let's go stick to the topic shall we? How the policies he supports are promoted by Racist White Liberals who think that Western societies are inherently ''white supremacist'' and need to be burned to the ground to build yet another glorious dystopia.

Your made-up Race and gender theory did not that white man you mentioned the means to defend himself against discrimination. The Equality Act did.

Racist white liberals didn't stir black and brown nations to help the UK fight actual real life fascism, it was an actual real life genocidal racist regime. I mean what detriment did the UK suffer from by importing Spitfire pilots, bomber crew, radio operators or seamen. Abolutely none, but the Nazis and fascists certainly did.

Too easy. Let's face it the thread is an embarassment to your fake cause.

[Basil II the B.S]

The only fake cause here is screeching about an imminent fascist take over in complete absence of fascism, just like expanding the notion of racism to anyone guilty of whiteness in absence of actual racism. Curiously that has produced racists but on your side and with the ideas you have just promoted. Mass violence, censorship, ethnic cleansing.

Not all White Liberals are racist, but all racists are White Liberals.

[mongrel]

The only fake cause here is screeching about an imminent fascist take over in complete absence of fascism, just like expanding the notion of racism to anyone guilty of whiteness in absence of actual racism. Curiously that has produced racists but on your side and with the ideas you have just promoted. Mass violence, censorship, ethnic cleansing.

Not all White Liberals are racist, but all racists are White Liberals.

I'd invite the forum to read the thread and find this mythical reference of yours, but as it doesn't exist , I would not want to disappoint them.

Still awaiting evidence of the detriment white straight men suffer as a result of the Equality Act, you having undermined your OP by given one example of a white straight male obtaining justice through it . You have had sufficient time to find it.

[95thrifleman]

The only fake cause here is screeching about an imminent fascist take over in complete absence of fascism, just like expanding the notion of racism to anyone guilty of whiteness in absence of actual racism. Curiously that has produced racists but on your side and with the ideas you have just promoted. Mass violence, censorship, ethnic cleansing.

Not all White Liberals are racist, but all racists are White Liberals.

Oh boy

[Basil II the B.S]

https://www.skysports.com/football/n...om-next-season

Football League clubs will have to interview at least one Black, Asian or ethnic minority candidate for a first-team manager's position from next season.

More of this nonsense in the UK.

Indeed White Liberals think that your skin affects your performance. The definition of racism. That's what White Liberals mean with ''Equality'', as demonstrated by Mongrel's posts.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

No thats not racism.

Racism is, when you are physically attacked, because you are black, although you are born in that country and have represented it in the national team like Daisy Osakue in Italy.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45017843

Not, when the English Premier League is forced by anti discrimination laws to give black managers the same chance as white ones:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Football must face up to an indisputable truth: black managers do not get the same chances as white managers

The Rooney Rule might help to address the lack of representation of BAME managers in English football but we must first face society's inherent racism


This isn’t really about individuals, so we’ll leave names out of this. When we’re talking about issues as big as race and discrimination, case studies often prove a handy distraction for those who would rather fixate on the small details than the bigger picture. Several white English ex-footballers have been given their first managerial jobs in recent weeks, including one this week, but this isn’t really about any of them either. So first of all, let’s just concentrate on the data.
Since 1990, one in four – just under 25 per cent – of retired England international footballers have been black or from an ethnic minority background (BAME). But of those ex-players who have subsequently gone into a management job, that drops to just one in seven. We’re defining a management job as a club in one of the top five divisions in England, or a big-five league or international side in Europe.

As a white ex-England player, you are twice as likely to end up in a managerial job as your black counterpart. Since 1990, just five black ex-England players have gone into management, under the definition listed above. You’d probably struggle to name all of them, given that only one of them is still in a job and only one of them made it as far as the Premier League (where he lasted six months).

Oh, and you know what else? The gap is widening. Since 2000, the proportion of black footballers playing for England has risen, but while 25 per cent of white players have been given a managerial job since retirement, that drops to just 10 per cent for black players. And if you are an aspiring black English manager with a stellar playing career behind you, you’d better get a move on: no black England footballer has ever been offered his first managerial job more than a year after retirement.


At a wider level, just 7 per cent of the current Premier League and Football League managers, and 2.6 per cent of all the permanent managers in Premier League history, are BAME. And according to the League Managers’ Association, almost two thirds of all the BAME managers in Football League history never got a second job.
That’s the data. Of course, you may well choose to dispute it, disregard it, offer complicating caveats or contradictory anecdotes, but all you would be doing is arguing against my evidence with your lack of evidence. All the data indicates that black managers do not get the same chances in the game as white managers. Again, for the avoidance of doubt: all the data indicates that black managers do not get the same chances in the game as white managers.

Unless we collectively accept that as a fact, we’re nowhere.

So what now? Even many of those who agree on the problem of a lack of black representation in management are not convinced by the efficacy of the Rooney Rule, which requires at least one BAME candidate to be interviewed for every coaching role, and which is implemented by the FA but not yet by the Premier League, and only on a voluntary basis by the EFL. This should scarcely bear repeating, but the Rooney Rule does not stop the best candidate from getting the job. It does not deny anybody an interview who wasn’t already getting an interview in the first place. But there are those – of all races – who just don’t like the feel of it. That’s fine.


At the very least, however, we need clubs to offer greater transparency to their recruitment processes. Too many jobs are still being given out informally, on the quiet, without formalities, and thus intrinsically weighted in favour of those already possessing a rich range of contacts in the game. This, by the way, is a problem in many sectors beyond football, including the media.
We also need to be more cognisant of our biases as a society. The role of the manager has never just been about coaching, academic qualifications, a checklist of boxes to tick. It’s a leadership role as much as a technical one, and so it has been given on the strength of personality, character and likeability as often as anything else. Individually, you could probably make a decent case for every single white manager appointed to a managerial role in this country. It’s only when you collate them into a broader tableau that a pattern of subconscious discrimination becomes evident.


And so it’s relevant that Ucas data shows that ethnic minority students are less likely than white students to be offered university places with the same predicted A-Level grades. It’s relevant that a 2009 study found that job applicants with a “white-sounding” name like Andrew Clarke were 74 per cent more likely to get an interview than those with “black-sounding” names like Anthony Olukayode. It’s relevant that black men are three times more likely than white men to be arrested. Are we racists as individuals? Probably not. Are we racist as a society? Absolutely, 100 per cent yes.

There will be those out there – mostly white people – who will despise this article and despise the arguments made in it. Who will despise the way that white managers are reduced to their ethnicity, when it is exactly what non-white people have been experiencing their entire lives. Who would rather believe anything – that the data is flawed, that black players don’t want to become managers, that black coaches are intrinsically less capable – than that they are complicit in a rigged system, a society that still struggles to reconcile itself with the idea of black people as leaders rather than followers.

There will be those who will lament the fact that we are introducing race into an issue where race is no issue, who will ignore the data in favour of their own intuition, which tells them that everything is fine and these people are just making trouble. They will tell themselves that they are the real victims, and we the real persecutors. They will decry us for playing the race card. But you don’t need to play the race card if you’re already winning the game.

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...-a8379111.html