[battery]

You're absolutely right, with the experience there is also a possibility of the entrenched unconscious bias being an unintended consequence. As always I think the answer is probably in balance, of which there seems to be very little.

[seankenny]

Nothing to see here, just a casual reminder that we don't really take violence against women particularly seriously. Less so if one is a policeman, it would seem.

"An off-duty police officer who attacked a terrified woman as she walked home alone was allowed to walk free from court.

PC Oliver Banfield, a probationary officer with West Midlands Police, grabbed Emma Homer on a dark street last July.

He used techniques taught during police training to try to tackle the mum-of-two to the ground and put her in a headlock.

Miss Homer, 36, managed to flee from the scene as Banfield, who had been on a night out, branded her a “f ****** slag”.

A court heard the 25-year-old remains in his post with West Midlands Police despite admitting a charge of assault by beating.

The officer was sentenced to a 14-week curfew, banning him from leaving his house between 7pm and 7am.

Banfield was also ordered to pay his victim £500 compensation and court costs totalling £180.

The terrifying attack in Bidford-on-Avon, Warks, was caught on CCTV and shown to the court this morning.

It showed Banfield trying to perform an “unlawful arrest” on his victim and grabbing her around the neck.

Banfield, who the court heard was drunk at the time of the attack, tried to pull her to the ground as she screamed and dragged her along the pavement.

Miss Homer said the attack had a devastating effect on her.

She has suffered from anxiety, stress, panic attacks and insomnia and is undergoing therapy and counselling."


https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/drunken-duty-police-officer-25-23759044?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar

I looked up the offence he was charged under on a solictor's website:

"A section 39 assault can only be tried in the magistrates’ court and carries a maximum sentence of 6 months imprisonment however the sentence is usually dealt with by a fine or a community penalty unless the assault involves characteristics which make the incident more serious or the offender has a history of violent behavior."

[SA Chris]

unless the assault involves characteristics which make the incident more serious

How much more fucking serious can you get??

[spidermonkey09]

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/publications/an-inspection-of-the-metropolitan-police-services-policing-of-a-vigil-held-in-commemoration-of-sarah-everard/

Police inspecting the police and look what they conclude...

This bit I thought was particularly telling - political debate around Cressida Dick's position apparently showed a 'lack of respect' for the police. I think I mentioned police defensiveness to criticism earlier in the thread; couldn't ask for a better example than this.

"Fourth, the chorus of those condemning the Metropolitan Police, and calling for the
resignation of the Commissioner, within hours of the arrests – and presumably, with a
very limited understanding of what had happened – was unwarranted. Whereas a
certain degree of uninformed commentary, particularly on social media, is inevitable,
in this case some of the leading voices were those in positions of some responsibility.
It is one thing – as in the case of the Home Secretary – to recognise that the scenes
were worrying or upsetting (and to order an inspection such as this). It is another to
jump to conclusions – and in doing so, undermine public confidence in policing –
based on very limited evidence.
To do so shows a distinct lack of respect for public servants facing, as we have
described, a sensitive and complex situation."

[battery]

I preface what I'm about to say with the face that I haven't read the whole report... but it smacks of paying lip service to me, I don't suppose it was ever going to be critical but it allows Patel to say she's done the right thing - political genius on her part.

All evidence and testimony is from the police; the only evidence included from the public is statements from those who were arrested. It also states that they 'sifted and selected' relevant material - questionable?

The fundamental thing for me which is missing from the introduction and the narrative is that much of the anger towards the police was sparked by the fact that their response to the disappearance of Sarah Everard was to instruct women to stay at home at night.

[TobyD]

 Re the government report on institutional racism in Britain; I wonder if they read the definition before trying to seriously convince people with their conclusions. 
a policy, system of government, etc., that is associated with or originated in such a doctrine, and that favors members of the dominant racial or ethnic group, or has a neutral effect on their life experiences, while discriminating against or harming members of other groups, ultimately serving to preserve the social status, economic advantage, or political power of the dominant group.

Never hold an enquiry unless you know the conclusion first?

[tomtom]

There’s so much wrong with it it’s hard to know where to start...

[Bradders]

Agreed.

An example I spotted; I've seen quoted in the media a few times the ethnicity pay gap as being -2.3%. My first thought was that that sounds good, pretty negligible really, and potentially strong evidence to support the report's findings.

However, if you just skim through the report it turns out this includes people of White Irish ethnicity, who on average are paid 40.5% more than White British people. I imagine this massively skews the overall average (especially as I assume there are quite a lot of them), and begs the question of why any White ethnic group are included. The answer presumably being that it helps fit the conclusion the Government wanted before they'd even started.

[Johnny Brown]

Is that a typo?

[Oldmanmatt]

Is that a typo?

I’m sure I can find some Irish antecedents for my next salary  negotiations. Good tip!

[Bradders]

Is that a typo?

Nope. Bizarre isn't it? Page 110 of the report. Makes you wonder what else they've done to the rest of the data to make it fit the desired outcome.

[battery]

There's plenty of people who are quoted in the report or stated as stakeholders that have spent the last few days trying to put the record straight:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/01/commission-race-report-used-cherry-picked-data-uk-public-health-experts-say

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/01/experts-cited-in-no-10s-race-report-claim-they-were-not-properly-consulted

[TobyD]

This is also worth reading, although obviously most of the people who may read this read the Guardian anyway

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/apr/02/sewell-race-report-historical-young-people-britain?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

He's not exactly a tub thumping leftie either. As far as I've paid any attention, Labour has wisely kept out of commenting on the report. It's so hard to find anything right with it, they're probably best leaving it to be criticised by others.

Munira Murza and several other advisors clearly think that culture war is a good way to keep 'red wall' votes, and distract from what should be top of the news agenda, which is how the government is failing to make anything but a disaster of leaving the EU, and continuing to beckon another winter of lockdown bullshit by utterly ignoring the necessity to have a working test and trace system, and instead wasting time on this shit.

[Bradders]

My basic conclusion is that at best it's a piece of fairly typical Boris politicking; trying to optimistically paint things as he and his advisers want them to be, rather than as they are.

I suppose the question is, does that work? I.e. will making things seem better than they are, actually make things better? Personally I doubt it.

[Oldmanmatt]

My basic conclusion is that at best it's a piece of fairly typical Boris politicking; trying to optimistically paint things as he and his advisers want them to be, rather than as they are.

I suppose the question is, does that work? I.e. will making things seem better than they are, actually make things better? Personally I doubt it.

Yes, of course it will work.

Those who want it to be “this way” will no longer have to give credence to “the other side”, because the government says they don’t have to.

The division is deeply entrenched and has been, pretty much, forever.

[ali k]

At first I thought the report was just shit but the more I read it I can only see it as having been written to be intentionally controversial. I mean FFS that stuff about black people benefiting culturally from slavery just did not need to be there. Marina Hyde nails it as usual.

“The trouble with culture wars is that the entry requirements are so low but the stakes are so high. For a government supposedly big on the past, this one fails to understand even recent American history. To simplify, for their benefit: turning everything into an insanely polarised binary ends badly. Whether you play with this box of matches because it’s cheaper than real policies, or because it “energises your base”, or for some other reason, it always ends badly. Do you remember the orange man? It ended badly. It remains a mystery quite why Britain’s politicians should be stoking culture wars mere months after just one of their logical conclusions was laid bare for the world to see. Absolutely no good comes of this stuff, and governments should be bigger and better than it.”

[Bradders]

My basic conclusion is that at best it's a piece of fairly typical Boris politicking; trying to optimistically paint things as he and his advisers want them to be, rather than as they are.

I suppose the question is, does that work? I.e. will making things seem better than they are, actually make things better? Personally I doubt it.

Yes, of course it will work.

Those who want it to be “this way” will no longer have to give credence to “the other side”, because the government says they don’t have to.

The division is deeply entrenched and has been, pretty much, forever.

No I mean the other way round. Does gaslighting people into making them think the problem isn't that big, actually make the problem smaller in reality?

[TobyD]

My basic conclusion is that at best it's a piece of fairly typical Boris politicking; trying to optimistically paint things as he and his advisers want them to be, rather than as they are.

I suppose the question is, does that work? I.e. will making things seem better than they are, actually make things better? Personally I doubt it.

Yes, of course it will work.

Those who want it to be “this way” will no longer have to give credence to “the other side”, because the government says they don’t have to.

The division is deeply entrenched and has been, pretty much, forever.

No I mean the other way round. Does gaslighting people into making them think the problem isn't that big, actually make the problem smaller in reality?

No, and, as Ali's post illustrates, that isn't the intention anyway; it is an obvious attempt to engage politically on a 'anti-woke' culture war basis, because they think that discussing actual policy is probably going to lose them votes.
To be fair, on this, I think they're correct. They are failing on multiple manifesto commitments and everything except the vaccine rollout is a complete shit show. Brexit, China policy, planning, social care, foreign aid... I could go on. For them, it's probably better to keep banging on about statues than anything that matters.

[Oldmanmatt]

My basic conclusion is that at best it's a piece of fairly typical Boris politicking; trying to optimistically paint things as he and his advisers want them to be, rather than as they are.

I suppose the question is, does that work? I.e. will making things seem better than they are, actually make things better? Personally I doubt it.

Yes, of course it will work.

Those who want it to be “this way” will no longer have to give credence to “the other side”, because the government says they don’t have to.

The division is deeply entrenched and has been, pretty much, forever.

No I mean the other way round. Does gaslighting people into making them think the problem isn't that big, actually make the problem smaller in reality?

No, and, as Ali's post illustrates, that isn't the intention anyway; it is an obvious attempt to engage politically on a 'anti-woke' culture war basis, because they think that discussing actual policy is probably going to lose them votes.
To be fair, on this, I think they're correct. They are failing on multiple manifesto commitments and everything except the vaccine rollout is a complete shit show. Brexit, China policy, planning, social care, foreign aid... I could go on. For them, it's probably better to keep banging on about statues than anything that matters.

It certainly “lessens” the problem in a particular corner of the population.
The Government will probably get away with it, short term.
The reality is, that the minority groups that are marginalised by such behaviour, are not as negligible as they were even a decade ago. They’re substantial chunks of our society. It’s not a long term strategy. 

[TobyD]

The reality is, that the minority groups that are marginalised by such behaviour, are not as negligible as they were even a decade ago. They’re substantial chunks of our society. It’s not a long term strategy.

Ah that may well be true but not in the seats that matter here. Many of the urban areas are very unlikely to be conservative anytime soon anyway. So many of the marginal constituencies are very white British.

I thought this was a really good piece on the report: BBC News - Race report: Was controversy part of the plan?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56578839

[tomtom]

The manner of the release of the report (interviews about it before it was actually released - really unusual) and the contents - and how it’s been ‘backed up’ all feel quite Cummings like...

I know he’s gone...

But it does feel like a big middle finger.

[ali k]

The manner of the release of the report (interviews about it before it was actually released - really unusual) and the contents - and how it’s been ‘backed up’ all feel quite Cummings like...

There was even a “no approach” media embargo forbidding experts or relevant parties from being contacted prior to publication so they could be sure that the initial coverage was purely on govt terms.

[TobyD]

Re: vaccine passports or whatever euphemism to is being used for them, I read this https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/johnson-is-in-trouble-over-vaccine-passports-and-it-s-showing

Which is possibly more damning of Johnson than the Guardian usually is.

Personally I can't see what the big problem is with them, but as the government isn't competent enough to implement it, it's all a bit silly anyway, because they won't happen in any meaningful way anyway.

[ali k]

Had the pleasure of receiving a leaflet through from the Tories re: the local elections.

In the bit about the West Yorkshire mayoral election it says that by electing a Conservative mayor “we will be better placed to get funding from the Government”. Not even shy to admit it.

[mrjonathanr]

Had the pleasure of receiving a leaflet through from the Tories re: the local elections.

In the bit about the West Yorkshire mayoral election it says that by electing a Conservative mayor “we will be better placed to get funding from the Government”. Not even shy to admit it.

Wow. That looks like is a corrupt mindset so normalised that it isn’t even recognised for what it is. Publicise that. National newspapers will report on it.