FabSwingers.com forum: Sarah Pochin Comments

By *exy_Horny OP Couple
27 weeks ago

Leigh

Racist or not? Of course Labour are trying to make political capital out of it but are the points valid?

I would say that they were clumsily expressed but perfectly valid and were not racist at all.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
27 weeks ago

I'm struggling to think of a legitimate reason why someone with no racial basis would find that it drives them mad to see black or brown faces in adverts. How does it negatively impact her life? Since when has advertising precisely represented the demographics of the country? When you add the context of her politics regarding immigration I can't see a reasonable rationale for her comments.

What I can see is her opportunism to appeal to the callers question and it backfiring.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
27 weeks ago

"Racist or not? Of course Labour are trying to make political capital out of it but are the points valid?

I would say that they were clumsily expressed but perfectly valid and were not racist at all."

Sarah Pochin didn’t just phrase things badly — she said she “hates seeing adverts full of black people, full of Asian people” and claimed this “doesn’t reflect our society.”

The data doesn’t support that. The 2021 Census (ONS) shows the UK is about 82% white, and Channel 4 and IPA studies found around 23–26% of people in ads are from minority groups. That’s close to reality, not “full” of anyone.

So her claim isn’t factual, and the frustration she described isn’t about accuracy — it’s about discomfort with visibility. That’s what makes it racist, not just clumsy.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
27 weeks ago

The data is meaningless. Black people are over represented in advertising but that's because individual agencies and clients are trying to be more inclusive and the industry doesn't work as a collective mass that compares notes on demographic representation before they commission adverts.

What's important is that it's not important and if you're unsettled by seeing people that don't look like you, you should examine your outlook.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
27 weeks ago

"The data is meaningless. Black people are over represented in advertising but that's because individual agencies and clients are trying to be more inclusive and the industry doesn't work as a collective mass that compares notes on demographic representation before they commission adverts.

What's important is that it's not important and if you're unsettled by seeing people that don't look like you, you should examine your outlook. "

Oh I was making the point that it is a tiny over correction following decades of drastic under representation.

Her comments were racist as hell

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *exy_Horny OP Couple
27 weeks ago

Leigh

"Racist or not? Of course Labour are trying to make political capital out of it but are the points valid?

I would say that they were clumsily expressed but perfectly valid and were not racist at all.

Sarah Pochin didn’t just phrase things badly — she said she “hates seeing adverts full of black people, full of Asian people” and claimed this “doesn’t reflect our society.”

So her claim isn’t factual, and the frustration she described isn’t about accuracy — it’s about discomfort with visibility. That’s what makes it racist, not just clumsy."

They aren’t the statistics I have seen. They appear correct for the % of people working at ad agencies but not for people featured in the adverts themselves. This figure is much higher, at around 50%.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
27 weeks ago

What does it matter?

And the 50pc is featured in the adverts, not necessarily centered around or in a lead role. For most of us living in major confirmations black or Asian people will be seen everywhere we go. I don't see the issue.

There are also plenty of groups who are underrepresented. I don't see her complaining pregnant women, disabled people, lgbt people, the elderly etc are underrepresented. It's another talking point that's singling out skin colour as the issue and some kind of problem to be fixed.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *exy_Horny OP Couple
27 weeks ago

Leigh

"What does it matter?

Skin colour should be totally irrelevant.

The issue is that someone has decided that people should be selected based on their skin colour not necessarily ability.

Race, religion, sexuality, gender etc. should be totally irrelevant when considering suitability for something however there is an endemic malaise in this country where there is an obsession with meeting do called “diversity” targets. People are too often selected based on one of these characteristics not ability.

There is a similar problem with university offers, where family background and the postcode where you live can mean a lower offer to meet some arbitrary target whereas everything should be strictly based on ability.

The advertising issue I started with is just a small, but visible, part of this problem. Anybody who questions the issues is usually shouted down and branded as racist whereas the majority of people actually want race etc. completely taken out of the equation as it is irrelevant.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
27 weeks ago

What do you mean selected on ability? What does black representation in adverts have to with ability? How do you know they weren't selected on ability?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
27 weeks ago

Skin colour should be totally irrelevant.

The issue is that someone has decided that people should be selected based on their skin colour not necessarily ability.

Diversity law doesn’t mean taking people just because of their identity. It means making sure people from all backgrounds get a fair chance to be considered. No one undeserving is taking anyone’s place — the law still requires the same standards of skill and suitability. It just stops old habits from filtering out whole groups before they even get seen.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ennineTopMan
27 weeks ago

York

Those involved in commissioning and producing adverts are trying to get as many people as possible to purchase the advertised goods or services.

I try to avoid advertising so don't have a scientific understanding, but the impression I get is that glamourous young people with perfect hair, skin and teeth are massively over-represented.

I've not heared anyone from Reform complaining about this.

If non-white people do actually appear in a higher proportion than white people relative to the population then I imagine it's because non-white people purchase stuff and feel it's nice to see themselves represented and the vast majority of white people have absolutely no problem seeing non-whites in advertising or in the real world.

Such advertising may have a negative sales impact on people like Pochin and is possibly indulging in a certain amount of tokenism and emotional manipulation but essentially advertising is all about selling stuff and many people aspire to being both glamorous and egalitarian so the advertisers will calculate that losing a few sales to people like Pochin is worth the return in other demographics.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
27 weeks ago

The point those who eschew racism should be taking from this is a failure from the left. Pochin is being dismissed as a stupid racist, when in reality she and her party are targeting and reinforcing the desire people suffering decades of austerity, lack of investment in social infrastructure and outcomes have in having someone to point at for blame, and have fallen down the rabbit holes of great replacement theory etc.

Very few voices in politics or the media are providing any credible counter or challenge to stereotyping or outright lying about where we are today and what the problems really are.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ennineTopMan
27 weeks ago

York

Pochin's comments were calculated. As was her non-apology.

It's all about keeping Reform in the news and signalling to the base that Reform are on their side.

To an extent it's a lose/lose situation for the left because any criticsm is used to reinforce the notion that there's a London-based woke elite trying to do down the ordinary white folk and if there's no criticism then the Reform narrative becomes ever more normalised.

The left could up its game and point out the rhetorical tricks used by Reform but I don't think it would have much impact as the majority of Reform supporters don't mind the tricks and would even prefer Reform to be more blatant.

On balance it might be better for the left to simply ignore Reform and focus on presenting an alternative. But the media are fascinated by the theatrics and will continue to platform Farage et al as they have done for many many years so that's a hard road to travel.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ostindreamsMan
27 weeks ago

London

I don't have much context about Pochin's comments.

Overall, yes. Black people are overrepresented in advertisement. Asians are underrepresented. But I don't believe it's because of the DEI circus.

It's probably the same reason why black people are overrepresented in sports compared to Asians. It's a cultural thing. Asian families typically play it safe when it comes to career choices. This makes arts/sports less favoured choices in these families. I think this is true even for Eastern Europeans.

But I have noticed that Western European white people and Black people from various backgrounds being more open to go after such careers. Considering the need to target wider demographics, and the pool of available actors being mostly black/white, advertisers end up going with 50/50 black and white actors.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *enda83Man
27 weeks ago

north

At one point we were basically told there was too many white people in tv shows and adverts and we had to be more inclusive, was anyone outraged or cried racism then ?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
27 weeks ago

"At one point we were basically told there was too many white people in tv shows and adverts and we had to be more inclusive, was anyone outraged or cried racism then ? "

Anyone can face prejudice — that’s personal bias — but racism is about systemic patterns of power and exclusion.

In the UK, white people don’t face structural racism. They can be insulted or disliked, but their race isn’t what keeps them out of housing, jobs, or visibility. For decades, TV and advertising showed almost entirely white families; that was the system’s bias.

When agencies now include more Black and Asian people, they’re not being “anti-white,” they’re fixing that long-running imbalance. Diversity in adverts isn’t racism — it’s the system finally correcting itself.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ingdomNightTimePleasuresMan
27 weeks ago

nearby

Any comment from no more white saviours David Lammy

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ennineTopMan
27 weeks ago

York

I think many people below the age of about 50 have little idea about what it used to be like in the UK.

I remember as a child seeing a sign saying "NO BLACKS, NO IRISH, NO GYPSIES" in the entrance to my local pub.

TV shows like Love Thy Neighbour and Till Death Us Do Part were supposed to be satirical but some people thought the Eddie Booth and Alf Garnet characters were hero figures - "telling it like it is".

Some might not remember the NF but most will know about the BNP, they had 50 council members and 2 members of the European Parliament at one point.

Racism was quite openly expressed until about the early 1980's when UK society started to consider it increasingly impolite. Many people resented this shift.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *otMe66Man
27 weeks ago

Terra Firma

[Removed by poster at 27/10/25 18:47:13]

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *otMe66Man
27 weeks ago

Terra Firma

"At one point we were basically told there was too many white people in tv shows and adverts and we had to be more inclusive, was anyone outraged or cried racism then ?

Anyone can face prejudice — that’s personal bias — but racism is about systemic patterns of power and exclusion.

You are quoting critical race theory....

Here in the UK equality law doesn’t define racism as a system!! Racism = discrimination, harassment, or victimisation because of race, and that applies to everyone equally regardless of the colour of their skin.... I thought you would have been on top of this following on from the Equality act posts on the other thread.

You have literally echoed Diane Abbott, that ended well for her...

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
27 weeks ago

"You are quoting critical race theory....

You have literally echoed Diane Abbott, that ended well for her..."

No, I’m not quoting critical race theory — I’m describing how racism actually functions in society. The Equality Act defines what’s unlawful, not how prejudice operates in practice. Legally, yes, racism can apply to anyone. Sociologically, we can recognise two types: individual prejudice, which anyone can face, and systemic racism, which only affects groups excluded by structures of power. Saying white people don’t experience that form isn’t denying discrimination exists — it’s describing who the system was built to favour. I actually wish white people did face the same level of systemic racism as other groups — because the only way that could happen is if nobody faced any at all. That’s the goal: not flipping the bias, but eliminating it completely so equality finally means everyone.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *otMe66Man
27 weeks ago

Terra Firma

"You are quoting critical race theory....

You have literally echoed Diane Abbott, that ended well for her...

No! You literally said white people couldn’t experience racism because of “the system.”

That’s critical race theory, not UK equality law and it’s exactly the same logic that landed Diane Abbott in trouble.

I’m not getting pulled into another round of denials, it is what it is.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
27 weeks ago

"No! You literally said white people couldn’t experience racism because of “the system.”

That’s critical race theory, not UK equality law and it’s exactly the same logic that landed Diane Abbott in trouble.

I’m not getting pulled into another round of denials, it is what it is."

No, I said white people cannot experience systemic racism. That doesn’t mean they can’t experience individual racism — anyone can. That’s what UK equality law deals with: individual acts of discrimination, harassment, or victimisation because of race.

Systemic racism is different. It describes how social and institutional structures privilege some groups over others. In the UK, that pattern overwhelmingly disadvantages Black and Asian people, not white people.

And what you’re describing isn’t what Critical Race Theory actually says — it’s what critics claim it says. CRT doesn’t say white people can’t experience racism; it studies how racial bias becomes embedded in law and policy. The Equality Act defines what’s unlawful. CRT explains why those inequalities exist. They’re not the same thing.

If you’re not willing to engage beyond “it is what it is,” then don’t. No one’s forcing you to take part, but dismissing the discussion isn’t the same as winning it.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ennineTopMan
27 weeks ago

York

I think one obvious recent example of systemic racism was the Windrush scandal.

Although I think the term systemic is often overused. It's better to simply describe policies and attitudes that are racist or potentially racist in themselves.

Also non-white people can be just as racist as white people. Racism and xenophobia in general are failings that all human beings can exhibit.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ostindreamsMan
27 weeks ago

London

Do you have any evidence for this?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
27 weeks ago

"Do you have any evidence for this?"

Penn’s right to mention Windrush — that’s one of the clearest modern examples. The Windrush Lessons Learned Review (Home Office, 2020) explicitly described systemic and cultural bias within government policy. It wasn’t a few bad decisions; it was a structure that consistently disadvantaged Black Britons.

You can see the same pattern in the Macpherson Report (1999) on the Stephen Lawrence case and the Race Disparity Audit (Cabinet Office, 2017) — all government-commissioned studies showing how institutional processes, not just individuals, produced unequal outcomes.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *otMe66Man
27 weeks ago

Terra Firma

"No! You literally said white people couldn’t experience racism because of “the system.”

That’s critical race theory, not UK equality law and it’s exactly the same logic that landed Diane Abbott in trouble.

I’m not getting pulled into another round of denials, it is what it is.

If you’re not willing to engage beyond “it is what it is,” then don’t. No one’s forcing you to take part, but dismissing the discussion isn’t the same as winning it."

It isn't a game of who wins, it is a debate.... And it is critical race theory you quoted, your AI tool let you down on that front. I'm not holding that against you personally because you have been really upfront in the use of, but maybe challenge your AI responses if you get challenged.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ostindreamsMan
27 weeks ago

London

"Do you have any evidence for this?

You mentioned "systemic racism" "overwhelmingly disadvantages Black and Asian people, not white people". You are just using individual incidents.

If the examples you gave are evidences of "systemic racism" against black people, the grooming gangs scandal is evidence of "systemic racism" against white people.

I am an Asian and have been living in this country for many years. So have many of my friends. None of us have ever experienced this "systemic racism" you leftists keep talking about.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
27 weeks ago

Worse outcomes in education, healthcare, cps, employment, housing, underrepresentation in leadership. The list is endless.

And come on, don't talk about people givng individual examples and then saying it doesn't exist cos you and your mates are alright.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *otMe66Man
27 weeks ago

Terra Firma

"Do you have any evidence for this?

How would you categorise the Rotherham and Rochdale grooming gang scandals?

Those were institutional failures as you mentioned above, police and local authorities ignored white working class child abuse for fear of appearing racist. By your definition, that is systemic bias too...

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
27 weeks ago

"How would you categorise the Rotherham and Rochdale grooming gang scandals?

I’d categorise Rotherham and Rochdale as absolute fucking tragedies of justice. They were systemic failures, yes, but driven by fear, incompetence, and class prejudice — not by an institutional belief that white victims mattered less. The police and councils failed catastrophically, but that’s not the same structure of racism exposed by Windrush or Macpherson. Those showed systems built to disadvantage minorities; Rotherham showed systems paralysed by cowardice. Both appalling — just different kinds of failure.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ostindreamsMan
27 weeks ago

London

"Worse outcomes in education, healthcare, cps, employment, housing, underrepresentation in leadership. The list is endless.

And come on, don't talk about people givng individual examples and then saying it doesn't exist cos you and your mates are alright."

Education, healthcare, employment and housing are all results of economic differences and not racial differences. People who migrated to a country will on average, always have less wealth than people who have lived here for generations. This isn't evidence of systemic racism.

Underrepresentation in leadership - Which country in the world has proportional representation in leadership for minority ethnicity?

I work in tech. Asians are vastly overrepresented in tech employees and leadership. Is it because Asians are systemically racist towards the rest of the races?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ostindreamsMan
27 weeks ago

London

"How would you categorise the Rotherham and Rochdale grooming gang scandals?

There is enough evidence that police didn't act because of races of the people involved. And many of the gangs were also racists who targeted specific races.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
27 weeks ago

"There is enough evidence that police didn't act because of races of the people involved. And many of the gangs were also racists who targeted specific races."

Yeah, that’s evidence of systemic mishandling, but not systemic racism against white people. The institutions didn’t ignore those victims because they were white — they froze because the offenders were mostly men of Pakistani heritage and senior officers were terrified of being accused of racism. That’s cowardice, not anti-white discrimination.

Every officer and official who turned a blind eye should have been sacked and prosecuted. It was a moral collapse, not a mirror image of the racial systems exposed by Windrush or Macpherson. The victims deserved justice; they didn’t need their trauma turned into a talking point about “reverse racism.”

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ostindreamsMan
27 weeks ago

London

"There is enough evidence that police didn't act because of races of the people involved. And many of the gangs were also racists who targeted specific races.

It is still racism. And evidence that white people can be victims of systemic racism too.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
27 weeks ago

"It is still racism. And evidence that white people can be victims of systemic racism too.

The victims were absolutely targeted by racist offenders — no question there. But that racism came from the perpetrators, not from the system. Systemic racism means bias built into institutions or policies. In Rotherham, the institutions failed through fear and incompetence, not because they saw white victims as lesser.

So yes, those children suffered from racism — the gangs’ racism — but not systemic racism. The police failure was catastrophic, but it wasn’t an institutional campaign against white people; it was a cowardly refusal to confront men they feared being called racist for arresting.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *abioMan
27 weeks ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

"Do you have any evidence for this?

Thank you for mentioning the met police and the Stephen Lawrence case…. I was going to mention the met police and their use of stop and frisk, which was also roundly criticised

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ennineTopMan
27 weeks ago

York

All this talk of critical race theory is straight out of the MAGA playbook. I just did a search on my copy of "Mandate for Leadership, the Conservative Promise" (AKA Project 2025) and it appears not just once or twice but 21 times!

It seems the UK right don't have any original thoughts and are just parroting the US right.

If Reform win the next GE then we can look forward to much of Downing Street being demolished to make way for a ballroom.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
27 weeks ago

24 recommendations were made to a government commissioned report in 2021 on now to take system inequality based on race. In some areas sure socio economic factors play into it but what do you think causes that?

And how does socioeconomics explain the fact black women are less likely to be given pain relief in labour? Or that for the same offenses black men are more likely to be charged, convicted and receive longer sentences than white men?

As for industry I'm not taking vertically. It's not industry specific. But on the subject of tech why is there such a misogyny problem in tech?

Systemic inequality exists.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ostindreamsMan
27 weeks ago

London

"It is still racism. And evidence that white people can be victims of systemic racism too.

If the system is scared of dealing with a specific race of criminals, it is racism. The victims of that racism are not just white girls, but also Sikh girls who were targeted.

Just like you said systemic racism in favour of white people severely disadvantaged black and Asian people, systemic racism in favour Pakistani people here severely disadvantaged white people and Sikhs.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *abioMan
27 weeks ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

"Do you have any evidence for this?

You mentioned "systemic racism" "overwhelmingly disadvantages Black and Asian people, not white people". You are just using individual incidents.

If the examples you gave are evidences of "systemic racism" against black people, the grooming gangs scandal is evidence of "systemic racism" against white people.

I am an Asian and have been living in this country for many years. So have many of my friends. None of us have ever experienced this "systemic racism" you leftists keep talking about."

It’s one of those things where i would say just because you have not experienced it, it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist…….

You may not have encountered for example, the same glass ceilings i may have, or before me will have done… it shouldn’t mean anyone experience should be belittled

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *otMe66Man
27 weeks ago

Terra Firma

"All this talk of critical race theory is straight out of the MAGA playbook. I just did a search on my copy of "Mandate for Leadership, the Conservative Promise" (AKA Project 2025) and it appears not just once or twice but 21 times!

It seems the UK right don't have any original thoughts and are just parroting the US right.

If Reform win the next GE then we can look forward to much of Downing Street being demolished to make way for a ballroom.

that is what happens when AI is used and the content provided is not understood. That is not your content for clarity.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
27 weeks ago

"If the system is scared of dealing with a specific race of criminals, it is racism. The victims of that racism are not just white girls, but also Sikh girls who were targeted.

Fear of being called racist isn’t the same as racism in favour of a group. The system wasn’t built to privilege Pakistani men — it panicked because of how it might look. That’s cowardice and moral failure, not institutional preference.

Real systemic racism gives one group structural protection or advantage across society — in housing, jobs, policing, courts. There’s no evidence that Pakistani men, or any minority, hold that kind of institutional power in the UK.

Those victims were failed by a system too timid to act, not a system rigged against them. The result was horrific, but the mechanism was different.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ostindreamsMan
27 weeks ago

London

"24 recommendations were made to a government commissioned report in 2021 on now to take system inequality based on race. In some areas sure socio economic factors play into it but what do you think causes that?

I explained what caused economic differences. Most people from other races came here is immigrants doing small jobs. On average, their wealth is always going to be less than families here who have gathered wealth over generations. That's not systemic racism.

And how does socioeconomics explain the fact black women are less likely to be given pain relief in labour?

This looks like a real case of racism. But I don't think there is institutional in it. Minorities are overrepresented among NHS staff.

Or that for the same offenses black men are more likely to be charged, convicted and receive longer sentences than white men?

Easily explained by economic disparity. People who have money get better lawyers.

As for industry I'm not taking vertically. It's not industry specific. But on the subject of tech why is there such a misogyny problem in tech?

On what basis are you claiming that there is misogyny problem in tech?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *otMe66Man
27 weeks ago

Terra Firma

"Do you have any evidence for this?

You mentioned "systemic racism" "overwhelmingly disadvantages Black and Asian people, not white people". You are just using individual incidents.

If the examples you gave are evidences of "systemic racism" against black people, the grooming gangs scandal is evidence of "systemic racism" against white people.

I am an Asian and have been living in this country for many years. So have many of my friends. None of us have ever experienced this "systemic racism" you leftists keep talking about.

It’s one of those things where i would say just because you have not experienced it, it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist…….

You may not have encountered for example, the same glass ceilings i may have, or before me will have done… it shouldn’t mean anyone experience should be belittled "

Or mine as a white male, I hope you would agree?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ostindreamsMan
27 weeks ago

London

The reason they had the fear is because the system was built to privilege Pakistani men. Why do you think most of those councils were Labour-run? Labour was knee-deep in trying to appease their Muslim voters at that time and created a system that systematically favoured them.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
27 weeks ago

"The reason they had the fear is because the system was built to privilege Pakistani men. Why do you think most of those councils were Labour-run? Labour was knee-deep in trying to appease their Muslim voters at that time and created a system that systematically favoured them."

For clarity, I loathe the Labour Party. But facts are facts. Every independent review — Jay (2014), Casey (2015), HMICFRS (2020) — found institutional failure, not some Labour-engineered scheme to protect offenders. Those councils were Labour because those towns have voted that way for decades, not because the party built a “system to privilege Pakistani men.” It was cowardice and incompetence, not political favouritism.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ennineTopMan
27 weeks ago

York

"that is what happens when AI is used and the content provided is not understood. That is not your content for clarity."

You are just mindlessly repeating MAGA bullshit and yet again doing your broken record thing about AI.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ostindreamsMan
27 weeks ago

London

That systemic failure is because of the race of the criminals in this case. And yet you are doing some ridiculous gymnastics here to tell us how it's not really systemic racism. One race here clearly had the power over the other races.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
27 weeks ago

"That systemic failure is because of the race of the criminals in this case. And yet you are doing some ridiculous gymnastics here to tell us how it's not really systemic racism. One race here clearly had the power over the other races."

Power in that situation didn’t come from race — it came from fear, failure, and authority looking the other way. The Pakistani men in those gangs didn’t have institutional power; the police, councils, and government officials did. And those officials were overwhelmingly white. They failed catastrophically, but they still held the power to act.

The offenders’ racism toward their victims was real and vile. But the systemic failure was cowardice within the institutions, not a system built to privilege the offenders’ race. Systemic racism means structural advantage across society — not isolated cases where criminals exploit institutional fear.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ennineTopMan
27 weeks ago

York

It also seems that the police failures were partly based on them treating the girls as worthless lower-class nobodies. I believe there's also an investigation going on into whether some police officers were themselves sexually abusing the victims.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ostindreamsMan
27 weeks ago

London

Power in that situation didn’t come from race — it came from fear, failure, and authority looking the other way.

They looked the other way because of the race of the criminals. So what do you mean it didn't come from race?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
27 weeks ago

"They looked the other way because of the race of the criminals. So what do you mean it didn't come from race?

They looked the other way because of fear about race, not because the offenders’ race gave them institutional power. The difference matters. The police and councils still held the authority; they just misused it out of cowardice and prejudice. That’s not a system built to privilege Pakistani men — it’s a system so steeped in its own racial anxiety that it failed everyone. The racism sat inside the institutions, not in favour of the offenders.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ennineTopMan
27 weeks ago

York

Systemic means relating to a system as opposed to a particular part.

Usually "the system" is an organisation such as the police or a government department which is why we hear the word instituitional a lot.

When you say "One race here clearly had the power over the other races" it sounds like you are not considering the criminals as individuals or an organisation but as representing an entire race.

Although the very concept of race could be subject to debate.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ostindreamsMan
27 weeks ago

London

"They looked the other way because of the race of the criminals. So what do you mean it didn't come from race?

If the police are scared of taking on Pakistani men, it is power. These Pakistani men had institutional power because the police were scared of arresting them. It is a system built to privilege Pakistani men. Pakistani men got privilege out of it.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
27 weeks ago

"If the police are scared of taking on Pakistani men, it is power. These Pakistani men had institutional power because the police were scared of arresting them. It is a system built to privilege Pakistani men. Pakistani men got privilege out of it. "

Temporary leverage isn’t the same as systemic power. Those offenders exploited institutional cowardice; they didn’t design or control the institutions that failed. The police weren’t answering to Pakistani men — they were paralysed by their own fear of being called racist. That’s not privilege for the offenders, it’s paralysis inside a system still run, staffed, and led by white officers.

Systemic power means consistent structural advantage across society — in jobs, courts, housing, politics. Pakistani men don’t hold that. What happened in Rotherham was horrific, but it doesn’t rewrite who the system serves day to day.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *otMe66Man
27 weeks ago

Terra Firma

"that is what happens when AI is used and the content provided is not understood. That is not your content for clarity.

You are just mindlessly repeating MAGA bullshit and yet again doing your broken record thing about AI."

Foolish comment

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *otMe66Man
27 weeks ago

Terra Firma

This argument simply inverts the argument, it serves no purpose other than to excuse.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ennineTopMan
27 weeks ago

York

"Foolish comment"

* K1, P1 *

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ichardgeorgeMan
27 weeks ago

sheffield

Totally agreed and the state from the channel 4 survey substantiate what she said

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ostindreamsMan
27 weeks ago

London

Temporary leverage isn’t the same as systemic power.

No one ever had permanent power over anything. All power structures are temporary.

Those offenders exploited institutional cowardice; they didn’t design or control the institutions that failed.

I have already explained this. Cowardice shows fear. Fear gave them power.

The police weren’t answering to Pakistani men — they were paralysed by their own fear of being called racist.

The reason doesn't matter. The Pakistani men had power over police at that time based on race. It is systemic racism.

That’s not privilege for the offenders, it’s paralysis inside a system still run, staffed, and led by white officers.

They did have privilege. They managed to r&pe thousands of young girls while the police were silent and the left wingers were busy protecting them by suppressing voices which raised concerns about this by calling them racists.

Systemic power means consistent structural advantage across society — in jobs, courts, housing, politics.

They held it for a couple of decades if we go by how long the grooming gangs scandals went. That's definitely consistent and it happened across multiple councils. They did have pretty good systemic support if we go by that.

What happened in Rotherham was horrific, but it doesn’t rewrite who the system serves day to day."

Try burning bible in public one day and the Quran in public the other day and let me know who the system serves.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *otMe66Man
27 weeks ago

Terra Firma

"Foolish comment

* K1, P1 *"

Evidenced

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
27 weeks ago

"Try burning bible in public one day and the Quran in public the other day and let me know who the system serves."

The kids were victims of racist criminals and of institutional failure. Both can be true. Calling the latter “systemic racism in favour of Pakistani men” stretches the term beyond what the evidence shows and blurs two separate problems — which makes it harder, not easier, to fix either.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *otMe66Man
27 weeks ago

Terra Firma

"Try burning bible in public one day and the Quran in public the other day and let me know who the system serves.

So we get there in the end

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ostindreamsMan
27 weeks ago

London

"Try burning bible in public one day and the Quran in public the other day and let me know who the system serves.

Racist criminals and institutional racism in account of the race of the criminals. It's systemic racism no matter how much verbal gymnastics you do.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
27 weeks ago

"Racist criminals and institutional racism in account of the race of the criminals. It's systemic racism no matter how much verbal gymnastics you do."

You’ve reasserted the claim, not evidenced it. None of the official inquiries or data support the idea that the system was built to privilege Pakistani men. Without that evidence, it’s not systemic racism — it’s catastrophic institutional failure. Repeating a conclusion doesn’t make it true.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ostindreamsMan
27 weeks ago

London

"Racist criminals and institutional racism in account of the race of the criminals. It's systemic racism no matter how much verbal gymnastics you do.

The fact that police were scared of dealing with racist child r@pists because of their race is enough evidence to prove that Pakistani men had privilege. Again, your verbal gymnastics are getting really funny.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
27 weeks ago

"The fact that police were scared of dealing with racist child r@pists because of their race is enough evidence to prove that Pakistani men had privilege. Again, your verbal gymnastics are getting really funny."

You’re just relabelling things. Saying fear and cowardice mean racism doesn’t make them the same. If you want to claim it is racism, show me a credible source that says so — a government report, inquiry, or peer-reviewed study. Otherwise, it’s just opinion dressed as certainty.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ostindreamsMan
27 weeks ago

London

Why does everything has to be government report? 😂

Systemic racism is one where institutions give unfair treatment in favour of or against a specific race. The police unfairly favoured the Pakistani men here. The fact that they were afraid of being called racist is a moot point. It means this group of men played the victim card well enough to systemic racism in their favour.

The fact that it happened in mostly Labour councils also shows signs of systemic racism as they were political leaders who were trying everything to appease this group for votes. The fact that one of the Labour council leaders called the grooming gangs victims "poor white trash from Rotherham", isn't really surprising.

Reverse the races in this story, the left wingers would be protesting on the streets for months, invented new signs/symbols in remembrance of this, pasted them all over social media and called this systemic racism. But not this time as it's not the right kind of racism.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
27 weeks ago

Why does everything has to be government report? 😂

You’re still describing institutional fear, not institutional design. None of the independent inquiries — Jay (2014), Casey (2015), HMICFRS (2020) — found the system was built to privilege Pakistani men or that race drove decision-making in their favour. They found safeguarding collapse, political cowardice, and class prejudice.

If you want to redefine that as “systemic racism,” you need a credible study that says so. Otherwise, it’s just swapping the label without the evidence.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ennineTopMan
27 weeks ago

York

Looking at the June 2025 report by Casey I was shocked to see that the estimate is that around 500,000 children experience sexual abuse every year with over 100,000 offences of child sexual abuse and exploitation being recorded by police in 2024, with around 60% of these being contact offences.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
27 weeks ago

"Looking at the June 2025 report by Casey I was shocked to see that the estimate is that around 500,000 children experience sexual abuse every year with over 100,000 offences of child sexual abuse and exploitation being recorded by police in 2024, with around 60% of these being contact offences."

Yes, that figure is horrifying. It’s a reminder that what happened in Rotherham and elsewhere was part of a much wider national failure to protect children. Arguing over which label fits which case won’t stop it happening again — fixing the safeguarding systems will. The focus should be on prevention and accountability, not turning tragedy into a culture-war talking point.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ornucopiaMan
27 weeks ago

Bexley

Getting back to Pochin, who I had to google as I don't follow news, her maiden speech as an MP appears to give some indication that her current politically incorect faux pas was probably no accident.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *illowendMan
27 weeks ago

Reydon

It shows reform as a one trick pony

No answers to

Inflation

GDP after Brexit

Homeless

Food banks

Etc etc

But all they play is the race card

Says a lot about their supporters

"Racist or not? Of course Labour are trying to make political capital out of it but are the points valid?

I would say that they were clumsily expressed but perfectly valid and were not racist at all."

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ostindreamsMan
27 weeks ago

London

If you want to redefine that as “systemic racism,” you need a credible study that says so. Otherwise, it’s just swapping the label without the evidence."

Why does design or fear matter? End of the day, the institution was favouring one race. It is systemic racism.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
27 weeks ago

"Why does design or fear matter? End of the day, the institution was favouring one race. It is systemic racism."

Redefining “systemic racism” to mean “any outcome involving race” makes the term meaningless. Systemic racism isn’t about who benefits in a single situation; it’s about how institutions are structured to advantage or disadvantage groups over time. The inquiries show a system paralysed by fear, not built for favouritism. Fear-driven failure is still disgraceful, but it’s not systemic racism by any accepted definition — academic, legal, or sociological.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ostindreamsMan
27 weeks ago

London

"The focus should be on prevention and accountability, not turning tragedy into a culture-war talking point."

Did you all follow this advice when the George Floyd incident happened? The left wing reactions to these two different events are quite interesting and eye-opening.

A guy in the US gets killed by an American cop. And for some weird reason, there were numerous protests all over UK, in spite of a raging pandemic. All celebs, footballers and politicians were expected to take the knee. The ones who didn't were expected to explain why. All this over an event that happened in the US.

And then there is the grooming gangs scandal, which happened in UK, where many thousands of young girls were r&ped by some men who were clearly racists. The institutions did not act on time because of the race of the people involved.

Considering the fact that this happened in UK itself and the scale is much larger, I would have expected the left wingers to be out in the streets and making noises. But no. In fact, they did the opposite. For years, they have really been suppressing voices against the grooming gangs by calling them racists.

All this shows that the left never cared about racism, sexism or women's rights in the first place. It's all a popularity contest. The left started the culture war.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ostindreamsMan
27 weeks ago

London

"Why does design or fear matter? End of the day, the institution was favouring one race. It is systemic racism.

I didn't say any outcome. If the institutions favour one race, it is systemic racism. The system being paralysed by fear doesn't matter. Fear is just a tool used to enforce racism in the system.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
27 weeks ago

"Did you all follow this advice when the George Floyd incident happened? The left wing reactions to these two different events are quite interesting and eye-opening.

All this shows that the left never cared about racism, sexism or women's rights in the first place. It's all a popularity contest. The left started the culture war."

That is called changing the subject.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ostindreamsMan
27 weeks ago

London

[Removed by poster at 28/10/25 08:59:01]

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
27 weeks ago

I didn't say any outcome. If the institutions favour one race, it is systemic racism. The system being paralysed by fear doesn't matter. Fear is just a tool used to enforce racism in the system."

Then you’ve changed the definition of systemic racism. None of the official inquiries or academic sources define it that way. If your version requires rewriting the term, that tells us where the problem lies.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ostindreamsMan
27 weeks ago

London

"Did you all follow this advice when the George Floyd incident happened? The left wing reactions to these two different events are quite interesting and eye-opening.

All this shows that the left never cared about racism, sexism or women's rights in the first place. It's all a popularity contest. The left started the culture war.

That is called changing the subject. "

Feels painful when people call out the ideological fraudulence of the leftists? Anyway I was responding to your point that we shouldn't make that a culture war issue.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
27 weeks ago

"Feels painful when people call our the ideological frauds that the leftists are? Anyway I was responding to your point that we shouldn't make that a culture war issue."

No — it’s called staying on topic. You shifted from evidence about safeguarding to a rant about “the left.” That’s ideology, not analysis.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ostindreamsMan
27 weeks ago

London

"Feels painful when people call our the ideological frauds that the leftists are? Anyway I was responding to your point that we shouldn't make that a culture war issue.

No — it’s called staying on topic. You shifted from evidence about safeguarding to a rant about “the left.” That’s ideology, not analysis.

That's analysis of the ideology. You tried to deflect from the topic by saying we shouldn't be getting into culture war over this issue. But the left wingers start culture wars all the time. Even this thread is an example of culture war. Blaming everything on "systemic racism" is how you start a culture war.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ostindreamsMan
27 weeks ago

London

I didn't say any outcome. If the institutions favour one race, it is systemic racism. The system being paralysed by fear doesn't matter. Fear is just a tool used to enforce racism in the system.

Systemic racism is a simple term. I don't know why we need "government reports" to establish its meaning as you mentioned in the other posts. If reform wins the election and published as "government report" that says that the grooming gangs scandal was the result of systemic racism, will you accept it?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ophieslutTV/TS
Forum Mod
27 weeks ago

Central

Racist. However they try to spin it. It's very sad that we've regressed this badly and some try to use weasel words trying to gloss over racism etc

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
27 weeks ago

"Systemic racism is a simple term. I don't know why we need "government reports" to establish its meaning as you mentioned in the other posts. If reform wins the election and published as "government report" that says that the grooming gangs scandal was the result of systemic racism, will you accept it?"

If Reform ever produced a credible, peer-reviewed report that held up to independent scrutiny, I’d accept its findings like any other evidence. That’s the point — belief follows proof, not party.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ostindreamsMan
27 weeks ago

London

What makes something credible? We are taking about definition of "systemic racism". You have been arguing that if a government report says that something is systemic racism, then it is. Definition of the term is not something that comes out based on evidence.

So if a Reform government says that systemic racism is anything where an institution advantages/disadvantages one race, it is systemic racism and hence the grooming gangs scandal was a case of systemic racism, will you agree?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
27 weeks ago

"What makes something credible? We are taking about definition of "systemic racism". You have been arguing that if a government report says that something is systemic racism, then it is. Definition of the term is not something that comes out based on evidence.

Definitions don’t come from governments; they come from academic and legal consensus built over time. If a future government tried to rewrite “systemic racism” to suit its politics, it would face the same scrutiny as the Cass Review — which the medical community almost universally described as scientifically illiterate. Credibility isn’t about who writes the report; it’s about whether the evidence survives expert review.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *otMe66Man
27 weeks ago

Terra Firma

Name a few things that the “system” overwhelmingly benefits white people.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *exy_Horny OP Couple
27 weeks ago

Leigh

"I was born in Rhodesia. My parents took me and my sister on a “holiday” we never came back from — because of the systemic racism that grew under Mugabe. So yes, I know it can happen. But it isn’t happening here. In the UK, the system still overwhelmingly benefits white people. Pretending otherwise doesn’t make things fairer; it just denies the inequality that still exists."

In what way does the system in the UK benefit white people more than other colours?

We see the opposite, where unless you tick one of the boxes for the targeted help you are discriminated against. So white middle earners with no diagnosed SEND etc. have to do everything themselves on merit. No assistance or help. Others get quite substantial help in the name of “fairness” or “equality” or “diversity”.

Everyone has an equal chance in life so why should some get more help than others?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *uietbloke67Man
27 weeks ago

outside your bedroom window ;-)

Racist.

Anyone saying anything else in an racist apologist.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
27 weeks ago

" a few things that the “system” overwhelmingly benefits white people. "

You want examples? Fine — criminal justice, housing, and healthcare outcomes all show clear racial disparities that consistently favour white people.

The 2021 Lammy Review found Black people are 3x more likely to be arrested and 8x more likely to be stopped and searched than white people, even when controlling for other factors.

The Race Disparity Audit found ethnic minorities are less likely to be homeowners and more likely to live in deprived areas, even at similar income levels.

NHS data shows Black women are four times more likely to die in childbirth than white women.

That’s what ‘systemic’ means — not individual prejudice, but patterns baked into institutions over decades. You don’t have to believe in conspiracy to see inequality. You just have to look at the data.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
27 weeks ago

"In what way does the system in the UK benefit white people more than other colours?

Everyone has an equal chance in life so why should some get more help than others?"

The idea that ‘everyone has an equal chance’ only works if everyone starts from the same place. They don’t.

The ONS and Race Disparity Unit both show that Black and Asian people face higher unemployment and lower pay even with the same qualifications.

Ethnic minority applicants have to send 60% more job applications on average to get the same number of interviews as white applicants (LSE, 2019).

Schools in predominantly white areas receive more per-pupil funding and face fewer exclusions for comparable behaviour.

So when policies try to balance that out, they’re not giving extra help — they’re correcting a measurable disadvantage.

Equality isn’t about pretending the race track was level all along. It’s about recognising that some people were forced to start 50 yards behind the line, and making sure they can finally run the same race.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ostindreamsMan
27 weeks ago

London

This is what you said: "If you want to claim it is racism, show me a credible source that says so — a government report, inquiry, or peer-reviewed study." And now a government report suddenly doesn't count?

We just showed a system that benefited Pakistani men to the point thousands of young girls got r&ped. So it's you who is pretending here.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ostindreamsMan
27 weeks ago

London

The ONS and Race Disparity Unit both show that Black and Asian people face higher unemployment and lower pay even with the same qualifications.

Ethnic minority applicants have to send 60% more job applications on average to get the same number of interviews as white applicants (LSE, 2019).

That's down to economic starting point and not down to race. If we are going to have affirmative action, we should be doing it based on economic class and not based on race. Doing it based on race would just be racist. You don't fight racism with even more racism. You are only perpetuating the problem by doing so, not solving it.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
27 weeks ago

"We just showed a system that benefited Pakistani men to the point thousands of young girls got r&ped. So it's you who is pretending here."

I refuse to cheapen the horror those girls went through by mislabelling what happened. It wasn’t ‘systemic racism against white people’; it was systemic neglect of vulnerable girls — many of them working class, some not white — by institutions that didn’t think they mattered enough to protect. Turning that into a race-war talking point doesn’t honour the victims; it erases the real causes of their suffering and makes it harder to stop it from happening again.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
27 weeks ago

"That's down to economic starting point and not down to race. If we are going to have affirmative action, we should be doing it based on economic class and not based on race. Doing it based on race would just be racist. You don't fight racism with even more racism. You are only perpetuating the problem by doing so, not solving it."

And why is there an economic disparity?

Because centuries of systemic racism built it.

Class absolutely plays a role — but it doesn’t erase race. When two people with the same qualifications and class background face different outcomes based on skin colour, that’s racism. That’s exactly what the LSE study showed: identical CVs, different names, different results.

Fixing that imbalance isn’t ‘more racism’; it’s correcting for a bias that already exists. If a system keeps giving one group a head start, adjusting the track isn’t discrimination — it’s levelling it.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ostindreamsMan
27 weeks ago

London

"We just showed a system that benefited Pakistani men to the point thousands of young girls got r&ped. So it's you who is pretending here.

It was systemic racism in favour of a specific group of men. If one guy getting killed by police in the US can be turned into a culture war in the UK, why can't such a bigger issue be?

According to you, the police investigation of one Stephen Lawrence murder is evidence for systemic racism. The grooming gangs scandal that affected 500,000 children is somehow not? The mental gymnastics here is mind-blowing.

This is the kind of stuff why the progressives became a laughing stock in politics people including minorities turned against stuff like DEI.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
27 weeks ago

"It was systemic racism in favour of a specific group of men. If one guy getting killed by police in the US can be turned into a culture war in the UK, why can't such a bigger issue be?

This is the kind of stuff why the progressives became a laughing stock in politics people including minorities turned against stuff like DEI."

Because it wasn’t just the death of one man in the States — it was the culmination of centuries of Black lives being treated as worth less by institutions of power. George Floyd was the catalyst, not the cause.

What happened in the grooming-gang scandals wasn’t systemic racism in favour of Pakistani men; it was systemic neglect of working-class girls — many of them not white — by police and councils that didn’t think they mattered enough to protect. The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse found the main drivers were misogyny, class prejudice, and institutional failure, not pro-Pakistani bias.

If it really were half a million children, that scale might step beyond systemic neglect — but it still wouldn’t make it systemic racism. The Jay Report put the number closer to 1,400 victims over sixteen years, and that’s 1,400 too many. The officers and officials who ignored those girls should have faced real consequences. The fact that many didn’t isn’t evidence of bias for one ethnic group — it’s proof of how classism and misogyny corrode accountability.

Calling that “anti-white racism” cheapens what happened and makes it harder to stop it happening again. It’s not a race-war story; it’s a story of how easily institutions look away when the victims are poor, young, and female

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *exy_Horny OP Couple
27 weeks ago

Leigh

" The Race Disparity Audit found ethnic minorities are less likely to be homeowners and more likely to live in deprived areas, even at similar income levels"

So, if income levels are the same then it must be by choice then?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
27 weeks ago

" The Race Disparity Audit found ethnic minorities are less likely to be homeowners and more likely to live in deprived areas, even at similar income levels

So, if income levels are the same then it must be by choice then?"

Oh, it couldn’t possibly be because mortgage lenders treat them differently, or because some housing associations and sellers refuse to deal with them, right?

The Race Disparity Audit literally found identical income, different outcomes — that’s the definition of systemic bias, not ‘choice.’

And I notice you conveniently didn’t mention the other examples I gave.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ennineTopMan
27 weeks ago

York

"The grooming gangs scandal that affected 500,000 children is somehow not?"

The 500,000 figure is an estimate of the total number of children sexually abused by all criminals each year not the number affected in the grooming gang scandal.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ostindreamsMan
27 weeks ago

London

How many racially motivated police killings happened in UK in recent years and how many girls were victims of grooming gangs? Why is it ok to make one issue a culture war and not the other?

Casey's report says that perpetrators race played a role because police didn't act because of fear of being branded racist.

If it really were half a million children, that scale might step beyond systemic neglect — but it still wouldn’t make it systemic racism.

The criminals were racist. The police didn't do their job properly because of systemic racism. No matter how much gymnastics you do, anyone can see this is a case of systemic racism.

The fact that many didn’t isn’t evidence of bias for one ethnic group — it’s proof of how classism and misogyny corrode accountability.

Did classism and misogyny play a role? Yes. Did racism play a role? Also yes.

Why does calling racism racism cheapen it? I thought you folks were all anti-racist. And yet, here is a clear case of racism. The criminals were racist. And yet you are here doing gymnastics to tell us that we shouldn't make it a matter of race. Not surprising. But shows a lot of hypocrisy.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ostindreamsMan
27 weeks ago

London

[Removed by poster at 28/10/25 17:18:08]

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ostindreamsMan
27 weeks ago

London

" The grooming gangs scandal that affected 500,000 children is somehow not?

The 500,000 figure is an estimate of the total number of children sexually abused by all criminals each year not the number affected in the grooming gang scandal.

I agree that we don't have clear estimates for grooming gangs victims. Sarah Champion estimated a million girls. Lord Pearson estimated 250,000.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
27 weeks ago

"Why does calling racism racism cheapen it? I thought you folks were all anti-racist. And yet, here is a clear case of racism. The criminals were racist. And yet you are here doing gymnastics to tell us that we shouldn't make it a matter of race. Not surprising. But shows a lot of hypocrisy.

What cheapens it is misrepresenting it. Calling a safeguarding collapse “systemic racism” rewrites what actually happened and insults everyone affected — victims and families included. The reports name misogyny, class prejudice, and institutional cowardice. Turning that into a race-war story isn’t anti-racist; it’s dishonest.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ostindreamsMan
27 weeks ago

London

The report also says fear of being called racist stopped the police from acting. Just because you won't agree that it isn't "systemic racism", it doesn't stop others from calling it what it is.

I can see why left wingers get touchy about this subject after years of trying to suppress concerns about this issue by calling people Islamophobes, only to realise that people who raised concerns were right about it. But still trying to hide the racist elements to the scandal does serious injustice to the victims. I know the left never gave a fuck about these victims. At least you could try.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
27 weeks ago

"I can see why left wingers get touchy about this subject after years of trying to suppress concerns about this issue by calling people Islamophobes, only to realise that people who raised concerns were right about it. But still trying to hide the racist elements to the scandal does serious injustice to the victims. I know the left never gave a fuck about these victims. At least you could try."

I never said the criminals weren’t racist — quite the opposite, I’ve called them that repeatedly. But individual racism and systemic racism aren’t the same thing. There were plenty of individual acts of racism in those crimes, but that doesn’t make the system itself racist. The issue wasn’t structural or ongoing; it was cowardice, class prejudice, and institutional neglect. The police cared more about optics than children’s safety — that’s disgraceful, but it isn’t systemic racism.

And let’s be clear — there hasn’t been a genuinely left-wing government in the UK this century. It’s been right or centre throughout. Blaming “the left” for what happened in Rotherham isn’t analysis, it’s lazy scapegoating. The inquiries you’re quoting were commissioned under governments of both parties.

The reports said fear of being called racist paralysed police, not that racism against white people was built into the system. That’s cowardice, not systemic bias. Misrepresenting it as “systemic racism” rewrites what actually happened and insults everyone affected — victims and families included. Turning a safeguarding collapse into a race-war story doesn’t honour the victims; it exploits them.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ostindreamsMan
27 weeks ago

London

I never said the criminals weren’t racist — quite the opposite, I’ve called them that repeatedly.

I never said you said it either. It's still racism. Considering the amount of noise the left made about the George Floyd incident, it is interesting that the self proclaimed "anti-racists" did the complete opposite on this issue.

There were plenty of individual acts of racism in those crimes, but that doesn’t make the system itself racist.

I never said that the criminals being racist made it systematic racism. But the fact that the police didn't act on it because of the criminal's race makes it systematic racism because the institution was favouring one race.

And let’s be clear — there hasn’t been a genuinely left-wing government in the UK this century.

Of course real socialism was never tried. If we are talking about social progressivism, Labour under Blair and Corbyn was progressive and the fact that police were scared of taking on criminals of a specific race is indeed the effect of progressive politics. It's not just the politicians. Please don't pretend like the loud mouth left wingers didn't try to suppress all the voices about the issue by branding them racists.

The reports said fear of being called racist paralysed police, not that racism against white people was built into the system.

Racism could be against a race and in favour of a race. In this case, it was in favour of a race.

That’s cowardice, not systemic bias. Misrepresenting it as “systemic racism” rewrites what actually happened

It is systemic bias. The fact that they did it out of fear doesn't change the fact that it was a bias and it was systemic.

and insults everyone affected — victims and families included. Turning a safeguarding collapse into a race-war story doesn’t honour the victims; it exploits them."

Of course, it's only the left that's allowed to create race wars in UK over some guy being killed in the US.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ennineTopMan
27 weeks ago

York

"I agree that we don't have clear estimates for grooming gangs victims. Sarah Champion estimated a million girls. Lord Pearson estimated 250,000."

You are regurgitating Elon Musk X posts.

From the Independent...

"When we contacted Ms Champion to ask about the figure in 2020, she told us: “I extrapolated that Rotherham is a town [of] 200,000 and had 1,400 known victims of CSE [child sexual exploitation] between 1997-2013 and 15% of women report their r*pe – so scaled up.”

Ms Champion this week told us that her extrapolation involved scaling up the figures for a “70 year period”, acknowledging that was a “completely unreliable” estimate."

The 250,000 figure is Musk quoting Tommy Robinson, quoting the former leader of UKIP Lord Pearson saying “If we extrapolate nationally the Jay report on Rotherham and other reports from Telford and Oxford, there appear to have been upwards of 250,000 young white girls r*ped in this century, very largely by Muslim men.”.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
27 weeks ago

"Of course, it's only the left that's allowed to create race wars in UK over some guy being killed in the US. "

Even the left called out the racism that was present — because it was. The offenders’ motives were racist, and no one is denying that. But the inquiries were right to note that the racism wasn’t systemic. The institutions didn’t fail because they were designed to privilege Pakistani men; they failed because officers were cowardly, classist, and more concerned with optics than with protecting children.

While individual officers within the system may have held racist views, that’s still individual racism, not systemic. You haven’t shown anything that even approaches evidence for your claim — it’s entirely opinion.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ostindreamsMan
27 weeks ago

London

[Removed by poster at 28/10/25 18:32:45]

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ostindreamsMan
27 weeks ago

London

"I agree that we don't have clear estimates for grooming gangs victims. Sarah Champion estimated a million girls. Lord Pearson estimated 250,000.

You are regurgitating Elon Musk X posts.

From the Independent...

Ms Champion this week told us that her extrapolation involved scaling up the figures for a “70 year period”, acknowledging that was a “completely unreliable” estimate."

That's pretty much what I said.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ostindreamsMan
27 weeks ago

London

Did the inquiries actually say that the racism wasn't systematic? Or did they not make any comment on whether it was systemic or not?

The institutions didn’t fail because they were designed to privilege Pakistani men; they failed because officers were cowardly, classist, and more concerned with optics than with protecting children.

They failed because they were classist, cowardly and were privileging a particular race. No matter how much gymnastics you do, the evidence is there for people to see. If you want more evidence, go to public and burn a bible and try doing the same thing with Quran the next day and tell me who is more privileged.

Individual police officer killed George Floyd too. How many police officers should be racist for it to be systemic?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
27 weeks ago

"Individual police officer killed George Floyd too. How many police officers should be racist for it to be systemic?"

That’s not evidence, that’s whataboutism. The inquiries didn’t describe the Rotherham failures as systemic racism — and if they had, you’d be able to quote it. The “Bible vs. Quran” example is irrelevant to child-protection policy.

And again, you’re boiling the Black Lives Matter protests down to just George Floyd, ignoring the countless Black Americans who’ve died through police brutality and racialised violence over decades — Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor, Tamir Rice, Freddie Gray, Sandra Bland, Alton Sterling, Philando Castile, Elijah McClain, Daunte Wright — to name only a few. That’s what made it systemic: a pattern, not an isolated event.

Systemic racism isn’t measured by counting individuals; it’s shown through structural patterns across institutions. That’s why those deaths formed part of a documented pattern in U.S. policing, backed by decades of data. Nothing comparable exists here. Without that evidence, it’s just another opinion repeating itself.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *otMe66Man
27 weeks ago

Terra Firma

[Removed by poster at 28/10/25 18:52:55]

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *otMe66Man
27 weeks ago

Terra Firma

" a few things that the “system” overwhelmingly benefits white people.

You want examples? Fine — criminal justice, housing, and healthcare outcomes all show clear racial disparities that consistently favour white people.

The 2021 Lammy Review found Black people are 3x more likely to be arrested and 8x more likely to be stopped and searched than white people, even when controlling for other factors.

The Race Disparity Audit found ethnic minorities are less likely to be homeowners and more likely to live in deprived areas, even at similar income levels.

NHS data shows Black women are four times more likely to die in childbirth than white women.

Every single one of those tropes can be explained it’s just others have bent reality to fit their narrative. Stop and search, even the Lammy Review stated outcomes are based on location and crime patterns as much as race. Heavily populated areas with higher crime rates will see more stops, and those areas also tend to have a higher concentration of minority populations.

Housing, if the “system” overwhelmingly benefits white people, you might want to have a word with the Indian and Chinese, who have higher home ownership rates than White British households. Not really holding up to the system overwhelmingly benefits white people..

Higher maternity deaths among Black women. A quick google finds reports that show "underlying health conditions, deprivation, and late engagement with maternity services as the key factors. Recent NHS initiatives have already narrowed that gap significantly".

If you take every statistic at face value, you end up stuck on one side of a fence that looks exactly like the other...

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
27 weeks ago

"Every single one of those tropes can be explained it’s just others have bent reality to fit their narrative. Stop and search, even the Lammy Review stated outcomes are based on location and crime patterns as much as race. Heavily populated areas with higher crime rates will see more stops, and those areas also tend to have a higher concentration of minority populations.

If you take every statistic at face value, you end up stuck on one side of a fence that looks exactly like the other..."

Those factors you list — location, deprivation, health inequality — are how systemic racism works. They’re not separate from it. When one group is concentrated in poorer areas because of historic housing policy, when that same group faces more policing because of how those areas are profiled, and when health outcomes mirror the same pattern, that’s structure, not coincidence.

And in the modern day, systemic racism is rarely deliberate. It often comes from unexamined biases built into policy design, hiring, policing, and planning — the quiet assumptions people don’t realise they’ve written into the system. That’s why intent isn’t the test; outcome is.

The Lammy Review didn’t excuse stop-and-search disparities; it called them “legitimate cause for concern” and urged action. The Race Disparity Audit and NHS data aren’t “tropes” — they’re government evidence. Explaining inequality isn’t the same as disproving it. You can’t dismiss systemic racism by describing its mechanisms.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ennineTopMan
27 weeks ago

York

"That's pretty much what I said."

I must have missed where you said the estimate was completely unreliable and based on extrapolating 1,400 to 1,000,000.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *otMe66Man
27 weeks ago

Terra Firma

If you take every statistic at face value, you end up stuck on one side of a fence that looks exactly like the other...

You have just redefined every difference as racism.

If the system “overwhelmingly benefits white people,” how do Indian and Chinese people outperform white British in home ownership and education?

I'm going to draw a line under this, for now as the circle is complete.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
27 weeks ago

"You have just redefined every difference as racism.

If the system “overwhelmingly benefits white people,” how do Indian and Chinese people outperform white British in home ownership and education?

I'm going to draw a line under this, for now as the circle is complete. "

I haven’t redefined anything — I’ve described what every major review and dataset already show. Systemic racism doesn’t mean every disparity or every institution, it means the majority of outcomes still tilt one way. Pointing to two high-performing minority groups doesn’t erase the broader pattern any more than one sunny day disproves winter.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ostindreamsMan
27 weeks ago

London

That’s not evidence, that’s whataboutism. The inquiries didn’t describe the Rotherham failures as systemic racism — and if they had, you’d be able to quote it.

You said "the inquiries were right to note that the racism wasn’t systemic." You should quote where they said that racism was NOT systemic. It looks more like they did not address the point at all. So it's basically my argument against yours because these inquiries haven't addressed it.

The “Bible vs. Quran” example is irrelevant to child-protection policy.

But it is relevant to systemic racism.

How does that number compare to the number of lives the grooming gangs destroyed. That's systemic too: a pattern, not an isolated event. So why is it ok to start a culture war over one issue but not the other?

There are structural patterns in the grooming gangs case too. Multiple police groups were involved. If anything, the grooming gangs scandal is even worse going by the numbers.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ostindreamsMan
27 weeks ago

London

If the system “overwhelmingly benefits white people,” how do Indian and Chinese people outperform white British in home ownership and education?

I remember a TV show where they were looking at how racial disparities exist in the US. The graph clearly showed Asians on an average making more money than white people. Someone pointed that out. There was an awkward silence for a few seconds and they moved on to a different topic.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
27 weeks ago

"There are structural patterns in the grooming gangs case too. Multiple police groups were involved. If anything, the grooming gangs scandal is even worse going by the numbers."

But — it isn’t related to systemic racism. There are white Muslims, so what you’re describing there is religious discrimination, not racial. The two overlap sometimes, but they’re not interchangeable.

And it’s not “your argument against mine.” It’s evidence against assumption. So far, the only thing you’ve offered for calling it systemic racism is “it’s obvious.” That’s not proof; it’s a claim. None of the inquiries said the system was built to privilege Pakistani men — if they had, you could quote them.

As for scale, you can’t weigh tragedies like currency. Anti-Black violence in America and grooming-gang abuse in the UK are both horrific, but they’re not the same kind of problem. The first is centuries of racialised state power; the second was institutional cowardice and misogyny. Multiple incidents don’t make a system, and repetition isn’t the same as structure.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *eroy1000Man
27 weeks ago

milton keynes

"Racist or not? Of course Labour are trying to make political capital out of it but are the points valid?

I would say that they were clumsily expressed but perfectly valid and were not racist at all."

Definitely not well chosen words and shows their lack of experience. Of course other parties will make political capital from it, it's kind of their job. How damaging the comments are remains to be seen

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *he Flat CapsCouple
27 weeks ago

Pontypool

If the system “overwhelmingly benefits white people,” how do Indian and Chinese people outperform white British in home ownership and education?

Just because a group of people earns a certain amount doesn't mean they are not subjected to racism. They can still be subjected to individual or institutional racism.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *he Flat CapsCouple
27 weeks ago

Pontypool

Oh, and watch Aboo Hafsah post on 7th August.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *otMe66Man
27 weeks ago

Terra Firma

If the system “overwhelmingly benefits white people,” how do Indian and Chinese people outperform white British in home ownership and education?

Just because a group of people earns a certain amount doesn't mean they are not subjected to racism. They can still be subjected to individual or institutional racism.

We are all subject to racism

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
27 weeks ago

"We are all subject to racism"

True. Anyone can experience racism — individual racism. But systemic racism is different; it’s built into structures, not just people.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *otMe66Man
27 weeks ago

Terra Firma

"We are all subject to racism

True. Anyone can experience racism — individual racism. But systemic racism is different; it’s built into structures, not just people."

And all peoples can face systemic racism.

Which should bring this to an end with agreement.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *he Flat CapsCouple
27 weeks ago

Pontypool

If the system “overwhelmingly benefits white people,” how do Indian and Chinese people outperform white British in home ownership and education?

Just because a group of people earns a certain amount doesn't mean they are not subjected to racism. They can still be subjected to individual or institutional racism.

We are all subject to racism"

Please elaborate.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *eroy1000Man
27 weeks ago

milton keynes

If the system “overwhelmingly benefits white people,” how do Indian and Chinese people outperform white British in home ownership and education?

Just because a group of people earns a certain amount doesn't mean they are not subjected to racism. They can still be subjected to individual or institutional racism.

We are all subject to racism"

That is indeed true and unfortunately some have learnt to use it as a convenient excuse for when things don't go as they hoped. Didn't get that job because the interviewer was racist. Didn't get promotion as the boss is racist. Didn't get the mortgage because the bank is racist. Stopped by the police as they are racist. It gets put about so much it also leads to things like grooming gangs not being investigated for fear of being accused of racism.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *he Flat CapsCouple
27 weeks ago

Pontypool

"We are all subject to racism

True. Anyone can experience racism — individual racism. But systemic racism is different; it’s built into structures, not just people.

And all peoples can face systemic racism.

Which should bring this to an end with agreement."

Unfortunately not. You have heard of white privilege. And male privilege. And intersectionality.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
27 weeks ago

"We are all subject to racism

True. Anyone can experience racism — individual racism. But systemic racism is different; it’s built into structures, not just people.

And all peoples can face systemic racism.

Which should bring this to an end with agreement.

Unfortunately not. You have heard of white privilege. And male privilege. And intersectionality. "

Heart him out!

It’s possible for anyone to experience systemic racism — they might just have to leave their country first. If I went back to Zimbabwe, I might experience it there, just not here in the UK.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ostindreamsMan
27 weeks ago

London

[Removed by poster at 28/10/25 20:47:14]

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ostindreamsMan
27 weeks ago

London

If the system “overwhelmingly benefits white people,” how do Indian and Chinese people outperform white British in home ownership and education?

Just because a group of people earns a certain amount doesn't mean they are not subjected to racism. They can still be subjected to individual or institutional racism.

Everyone could face racism. But in that show they were talking about how white people on average are earning more because of systemic racism. The fact that Asians earn even more than white people negates that argument.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *he Flat CapsCouple
27 weeks ago

Pontypool

"We are all subject to racism

True. Anyone can experience racism — individual racism. But systemic racism is different; it’s built into structures, not just people.

And all peoples can face systemic racism.

Which should bring this to an end with agreement.

Unfortunately not. You have heard of white privilege. And male privilege. And intersectionality.

Heart him out!

It’s possible for anyone to experience systemic racism — they might just have to leave their country first. If I went back to Zimbabwe, I might experience it there, just not here in the UK."

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
27 weeks ago

"Everyone could face racism. But in that show they were talking about how white people on average are earning more because of systemic racism. The fact that Asians earn even more than white people negates that argument."

Your half-true statistic doesn’t prove anything. Some Asian groups do outperform white Britons, others don’t — and that variation is part of the picture. Success by one group doesn’t mean systemic racism disappears; it just shows people can succeed despite it.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ostindreamsMan
27 weeks ago

London

The grooming gangs were predominantly Pakistani men. Not Albanian or Turkish Muslims.

You haven't proved it's not systemic racism either. They didn't say systemic racism was not there. So it's my word against yours. Do you wait for government reports before deciding anything in your life? The inquiries said that Pakistani men weren't investigated because of fears of racism. That is a privilege. Just because the report didn't use that word, it doesn't mean that the privilege didn't exist.

Time scales don't make any difference either. One happened in America and you had the whole circus going on in UK with taking the knee. The other happened in UK. So many young girls' lives got destroyed. If the progressives were really anti-racist, if the left really cared about women, they would have launched even bigger protest. But considering the fact that they were the ones suppressing voices against this mass exploitation, it's not surprising that they went silent.

You could invent as many excuses you want. You think people will believe this nonsense. But the world has already seen enough of the intellectual dishonesty of the progressives. Hence they became a laughing stock in politics around the world.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ostindreamsMan
27 weeks ago

London

If these statistics don't matter. Why bring it up in the first place? Taking statistics to show how white people earn more than some races because systemic racism exists. But when shown that other groups make more money than white people, people succeed despite it? Keep making more such ridiculous arguments. It only makes my case stronger

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *otMe66Man
27 weeks ago

Terra Firma

If the system “overwhelmingly benefits white people,” how do Indian and Chinese people outperform white British in home ownership and education?

Just because a group of people earns a certain amount doesn't mean they are not subjected to racism. They can still be subjected to individual or institutional racism.

We are all subject to racism

leroy, this be ignored because it’s too close to the truth. Perfectly put

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *he Flat CapsCouple
27 weeks ago

Pontypool

If the system “overwhelmingly benefits white people,” how do Indian and Chinese people outperform white British in home ownership and education?

Just because a group of people earns a certain amount doesn't mean they are not subjected to racism. They can still be subjected to individual or institutional racism.

No. It doesn't! Salary doesn't equate to racism.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ostindreamsMan
27 weeks ago

London

If the system “overwhelmingly benefits white people,” how do Indian and Chinese people outperform white British in home ownership and education?

Just because a group of people earns a certain amount doesn't mean they are not subjected to racism. They can still be subjected to individual or institutional racism.

No. It doesn't! Salary doesn't equate to racism. "

Then why did they bring up salary in the first place to prove racism?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *he Flat CapsCouple
27 weeks ago

Pontypool

If the system “overwhelmingly benefits white people,” how do Indian and Chinese people outperform white British in home ownership and education?

Just because a group of people earns a certain amount doesn't mean they are not subjected to racism. They can still be subjected to individual or institutional racism.

No. It doesn't! Salary doesn't equate to racism.

Then why did they bring up salary in the first place to prove racism?"

Who knows, but paying someone a commensurate salary is not racist.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ostindreamsMan
27 weeks ago

London

If the system “overwhelmingly benefits white people,” how do Indian and Chinese people outperform white British in home ownership and education?

Just because a group of people earns a certain amount doesn't mean they are not subjected to racism. They can still be subjected to individual or institutional racism.

No. It doesn't! Salary doesn't equate to racism.

Then why did they bring up salary in the first place to prove racism?

Who knows, but paying someone a commensurate salary is not racist. "

That's my view too. In that case, I expect no one to bring salary as evidence that systemic racism exists.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
27 weeks ago

"Time scales don't make any difference either. One happened in America and you had the whole circus going on in UK with taking the knee. The other happened in UK. So many young girls' lives got destroyed. If the progressives were really anti-racist, if the left really cared about women, they would have launched even bigger protest. But considering the fact that they were the ones suppressing voices against this mass exploitation, it's not surprising that they went silent.

The reason the BLM movement and the grooming-gang scandals drew such different reactions is simple. Both were horrific and should never have happened — but what sparked BLM was ongoing state violence: the continued killing of Black people by police. That’s what people were protesting — not just one death, but a live pattern of brutality that hadn’t stopped. By the time most of the public even learned about the grooming cases, the men involved were already under arrest.

And yes, plenty of groups across the political spectrum called for accountability from the police and councils. That part’s not in dispute.

As for your Bible vs Quran example — that’s not race, it’s religion. There are white Muslims and brown Christians, so your comparison doesn’t hold. The grooming gangs’ actions weren’t about religion or nationality; they were about misogyny, abuse, and cowardice from the authorities. Trying to fold religion into it only muddies the issue.

The reports don’t have to list everything the failures weren’t. They found classism, misogyny, and fear of being called racist — not a system built to privilege Pakistani men. If you want to argue otherwise, you’ll need to show where any of the official inquiries said it was systemic racism.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
27 weeks ago

"If these statistics don't matter. Why bring it up in the first place? Taking statistics to show how white people earn more than some races because systemic racism exists. But when shown that other groups make more money than white people, people succeed despite it? Keep making more such ridiculous arguments. It only makes my case stronger

I didn’t bring up salaries — that was NotMe66. I just corrected the way the statistic was being used.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ostindreamsMan
27 weeks ago

London

I didn’t bring up salaries — that was NotMe66. I just corrected the way the statistic was being used."

What I said was about the TV show I saw.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *he Flat CapsCouple
27 weeks ago

Pontypool

I didn’t bring up salaries — that was NotMe66. I just corrected the way the statistic was being used."

It was LostInDreams brought up salaries in America indicating Asian people, on average earned more than white people.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
27 weeks ago

"What I said was about the TV show I saw. "

Yeah you said

And I am saying I didnt bring them up in the first place... that was someone else.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *he Flat CapsCouple
27 weeks ago

Pontypool

I didn’t bring up salaries — that was NotMe66. I just corrected the way the statistic was being used.

What I said was about the TV show I saw. "

A TV show. Can you supply their sources?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ostindreamsMan
27 weeks ago

London

[Removed by poster at 28/10/25 21:28:07]

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ostindreamsMan
27 weeks ago

London

By the time most of the public even learned about the grooming cases, the men involved were already under arrest.

Not true.

Numerous arrests were made even in 2024

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/grooming-gangs-taskforce-arrests-hundreds-in-first-year

And there is no evidence that the issue is completely stopped either.

And yes, plenty of groups across the political spectrum called for accountability from the police and councils. That part’s not in dispute.

Wouldn't say "across the political spectrum"

As for your Bible vs Quran example — that’s not race, it’s religion. There are white Muslims and brown Christians, so your comparison doesn’t hold.

Cool. Do you agree that making fun of Islam or burning the Quran isn't racism?

The grooming gangs’ actions weren’t about religion or nationality; they were about misogyny, abuse, and cowardice from the authorities. Trying to fold religion into it only muddies the issue.

But we know that these men were racist. Many victims account prove that they were racists. And the authorities didn't act on them because of their race. Then not doing it because of fear doesn't matter. It's still their race that caused the fear. Pretty sure I have explained this to you multiple times before.

The reports don’t have to list everything the failures weren’t.

Sure. They don't have to list every reason of the failure either. There is enough evidence to prove that Pakistani men were privileged. The fact that police didn't act on account of their race is evidence.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ostindreamsMan
27 weeks ago

London

"What I said was about the TV show I saw.

Yeah you said

And I am saying I didnt bring them up in the first place... that was someone else. "

I said why did the TV show bring it up in the first place.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ostindreamsMan
27 weeks ago

London

I didn’t bring up salaries — that was NotMe66. I just corrected the way the statistic was being used.

What I said was about the TV show I saw.

A TV show. Can you supply their sources? "

I don't remember where they got it from. But the data is available in US census website. Median income in US ordered by Ethnicity:

Taiwanese

Asian Indian

Sri Lanka

Japanese

Chinese

Korean

White

Filipino

Pakistani

Indonesian

Thai

Vietnamese

And so on...

Anyway my original post was about the show where they thought they were making a point by using salary data. But it didn't take long to realise that they weren't.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *oorlandtwoCouple
27 weeks ago

Stoke on Trent

Just bang 1 of every type, colour, disability, gender, made up gender or any other possibility in the add then all boxes are ticked

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
27 weeks ago

"Sure. They don't have to list every reason of the failure either. There is enough evidence to prove that Pakistani men were privileged. The fact that police didn't act on account of their race is evidence."

By your own logic, there’s no evidence it hasn’t stopped either. You can’t have it both ways — absence of evidence isn’t proof in either direction.

And yes, there was action across the political spectrum. Tommy Robinson wasn’t seeking justice; he was doing his usual grift. By naming defendants after being ordered not to, he actually gave them grounds for appeal — which, fortunately, was rejected. I don’t really know what the rest of the right did, but I assume it was much the same mix as either Tommy’s grandstanding or the left’s genuine efforts to hold the authorities to account.

Burning a Quran or mocking Islam isn’t racism, it’s Islamophobia — religious hatred, not racial. That’s the difference.

The perpetrators’ individual racism was real. That doesn’t make the police failures systemic racism against white people. You’ve said it a hundred times, but repetition isn’t evidence. The reports don’t show systemic privilege; they show cowardice and collapse.

You’ve claimed they were privileged but provided nothing to prove it — just assumptions built on emotion. That’s not evidence.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *he Flat CapsCouple
27 weeks ago

Pontypool

I didn’t bring up salaries — that was NotMe66. I just corrected the way the statistic was being used.

What I said was about the TV show I saw.

A TV show. Can you supply their sources?

I don't remember where they got it from. But the data is available in US census website. Median income in US ordered by Ethnicity:

Taiwanese

Asian Indian

Sri Lanka

Japanese

Chinese

Korean

White

Filipino

Pakistani

Indonesian

Thai

Vietnamese

And so on...

Anyway my original post was about the show where they thought they were making a point by using salary data. But it didn't take long to realise that they weren't.

And US data is relevant to UK, how exactly?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *resesse_MelioremCouple
27 weeks ago

Border of London

"The reports don’t show systemic privilege; they show cowardice and collapse."

Privilege is (the outcome) not being prosecuted/pursued because of who they are; this has been established. What you're quibbling about now is the reason for that outcome, not the outcome (privilege) itself.

In the past, white guys with guns had privilege in parts of Africa, because the locals were in fear and had no system to repel them. The fact that it was fear and systemic collapse didn't take away from the fact of privilege for those white guys with guns.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
27 weeks ago

"The reports don’t show systemic privilege; they show cowardice and collapse.

That still doesn’t make it systemic racism against white people — and that’s what this debate is about.

The offenders gained from the police’s fear, yes, but that’s not the same as having systemic privilege. Privilege means the system was built to serve or protect you. In this case, the system failed out of cowardice and collapse, not by design. Gaining from failure isn’t proof the failure was built for you.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ortyairCouple
27 weeks ago

Wallasey

I was born in Rhodesia. My parents took me and my sister on a “holiday” we never came back from — because of the systemic racism that grew under Mugabe. So yes, I know it can happen. But it isn’t happening here. In the UK, the system still overwhelmingly benefits white people. Pretending otherwise doesn’t make things fairer; it just denies the inequality that still exists."
Are you sure that the Cass report was "...universally described as scientifically illiterate: by the medical community? I dont think it was, it was seen as credible and stood up to expert scrutiny.

Mrs x

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ortyairCouple
27 weeks ago

Wallasey

"The reports don’t show systemic privilege; they show cowardice and collapse.

That still doesn’t make it systemic racism against white people — and that’s what this debate is about.

Mrs x

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
27 weeks ago

"Are you sure that the Cass report was "...universally described as scientifically illiterate: by the medical community? I dont think it was, it was seen as credible and stood up to expert scrutiny.

Mrs x"

Very sure.

Many professional and medical bodies have criticised or raised concerns about the Cass Review. These include:

British Medical Association

Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health

Royal College of Psychiatrists

Royal College of General Practitioners

Royal College of Nursing

World Professional Association for Transgender Health

United States Professional Association for Transgender Health

Endocrine Society

European Society of Endocrinology

Association for Child and Adolescent Mental Health

Association of Clinical Psychologists UK

British Psychological Society

Society for Endocrinology

British Association of Gender Identity Specialists

Gender Identity Research and Education Society

Human Rights Watch

Amnesty International UK

Mermaids

Stonewall

Good Law Project

British Society for Paediatric Endocrinology and Diabetes

British Association of Counselling and Psychotherapy

UK Council for Psychotherapy

The Lancet (editorial contributors)

The BMJ (editorial contributors)

Almost all of these have either issued public statements or signed open letters criticising the Cass Review for weak or selective use of evidence, poor methodology, and lack of engagement with specialists in trans healthcare.

The only groups that fully supported the Cass Review were those already linked to the gender-critical movement.

Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine (SEGM) – not a recognised medical body, but an advocacy group with a long record of opposing gender-affirming care.

Clinical Advisory Network on Sex and Gender (CAN-SG) – a small UK network of clinicians with similar views to SEGM.

A handful of gender-critical doctors and commentators such as Hilary Cass herself, David Bell, and Hannah Barnes, along with groups linked to the LGB Alliance.

Right-leaning think tanks like Policy Exchange, Civitas, and the Free Speech Union also praised the report, though none of these are scientific or medical authorities.

No major Royal College, international medical association, or global health organisation has endorsed the Cass Review’s conclusions. Most professional bodies – including the BMA, RCPCH, RCPsych, WPATH, and the Endocrine Society – criticised it for weak methods, selective evidence, and political bias.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
27 weeks ago

"So let me be clear, for you systematic racism occurs when a system benefits one race over another. Is that correct?

Mrs x"

That’s an incredibly over-simplified description of what I’ve said. Systemic racism isn’t just any situation where one group benefits — it’s when the structure itself consistently advantages or disadvantages a racial group over time.

In the grooming-gang cases, the offenders briefly gained from police cowardice, but that doesn’t mean the system was built to benefit them. It was a collapse, not a design. That’s why it still doesn’t meet the definition of systemic racism against white people.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *he Flat CapsCouple
27 weeks ago

Pontypool

"So let me be clear, for you systematic racism occurs when a system benefits one race over another. Is that correct?

Mrs x

^^^^^ This ^^^^

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ortyairCouple
27 weeks ago

Wallasey

"Are you sure that the Cass report was "...universally described as scientifically illiterate: by the medical community? I dont think it was, it was seen as credible and stood up to expert scrutiny.

Mrs x

Very sure.

Many professional and medical bodies have criticised or raised concerns about the Cass Review. These include:

British Medical Association

Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health

Royal College of Psychiatrists

Royal College of General Practitioners

Royal College of Nursing

World Professional Association for Transgender Health

United States Professional Association for Transgender Health

Endocrine Society

European Society of Endocrinology

Association for Child and Adolescent Mental Health

Association of Clinical Psychologists UK

British Psychological Society

Society for Endocrinology

British Association of Gender Identity Specialists

Gender Identity Research and Education Society

Human Rights Watch

Amnesty International UK

Mermaids

Stonewall

Good Law Project

British Society for Paediatric Endocrinology and Diabetes

British Association of Counselling and Psychotherapy

UK Council for Psychotherapy

The Lancet (editorial contributors)

The BMJ (editorial contributors)

The only groups that fully supported the Cass Review were those already linked to the gender-critical movement.

Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine (SEGM) – not a recognised medical body, but an advocacy group with a long record of opposing gender-affirming care.

Clinical Advisory Network on Sex and Gender (CAN-SG) – a small UK network of clinicians with similar views to SEGM.

A handful of gender-critical doctors and commentators such as Hilary Cass herself, David Bell, and Hannah Barnes, along with groups linked to the LGB Alliance.

Right-leaning think tanks like Policy Exchange, Civitas, and the Free Speech Union also praised the report, though none of these are scientific or medical authorities.

Find this a bit odd, done a quick AI search, saves so much time. Using two different ones to hopefully get a rounded view and their findings do not match yours.

First one...

"The Cass Review's final report was largely welcomed and endorsed by the majority of the major UK medical royal colleges and NHS leadership, who pledged to implement its recommendations.

?However, the report also faced significant criticism from some specific professional groups and advocacy organizations, particularly those involved in gender-affirming care.

?Key Responses from the UK Medical Profession:

?The professional medical reaction was bifurcated, with institutional bodies generally accepting the findings, and some others raising strong objections:

?1. Broad Acceptance and Endorsement

?The prevailing response from the major medical institutions and NHS leadership was one of acceptance and a commitment to implementation:

?**NHS England (NHSE): NHSE fully welcomed the report and committed to implementing its recommendations, which guide the new regional service model for children and young people. They view the recommendations as essential for providing safe, holistic, and evidence-based care.

?Royal Colleges:

MOST major UK medical colleges, including the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych), the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH), and the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP), broadly welcomed and endorsed the report's call for a new clinical model based on a strong evidence base and a holistic, multi-professional, child-centred approach.

?2. Notable Criticism and Controversy

?The primary pushback came from certain professional and advocacy groups:

?British Medical Association (BMA): The BMA (the main trade union and professional body for doctors) initially had a controversial reaction. Following an internal vote, the BMA Council voted to "publicly critique" the Cass Review, alleging methodological flaws and concerns over excluding trans-affirming evidence. This stance led to a significant backlash from a large number of its own members, including hundreds of doctors and former medical leaders, who urged the BMA to accept the review. The BMA later shifted its position to one of "neutrality" while it conducted its own evaluation.

?LGBTQ+ and Gender-Specific Groups: Groups like the British Association of Gender Identity Specialists (BAGIS) and the UK's Association of LGBTQ+ Doctors and Dentists raised criticisms, expressing concerns that the review's methodology was flawed and that its findings risked pathologising trans identities or limiting access to care for young people.

?In short, the institutional bodies responsible for setting professional standards and commissioning services accepted the report and its cautious, evidence-led approach, while the reaction within the broader and politically-engaged parts of the medical community was more mixed and contested."

The second one.

"The reception of the Cass Review (chaired by Hilary Cass) by the medical profession in the UK has been mixed, with several major professional bodies welcoming its findings, while other groups (especially parts of the profession) have raised significant criticisms. Here’s a breakdown of how it’s been received.

Positive/Supportive Responses

The Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych) publicly welcomed the review, calling it “a comprehensive and evidence-based assessment” and emphasising its importance for a vulnerable group of children and young people.

The British Psychological Society (BPS) similarly supported aspects of the review — in particular the call to expand service capacity and the involvement of people with lived experience.

Many clinicians working in children’s gender identity services and many stakeholders welcomed the call for greater caution, more research, more holistic care, and more robust evidence. The review was commissioned by NHS England to address precisely these issues.

Critical Responses & Concerns

A working group of clinicians/academics specialising in transgender youth health concluded that the Cass Review had “significant methodological problems… undermining the validity of the Review’s recommendations.”

Some groups have argued that the Review dismisses or undervalues evidence for gender-affirming care, that it applies different standards of evidence to trans healthcare vs other fields, and that it excluded some clinicians with relevant experience.

The British Medical Association (BMA), which represents many UK doctors, initially criticised the review’s recommendations as “unsubstantiated” and voted to “publicly critique” them.

That stance (by the BMA) appears to be out of step with many other professional bodies. The BMA later moved to a neutral position pending its own evaluation.

Summary: Overall impression

On balance:

The majority of mainstream professional medical bodies (psychology, psychiatry, children’s services) appear to accept the Cass Review’s recommendations and consider them to merit implementation.

A substantial minority of clinicians and academic researchers are sceptical about the methodology, evidence base and the implications for trans youth care.

The BMA’s initial rejection and subsequent reversal illustrates that the issue is divisive within the medical profession, rather than uniformly supported or uniformly rejected."

So not "universally" at all as you first suggested. In fact the BMA had to change its original stance because of tge objections to it by their own members,

Mrs x

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ortyairCouple
27 weeks ago

Wallasey

"So let me be clear, for you systematic racism occurs when a system benefits one race over another. Is that correct?

Mrs x

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
27 weeks ago

"So not "universally" at all as you first suggested. In fact the BMA had to change its original stance because of tge objections to it by their own members,

Mrs x"

I’m only going to post on this once more, as it’s getting well off-topic for this thread. If you want to dig into it further, I’m happy to do that in a dedicated one.

The reality is that while some Royal Colleges cautiously welcomed parts of the Cass Review — mostly its call for better-resourced, multi-disciplinary services — none gave it full scientific endorsement. Their responses were polite, not proof of scientific consensus.

Many medical and research bodies, including the BMA, WPATH, the Endocrine Society, and experts in adolescent medicine, criticised the report for selective use of data, weak methodology, and political framing. The BMA’s later “neutral” stance wasn’t support; it was internal damage control after backlash from members.

In short: the service-design recommendations got cautious approval, but the scientific conclusions have been widely challenged by professionals working in the field.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
27 weeks ago

"I'm not talking about the grooming gangs, I'm talking about the education system failing one group ove others,

Mrs x"

That’s not what we were talking about.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ortyairCouple
27 weeks ago

Wallasey

"I'm not talking about the grooming gangs, I'm talking about the education system failing one group ove others,

Mrs x

That’s not what we were talking about."
I thought you were talking about systemic racism. You've mention everything from employment, housing medicine and education or had you forgotten you'd referenced these areas in your arguments about systemic racism?

Mrs x

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ortyairCouple
27 weeks ago

Wallasey

"So not "universally" at all as you first suggested. In fact the BMA had to change its original stance because of tge objections to it by their own members,

Mrs x

I’m only going to post on this once more, as it’s getting well off-topic for this thread. If you want to dig into it further, I’m happy to do that in a dedicated one.

In short: the service-design recommendations got cautious approval, but the scientific conclusions have been widely challenged by professionals working in the field."
Thats not what been quoted in what I've posted.

"The MAJORITY of mainstream professional medical bodies (psychology, psychiatry, children’s services) appear to accept the Cass Review’s recommendations and consider them to merit implementation..."

As opposed to a "...substantial MINORITY of clinicians and academic researchers are sceptical about the methodology, evidence base and the implications for trans youth care."

Either way it falls a long way from you claim of being universally seen as scientifically illiterate. Over egging the pudding a bit there,

Mrs x

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ortyairCouple
27 weeks ago

Wallasey

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
27 weeks ago

"I thought you were talking about systemic racism. You've mention everything from employment, housing medicine and education or had you forgotten you'd referenced these areas in your arguments about systemic racism?

Mrs x"

We were discussing whether the grooming-gang cases showed systemic racism against white people. That’s a separate question from how systemic racism appears in education or other areas.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ortyairCouple
27 weeks ago

Wallasey

Mrs x

We were discussing whether the grooming-gang cases showed systemic racism against white people. That’s a separate question from how systemic racism appears in education or other areas."
I never said it wasn't I just asked whether it exists in the realm of education. Something you yourself alluded to,

Mrs x

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *resesse_MelioremCouple
27 weeks ago

Border of London

"The reports don’t show systemic privilege; they show cowardice and collapse.

That still doesn’t make it systemic racism against white people — and that’s what this debate is about.

Systemic doesn't mean "by design". It means widespread within a system, however it gets there.

Your inability to (ever) acknowledge a point, but rather immediately shift goalposts, is disappointing.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately