A former London NHS trust executive has said “institutional racism” is an issue within the health service, with very few senior figures from ethnic minorities in the organisation.
Institutional racism is an artificial construct designed to further the aims of the racism industry. It should be treated with nothing but contempt and those who utter it, likewise.
Hari Sewell, ex-executive director of Camden and Islington NHS Trust, said: “The statistics speak for themselves.”
Lies, damned lies and statistics – statistics will say whatever you want them to. The reason that ethnic minorities are so few in this particular role may be varied – perhaps many of them don’t even apply for the roles, don’t want them, maybe. Who knows? Maybe those that do are not sufficiently competent in sufficient numbers. Again, who knows? Frankly, we shouldn’t care. All that matters is that those who are appointed are chosen for their expertise and not the colour of their skin or what they keep in their pants. Competence is all that matters, nothing else.
Mr Sewell, who has worked for the NHS across London as an implementation manager for mental health services, said: “You could say that services are institutionally racist. Institutional racism is an issue.
No, it isn’t, because there is no such thing. It was made up by that twat Macpherson and every leftist jerk with racism on the brain and a cod supper on the shoulder has latched onto it since.
“Hari Sewell, ex-executive director of Camden and Islington NHS Trust, said: “The statistics speak for themselves.””
I would say that “…of Camden and Islington NHS Trust” is what speaks for itself. You just know when you see those words in a sentence that it’s going to be some lefty victimisation rant.
Between 1996 and 2002 I worked with an Egyptian and an Ethiopian, both highly liked and respected Consultant Pathologists. In Kent. So arseholes to that…
Between 1996 and 2002 I worked with an Egyptian and an Ethiopian, both highly liked and respected Consultant Pathologists. In Kent. So arseholes to that…
Argument by anecdote is no more convincing than argument by statistics alone
This is not a scientific journal. Neither is it a court of law. Anecdote is, therefore perfectly acceptable.
But not acceptable if your goal is intellectual honesty. “I know two blokes who didn’t suffer racism” does not establish that racism does not exist.
Given that Mac did not say this, it is a strawman, so best ignored.
Hari Sewell, ex-executive director of Camden and Islington NHS Trust, said: “The statistics speak for themselves.”
Statistics rarely speak for themselves. Correlation is not proof of causation. To deternine whether there may be inadvertent or deliberate bias in the selection procedures one would have to analyse those procedures quite closely. However you can’t infer it from the statistics alone, though the stats may forms the basis for further investigation.
Institutional racism is an artificial construct designed to further the aims of the racism industry
Nonsense. It describes the situation where organisational structures may serve to discrimate unfairly against some racial groups, even if that was not their purpose or was an inadvertent consequence of them. To take an unrealistic example that illustrates the point. Suppose it is a tradition in an organisation that anyone invited to become a manager must eat a pork supper. This may have the effect of discouraging devout Jews and Muslims from applying for the manager’s job and has thus unfairly discriminated against them even though that might not be the intention of the practice.
Or a more realistic example, to be sales manager in a company it is “expected” that you will take clients to strip clubs, which may discourage women from becoming sales managers, despite being well fitted for the role.
Those of us who are a little more adult will simply seek alternative work in a more conducive environment. Expecting people to eat a pork supper – and yes, I accept that it is a bit far fetched, but I’ll run with it – is not racist, institutionalised or otherwise. People choose not to eat pork because of their daft religious beliefs. That has nothing to do with racism and no employer should be expected to pander to peoples’ religious beliefs – even though they do, unfortunately.
The second example may be more realistic, but is highly unlikely, as entertainment can take many forms and clients themselves may not wish to go to strip clubs – the example assumes that they would be okay with this. I wouldn’t and would’t patronise a supplier who expected me to. Frankly, every organisation I have worked with and for both in the public and private sectors has had robust equal opportunities polices in place and rightly enforced them. Institutionalised racism is rampant bollocks and I agree with Greg, it was a cop out for the Met. Better, frankly that they admitted incompetence than go along with such obvious nonsense, thereby giving the race grievance mongers a weapon.
Those of us who are a little more adult will simply seek alternative work in a more conducive environment
A libertarian doormat who cravely accepts any crap given to him might accept it but not an adult who may have a family to feed and knows that jobs are scarce. Regardless of whether you think that employees should put up with whatever crap their employer throws at them, that is what the phrase refers to. Organisational structures and practices that serve to discriminate, even if there is no explicit intention to do so.
Expecting people to eat a pork supper – and yes, I accept that it is a bit far fetched, but I’ll run with it – is not racist, institutionalised or otherwise
Well if we want to get all angels on a pin head, then you can dispute that it is “racism” as it may be inadvertent. But the situation it describes is real – organisations may discriminate unfairly without its being their intention to do so. Reputable companies will do something about it once they are alerted to the problem.
Ah, another strawman. You applied for that CAP subsidy yet?
Ah, another strawman. You applied for that CAP subsidy yet?
If you don’t want to deal with arguments that you find inconvenient perhaps it might be more honest to pre-moderate comments?
If you persist in twisting my words, then I will indeed treat your argument with contempt. It usually ends this way with you. You parrot the left’s favourite mantras and when challenged eventually you twist peoples’ words around. That’s the point when I stop bothering to engage. I’ve got better things to do than try to defend what I have not said.
No, I’m not going to moderate you. I’m happy to let people see your absurd defence of the indefensible and logical fallacies for what they are. They say more than I ever could.
Is one to presume then that you would consider any form of ‘positive selection criteria’ for any minority group (examples abound for women, disabled and race groups) as being institutionally racist against (generally) white males?
Ah, yes, “positive” discrimination. There’s nothing positive about it, it is discrimination, period. It is as egregious as the racism it purports to solve. It is also a sure fire way to undermine a competence management system.
The number of BME type persons in general is not relevant to the number in senior positions, we do not expect cleaners and orderlies to climb the ladder to CEO. The relevant statistic is BME people qualified to be CEOs as proportion of total people qualified compared to actual number of BME people employed as CEOs.
I blame MetPlod …
Who would much rather be thought supposedly guilty of “institutional Racism” than publicly admit that some coopers were seriously bent (in the S. Lawrence case).
So it goes, I’m afraid.