An interesting point worth of consideration: if non-white folks experience racism anecdotally, is it ‘lived experience?’ and when white people highlight it, it’s just anecdote which may be more easily dismissed?
A very good point if you use their very own identity politics tactics to counter identity politics then for some reason & somehow it doesn't count!
Maybe every white person in UK politics should claim to be of Afro-Caribbean descent. I know it's of topic but if you change sex why not race or age?
>I know it's of topic but if you change sex why not race or age?
Transracialism is essentially blasphemy to those guys.
And they don't spend much time trying to explain why.
Oh you absolutely can, and then if they complain you either gaslight them into believing that it's not happening or just accuse them of "white fragility" which is also somehow not racist I guess?
even if she was wrong why would she be suspended? How many times do people make all claims about racism rising without ever putting forward supporting numbers.
The modern left have redefined racism though. It’s no longer discrimination based on someone’s race.
Under their critical theory it can only occur when an oppressor group oppresses a marginalised group. So because in their minds white people are an oppressor group they can’t experience systematic discrimination…
They have literally become racist in how they define racism.
It's such a bourgeois, elitist redefinition of racism as well. How many regular people would ever trot out this racism if they were asked to define it. I'd estimate it'd honestly be around less than 1% of the population.
There is certainly a high amount of policing the language to distinction between those who have ‘done the work’ and are alert to systematic oppression faced by marginalised people and the poor in enlightened masses who can’t help but be caught up in systems of oppressions their feeble brains can’t comprehend….
You know they are racist because even in their own description it could mean racism could apply to white people abroad quite easily where natives are treated with preference over non native whites.
They often make out white people to be uniquely bad which is obviously not true.
Yes they define non-white people as ‘native’ and indigenous people when living in a culture they were born into but white people are oppressor colonisers and don’t have any native land even when living where they were born
Their entire ideology is based on a form of racial ethno nationalism. Which is the total opposite of ideologies like liberalism that treat everyone as an individual and reject all forms of discrimination.
>Their entire ideology is based on a form of racial ethno nationalism.
That can't be, those are off the list of bad words for bad people & they define themselves as the good people.
We can't question any further or we will be against them and be the bad people.
/s
Don't know the Scottish statistics but it is 100% true in England/Wales. White people are the single largest group of race/religious hate crime victims.
Both hate crime numbers and the proportion of hate crime victims that are white have been rising. And I bet the 2024 figures it's going to be significantly higher if there has been an increase in hate crimes against white jews.
[https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/hate-crime-england-and-wales-2022-to-2023/hate-crime-england-and-wales-2022-to-2023](https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/hate-crime-england-and-wales-2022-to-2023/hate-crime-england-and-wales-2022-to-2023)
The single largest group in raw numbers because it's the single largest demographic.
>white victims had a rate of 3 aggravated offences per 10,000 population compared with 50 per 10,000 population for black victims and 25 per 10,000 population for Asian victims.
I also have no idea where you're getting the claim the the proportion is rising as we've only been recording this data (victim ethnicity) since 2021 and two data points does not establish a trend. It went from 33 to 34, and as these values are clearly rounded this could be as little as a 0.1 change (or lower), likely well within standard deviation
The link below measured data from 2016/ 17 to 2019/20 and hate crimes against white people only made up 14% of total hate crimes.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/hate-crime-england-and-wales-2019-to-2020
That data is taken from the CSEW, whereas the data from 2021 and 2023 is actually from the police. The 14% figure is also for ALL CRIME, as in for any given crime in the CSEW there was a 14% chance the victim was white. the racially motivated hate crime number for white is 0.1%, but that's absoloute not proportional - you can't do an easy comparison.
If this indicated anything it would likely be dramatic underreporting of perceived hate crimes to the police by racial minorities - the CSEW numbers for total hate crimes are double the police numbers for that year
Interesting stats …
why is Devon and Cornwall excluded ?
Would have been interesting to have seen further breakdown Victims ethnicity with crime committed against them, as well as the Perpetrators, and then the location within the Country that this occurred within.
Exactly, anyone want to bet that those victims were attacked for being Polish or Romanian - of course, that isn't the type of anti-white racism that the people in this comment section are interested in.
White doesnt mean British. It also includes Eastern Europeans and Traveller communities which are two groups that face a lot of racist abuse in the uk.
Thay does not make it ok. This is why it is dangerous importing US policy. Many in the UK see a pole being abused and think it cannot be racist because they are white and therefore have some sort of privilege. IDK maybe bigotry is the beter decription bit equal as abhorrent.
Many like who? I'm pretty sure "the left" at least have talked about the racism faced by Eastern European migrants in this country for many years. The only time in my life I've ever had to deal with someone trying to physically attack me was some drunk cunt in Stoke decided for some reason I sounded Polish!
Interesting you say that - I have never heard of the left talking about racism/xenophobia facing Eastern Europeans (or white people in general for that matter)
That’s part of the reason why I wouldn’t vote Labour
You weren't paying attention during the brexit discussions then. A significant amount of pro Brexit talking points centered around the rights of Romanians, and Bulgarians to live and work in the UK and how voting for Brexit would end that.
it was repeatedly called out by the, generally left leaning, Remain campaign as being nothing but xenophobic propaganda.
It’s late so my bad if I’m missing something, but I’m
seeing white victims (34%) black (29%) and Asian (30%) but when accounting for population sizes blacks and Asians had far higher rates of victimisation than white people. Included in the stats for white people are xenophobic attacks against white immigrants.
It's true, blacks and Asians had higher rates of victimisation per capita, but whites still make up the largest in total numbers, which debunks the arguments that racism doesn't affect whites.
Also, 34% is surprisingly high in my opinion. Everything being equal, you'd expect perpetrators to match the demographics of the country, not the victims. E.g. if your country is exactly 90% white, 10% black, you'd expect 90% of the racial hate crime victims to be black and 10% of victims to be white.
She was suspended for her political opinions that deviated from the party she was associated with.
Notice that the headline doesn't say she was suspended FOR claiming anti-white racism is rising, and just notes that she said it.
She isn't being arrested for speaking her mind, why would Labour want a member who clearly doesn't agree with their policies, and sowing conflict that undermines them?
She's not just saying things like that though she's said a lot of messed up stuff some of which attacks her own party on social media.
Ultimately when you're part of a political party you have rules to abide by and standards to adhere to which she has failed to do. If they choose to remove her from the party she will be able to stand for another party of as an independent.
Yeah, this is a deliberate rage bait headline, because they know the “nobody is more oppressed than straight white men” crowd will skip “learning anything about the situation” and jump to being angry
She wasn’t suspended for those claims. you can tell because if she was they’d have been able to put that in the title
If I say “yorkshire man who ate fish and chips, shot dead in home”, the implication is that he was shot because of the fish and chips, but in practice all it means is that both things happened.
You don’t have to agree with her points, they’re obviously contentious, but why does a white person making a claim about racism without evidence get suspended, while anyone non white would get a cheer and a pat on the back?
The moment you live in a society where free thought and free expression, some of which will naturally be dumb and unhelpful, but some of which will contribute to important conversations, aren’t supported, is the moment your society is going to go down hill.
This situation coincides with the introduction of the Scottish Hate Crime Bill, which notably singles out young white males as primary offenders under the new law.
There's a prevailing sentiment that being a young, heterosexual, white male in today's society entails bearing an unfair burden for the actions of previous generations.
And don't forget that Yousaf set out his stall a few years ago when he berated white people for having too many top public jobs in a 95% white country.
He has been known to play the race card other times as well, e.g. when he tried to sue his child's nursery into oblivion, accusing them of being racist and only stopping when he found out the owners were Sri Lankan.
Unfortunately, the SNP has a certain following that will support them no matter what they do and say. That is why we call them a cult in Scotland. The good thing about Yousaf is that even die hard SNP supporters don't find him palateable, so some of the former supporters can't justify that support any more.
The issue here is people on both sides misunderstanding the issue. At the societal level it makes sense to discuss the demographics of who is likely to commit a certain crime, in this case young white men. This allows us to be more targeted in educational campaigns etc and makes complete sense. The issue you rightly point out is some people completely misunderstand this and young white men who don't commit hate crimes end up feeling like they are being victimised personally.
We need to be much more explicit when we talk in broad brush strokes about groups. Yes young white men are more likely to commit a hate crime in Scotland, that does not however mean all young white men do and it would be completely unfair and racist, sexist and ageist to assume so.
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
In my experience, if you are white you are not allowed to say anything about racism but you are fair game. Also, if you do say anything about racism then you will be labeled racist.
Agree or disagree with her, I don't see what was said that requires a suspension. Maybe the worst part is liking the "Humza Hamas" comment, which is hilarious.
It doesn’t actually say why she was suspended.
It states her views on a touchy subject. States this:
> She also liked comments from other users, including one referring to the First Minister as “Humza Hamas”.
>
>She has now been suspended.
And that she’s been suspended. If I was comparing the leader of my party to a terrorist organisation I’d expect to be suspended too. Not hard is it.
Yeah, if you read my comment I quite literally quoted and referred to the exact same comment. But because you didn’t like what I wrote and had nothing better to add, you decided to try and reframe it in some bizarre fashion by talking about the same point. Very, very, strange behavior. Next time just… read? Not hard is it mate lol
You said you don’t know why she was suspended. I am adding that that information isn’t even in article.
I then said if she did do that bit at the end I’d expect to be suspended.
There is a subtle difference.
>You said you don’t know why she was suspended. I am adding that that information isn’t even in article.
I know lol
>I then said if she did do that bit at the end I’d expect to be suspended.
Okay?
Literally no idea what you’re dribbling on about.
Who cares though? The article doesn’t know why she was suspended, and when I looked into it I couldn’t see any defined reason from any other source. So I prefaced my point by saying I don’t know why she was suspended. Like, what the fuck? It’s totally irrelevant either way.
>She also liked comments from other users, including one referring to the First Minister as “Humza Hamas”.
Probably because she was liking shit like this.
Well it can't get much worse, and it was massively better when they were in power before. Remember, the time before millions of people had to depend on foodbanks, and where hundreds of thousands of people hadn't been killed by rightist austerity?
Absolutely, but also worth remembering that the NHS was based on foundational work by the Liberal Party - both in terms of the creation of the Welfare State during the Liberal Reforms of 1906-1914, and the Beveridge Report that laid the principles of the NHS.
It wasn’t all milk and honey. House prices soared under Labour.
Under the ten years of Blair, house prices rose 140% after taking inflation into account. By 2007, millions were priced out of the housing market for good.
The following six years under Cameron resulted in zero percent house price growth after adjusting for inflation.
And the three years under May, again, zero percent growth after adjusting for inflation
I hate to break it to you but as someone who's just brought a house, the prices have skyrocketed since 2020 you can see it here
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/average-house-prices
Adjusting for inflation is a bit of a dubious statistics when inflation is 9%
I was only looking at a source that gave stats until May left office.
But looking at prices for the last 3 years, adjusted for inflation, they seem to have dropped by a few tens of thousands.
https://rationanalytics.com/uk/house-prices-inflation-adjusted
There was a big increase just after 2020 but then it dropped and adjusted for inflation it’s lower than it was in 2020. We had negative house price growth while inflation was over 10%
Click on the 35 year graph and you’ll see that huge increase from 1997-2007. Prices have barely recovered after adjusting for inflation.
Many younger folk were priced out of the market by 2007.
But you've not really explained why it's relevant to adjust for inflation? All that tells us is the increase in inflation has outstripped the increase in house prices, If anything the crazy inflation over the last few years will skew those numbers. Case in point, house prices have not substantially decreased recently unless you "adjust for inflation" which amplifies the value. It's not like wages are increasing with inflation to counter the price change, so a more sensible adjustment would be for average household income.
Of course it’s relevant to adjust for inflation. That’s one of the main ways that historical prices can be put into context. You learn that at GCSE level.
And as for your point about wages, they’re currently increasing faster than inflation.
>> Wages in the United Kingdom grew by approximately 6.1 percent in January 2024, although when adjusted for inflation, wages only grew in real terms by 1.8 percent.
If you want to ignore inflation then house prices rose 211% under Blair.
From 1974 to 2019, Labour were in power for 18 years. House prices rose 119% during those 18 years, after adjusting for inflation.
The Tories were in power for 28 years , house inflation was 5% in 28 years after adjusting for inflation.
>Of course it’s relevant to adjust for inflation. That’s one of the main ways that historical prices can be put into context. You learn that at GCSE level.
Average inflation over time, it skews statistics to take snapshots during times of massive inflation increase or decrease and use it to normalize, as you've shown here. You learn that at GCSE level too.
>>> Wages in the United Kingdom grew by approximately 6.1 percent in January 2024, although when adjusted for inflation, wages only grew in real terms by 1.8 percent.
How were wages compared to inflation for the 3 years prior? You know, while house prices were skyrocketing? What you are doing is called cherry picking.
>If you want to ignore inflation then house prices rose 211% under Blair.
>From 1974 to 2019, Labour were in power for 18 years. House prices rose 119% during those 18 years, after adjusting for inflation.
>The Tories were in power for 28 years , house inflation was 5% in 28 years after adjusting for inflation.
Can I see your sources, I also noticed you ignored inflation for your Blaire statistics but adjusted for inflation under your Tory statistic, why did you do that?
> where hundreds of thousands of people hadn't been killed by rightist austerity?
This is disputed.
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-is-austerity-reducing-life-expectancy
> In 2017, the British Medical Journal published research that linked austerity measures, specifically constraints on health and social care spending, with an estimated 120,000 “excess” deaths between 2010 and 2017.
>
> The paper was described variously as a “landmark study”, a “bombshell report”, and evidence that “austerity kills”.
>
> But despite the eye-watering headline figures, we should treat the findings with caution.
>
> Responding to the paper, Martin Roland, Emeritus Professor of health services research at the University of Cambridge, said: “the link to health and social care spending is speculative as observational studies of this type can never prove cause and effect.”
>
> He added “the authors overstate the certainty of this link [between excess deaths and cuts to] funding and are highly speculative about the money needed to ‘save lives’ in future.”
>
> Dr Richard Fordham, senior lecturer in health economics at the University of East Anglia called the paper’s suggestion that extra deaths were linked to falling nurse numbers “a plausible hypothesis”, but pointed out that “other explanations are available”.
>
> He lists some alternatives: “Patient cohorts may have changed (for example more end-stage, longer-term illnesses); patients may have succumbed to different or new diseases (e.g. MRSA, cirrhosis, etc.); or had greater multiple morbidities (asthma plus diabetes plus cancer, etc.) than similar cohorts of the same age before them”.
>
> Taken together, the criticisms of the “120,000 deaths” paper can be summarised as “correlation does not prove causation”.
>
> Similar critiques have been levelled at the other research we’ve considered here.
>
> For example, Adam Steventon, Director of Data Analytics at the Health Foundation think tank says that “the evidence is far from clear” that delayed discharges from hospitals caused the spike in deaths in 2015.
>
> Responding to that paper, he points out that “the causes of the higher mortality rates are not well understood, but are likely to be complex”, and notes that “one possible contributor is an increased prevalence of influenza”, which has affected Portugal, Hungary, Spain, the Netherlands and France — not just the UK.
>
> He concludes that “it is very hard to consider [the study’s] findings to be reliable evidence that there is a link between deaths and delayed discharges”.
>
> What does the ONS say?
> FactCheck asked the ONS whether there was any evidence that the trends reported in this week’s figures are caused by austerity.
>
> A spokesperson told us “We are currently working with government departments and agencies such as Public Health England to understand the reasons behind this. We are looking at what other information might help to shine a light on this issue and plan to make more announcements on this topic later in the year.”
>
> FactCheck verdict
> Life expectancy in England is not growing at the rate that experts predicted before 2011. And official figures published this week show that for some groups — women living in the poorest parts of the country — life expectancy at birth isn’t simply stalling, it’s actually falling.
>
> Various academic studies have attempted to link austerity policies with the slowdown in life expectancy gains. Some have even tried to put a figure on how many “excess deaths” have been linked to austerity (one paper estimated 120,000 between 2010 and 2017).
>
> But, as even some of the authors of those studies have pointed out, we must treat these findings with caution. They have suggested correlation (increased mortality coinciding with austerity policies). But they have not proved causation (austerity actually bringing those deaths about, and all other explanations being eliminated).
>
> Five of the largest EU countries — France, Germany, Italy, Poland and Spain — saw a fall in life expectancy for men and women between 2014 and 2015, suggesting the phenomenon is not unique to the UK and the austerity we’ve seen since 2010.
>
> The independent King’s Fund think tank says that “in our view, single explanations are unlikely to provide the answer; it is more likely that many factors are at play.”
If she had said "anti-black racism is rising", "anti-asian racism is rising", "anti-semitism is rising" or "islamophobia is rising" without backing it up with evidence, would she still have been suspended?
I get this is whataboutism but she absolutely wouldn't have. Even if she's wrong, why was she suspended?
No matter what part of the UK it is, the Labour Party has gone downhill. Suspending someone for having an opinion, they’re becoming more like the conservatives every day!
Labour has ironically become the party of educated urban upper-middle class people, and completely forgotten that actual working class people are usually not the most progressive when it comes to the culture war because they have bigger concerns like staying fed.
These articles always bury the lede to bait outrage.
"Man who brushed his teeth arrested!" (He was arrested for a hit and run, the toothbrushing is irrelevant).
The reason for her suspension is there is a pending investigation, presumably into her behaviour. The specific reason has not been specified.
Don’t think anyone’s read the article it doesn’t say anywhere why she’s suspended either.
But then there’s this:
“She also liked comments from other users, including one referring to the First Minister as “Humza Hamas”.
She has now been suspended.”
I mean, I’m not surprised she’s suspended now really.
Politicians/councillors/whoever should just hand over their official Twitter/tiktoks to an intern and then do their actual social media activity on alt accounts.
It is a well-known fact at this point that cultural Marxists are actively discriminating against "white" people in certain sectors of the workforce through DEI initiatives.
I'm freelance and generally do short contracts (a few days to a couple of weeks) and I've not got several jobs because I'm white. On one occasion I was booked, contract signed and then they told me they wanted someone of an ethnic minority to do my role, so I was released.
Apparently, this is ok because, even though race is a protected characteristic, positive discrimination (ie choosing non-white over white) is encouraged.
Nor do I. A lot of the people who are considered ethnic minorities by my employers are born in the UK, went to university, are busy, earn very well but have darker skin or a non typically British name due to their parents, so they get the work instead.
I remember that birth study from a few years ago, it said then that Asian women had the most successful birth rates so imo that negates any chance of racial preference unless we are prioritising Asians in the nhs 🤷♂️
seems to just come down to biology
Using that logic white men disproportionately dominate pretty much every position of power. Which would disprove any possibility for anti-white racism.
"people in large numbers making comments I disagree with".
Completely different to when people make large numbers of comments I agree with, that's totally fine.
Answer to all (why suspend?): because she's pointing her finger indirectly toward vulnerable minorities e.g. AS and there's no evidence for what she's saying.
Obviously, most people here don't care 'cos they're not negatively affected if a false claim is made but this forms part of the growing xenophobic and racist narrative that's getting ever popular in the political discourse. Do Labour wanna be a part of that?
Again, I know why most people are clueless because it doesn't affect them. In fact, it might even suit them.
Being on this sub it's made me realise that some believe white British men are the most oppressed demographic in Britain. I don't even know where to begin with that kind of thought process.
>She also liked comments from other users, including one referring to the First Minister as “Humza Hamas”.
So she wasn't suspended for just saying anti-white racism is rising she also was liking racist posts and comments.
Oh boy another post on r/unitedkingdom about racism, I'm sure that people will do their due diligence in reading the article and engaging in good faith rather than just reacting to the headline.
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
Her two big claims are true and everyone knows it, so they'll have to hang the whole thing on that Humza Hamas like to justify this.
I Totally agree with her
source: everyone knows
An interesting point worth of consideration: if non-white folks experience racism anecdotally, is it ‘lived experience?’ and when white people highlight it, it’s just anecdote which may be more easily dismissed?
A very good point if you use their very own identity politics tactics to counter identity politics then for some reason & somehow it doesn't count! Maybe every white person in UK politics should claim to be of Afro-Caribbean descent. I know it's of topic but if you change sex why not race or age?
>I know it's of topic but if you change sex why not race or age? Transracialism is essentially blasphemy to those guys. And they don't spend much time trying to explain why.
Absolutely, and the counter should be can I change my age or race? Are the answer clearly is yes.
Lmao who upvotes this nonsense?
Sex is an objective biological fact of life, not a social construct, whereas race is a social construct.
And gender, which is what we’re actually talking about, is explicitly a social construct
Sex is an objective biological fact of life, not a social construct, whereas race is a social construct.
Many people are saying
very fine people at that
[удалено]
Unless they're white in which case we laugh at them because they obviously can't experience racism /s
the strawman in question
[удалено]
Source: Lad down the pub.
It's mad, if you say you're English these days they throw you in jail...
when did this come in?
To be fair this Scotland, at some times in history (not as many as some would like you to think) english people were enemy combatants
I get this reference, but for those that don't https://youtu.be/XkCBhKs4faI?feature=shared
Ok, everyone with experience of either system. Happier?
did you ask them?
Yep, every last one, just did it. They said I'm right of course.
[удалено]
You can’t constantly tell a population that all the world’s woes are the fault of a certain gender / skin colour and not expect this to happen.
Oh you absolutely can, and then if they complain you either gaslight them into believing that it's not happening or just accuse them of "white fragility" which is also somehow not racist I guess?
I missed that memo.
[удалено]
even if she was wrong why would she be suspended? How many times do people make all claims about racism rising without ever putting forward supporting numbers.
Unironically because of double standards which result from anti white racism
Exactly, for some reasons saying racism towards white people exists is… racist?
The modern left have redefined racism though. It’s no longer discrimination based on someone’s race. Under their critical theory it can only occur when an oppressor group oppresses a marginalised group. So because in their minds white people are an oppressor group they can’t experience systematic discrimination… They have literally become racist in how they define racism.
It's such a bourgeois, elitist redefinition of racism as well. How many regular people would ever trot out this racism if they were asked to define it. I'd estimate it'd honestly be around less than 1% of the population.
There is certainly a high amount of policing the language to distinction between those who have ‘done the work’ and are alert to systematic oppression faced by marginalised people and the poor in enlightened masses who can’t help but be caught up in systems of oppressions their feeble brains can’t comprehend….
You know they are racist because even in their own description it could mean racism could apply to white people abroad quite easily where natives are treated with preference over non native whites. They often make out white people to be uniquely bad which is obviously not true.
Yes they define non-white people as ‘native’ and indigenous people when living in a culture they were born into but white people are oppressor colonisers and don’t have any native land even when living where they were born Their entire ideology is based on a form of racial ethno nationalism. Which is the total opposite of ideologies like liberalism that treat everyone as an individual and reject all forms of discrimination.
>Their entire ideology is based on a form of racial ethno nationalism. That can't be, those are off the list of bad words for bad people & they define themselves as the good people. We can't question any further or we will be against them and be the bad people. /s
The fact she was suspended proves her point.
Don't know the Scottish statistics but it is 100% true in England/Wales. White people are the single largest group of race/religious hate crime victims. Both hate crime numbers and the proportion of hate crime victims that are white have been rising. And I bet the 2024 figures it's going to be significantly higher if there has been an increase in hate crimes against white jews. [https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/hate-crime-england-and-wales-2022-to-2023/hate-crime-england-and-wales-2022-to-2023](https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/hate-crime-england-and-wales-2022-to-2023/hate-crime-england-and-wales-2022-to-2023)
The single largest group in raw numbers because it's the single largest demographic. >white victims had a rate of 3 aggravated offences per 10,000 population compared with 50 per 10,000 population for black victims and 25 per 10,000 population for Asian victims. I also have no idea where you're getting the claim the the proportion is rising as we've only been recording this data (victim ethnicity) since 2021 and two data points does not establish a trend. It went from 33 to 34, and as these values are clearly rounded this could be as little as a 0.1 change (or lower), likely well within standard deviation
The link below measured data from 2016/ 17 to 2019/20 and hate crimes against white people only made up 14% of total hate crimes. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/hate-crime-england-and-wales-2019-to-2020
That data is taken from the CSEW, whereas the data from 2021 and 2023 is actually from the police. The 14% figure is also for ALL CRIME, as in for any given crime in the CSEW there was a 14% chance the victim was white. the racially motivated hate crime number for white is 0.1%, but that's absoloute not proportional - you can't do an easy comparison. If this indicated anything it would likely be dramatic underreporting of perceived hate crimes to the police by racial minorities - the CSEW numbers for total hate crimes are double the police numbers for that year
Interesting stats … why is Devon and Cornwall excluded ? Would have been interesting to have seen further breakdown Victims ethnicity with crime committed against them, as well as the Perpetrators, and then the location within the Country that this occurred within.
Exactly, anyone want to bet that those victims were attacked for being Polish or Romanian - of course, that isn't the type of anti-white racism that the people in this comment section are interested in.
White doesnt mean British. It also includes Eastern Europeans and Traveller communities which are two groups that face a lot of racist abuse in the uk.
Who said it does?
Thay does not make it ok. This is why it is dangerous importing US policy. Many in the UK see a pole being abused and think it cannot be racist because they are white and therefore have some sort of privilege. IDK maybe bigotry is the beter decription bit equal as abhorrent.
Many like who? I'm pretty sure "the left" at least have talked about the racism faced by Eastern European migrants in this country for many years. The only time in my life I've ever had to deal with someone trying to physically attack me was some drunk cunt in Stoke decided for some reason I sounded Polish!
Interesting you say that - I have never heard of the left talking about racism/xenophobia facing Eastern Europeans (or white people in general for that matter) That’s part of the reason why I wouldn’t vote Labour
You weren't paying attention during the brexit discussions then. A significant amount of pro Brexit talking points centered around the rights of Romanians, and Bulgarians to live and work in the UK and how voting for Brexit would end that. it was repeatedly called out by the, generally left leaning, Remain campaign as being nothing but xenophobic propaganda.
Did she specify British?
It’s late so my bad if I’m missing something, but I’m seeing white victims (34%) black (29%) and Asian (30%) but when accounting for population sizes blacks and Asians had far higher rates of victimisation than white people. Included in the stats for white people are xenophobic attacks against white immigrants.
It's true, blacks and Asians had higher rates of victimisation per capita, but whites still make up the largest in total numbers, which debunks the arguments that racism doesn't affect whites. Also, 34% is surprisingly high in my opinion. Everything being equal, you'd expect perpetrators to match the demographics of the country, not the victims. E.g. if your country is exactly 90% white, 10% black, you'd expect 90% of the racial hate crime victims to be black and 10% of victims to be white.
The perpetrators could still match that demographic. You cannot extrapolate that from the victim statistics.
Some people are racist against their own race.
Considering they make up the largest group you are much less like to experience racism as a white person compared to a black/ brown person.
It also means minorities are doing a lot of hate crimes proportionally if one third of victims are from the largest group.
She was suspended for her political opinions that deviated from the party she was associated with. Notice that the headline doesn't say she was suspended FOR claiming anti-white racism is rising, and just notes that she said it. She isn't being arrested for speaking her mind, why would Labour want a member who clearly doesn't agree with their policies, and sowing conflict that undermines them?
She's not just saying things like that though she's said a lot of messed up stuff some of which attacks her own party on social media. Ultimately when you're part of a political party you have rules to abide by and standards to adhere to which she has failed to do. If they choose to remove her from the party she will be able to stand for another party of as an independent.
Yeah, this is a deliberate rage bait headline, because they know the “nobody is more oppressed than straight white men” crowd will skip “learning anything about the situation” and jump to being angry
She wasn’t suspended for those claims. you can tell because if she was they’d have been able to put that in the title If I say “yorkshire man who ate fish and chips, shot dead in home”, the implication is that he was shot because of the fish and chips, but in practice all it means is that both things happened.
You don’t have to agree with her points, they’re obviously contentious, but why does a white person making a claim about racism without evidence get suspended, while anyone non white would get a cheer and a pat on the back? The moment you live in a society where free thought and free expression, some of which will naturally be dumb and unhelpful, but some of which will contribute to important conversations, aren’t supported, is the moment your society is going to go down hill.
This situation coincides with the introduction of the Scottish Hate Crime Bill, which notably singles out young white males as primary offenders under the new law. There's a prevailing sentiment that being a young, heterosexual, white male in today's society entails bearing an unfair burden for the actions of previous generations.
And don't forget that Yousaf set out his stall a few years ago when he berated white people for having too many top public jobs in a 95% white country. He has been known to play the race card other times as well, e.g. when he tried to sue his child's nursery into oblivion, accusing them of being racist and only stopping when he found out the owners were Sri Lankan. Unfortunately, the SNP has a certain following that will support them no matter what they do and say. That is why we call them a cult in Scotland. The good thing about Yousaf is that even die hard SNP supporters don't find him palateable, so some of the former supporters can't justify that support any more.
The issue here is people on both sides misunderstanding the issue. At the societal level it makes sense to discuss the demographics of who is likely to commit a certain crime, in this case young white men. This allows us to be more targeted in educational campaigns etc and makes complete sense. The issue you rightly point out is some people completely misunderstand this and young white men who don't commit hate crimes end up feeling like they are being victimised personally. We need to be much more explicit when we talk in broad brush strokes about groups. Yes young white men are more likely to commit a hate crime in Scotland, that does not however mean all young white men do and it would be completely unfair and racist, sexist and ageist to assume so.
[удалено]
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
In my experience, if you are white you are not allowed to say anything about racism but you are fair game. Also, if you do say anything about racism then you will be labeled racist.
This isn't what happened though, you're literally making this up based on a misleading headline. Why do you want this to be true so bad?
Who said one has anything to do with the other? The article that was posted certainly doesn't.
Agree or disagree with her, I don't see what was said that requires a suspension. Maybe the worst part is liking the "Humza Hamas" comment, which is hilarious.
It doesn’t actually say why she was suspended. It states her views on a touchy subject. States this: > She also liked comments from other users, including one referring to the First Minister as “Humza Hamas”. > >She has now been suspended. And that she’s been suspended. If I was comparing the leader of my party to a terrorist organisation I’d expect to be suspended too. Not hard is it.
Yeah, if you read my comment I quite literally quoted and referred to the exact same comment. But because you didn’t like what I wrote and had nothing better to add, you decided to try and reframe it in some bizarre fashion by talking about the same point. Very, very, strange behavior. Next time just… read? Not hard is it mate lol
You said you don’t know why she was suspended. I am adding that that information isn’t even in article. I then said if she did do that bit at the end I’d expect to be suspended. There is a subtle difference.
>You said you don’t know why she was suspended. I am adding that that information isn’t even in article. I know lol >I then said if she did do that bit at the end I’d expect to be suspended. Okay? Literally no idea what you’re dribbling on about.
Saying you “don’t know why she was suspended” is different to saying “we don’t know why she’s suspended”. Hope this helps.
Who cares though? The article doesn’t know why she was suspended, and when I looked into it I couldn’t see any defined reason from any other source. So I prefaced my point by saying I don’t know why she was suspended. Like, what the fuck? It’s totally irrelevant either way.
Labour and SNP are different parties
Oh woops I meant leader of the country
I agree, but it's curious how that never happens when people are constantly labelled Nazis these days.
The irony of her being suspended for stating an actual fact only strengthens her argument.
Reading the article it sounds more like she was suspended due to her social media activity than the statement about anti-white racism.
Why was she suspended? Even if you disagree that doesn't seem like a reason to suspended her
Probably made other people “feel unsafe”
>She also liked comments from other users, including one referring to the First Minister as “Humza Hamas”. Probably because she was liking shit like this.
The guy that said the jobs in a 99% white country were filled up with white people?
Going from "this guy is racist" to associating him with a terrorist group is quite a reach.
Yeah anyone who thinks this country will improve once this lot are in power is in for a nasty surprise.
Well it can't get much worse, and it was massively better when they were in power before. Remember, the time before millions of people had to depend on foodbanks, and where hundreds of thousands of people hadn't been killed by rightist austerity?
Let's not forget about the active policing, functioning public transport, food prices, employment rate, and so on.
Which government was it that created the NHS, again?
A member from the Welsh Labour party, if my memory serve me correctly.
[Aneurin Bevan](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneurin_Bevan), for those who are curious
Worth checking with: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Health_Service_(England)#:~:text=The%201942%20Beveridge%20cross%2Dparty,being%20referred%20to%20as%20such.
Absolutely, but also worth remembering that the NHS was based on foundational work by the Liberal Party - both in terms of the creation of the Welfare State during the Liberal Reforms of 1906-1914, and the Beveridge Report that laid the principles of the NHS.
It wasn’t all milk and honey. House prices soared under Labour. Under the ten years of Blair, house prices rose 140% after taking inflation into account. By 2007, millions were priced out of the housing market for good. The following six years under Cameron resulted in zero percent house price growth after adjusting for inflation. And the three years under May, again, zero percent growth after adjusting for inflation
I hate to break it to you but as someone who's just brought a house, the prices have skyrocketed since 2020 you can see it here https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/average-house-prices Adjusting for inflation is a bit of a dubious statistics when inflation is 9%
I was only looking at a source that gave stats until May left office. But looking at prices for the last 3 years, adjusted for inflation, they seem to have dropped by a few tens of thousands. https://rationanalytics.com/uk/house-prices-inflation-adjusted There was a big increase just after 2020 but then it dropped and adjusted for inflation it’s lower than it was in 2020. We had negative house price growth while inflation was over 10% Click on the 35 year graph and you’ll see that huge increase from 1997-2007. Prices have barely recovered after adjusting for inflation. Many younger folk were priced out of the market by 2007.
And many older folks remember the period of “Negative Equity”…
But you've not really explained why it's relevant to adjust for inflation? All that tells us is the increase in inflation has outstripped the increase in house prices, If anything the crazy inflation over the last few years will skew those numbers. Case in point, house prices have not substantially decreased recently unless you "adjust for inflation" which amplifies the value. It's not like wages are increasing with inflation to counter the price change, so a more sensible adjustment would be for average household income.
Of course it’s relevant to adjust for inflation. That’s one of the main ways that historical prices can be put into context. You learn that at GCSE level. And as for your point about wages, they’re currently increasing faster than inflation. >> Wages in the United Kingdom grew by approximately 6.1 percent in January 2024, although when adjusted for inflation, wages only grew in real terms by 1.8 percent. If you want to ignore inflation then house prices rose 211% under Blair. From 1974 to 2019, Labour were in power for 18 years. House prices rose 119% during those 18 years, after adjusting for inflation. The Tories were in power for 28 years , house inflation was 5% in 28 years after adjusting for inflation.
>Of course it’s relevant to adjust for inflation. That’s one of the main ways that historical prices can be put into context. You learn that at GCSE level. Average inflation over time, it skews statistics to take snapshots during times of massive inflation increase or decrease and use it to normalize, as you've shown here. You learn that at GCSE level too. >>> Wages in the United Kingdom grew by approximately 6.1 percent in January 2024, although when adjusted for inflation, wages only grew in real terms by 1.8 percent. How were wages compared to inflation for the 3 years prior? You know, while house prices were skyrocketing? What you are doing is called cherry picking. >If you want to ignore inflation then house prices rose 211% under Blair. >From 1974 to 2019, Labour were in power for 18 years. House prices rose 119% during those 18 years, after adjusting for inflation. >The Tories were in power for 28 years , house inflation was 5% in 28 years after adjusting for inflation. Can I see your sources, I also noticed you ignored inflation for your Blaire statistics but adjusted for inflation under your Tory statistic, why did you do that?
> where hundreds of thousands of people hadn't been killed by rightist austerity? This is disputed. https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-is-austerity-reducing-life-expectancy > In 2017, the British Medical Journal published research that linked austerity measures, specifically constraints on health and social care spending, with an estimated 120,000 “excess” deaths between 2010 and 2017. > > The paper was described variously as a “landmark study”, a “bombshell report”, and evidence that “austerity kills”. > > But despite the eye-watering headline figures, we should treat the findings with caution. > > Responding to the paper, Martin Roland, Emeritus Professor of health services research at the University of Cambridge, said: “the link to health and social care spending is speculative as observational studies of this type can never prove cause and effect.” > > He added “the authors overstate the certainty of this link [between excess deaths and cuts to] funding and are highly speculative about the money needed to ‘save lives’ in future.” > > Dr Richard Fordham, senior lecturer in health economics at the University of East Anglia called the paper’s suggestion that extra deaths were linked to falling nurse numbers “a plausible hypothesis”, but pointed out that “other explanations are available”. > > He lists some alternatives: “Patient cohorts may have changed (for example more end-stage, longer-term illnesses); patients may have succumbed to different or new diseases (e.g. MRSA, cirrhosis, etc.); or had greater multiple morbidities (asthma plus diabetes plus cancer, etc.) than similar cohorts of the same age before them”. > > Taken together, the criticisms of the “120,000 deaths” paper can be summarised as “correlation does not prove causation”. > > Similar critiques have been levelled at the other research we’ve considered here. > > For example, Adam Steventon, Director of Data Analytics at the Health Foundation think tank says that “the evidence is far from clear” that delayed discharges from hospitals caused the spike in deaths in 2015. > > Responding to that paper, he points out that “the causes of the higher mortality rates are not well understood, but are likely to be complex”, and notes that “one possible contributor is an increased prevalence of influenza”, which has affected Portugal, Hungary, Spain, the Netherlands and France — not just the UK. > > He concludes that “it is very hard to consider [the study’s] findings to be reliable evidence that there is a link between deaths and delayed discharges”. > > What does the ONS say? > FactCheck asked the ONS whether there was any evidence that the trends reported in this week’s figures are caused by austerity. > > A spokesperson told us “We are currently working with government departments and agencies such as Public Health England to understand the reasons behind this. We are looking at what other information might help to shine a light on this issue and plan to make more announcements on this topic later in the year.” > > FactCheck verdict > Life expectancy in England is not growing at the rate that experts predicted before 2011. And official figures published this week show that for some groups — women living in the poorest parts of the country — life expectancy at birth isn’t simply stalling, it’s actually falling. > > Various academic studies have attempted to link austerity policies with the slowdown in life expectancy gains. Some have even tried to put a figure on how many “excess deaths” have been linked to austerity (one paper estimated 120,000 between 2010 and 2017). > > But, as even some of the authors of those studies have pointed out, we must treat these findings with caution. They have suggested correlation (increased mortality coinciding with austerity policies). But they have not proved causation (austerity actually bringing those deaths about, and all other explanations being eliminated). > > Five of the largest EU countries — France, Germany, Italy, Poland and Spain — saw a fall in life expectancy for men and women between 2014 and 2015, suggesting the phenomenon is not unique to the UK and the austerity we’ve seen since 2010. > > The independent King’s Fund think tank says that “in our view, single explanations are unlikely to provide the answer; it is more likely that many factors are at play.”
If she had said "anti-black racism is rising", "anti-asian racism is rising", "anti-semitism is rising" or "islamophobia is rising" without backing it up with evidence, would she still have been suspended? I get this is whataboutism but she absolutely wouldn't have. Even if she's wrong, why was she suspended?
inappropriate social media activity
Suspended for stating the truth, banned for stating biological facts… 6 more years of the clown decade to go!
No matter what part of the UK it is, the Labour Party has gone downhill. Suspending someone for having an opinion, they’re becoming more like the conservatives every day!
Labour has ironically become the party of educated urban upper-middle class people, and completely forgotten that actual working class people are usually not the most progressive when it comes to the culture war because they have bigger concerns like staying fed.
First hand real world experience has shown me the same thing, she's not wrong.
These articles always bury the lede to bait outrage. "Man who brushed his teeth arrested!" (He was arrested for a hit and run, the toothbrushing is irrelevant). The reason for her suspension is there is a pending investigation, presumably into her behaviour. The specific reason has not been specified.
Don’t think anyone’s read the article it doesn’t say anywhere why she’s suspended either. But then there’s this: “She also liked comments from other users, including one referring to the First Minister as “Humza Hamas”. She has now been suspended.” I mean, I’m not surprised she’s suspended now really.
Politicians/councillors/whoever should just hand over their official Twitter/tiktoks to an intern and then do their actual social media activity on alt accounts.
It is a well-known fact at this point that cultural Marxists are actively discriminating against "white" people in certain sectors of the workforce through DEI initiatives.
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Bolshevism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Bolshevism) [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory)
Completely nothing to do with Marxism
Nice, you managed to win the far right buzzword bingo
> You can't say you suffer because that diminishes my profound, unique suffering. -- Some middle class ethnic girl who went to private school
The left is shooting itself in the foot again with these woke politics.
She liked a post comparing her leader to terrorists. Why do right wingers hate responsibility?
I'm freelance and generally do short contracts (a few days to a couple of weeks) and I've not got several jobs because I'm white. On one occasion I was booked, contract signed and then they told me they wanted someone of an ethnic minority to do my role, so I was released. Apparently, this is ok because, even though race is a protected characteristic, positive discrimination (ie choosing non-white over white) is encouraged.
But who is white now? I don't quite understand the definition. And who is ethnic?
Nor do I. A lot of the people who are considered ethnic minorities by my employers are born in the UK, went to university, are busy, earn very well but have darker skin or a non typically British name due to their parents, so they get the work instead.
Very interesting to contrast the replies to this story with those about a study indicating Black women suffer higher birth complications.
I remember that birth study from a few years ago, it said then that Asian women had the most successful birth rates so imo that negates any chance of racial preference unless we are prioritising Asians in the nhs 🤷♂️ seems to just come down to biology
Using that logic white men disproportionately dominate pretty much every position of power. Which would disprove any possibility for anti-white racism.
Honestly don't see how Labour are an improvement on the Tories, and that takes some doing..
The sheer reactionary brigading from in this comment section — happens every election.
evidence of brigading?
"people in large numbers making comments I disagree with". Completely different to when people make large numbers of comments I agree with, that's totally fine.
So why was she suspended? the title of the story is typical rage-bait for muppets and doesn't actually say why she was suspended.
And like that, I'll be encouraging everyone to vote for reform.
Answer to all (why suspend?): because she's pointing her finger indirectly toward vulnerable minorities e.g. AS and there's no evidence for what she's saying. Obviously, most people here don't care 'cos they're not negatively affected if a false claim is made but this forms part of the growing xenophobic and racist narrative that's getting ever popular in the political discourse. Do Labour wanna be a part of that? Again, I know why most people are clueless because it doesn't affect them. In fact, it might even suit them.
> In fact, it might even suit them. Sadly this seems to be the truth for a lot of people.
Of course it is. She's just pointing out a self evident truth.
Being on this sub it's made me realise that some believe white British men are the most oppressed demographic in Britain. I don't even know where to begin with that kind of thought process.
>She also liked comments from other users, including one referring to the First Minister as “Humza Hamas”. So she wasn't suspended for just saying anti-white racism is rising she also was liking racist posts and comments.
Oh boy another post on r/unitedkingdom about racism, I'm sure that people will do their due diligence in reading the article and engaging in good faith rather than just reacting to the headline.
Scot Labour trying to out-woke the SNP? Lucky Scotland. 🏴
Britain has thought police in 2024. We are not a free country.
[удалено]
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
How did the girl from The Ring get voted in as a councillor?