Researching stats on the issue is difficult - the last official report I can find covered the first four months of the pandemic in Scotland, which stated that BAME groups made up 4.1% of the population, and deaths amongst those in those groups made up 1%. Comparable stats for England, from an unofficial source, showed a population share of 14.5% with a 17% share of the deaths. So deaths within BAME groups were far more likely in England than in Scotland (maybe Hadrian's Wall did its job) - which probably accounts for my point of view - but I still contend that to refer to this as a form of racism is wrong. People from all walks of life in the UK make what they can from the hands dealt to them - just ask Sunak, Braverman, Patel, Cleverly, Kwarteng, Javid, Khan etc etc
I don't know about the rest of them BB but Rishi Sunak was dealt very good cards and married a billionairess to boot, Patel also comes from an affluent family background. As I say, I haven't looked up on the rest of them. The truth is that there is very little social mobility in the UK, as in most other Western countries, most people remain in the social class they were born into. The idea that 'anyone can make it' is one of the many myths of capitalism which serves the purpose ie. that the poor blame themselves for their own poverty and the rich think they have deserved their position. You may well find that all (or most) of your list went to private schools.
You make my point for me - all of those mentioned are from ethnic minorities, regardless of what wealth they were born into all have improved themselves and all did so in the UK. If anything, they are living proof that the racism claim is wide of the mark. As for having attended private schools, Patel didn't. Although she claimed to have attended Watford Girl's Grammar, the school denied that - she went to a comprehensive school. Not that private schools are any better than state schools - the BoJo WhatsApp leaks showed that.
A bit vague to say ''They have improved themselves'' BB. Do you mean they have become better people Or that they had some success in business, or that they are now warming seats in the house of commons ? If you mean the latter (ie. they are all ministers) then it's worthwhile to remember that in all branches of the civil service a quota system operates in the UK. I have personal experience of this being a member of a political party in Germany - every second post has to be occupied by a women even if they only make up 10% of applicants. By virtue of this quota system you have more police officers from ethnic backgrounds in the UK than in other European countries - the same applies in most other areas of public life. But does this tell us anything about life on the street or is it just window dressing ? At any rate it tells us nothing about whether ethnic groups suffered disproportionally from Covid 19, or from the lockdown. Generally the poor became poorer,and a few others became richer, during the epidemic and the question is whether government could have done anything to stop that.
None of which is evidence that racism was a factor in the treatment offered to ethnic minorities during the pandemic. They were treated no differently to the rest of the population. They weren't deliberately singled out for inferior treatment, what they received was the same as what everyone else received - prioritised according to age, existing health conditions, timing of need, urgent need etc. What their personal circumstances were at the time simply can't be used to claim racism was a factor in treatment because the vast majority of those treated had similar personal circumstances.
What I do remember, quite clearly, was information showing that a smaller percentage of ethnic minorities came forward for vaccination. Quite why that was, was never clearly explained.
This was a similar picture in Germany and the USA Frenchie. Very difficult to interpret the figures because of having to take in sociodemographic factors as well. Apparently in the UK the lowest take up rate for vaccination was amongst the Black Caribbean population with that of Black Africans being nearly 10% higher - which raises obvious questions. The Asian take up rate was higher - couldn't find anything regarding the Islamic take up - but none of the religious authorities from Islam condemned it. The only religious groups which ignored all vaccination were the Jehovah's Witnesses, and a few new age esoteric groups. On the whole the white British take up was the highest but then many ethnic groups may be proportionally younger which could distort the figure. In Germany language was a big problem - the vast majority of immigrants arriving in Germany have had no previous contact to the language, and so many may have known the dangers but weren't certain where they should go.
Almost made my day this - I can just imagine Tory Ministers/MPs squealing with rage. Starmer has appointed Sue Gray as his chief of staff. https://news.sky.com/story/labour-l...gator-sue-gray-as-new-chief-of-staff-12823569
The interim report from the privileges committee came out today. Just as damming as the Sue Grey report about the gross behaviour of Johnson. He has dragged the reputations of members of his own party, civil servants and indeed the country into the gutter. Now we see that the current PM is snared in the scandal, as well explained in this article. https://www.theguardian.com/comment...hael-corleone-tory-party-up-to-his-neck-in-it. Politicians are elected to first and foremost serve and help their constituents, not use the opportunity to feather their own nests and those of their friends. When this is clearly shown to be their priority, with two fingers up to those who really need help, then it is time to have an election and hope that what comes after is more responsible than the current mess.
And here it is - pretty damning stuff. I'm sure he'll do his best to lie and squirm his way out of it though https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5803/cmselect/cmprivi/1203/report.html
A deserved attack on Braverman in my opinion - but I do despair at the bulk of the comments made in reply.
The right wing press, in fact media in general, seem to be very keen for people living in the UK to have free speech, until someone uses it and makes them look stupid. Are we saying that someone who is seen by millions on TV is not allowed to express his opinion on a subject that doesn’t provide his living?
Certainly appears to be the case when that someone's name is Gary Lineker. Apparently the BBC have been told to 'have a word with him' over his 1930s Germany comment. I'm assuming that it's the government who told them.
If someone at the BBC “having a word with him” isn’t the language of Germany in the 1930s, I don’t know what is.
the head honchos at the bbc are all tory donors / members / stood for them at council elections or whatever. puppets.
And now it seems that Tory MPs don't have off switches on their televisions, so no-one else can watch a program they don't think they'll like. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...ode-rightwing-backlash-fears?CMP=share_btn_tw
Gary Lineker is to step back from presenting Match of the Day until an agreement is reached on his social media use, the BBC has said in a statement. It follows an impartiality row over comments he made criticising the government's new asylum policy. In a tweet, the presenter had compared the language used by the government to set out its plan to "that used by Germany in the 30s". The BBC said it considered Lineker's recent social media activity to be a "breach of our guidelines". So when will the BBC chairman step back from his job? Arranging loans for a PM seems to have got him the job. I don't suppose they have any guidelines for this sort of behaviour.
