Is it ok to be proud to be white?

Tony Edwards said:
No it found the man wasnt discriminated against because of his race or gender at the time.
Click to expand...

Your have proven yourself to be disingenuous Tony....

anyway if anyone wants to read the full verdict it can be found here

here's an interesting bit

221. We find that the fact of Ms. Williams being a black woman, and the Respondent’s perception of the litigation and reputational risk she therefore potentially posed, to be the reason for this sudden and significant increase. We reach this finding for the following reasons:

(a) The unequivocal evidence of Sir Thomas was that there was no realistic explanation for the decision to increase Ms. Williams’ pay other than the Home Office’s concerns regarding potential reputational risk because of her being a black woman.

(b) That had the Respondent’s now stated position, that there was an agreement that Ms. Williams should be paid the same salary as Ms. Sharping, been the case it would have been expected that the salary initially offered to her would have been no less than £185,791 and not the £165,000, she accepted.

(c) There are numerous references in the Respondent’s paper trail both at the time of the decision in March 2015, and thereafter, to concerns regarding equal pay and discrimination claims being a factor in the decision to increase her pay.

(d) There was clear and acknowledged pressure from at least 2014, and possibly as early as 2009, from the Treasury to reduce HMI pay and this pressure was reflected in the initial decision to offer Ms. Williams a salary at the bottom of the then scale i.e., £165,000. Had it been the intention that there needed to be a benchmarking exercise and review of HMI pay, to include considerations of comparability with Chief Constable and other equivalent roles, there would have been no need to offer her the initially lower salary and then subsequently revert to the existing HMI remuneration level.

(e) That the initial salary offered to Ms. Williams was in accordance with the then applicable salary scales and guidelines for HMI appointments but was increased outside the scope of these guidelines, and without any rational business reason necessitating such an increase, given that she had accepted the offer and her previous salary was £107,000.

(f) That there were no genuine grounds to support any suggestion that Ms. Williams may renege on her acceptance of the offer at £165,000. As such considerations regarding a need to resolve matters to facilitate Ms. Sharping’s appointment to the Public Enquiry, and the imminent proroguing of Parliament, do not provide an explanation for the abrupt volte face.

(g) That given the extremely protracted processes for the appointment of HMIs the decision made between 25-27 March 2015 to revert Ms. Williams’ originally offered and accepted salary to that previously applicable would be more consistent with a concern regarding her protected characteristics rather than a decision that any disparity in HMI pay should be deferred pending a benchmarking process.
Click to expand...

A rather confused case where governmental decision to reduce high public sector pay was stymied in one case solely on the basis that the applicant was a black woman and so the employer offered her the maximum possible when she had already accepted a substantially lower offer because they worried about being sued.

The pay decreases for the role were then more clearly formalised and the next applicant though the door was paid far less.
 
Last edited:
Tony Edwards said:
No it found the man wasnt discriminated against because of his race or gender at the time.
Click to expand...

Even the cherry-picked fragments you're quoting don't support your claims - they only mention "race", not sex.

The tribunal explicitly stated that he was paid less because of his sex and "race" and because the employer (correctly) assumed that they could get away with doing so:

Employment Judge Richard Nicolle said: 'We find that the fact of Ms Williams being a black woman, and the Respondent's perception of the litigation and reputational risk she therefore potentially posed, to be the reason for this sudden and significant increase. [..]

'We find that the Respondent viewed the Claimant as a white male to pose little legal and reputational risk should he seek to challenge his renumeration on equality/discrimination grounds.

'We therefore find that the increase in Ms Williams' salary from £165,000 to £185,791 was influenced by the Respondent's concern that the initially proposed differential between her pay and that of the white incumbents could give rise to legal and reputational risks to the Home Office.
Click to expand...
 
Angilion said:
Even the cherry-picked fragments you're quoting don't support your claims - they only mention "race", not sex.

The tribunal explicitly stated that he was paid less because of his sex and "race" and because the employer (correctly) assumed that they could get away with doing so:
Click to expand...
She was the benefactor of positive discrimination at the time. He wasnt discrinimated against at the time. Its fairly easy to comprehend. Oh not for some it would seem.
 
Tony Edwards said:
She was the benefactor of positive discrimination at the time. He wasnt discrinimated against at the time. Its fairly easy to comprehend. Oh not for some it would seem.
Click to expand...

I comprehend the excuses for racism and sexism. I don't agree with them. Can you understand the difference? Probably not, since you think that racism and sexism are good things - you explicitly refer to racism and sexism as being positive.
 
Another interesting point is that the evidence provided to the court by Mr Lamberti is that had the claimant been appointed at the same time as Ms Williams that he would have been paid the least amount available at the time!

105. Mr. Lamberti said that there had been no consideration to the possibility of lowering the pay of any of the existing HMIs.
106. He said that if the Claimant had been appointed at the same time as Ms. Williams his salary would have been £165,000.
Click to expand...

David Lamberti, Director, Crime and Policing Group, July 2014-2019 (Mr Lamberti) gave evidence on the Respondent’s behalf. (with the Respondent being the Home Secetary)

So the evidence from the respondents witness was that had Mr Parr been appointed at the same time as Ms Williams that he would have been offered the lowest available at the time with the court verdict elsewhere establishing that Ms Parr was awarded the highest she could be at the time with no rational explanation other than the 'reputational risk' of offering a black woman less than previous entrants to a job.
 
I'm sure somebody has mentioned this but how can you possibly be proud of something you had no control over?
I'm proud of all the bands I've formed over the last 50 years, proud of my musical skills, proud of how I've changed working practices in my job, even proud of my choice of life partner from 1974 and a host of other things because I had an impact on all of that.

If the question is are you glad to have been born white and live in England then yes.
 
SexyGreyFox said:
I'm sure somebody has mentioned this but how can you possibly be proud of something you had no control over?
I'm proud of all the bands I've formed over the last 50 years, proud of my musical skills, proud of how I've changed working practices in my job, even proud of my choice of life partner from 1974 and a host of other things because I had an impact on all of that.

If the question is are you glad to have been born white and live in England then yes.
Click to expand...

Yeah I just don't get it. I take pride in the things i do so I'm also proud of them once completed.

Do people take pride in being a colour? How is that even possible?
 
Basically the slightly shortened TLDR for the case against the Home Office and why the employment tribunal went as it did is as follows in chronological order:

1) HMI's where on a high wage compared to other comparable public sector workers from the late 2000's to the mid 2010's

2) post 2009 (re the financial crisis and ensuing governmental cuts) there was considerable pressure to lower the pay of top public workers

3) Ms Williams applied for the job as a HMI and was paid the maximum amount she could be at the time with a court subsequently confirming that the only explicable reason for this was based on her sex and race and that she should would have been offered the much lower amount available at the time had it not been for 'positive discrimination'.

4) the evidence from the respondents own witness was that had Mr Parr applied for the job under the same conditions that he would have been offered significantly less, at the lowest end of the scale at the time, with the obvious implicit reason for this being he was a white male. Hence had he been appointed closer to the time of Ms Willaims that he would have been discriminated against on the basis of his sex and ethnicity.

5) The assumption re the pay decreases was that the potential employees former salary would be relevant with Mr Parr's previous salary having been a fair bit higher than Ms Williams (albeit he had retired from the post by the time he had applied for the HMI role)

6) After Ms Williams joined as a HMI the respondent (the Home Office) formalised pay reductions for future HMI's at a range of pay scales that sat far below the former pay range.

7) Mr Williams then applied after the formal reduction was implemented and was paid far less than his colleagues (including Ms Williams) as a result.

8) The court ruled that although Ms Williams had been paid more on appointment than she should have been on the basis of her race and sex that the next entrant had no case as the pay scales had been formally changed in the time between their appointments and he was offered what was available based on the new scales

9) so although Ms Williams had benefitted from discrimination based on her sex and race that Mr Williams had not been discriminated against because the change in terms had been formalised in the time between their appointments and another HMI appointed at the same time as him would have been paid the same, reduced, wage regardless of them being black and or female.
 
You can be proud of your heritage though, proud of where you came from. I'd say being white is more than just the colour of your skin, just as being black is. You're not so proud of the pigment as you are of who you actually are
 
doug_1986 said:
You can be proud of your heritage though, proud of where you came from. I'd say being white is more than just the colour of your skin, just as being black is. You're not so proud of the pigment as you are of who you actually are
Click to expand...
I'm not sure it works with being white however, as you inadvertently associate yourself with yanks :p

Then we enter dangerous territory like being proud to be white, blonde hair, .... you see where I am going :eek:
 
dLockers said:
I'm not sure it works with being white however, as you inadvertently associate yourself with yanks :p

Then we enter dangerous territory like being proud to be white, blonde hair, .... you see where I am going :eek:
Click to expand...

Hang on, they came from us!

But yeah, you're right, it always seems to end up back in that old direction ...
 
montymint said:
Being proud of your skin colour is like being proud you have size 7 feet, or small hands.

Meaningless.
Click to expand...
There's a lot of fairly meaningless pride around.

Take, for example:

"I'm so proud of my mum/brother/sister/friend!"

You hear this fairly often. Pride in something somebody else has done and the pride-bearer potentially had no influence over.

I'd suggest that's not altogether different from pride in your town/county/country. It's all basking in reflected glory :p

"I'm proud of our NHS."

What does that mean, exactly? I like the NHS. I'm grateful for the NHS. How can I be proud of it, tho?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom