Is it ok to be proud to be white?

stockhausen said:
The investigator helping coordinate the official inquiry into the Metropolitan police’s handling of the Sarah Everard vigil and concerns over women’s safety is suing the Home Office for sex discrimination over claims that he has been penalised for being a “white man”.

Matthew Parr is also currently suing the government for sex and race discrimination after learning a black female colleague was being paid more. (LINK)
Click to expand...

I'm actually considering cancelling my Guardian subscription after reading that earlier today.
 
Dirk Diggler said:
I'm actually considering cancelling my Guardian subscription after reading that earlier today.
Click to expand...
And move to the Daily Mail?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...000-white-male-limit-reputational-damage.html
A senior civil servant has accused the Government of seeking to avoid 'reputational damage' by paying a black female colleague £52,000 more than him.

Matthew Parr is suing the Home Office for sex and race discrimination after discovering he was earning less than his counterpart for doing the same job.

He claims that being a white man meant he was paid a £133,983 salary, plus £7,904 living allowance, while Wendy Williams took home £185,000.

Both are one of five HM Inspectors of Constabulary (HMIs) who act as watchdogs for the UK's police forces.

Mr Parr, a former rear admiral, was appointed in 2016 during Theresa May's tenure as Home Secretary when Whitehall was driving down the salaries of top officials.

An employment tribunal heard that at the time of Ms Williams' appointment 15 months earlier, the Treasury was also trying to reduce pay packets.

But it heard that mandarins agreed she would be paid the top £185,000 salary as awarding her less than existing HMIs could open the Government up to a discrimination challenge.

Mr Parr said in a witness statement: 'Documents disclosed by the Respondent make clear that Wendy Williams was paid the top of the band then in force, because of concern that to pay her less than her fellow HMIs presented the Government with a risk of legal challenge on the grounds of discrimination and of reputational damage.'

He claims his 'race and sex had a clear influence' on the decision to pay him the substantially less £133,983 when he came into post.

The Government denies sex and race discrimination and maintains that plans to lower salaries were always going to come into force regardless of the person who took the position.
Click to expand...
 
I don't feel proud of my ethnicity, but I am also not ashamed either. I'm just me and I happen to have been born white? People are people, the quicker we just treat each other based on being human rather than skin colour the better in my opinion. This constant reference to race is boring, from all sides, yes racists exist and let's challenge that together and tell them what a douche they are but come on it's 2021 let's move on and stop creating narratives that the majority are racist, because they just aren't. I also support banning derogatory words used by any ethnic group, I don't see how the N word can be legitimately used by one group but also cause so much offense when used by another. That word is repulsive to me, who ever states it. Just ban it. Like so many other derogatory words also used in other groups.
 
dirtychinchilla said:
Ironic that the woman was getting paid more in this case and the man was up in arms about it
Click to expand...
I'm not sure it's ironic.

This is exactly what "positive discrimination" leads to. Did you get the job because you're good, or because you help meet the quota...?

Did you get the top pay because you earned it, or because paying you less could open the doors to a discrimination claim?

This is the mess that positive discrimination and race/gender quotas gets you to.

Because this chap thinks he has evidence for positive discrimination, which apparently isn't legal over here (yet), he's now suing for being on the losing end of that discrimination.
 
JohnG7 said:
FTLOG do not type on you phone (I hope that is reason for above)!
Click to expand...

That gives me my answer. ;)


holy-wall-of-text-batman.jpg
 
FoxEye said:
I'm not sure it's ironic.

This is exactly what "positive discrimination" leads to. Did you get the job because you're good, or because you help meet the quota...?

Did you get the top pay because you earned it, or because paying you less could open the doors to a discrimination claim?

This is the mess that positive discrimination and race/gender quotas gets you to.

Because this chap thinks he has evidence for positive discrimination, which apparently isn't legal over here (yet), he's now suing for being on the losing end of that discrimination.
Click to expand...

I've taken a look at HMIC salaries (2017 is the latest available unfortunately).
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hmic-structure-and-salaries-2015
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hmic-structure-and-salaries-2016
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hmic-structure-and-salaries-2017

March 2015:

£195000 (staff cost is £0) - HMIC - Sir Tom Winsor
£185000 (staff cost is £1370000) - HMIC Eastern Region - Mike Cunningham
£185000 (staff cost is £1490000) - HMIC Northern Region - Zoe Billingham
£190000 (staff cost is £1680000) - HMIC National - Stephen Otter
£190000 (staff cost is £1390000) - HMIC Wales & Western Region - Drusilla Sharpling

September 2015:

£195000 (staff cost is £500000) - HMIC - Tom Winsor
£185000 (staff cost is £1080000) - HMIC Eastern Region - Mike Cunningham
£185000 (staff cost is £1380000) - HMIC Northern Region - Zoe Billingham
£190000 (staff cost is £1660000) - HMIC National - Stephen Otter
£190000 (staff cost is £0) - HMIC Wales & Western Region - Drusilla Sharpling

March 2016:

£200000 (staff cost is £0) - HMIC - Tom Winsor
£185000 (staff cost is £770552) - HMIC Eastern Region - Mike Cunningham
£185000 (staff cost is £591352) - HMIC Northern Region - Zoe Billingham
£190000 (staff cost is £590422) - HMIC National - Stephen Otter
£190000 (staff cost is £0) - HMIC Wales & Western Region - Drusilla Sharpling
£0 (staff cost is £727044) - HMIC Wales & Western Region - Wendy Williams

September 2016:

£195000 (staff cost is £0) - HMIC
£185000 (staff cost is £880000) - HMIC Eastern Region
£185000 (staff cost is £770000) - HMIC Northern Region
£140000 (staff cost is £560000) - HMIC National
£190000 (staff cost is £40000) - HMIC Wales & Western Region
£185000 (staff cost is £770000) - HMIC Wales & Western Region

March 2017:

£195000 (staff cost is £0) - HMIC - Tom Winsor
£185000 (staff cost is £1050000) - HMIC Eastern Region - Mike Cunningham
£185000 (staff cost is £820000) - HMIC Northern Region - Zoe Billingham
£140000 (staff cost is £670000) - HMIC National - Matt Parr
£190000 (staff cost is £40000) - HMIC Wales & Western Region - Drusilla Sharpling
£185000 (staff cost is £820000) - HMIC Wales & Western Region - Wendy Williams

September 2017:

£200000 (staff cost is £210000) - HMIC - Tom Winsor
£185000 (staff cost is £1060000) - HMIC Eastern Region - Mike Cunningham
£185000 (staff cost is £820000) - HMIC Northern Region - Zoe Billingham
£140000 (staff cost is £550000) - HMIC National - Matt Parr
£40000 (staff cost is £0) - HMIC Wales & Western Region - Drusilla Sharpling
£185000 (staff cost is £860000) - HMIC Wales & Western Region - Wendy Williams

Is it discriminatory? I suppose we'll find out.

Edit: Added staffing cost, pretty sure that is what is meant by "Salary Cost of Reports".
 
Last edited:
dirtychinchilla said:
Ironic that the woman was getting paid more in this case and the man was up in arms about it
Click to expand...

It's unacceptable that he should complain about it. It's clearly not sexism when a woman is being paid more than a man. That's positive action and progressive as women are a protected identity group. Males are already over privileged within our patriarchal society so don't deserve the right to be paid the same as a woman in the same role.

:)
 
Last edited:
There's certainly a subset of posters who are easily identifiable by only the threads they start or post in. I think I could probably name check some on this page, blind of author, just by what they complain about and the words they use.
 
FoxEye said:
I'm not sure it's ironic.

This is exactly what "positive discrimination" leads to. Did you get the job because you're good, or because you help meet the quota...?

Did you get the top pay because you earned it, or because paying you less could open the doors to a discrimination claim?

This is the mess that positive discrimination and race/gender quotas gets you to.

Because this chap thinks he has evidence for positive discrimination, which apparently isn't legal over here (yet), he's now suing for being on the losing end of that discrimination.
Click to expand...

silvagti said:
It's unacceptable that he should complain about it. It's clearly not sexism when a woman is being paid more than a man. That's positive action and progressive as women are a protected identity group. Males are already over privileged within our patriarchal society so don't deserve the right to be paid the same as a woman in the same role.

:)
Click to expand...

Perhaps it is positive discrimination. I, for one, am happy to see that this woman has been properly paid.
 
That is an interesting argument isn’t it. Black woman is automatically paid more (i.e. the top of the band) to avoid any claim of unfair discrimination. If true that would be a bit of a nonsense, but it depends on their internal banding policies I suppose. If she’s got the talent and the experience then fair enough.
 
SpeedFreak said:
Nobody in identical jobs should be on 40% more money in what is essentially the same company, male, female or other.
Click to expand...

It depends on who is better and convinces their boss to give them a raise. There are plenty of people in the workplace who get into positions by luck or are incredibly out of their depth. Many companies also offer better wages to external applicants to get them in compared to someone who has gone up through the business.
 
Nitefly said:
That is an interesting argument isn’t it. Black woman is automatically paid more (i.e. the top of the band) to avoid any claim of unfair discrimination. If true that would be a bit of a nonsense, but it depends on their internal banding policies I suppose. If she’s got the talent and the experience then fair enough.
Click to expand...

That's a question isn't it. Is it reasonable to pay someone more for the "same" job if they're more experienced, qualified and skilled than the other person doing that job?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom