Owsblog II: ethnic

Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta ethnic. Mostrar todas las entradas

jueves, 1 de diciembre de 2022

Overcrowding or overreacting III: observing oncoming oneirodynia...

...we've been here before. Do [Are] my visions of future nightmares akin to The Camp of the Saints [PDF book link] overegging the pudding? Well, is anyone surprised about the newly released ONS data on ethic groups in England and Wales? Bear in mind this is the actual divulged information given to census representatives or filled out on the forms/online; I am sure it is all 100% accurate and the reality, no extras hiding, no unknowns** {sarc off}.

Census 2021 info is finally coming out...yes, 'finally': in case you hadn't noticed we are 30 days from 2023...why the delay? One snippet [in London] "36.8% of people identified as “White: English, Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish or British” in 2021 – down from 44.9% in 2011."...under 37%, that isn't very high is it, even for a 'metropolis'?

More: "As part of the 'White' ethnic group, 74.4% of the population in England and Wales identified their ethnic group as 'English, Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish or British'".

87.5% in 2001
80.5% in 2011
74.4% in 2021

This isn't prejudice; it isn't racist and now it isn't a conspiracy theory either. Yet another one becoming fact; think that's 25-nil now.

** And we also know that anything up to a million or more are unknown, that is confirmed by government personnel, and the current polemic of the English Channel taxi/RN/RNLI people-trafficking service is a trickle in comparison. Hence weak politicians cries for an amnesty etc (to stop/hide the headache).

viernes, 20 de noviembre de 2020

Obvious out-of overspend

POTUS election 2020. "Fundraising by federal candidates: In previous presidential election cycles before the 2020 election, fundraising by Democrats and Republicans remained relatively even." From The Center for Responsive Politics (Open Secrets.org)

But the main image seen above - from the article - is only one of the amazing changes: look at the out-of-state donors to state-level candidates (donations of money coming in from a different state) and the Democrats have a 75% to 25% 'lead' (currently). This is clearly the ultra wealthy living in the Clinton Archipelago* trying to buy out the fly-over states/rust belt voters. I have personal anecdotes from colleagues and family in two of those states where the overt overspend was blatant and in both cases the Democrats still lost: they hadn't banked on an overwhelming turnout for Trump. Just as well then that the small donor portion of the overall also increased:

"Candidates for Congress and the presidency raised a combined $1.8 billion from small donors in the record-breaking 2020 election cycle. That's three times the 2016 total."

...with 45 percent of donations recieved for incumbent POTUS Donald Trump's coming from said voters giving USD200 of less. This is the best small-dollar showing for a Republican presidential candidate.

In other snippets: [The Guardian] "That is, in a year when a black woman was on a major party ticket for the first time in US history, the margin between Democrats and Republicans among black women shifted 9 percentage points in the other direction – towards Trump."

Trump saw comparable gains with Black and Hispanic men as well. What changed in the racial and gender dynamics this cycle to produce these apparently extraordinary results? The truth is, absolutely nothing. These trends have been underway for the entirety of Trump’s public life.

Also, if Biden is actually certified - no, no, I mean the VOTE - it would mean that no fewer than ten bellwether counties lost their record: [including] Valencia County in NM and Vigo County IN, whose winning streaks go back to 1952 and 1956 respectively.

[added p.m.] Also, just looking at these totals provokes so many questions.

* I looked back when I mentioned this in 2016 and was interested to see the date: that DJT had only recently been certified...3rd week of December 2016.

Update from 23rd Nov, 5 More Ways Joe Biden Magically Outperformed Election Norms

Obvious out-of overspend

"Candidates for Congress and the presidency raised a combined $1.8 billion from small donors in the record-breaking 2020 election cycle. That's three times the 2016 total."

Trump saw comparable gains with Black and Hispanic men as well. What changed in the racial and gender dynamics this cycle to produce these apparently extraordinary results? The truth is, absolutely nothing. These trends have been underway for the entirety of Trump’s public life.

[added p.m.] Also, just looking at these totals provokes so many questions.

* I looked back when I mentioned this in 2016 and was interested to see the date: that DJT had only recently been certified...3rd week of December 2016.

Update from 23rd Nov, 5 More Ways Joe Biden Magically Outperformed Election Norms

viernes, 30 de marzo de 2018

Opaque or obvious observations...

Reading Alasdair Palmer's article "The stop and search race myth" in The Spectator earlier this week a number of points came as no surprise (Theresa May, the then Home Secretary, wanted to look good with black voters, special advisers editing out important info, SJWs critical of the police’s racist use of stop and search, the stats showing many times more likely to be stopped and searched if you were a member of an ethnic minority etc.) but at least one point was a surprise (although obvious when considering the title of the article!): it has actually been shown that it really is a myth. Palmer names - but doesn't link to - THIS report, by P.A.J. Waddington and others: 'In Proportion: Race, and Police Stop and Search'...but this doesn't stop politicians pedalling lies.

It has long been obvious to everyone - EVERYONE - except lefty liberal dimwits, lying politicians, IYIs, guilty or blinkered BAME etc., that stop and search is always going to be bias against the profile of those committing the crime. Why stop ginger grannies when 'a big black dude' was the assailant? That said, on those grounds alone, all the innocent big black dudes would get pissed off if they kept getting stopped and searched. Looking at the image to the above, you'd think, hey, that's racist: indeed, in some years it was 6 or 7 times more likely to get stopped if you were black. That image is Fig 3 on page 8 of THIS Police Federation report from 2012; nearly a decade old data but things haven't changed that much overall.

HOWEVER, this supposed race bias is countered and proven false when one considers (a) WHEN the searches are done and (b) WHERE the searches are done e.g. from Palmer:

"[The team of Home Office researchers]... discovered that when you looked at who was available to be stopped and searched when the police were actually stopping and searching on the streets, the ethnic bias disappeared. In fact, the police stopped slightly more white people than they should have done if you looked solely at their proportion of the street population."

Oops. Somewhat supporting this IMHO is a more recent report from 2015: 'Stop and Search: Exploring Disproportionality' where in Leicestershire the perceived (by the police officers) ethnicity was of those stopped was 68% White European, 19% Asian, 10% African Caribbean etc., (Self‐reported ethnicity had high agreement with officer perceived ethnicity). i.e. represents what's there in front of them, not police racial bias.

This is reminiscent of Overt omissions, obvious outrage: the lies surrounding the stats re police killing blacks in the USA where the numbers are skewed: "These disparities mean that virtually every time the police in New York are called out on a gun run—meaning that someone has just been shot—they are being summoned to minority neighborhoods looking for minority suspects."

Opaque or obvious observations...

Reading Alasdair Palmer's article "The stop and search race myth" in The Spectator earlier this week a number of points came as no surprise (Theresa May, the then Home Secretary, wanted to look good with black voters, special advisers editing out important info, SJWs critical of the police’s racist use of stop and search, the stats showing many times more likely to be stopped and searched if you were a member of an ethnic minority etc.) but at least one point was a surprise (although obvious when considering the title of the article!): it has actually been shown that it really is a myth. Palmer names - but doesn't link to - THIS report, by P.A.J. Waddington and others: 'In Proportion: Race, and Police Stop and Search'...but this doesn't stop politicians pedalling lies.

It has long been obvious to everyone - EVERYONE - except lefty liberal dimwits, lying politicians, IYIs, guilty or blinkered BAME etc., that stop and search is always going to be bias against the profile of those committing the crime. Why stop ginger grannies when 'a big black dude' was the assailant? That said, on those grounds alone, all the innocent big black dudes would get pissed off if they kept getting stopped and searched. Looking at the image to the above, you'd think, hey, that's racist: indeed, in some years it was 6 or 7 times more likely to get stopped if you were black. That image is Fig 3 on page 8 of THIS Police Federation report from 2012; nearly a decade old data but things haven't changed that much overall. HOWEVER, this supposed race bias is countered and proven false when one considers (a) WHEN the searches are done and (b) WHERE the searches are done e.g. from Palmer:

"[The team of Home Office researchers]... discovered that when you looked at who was available to be stopped and searched when the police were actually stopping and searching on the streets, the ethnic bias disappeared. In fact, the police stopped slightly more white people than they should have done if you looked solely at their proportion of the street population."

viernes, 14 de julio de 2017

Oncoming oneirodynia osmesis...

"An extra 68,000 teachers from black and minority ethnic (BME) backgrounds need to be recruited to reflect England's school population, figures show. Just 13% of state-funded schools' teachers are currently from a BME background..." the BBC tells us. Now you may think 13% sounds about right, you may recall the consensus/ONS [Link] saying that England & Wales ethnicity has fallen to 86% (it was 94%+ in 1991) ...sooo, 14% non white pretty much equates to the numbers within the teacher ranks: 13%. However, the BBC goes on to say (finishing the sentence) "...compared to 27% of pupils." Let that sink in, that last bit: 27% of pupils in England's state school population are from black or minority ethic backgrounds. 27%! WTF? Of course that is the average; looking at the image you'll see it can reach 90% in some areas.