Black Lives Matter and the American Protests

First topic message reminder :

Because this issue is seeping into other threads, why not talk about it here instead? I don't really have anything particularly pithy to say, so write your own bloody topic intros.

Give them a chance? They've appointed someone that has already stated their opinion openly on this matter before the investigation has begun. An opinion which, whether still held by her or not, clashes with those of the protesters, backs up those of the PM and therefore fundamentally undermines the entire process.

You don't think that undermines the credibility of the entire process? What bloody planet do you live on?

navyblueshorts wrote:

Samo wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:So the first piece of actual legislation to come from all of this looks like it'll protect statues and not human beings.

Good stuff.

The new commission to investigate racial inequalities in the UK is being headed up by Munira Mirza, a No 10 advisor who has never believed in institutional racism and has condemned past investigations as fostering a “culture of grievance”. Her first member appears to be Trevor Phillips, a man suspended by the Labour party for islamophobic comments.

Might aswell not bother.

For Heaven's sake, give them a chance. That's only two people, and both from BAME backgrounds.

Re. Phillips, this would be same man appointed by Blair as head of the Commission for Racial Equality? This would be same Labour Party that dealt so well w/ anti-Semitism?

If in doubt, deflect to Labours failings. And you have the cheek to criticise political discourse in this country.

Pr4wn wrote:Give them a chance? They've appointed someone that has already stated their opinion openly on this matter before the investigation has begun. An opinion which, whether still held by her or not, clashes with those of the protesters, backs up those of the PM and therefore fundamentally undermines the entire process.

You don't think that undermines the credibility of the entire process? What bloody planet do you live on?

You still need to see what happens re. any outcomes. They might surprise you. If they don't, well, you can say that you told me so.

Samo wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Samo wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:So the first piece of actual legislation to come from all of this looks like it'll protect statues and not human beings.

Good stuff.

The new commission to investigate racial inequalities in the UK is being headed up by Munira Mirza, a No 10 advisor who has never believed in institutional racism and has condemned past investigations as fostering a “culture of grievance”. Her first member appears to be Trevor Phillips, a man suspended by the Labour party for islamophobic comments.

Might aswell not bother.

For Heaven's sake, give them a chance. That's only two people, and both from BAME backgrounds.

Re. Phillips, this would be same man appointed by Blair as head of the Commission for Racial Equality? This would be same Labour Party that dealt so well w/ anti-Semitism?

If in doubt, deflect to Labours failings.  And you have the cheek to criticise political discourse in this country.

It's pertinent to mention Labour's alleged failings in this regard as it was stated that the very same Labour had expelled Phillips. In other words, I think it's pertinent to point out that they might not always get it right on these issues.

Why don't you engage w/ the other part of my remark. No? It's still a fact that a) they're both from BAME backgrounds and b) Phillips has plenty of experience that's undoubtedly directly relevant. You think they'll be the only two looking at these issues?

navyblueshorts wrote:

Samo wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Samo wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:So the first piece of actual legislation to come from all of this looks like it'll protect statues and not human beings.

Good stuff.

The new commission to investigate racial inequalities in the UK is being headed up by Munira Mirza, a No 10 advisor who has never believed in institutional racism and has condemned past investigations as fostering a “culture of grievance”. Her first member appears to be Trevor Phillips, a man suspended by the Labour party for islamophobic comments.

Might aswell not bother.

For Heaven's sake, give them a chance. That's only two people, and both from BAME backgrounds.

Re. Phillips, this would be same man appointed by Blair as head of the Commission for Racial Equality? This would be same Labour Party that dealt so well w/ anti-Semitism?

If in doubt, deflect to Labours failings.  And you have the cheek to criticise political discourse in this country.

It's pertinent to mention Labour's alleged failings in this regard as it was stated that the very same Labour had expelled Phillips. In other words, I think it's pertinent to point out that they might not always get it right on these issues.

Why don't you engage w/ the other part of my remark. No? It's still a fact that a) they're both from BAME backgrounds and b) Phillips has plenty of experience that's undoubtedly directly relevant. You think they'll be the only two looking at these issues?

A. The fact their both from BAME backgrounds is irrelevant to whether or not I think their character is up for the job, so forgive me if im not particularly excited about their roles. Asking someone who doesnt believe theres institutional racism to find evidence of institutional racism is like asking Richard Dawkins to find evidence of God.

B. Again, forgive me for thinking that someone who was suspended from a party for racist/bigoted comments isnt exactly the kind of person who should be looking into institutionalised racism. Sure he’s got experience in the role but he also has a shown bias which could affect his judgement.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:Give them a chance? They've appointed someone that has already stated their opinion openly on this matter before the investigation has begun. An opinion which, whether still held by her or not, clashes with those of the protesters, backs up those of the PM and therefore fundamentally undermines the entire process.

You don't think that undermines the credibility of the entire process? What bloody planet do you live on?

You still need to see what happens re. any outcomes. They might surprise you. If they don't, well, you can say that you told me so.

You're not addressing my point about the appointment of someone with outspoken views on this subject already undermining the process. Surely you can't think that this is a good idea.

For this to be a success, both sides need to be confident in the person leading it, obviously.

I don't care about tell you that I told you so. It's a rather strange thing for you to say, to be honest.

A few years back Phillips did a program on Channel 4 about race in the UK. I thought it was really good attempt at being honest about how it works as far as I can understand.

I'd also argue that the Labour party that expelled him was not the same party that was in government although they share the same name.

I will qualify this by saying I have not seen what he is accused of doing so I can't comment on the rightness or wrongness of it, and it could well have been justified.

The issues with Munira Mirza seem, complicated.

Samo wrote:
A. The fact their both from BAME backgrounds is irrelevant to whether or not I think their character is up for the job, so forgive me if im not particularly excited about their roles. Asking someone who doesnt believe theres institutional racism to find evidence of institutional racism is like asking Richard Dawkins to find evidence of God.

B. Again, forgive me for thinking that someone who was suspended from a party for racist/bigoted comments isnt exactly the kind of person who should be looking into institutionalised racism. Sure he’s got experience in the role but he also has a shown bias which could affect his judgement.

The commission's purpose and aim isn't a preordained one to find and expose institutionalised racism. It's to launch an investigation into racial inequalities and, after identifying them, highlight their possible causes and remedies. If institutionalised racism happens to be an identifiable cause, then by all means they can say so. You're not supposed to launch a commission such as this having decided beforehand what's going to be found. If no tangible evidence of institutionalised racism is found, should they fabricate it to appease people?

Have you read Mirza's explanations or reasons for her previous statements re: a lack of institutional racism, grievance culture etc.? I haven't, so I don't know how convincing they were / weren't, what base of evidence she drew upon and so on. She could well be mistaken and her logic might be shaky, but unless people have read it that's just guesswork. What about the other possibility - that maybe she was correct (or at least her claims were made in good faith and based on sound investigation) or that she possibly defines institutional racism differently to others etc.?

All that said, it does have a whiff of tokenism about it, with Johnson just wanting to look busy in the face of some unrest. Could well be an attempt at distraction or insincere appeasement. But if people support the commission it at least seems prudent to see what it turns up before declaring it dead in the water. And if it disagrees with your own take on matters, at least delve into why it does and see if it holds up to scrutiny. Very easy to just blithely dismiss something out of hand simply because it doesn't fit a narrative or match up with your line of thinking (and that's something all sides on any divide you wish to mention are guilty of).

Samo wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Samo wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Samo wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:So the first piece of actual legislation to come from all of this looks like it'll protect statues and not human beings.

Good stuff.

The new commission to investigate racial inequalities in the UK is being headed up by Munira Mirza, a No 10 advisor who has never believed in institutional racism and has condemned past investigations as fostering a “culture of grievance”. Her first member appears to be Trevor Phillips, a man suspended by the Labour party for islamophobic comments.

Might aswell not bother.

For Heaven's sake, give them a chance. That's only two people, and both from BAME backgrounds.

Re. Phillips, this would be same man appointed by Blair as head of the Commission for Racial Equality? This would be same Labour Party that dealt so well w/ anti-Semitism?

If in doubt, deflect to Labours failings.  And you have the cheek to criticise political discourse in this country.

It's pertinent to mention Labour's alleged failings in this regard as it was stated that the very same Labour had expelled Phillips. In other words, I think it's pertinent to point out that they might not always get it right on these issues.

Why don't you engage w/ the other part of my remark. No? It's still a fact that a) they're both from BAME backgrounds and b) Phillips has plenty of experience that's undoubtedly directly relevant. You think they'll be the only two looking at these issues?

A. The fact their both from BAME backgrounds is irrelevant to whether or not I think their character is up for the job, so forgive me if im not particularly excited about their roles. Asking someone who doesnt believe theres institutional racism to find evidence of institutional racism is like asking Richard Dawkins to find evidence of God.

B. Again, forgive me for thinking that someone who was suspended from a party for racist/bigoted comments isnt exactly the kind of person who should be looking into institutionalised racism. Sure he’s got experience in the role but he also has a shown bias which could affect his judgement.

Dawkins is a scientist. Despite his beliefs, I suspect if charged to do that, he'd try to do it w/o bias.

Everyone has bias and it cuts both ways. If we wanted people w/o bias to investigate stuff, it would never happen.

Pr4wn wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:Give them a chance? They've appointed someone that has already stated their opinion openly on this matter before the investigation has begun. An opinion which, whether still held by her or not, clashes with those of the protesters, backs up those of the PM and therefore fundamentally undermines the entire process.

You don't think that undermines the credibility of the entire process? What bloody planet do you live on?

You still need to see what happens re. any outcomes. They might surprise you. If they don't, well, you can say that you told me so.

You're not addressing my point about the appointment of someone with outspoken views on this subject already undermining the process. Surely you can't think that this is a good idea.

For this to be a success, both sides need to be confident in the person leading it, obviously.

I don't care about tell you that I told you so. It's a rather strange thing for you to say, to be honest.

Yeah, maybe. They still might surprise you. I'm a bit bored of people thinking they know everything about anyone based on the odd comment they make, taken at face value. Agree, however, that it's probably easier to start w/o any claims of obvious bias, but they'll likely never get started.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Samo wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Samo wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Samo wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:So the first piece of actual legislation to come from all of this looks like it'll protect statues and not human beings.

Good stuff.

The new commission to investigate racial inequalities in the UK is being headed up by Munira Mirza, a No 10 advisor who has never believed in institutional racism and has condemned past investigations as fostering a “culture of grievance”. Her first member appears to be Trevor Phillips, a man suspended by the Labour party for islamophobic comments.

Might aswell not bother.

For Heaven's sake, give them a chance. That's only two people, and both from BAME backgrounds.

Re. Phillips, this would be same man appointed by Blair as head of the Commission for Racial Equality? This would be same Labour Party that dealt so well w/ anti-Semitism?

If in doubt, deflect to Labours failings.  And you have the cheek to criticise political discourse in this country.

It's pertinent to mention Labour's alleged failings in this regard as it was stated that the very same Labour had expelled Phillips. In other words, I think it's pertinent to point out that they might not always get it right on these issues.

Why don't you engage w/ the other part of my remark. No? It's still a fact that a) they're both from BAME backgrounds and b) Phillips has plenty of experience that's undoubtedly directly relevant. You think they'll be the only two looking at these issues?

A. The fact their both from BAME backgrounds is irrelevant to whether or not I think their character is up for the job, so forgive me if im not particularly excited about their roles. Asking someone who doesnt believe theres institutional racism to find evidence of institutional racism is like asking Richard Dawkins to find evidence of God.

B. Again, forgive me for thinking that someone who was suspended from a party for racist/bigoted comments isnt exactly the kind of person who should be looking into institutionalised racism. Sure he’s got experience in the role but he also has a shown bias which could affect his judgement.

Dawkins is a scientist. Despite his beliefs, I suspect if charged to do that, he'd try to do it w/o bias.

Everyone has bias and it cuts both ways. If we wanted people w/o bias to investigate stuff, it would never happen.

But wouldnt you rather have someone with a bias towards the thing being investigated? I’d rather things that werent institutional racism be highlighted as such before being discussed and dismissed than potential examples being ignored because the investigators dont see any merit in it.

Samo wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Samo wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Samo wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Samo wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:So the first piece of actual legislation to come from all of this looks like it'll protect statues and not human beings.

Good stuff.

The new commission to investigate racial inequalities in the UK is being headed up by Munira Mirza, a No 10 advisor who has never believed in institutional racism and has condemned past investigations as fostering a “culture of grievance”. Her first member appears to be Trevor Phillips, a man suspended by the Labour party for islamophobic comments.

Might aswell not bother.

For Heaven's sake, give them a chance. That's only two people, and both from BAME backgrounds.

Re. Phillips, this would be same man appointed by Blair as head of the Commission for Racial Equality? This would be same Labour Party that dealt so well w/ anti-Semitism?

If in doubt, deflect to Labours failings.  And you have the cheek to criticise political discourse in this country.

It's pertinent to mention Labour's alleged failings in this regard as it was stated that the very same Labour had expelled Phillips. In other words, I think it's pertinent to point out that they might not always get it right on these issues.

Why don't you engage w/ the other part of my remark. No? It's still a fact that a) they're both from BAME backgrounds and b) Phillips has plenty of experience that's undoubtedly directly relevant. You think they'll be the only two looking at these issues?

A. The fact their both from BAME backgrounds is irrelevant to whether or not I think their character is up for the job, so forgive me if im not particularly excited about their roles. Asking someone who doesnt believe theres institutional racism to find evidence of institutional racism is like asking Richard Dawkins to find evidence of God.

B. Again, forgive me for thinking that someone who was suspended from a party for racist/bigoted comments isnt exactly the kind of person who should be looking into institutionalised racism. Sure he’s got experience in the role but he also has a shown bias which could affect his judgement.

Dawkins is a scientist. Despite his beliefs, I suspect if charged to do that, he'd try to do it w/o bias.

Everyone has bias and it cuts both ways. If we wanted people w/o bias to investigate stuff, it would never happen.

But wouldnt you rather have someone with a bias towards the thing being investigated? I’d rather things that werent institutional racism be highlighted as such before being discussed and dismissed than potential examples being ignored because the investigators dont see any merit in it.

Possibly. Maybe it already has, and nothing untoward discovered. I don't know.

One other thing about committees/commissions etc, which 88Chris05 already touched on - does anyone really think it's a good idea to have a committee etc populated by people who all have the same point of view or who can't/won't ask awkward questions for fear of upsetting someone? All inquiries need those that are so-called 'nay sayers' or contrarians. Just because someone is willing to countenance/say something that might 'offend' someone, does that really mean we shouldn't allow those people to be a part of any discussion on an issue? You might simply end up with an outcome that's received wisdom. All a bit too much like much of today's social media - shout down anyone disagreeing w/ what a majority are saying.

Important, but difficult stuff. I wouldn't want to be on any such Commission - all you'd get is the righteous shouting/insulting/threatening if/when you did/said anything that didn't agree w/ their pre-formed point of view.

On a subject as sensitive as racism, do you really think it's a good idea to have the entire investigation fronted by someone who has so openly conveyed the views that Mirza has?

Pr4wn wrote:On a subject as sensitive as racism, do you really think it's a good idea to have the entire investigation fronted by someone who has so openly conveyed the views that Mirza has?

And yet people such as Sajid Javed says she's deeply committed to social justice. Which is it? She's one person on what, I imagine, will be a fairly large Commission.

I've just spent far more time than I should have, reading some of what she's written (Spectator, Sp!ked etc) and, to be honest, having done so, I'm even less convinced by those saying she shouldn't be involved.
She's spiky, in-your-face and appears to be happy to think/say things others won't and that they don't agree with. That appears to mean she must therefore be in the wrong. From what I can see/read, she isn't racist. She does, however, say things that too many dislike, but that's neither a crime nor something that should bar her from this role. There's a danger here, that some like her (and Priti Patel, for all I don't like her) might be being cast as not quite the right sort of BAME person to be really BAME. How dare they not tow the line and say it as it so clearly is?

And like courtney lawes and Javid. The view that they made it and so institutional racism doesnt exist. It's not isolated to people of colour theres a fair few successful people who hate to acknowledge either luck or privilege in getting to where they have. In this case there are already reports available: enact their recommendations first as this will simply white wash out for want of a more appropriate term.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:On a subject as sensitive as racism, do you really think it's a good idea to have the entire investigation fronted by someone who has so openly conveyed the views that Mirza has?

And yet people such as Sajid Javed says she's deeply committed to social justice. Which is it? She's one person on what, I imagine, will be a fairly large Commission.

I've just spent far more time than I should have, reading some of what she's written (Spectator, Sp!ked etc) and, to be honest, having done so, I'm even less convinced by those saying she shouldn't be involved.
She's spiky, in-your-face and appears to be happy to think/say things others won't and that they don't agree with. That appears to mean she must therefore be in the wrong. From what I can see/read, she isn't racist. She does, however, say things that too many dislike, but that's neither a crime nor something that should bar her from this role. There's a danger here, that some like her (and Priti Patel, for all I don't like her) might be being cast as not quite the right sort of BAME person to be really BAME. How dare they not tow the line and say it as it so clearly is?

So you're comparing something that she has actually, publicly said with something that someone within the government says about her.

And you complain about the lack of critical thinking in political debate.

As for your last paragraph, what this investigate clearly needs is someone that hasn't already made their mind up. Or at least someone who hasn't publicly expressed any strong opinions on this matter. Choosing anything else strongly risks undermining the entire investigation before it gets off the ground. How is that not obvious to you?

Pr4wn wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:On a subject as sensitive as racism, do you really think it's a good idea to have the entire investigation fronted by someone who has so openly conveyed the views that Mirza has?

And yet people such as Sajid Javed says she's deeply committed to social justice. Which is it? She's one person on what, I imagine, will be a fairly large Commission.

I've just spent far more time than I should have, reading some of what she's written (Spectator, Sp!ked etc) and, to be honest, having done so, I'm even less convinced by those saying she shouldn't be involved.
She's spiky, in-your-face and appears to be happy to think/say things others won't and that they don't agree with. That appears to mean she must therefore be in the wrong. From what I can see/read, she isn't racist. She does, however, say things that too many dislike, but that's neither a crime nor something that should bar her from this role. There's a danger here, that some like her (and Priti Patel, for all I don't like her) might be being cast as not quite the right sort of BAME person to be really BAME. How dare they not tow the line and say it as it so clearly is?

So you're comparing something that she has actually, publicly said with something that someone within the government says about her.

And you complain about the lack of critical thinking in political debate.

As for your last paragraph, what this investigate clearly needs is someone that hasn't already made their mind up. Or at least someone who hasn't publicly expressed any strong opinions on this matter. Choosing anything else strongly risks undermining the entire investigation before it gets off the ground. How is that not obvious to you?

What, exactly, has she said? I just told you I read her actual words; whole articles, not out of context quotes to fit some political agenda of those that don't like her. I can see why it would annoy those who have already decided on what's 'right', but so what?

As to Javid, of course I know he's in the Government and might flavour what he says through that prism.

You'd rather those that have already made up their mind (you're assuming she has) the other way round as that makes better sense? Okkkk...

We clearly don't agree on this, so let's agree to differ and move on?

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:On a subject as sensitive as racism, do you really think it's a good idea to have the entire investigation fronted by someone who has so openly conveyed the views that Mirza has?

And yet people such as Sajid Javed says she's deeply committed to social justice. Which is it? She's one person on what, I imagine, will be a fairly large Commission.

I've just spent far more time than I should have, reading some of what she's written (Spectator, Sp!ked etc) and, to be honest, having done so, I'm even less convinced by those saying she shouldn't be involved.
She's spiky, in-your-face and appears to be happy to think/say things others won't and that they don't agree with. That appears to mean she must therefore be in the wrong. From what I can see/read, she isn't racist. She does, however, say things that too many dislike, but that's neither a crime nor something that should bar her from this role. There's a danger here, that some like her (and Priti Patel, for all I don't like her) might be being cast as not quite the right sort of BAME person to be really BAME. How dare they not tow the line and say it as it so clearly is?

So you're comparing something that she has actually, publicly said with something that someone within the government says about her.

And you complain about the lack of critical thinking in political debate.

As for your last paragraph, what this investigate clearly needs is someone that hasn't already made their mind up. Or at least someone who hasn't publicly expressed any strong opinions on this matter. Choosing anything else strongly risks undermining the entire investigation before it gets off the ground. How is that not obvious to you?

What, exactly, has she said? I just told you I read her actual words; whole articles, not out of context quotes to fit some political agenda of those that don't like her. I can see why it would annoy those who have already decided on what's 'right', but so what?

As to Javid, of course I know he's in the Government and might flavour what he says through that prism.

You'd rather those that have already made up their mind (you're assuming she has) the other way round as that makes better sense? Okkkk...

We clearly don't agree on this, so let's agree to differ and move on?

No, of course not. I never suggested that. You appear to have just made that up.

Pr4wn wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:On a subject as sensitive as racism, do you really think it's a good idea to have the entire investigation fronted by someone who has so openly conveyed the views that Mirza has?

And yet people such as Sajid Javed says she's deeply committed to social justice. Which is it? She's one person on what, I imagine, will be a fairly large Commission.

I've just spent far more time than I should have, reading some of what she's written (Spectator, Sp!ked etc) and, to be honest, having done so, I'm even less convinced by those saying she shouldn't be involved.
She's spiky, in-your-face and appears to be happy to think/say things others won't and that they don't agree with. That appears to mean she must therefore be in the wrong. From what I can see/read, she isn't racist. She does, however, say things that too many dislike, but that's neither a crime nor something that should bar her from this role. There's a danger here, that some like her (and Priti Patel, for all I don't like her) might be being cast as not quite the right sort of BAME person to be really BAME. How dare they not tow the line and say it as it so clearly is?

So you're comparing something that she has actually, publicly said with something that someone within the government says about her.

And you complain about the lack of critical thinking in political debate.

As for your last paragraph, what this investigate clearly needs is someone that hasn't already made their mind up. Or at least someone who hasn't publicly expressed any strong opinions on this matter. Choosing anything else strongly risks undermining the entire investigation before it gets off the ground. How is that not obvious to you?

What, exactly, has she said? I just told you I read her actual words; whole articles, not out of context quotes to fit some political agenda of those that don't like her. I can see why it would annoy those who have already decided on what's 'right', but so what?

As to Javid, of course I know he's in the Government and might flavour what he says through that prism.

You'd rather those that have already made up their mind (you're assuming she has) the other way round as that makes better sense? Okkkk...

We clearly don't agree on this, so let's agree to differ and move on?

No, of course not. I never suggested that. You appear to have just made that up.

You could say I made that assumption, yes, but I did at least use a '?'. However, isn't that a bit like your assumption that Mirza has already made her mind up:

Prawn wrote:...what this investigate clearly needs is someone that hasn't already made their mind up.

Hmm?

Just read some of this scheisse: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/theresa-may-s-phoney-race-war-is-dangerous-and-divisive

The Institution of Race Relations had this to say:

“Any enquiry into inequality has to acknowledge structural and systemic factors. Munira Mirza’s previous comments describe a ‘grievance culture’ within the anti-racist field and she has previously argued that institutional racism is ‘a perception more than a reality’,” a spokesperson said. “It is difficult to have any confidence in policy recommendations from someone who denies the existence of the very structures that produce the social inequalities experienced by black communities.”

This is what matters. What you or I think doesn't matter at all. What Boris Johnson thinks doesn't even matter. It's what minorities think. If someone is chosen to head up this enquiry and is seen as being anything less than completely impartial, the very people who are feeling this grievance - which you nor I can completely comprehend (I'm assuming you're white) - will feel that this will be a whitewash.

Pr4wn wrote:Just read some of this scheisse: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/theresa-may-s-phoney-race-war-is-dangerous-and-divisive

The Institution of Race Relations had this to say:

“Any enquiry into inequality has to acknowledge structural and systemic factors. Munira Mirza’s previous comments describe a ‘grievance culture’ within the anti-racist field and she has previously argued that institutional racism is ‘a perception more than a reality’,” a spokesperson said. “It is difficult to have any confidence in policy recommendations from someone who denies the existence of the very structures that produce the social inequalities experienced by black communities.”

This is what matters. What you or I think doesn't matter at all. What Boris Johnson thinks doesn't even matter. It's what minorities think. If someone is chosen to head up this enquiry and is seen as being anything less than completely impartial, the very people who are feeling this grievance - which you nor I can completely comprehend (I'm assuming you're white) - will feel that this will be a whitewash.

Yep. I don't really dispute this as, sadly, that's the undoubted reality. However, I don't think that people should be afraid of someone who says things they don't necessarily agree with, and I certainly don't think very much is gained by simply enacting something because of some perceived wisdom or is remotely sensible, but then again, this is the UK. All too often too much about perception and focus polls.

For the record, I am indeed 'white'. I guess you could call me middle-class too. I can't understand what many BAME people have had to deal with; I wouldn't pretend to. However, I don't think any 'popular' solution is good in the long term, if it's at the expense of, or isn't the same as, the 'right' solution.

What I hope (but doubt will happen) is that as part of this specific issue, it triggers a wider debate, and resulting actions, on inequality across the board.