There's been outrage amongst many people claiming the BBC pay ethnic minorities more then white people

[cakeorwine]

BBC report linked here

Pay gap report

And here's one of the tables that was used to justify the claim.

Telegraph report here. I've gifted it to you

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/bdb86271401b1980

So....what do you believe? Are the BBC paying ethnic minorities more?

Feel free to look at the links to make up your own mind.

I would be interested to know how confident you are in your belief and what do you think the main reason is for that level of confidence

The Telegraph thinks so

"The BBC pays white staff less on average than their ethnic minority colleagues in every pay band bar one, figures show.
Black, Asian, mixed and other ethnic minority employees received 13.2pc higher median pay than white workers in the corporation’s lowest pay band, and 5.3pc more in the highest pay band.
White employees’ median pay was higher – by 0.6pc – in just one out of seven pay scales. This is despite the BBC’s commitment to “fair, clear and competitive” pay."

I've also attached the top comments and a picture of The SImpsons for some reason......

The comments

"Imagine the outrage if it was the other way around 🙄"

"Yep, institutional racism is alive and well in the BBC!"

"This is racism pure and simple. I am appalled"

"Some animals are more equal than others"

"Of course it is. But like most things there are two tiers of legality in this country. There isnt a judge or tribunal anywhere that would convict in favour of white men."

"Two tier Britain is real. And it’s terrifying."

"Stop paying the Licence Fee.
Stop funding the enemy"

"I see it all the time. I love Escape To The Country but they always interview locals that are non British and it is obvious that they are making a point"

"So if you’re fat, trans, and black you’re on a winner"

"indeed all the white employees should take them to a tribunal ... where is their union when you actually need it?"

"The "Equality Act" is a misnomer. Being normal is not a protected characterstic."

Has there been outrage?

There are plenty of outragous news stories but I confess I haven't given this one a second thought.

Shed you yourself have started threads on divisive topics which could be interpreted as "rage bait". I know because I have engaged in them in good faith and I believe you are genuine but it's a little unfair to accuse other people of being trolls just because you think their choice of topic is controversial...

It's also quite clear that the OP is approaching from a nerdy (sorry) data analysis perspective not a wish to cause trouble. No offence meant OP.

If you read the right wing commentators on social media and in the right wing press. you will have read lots of outrage

Discrimination
Racism
Typical BBC
Another reason to cancel the Licence Fee

If you don't follow such stuff or consume that kind of media, you won't be aware of what's been said

It's not the first time I've been called that
My non data colleagues say I've got the most boring job but I've managed to make data exciting for them

I had to introduce myself at work so I did a 10 minute Power BI presentation on the Titanic and who was most likely and least likely to survive. Some interesting data. Most old female first class passengers survived bar one. She had an interesting story. And there were questions how a Third Class Male ended up in a lifeboat occupied by First class women.

My colleagues now love data

This is exactly the kind of thing More or Less likes.
And Matt Parker

Maths can absolutely lie. There's a whole branch of mathematics dedicated to lying. It's called Statistics.

This made me chuckle.

So much of my life is dedicated to making sure we are finding the truth with the data and math. Even with pure intention, it is easy to get it wrong. We see all the time studies that were considered well formed at the time that are redone with modern sensibilities and reach entirely different conclusions because they control for other factors.

I wish more people took statistics in school. I think it would improve worldwide literacy and elevate discussion considerably.

For reasons known unto me I was looking for survey data about GB News.

I found the data from an Opinion poll they had commissioned.

Most survey companies publish the actual data tables so you can check the survey

This company have done it as an image

Research: Public Perceptions of GB News and the Advertisers' Boycott - CT Group - trusted global consultancy for strategic success

I honestly can't understand why they have done it like this....unless they are trying to hide something

It's not maths. It is statistical data manipulated and presented in such a way as to prove whatever point they are trying to make, which is presumably to stir up righteous indignation among racists and/or influence the opinions of people with regard to the tv licence funding debate.

I've started 9 threads on here.

1 was reporting a user pretending to be from Reform who was sending private messsages to people

1 was about whether it was time to start asking councils to obey the law

1 was about a new Idaho law

1 was about one of my feral cats, who is fine by the way and back in good health.

1 was about the Puberty Blocker debate starting

1 was about Men who say they are women and the reasons for doing so

1 was about a leaked CASS interview

1 was about the 'Gender Incongruence' test they will use to decide whether to sterilise kids or not

And 1 was about S Whittle pretending that we all dreamt the Gender Wars.

Which was 'Rage Bait' exactly?

Also I'm just pointing out that people know stats are lies and if the aim is to make 'people who read this shit' out to be idiots, then the OP is the one 'reading this shit'.

And I've still seen ZERO rage about this apart from this thread and the OP Raging about it.

Well none of them.
But if the definition of rage bate is controversial/likely to spark debate then several on that list. Eg anything about trans issues will draw sensitive people with opposing views in. But so don't think you were trying to rage about. I don't think OP is either. Its a discussion about statistics

I'm glad your cat is OK.

I agree it would help but even people who "know" how statistics work can be mislead when you bring politics into itThere is a really interesting simple test they did on this. Veritasium did a video on it before the sold out to a Privare Equity Firm.

You said 'Shed you yourself have started threads on divisive topics which could be interpreted as "rage bait". I know because I have engaged in them in good faith and I believe you are genuine but it's a little unfair to accuse other people of being trolls just because you think their choice of topic is controversial...'

Ok so I haven't done that then. Good to know.

Can I check what you believe?
Is it your belief that the right wing media manipulated the data to prove a point and to stir up indignation?

Can I check your belief?
Do you believe that I started this thread to make people look like idiots?

Am I correct that is your belief?

If this is true, that ethnic minorities are being paid more than a white person doing the same job, you are happy with this racial discrimination, which is how it is described when the colours are reversed? Interesting that discrimination against white people is acceptable to some people.

I've seen that one.

I like the one from Matt Parker where he needs to explain to Fox viewers why Biden won when they counted votes

Can I check your belief? Do you believe that the BBC data shows ethnic minorities are being paid more than white people?

If so, what led you to that belief?

I've linked the report in the OP.

You are no Peter Boghossian are you!

It's ok. If you don't want to engage, it's ok with me

I think I've seen that.
The only thing to be a little wary of (not saying you think this) is the temptation to think "Americans" or "the other side" are so easily misled by statistics. Even well educated people who can see the statistical issues clearly when presented with info on something neutral like facecream let their bias affect how they interpret statistics on more contentious issues. On both sides of the debate (ie it's not just the pro-gun people it's the anti-gun people too). What is sinister is the extent to which news organisations like GB News will quite happily play into this but it's something that can affect anyone

Belief on this specific occasion, not necessarily. Cynical suspicion, yes. Let's face it, stirring up 'righteous' indignation to prove a point is hardly unknown amongst certain sections of the media.

Whilst you're on - "There's been outrage amongst many people" you say in your OP. Which people would they be, exactly?

@cakeorwine The penny's dropped. I must be getting rusty. 😂I've only dipped in and out of this thread so far, but I shall come back to it later and study the whole thing properly. I need something to do with my brain now I've retired...

BBC pays white staff less in almost every pay band Daily Telegraph

The BBC pays white staff less on average than their ethnic minority colleagues in every pay band bar one, figures show.
Black, Asian, mixed and other ethnic minority employees received 13.2pc higher median pay than white workers in the corporation’s lowest pay band, and 5.3pc more in the highest pay band.
White employees’ median pay was higher – by 0.6pc – in just one out of seven pay scales. This is despite the BBC’s commitment to “fair, clear and competitive” pay.

BBC pays white workers less than ethnic minority colleagues in almost every pay band | Daily Mail Online

The BBC pays white employees less than ethnic minority colleagues on average in most pay bands – but white staff are still paid more overall, figures show.
The corporation's pay gap report shows ethnic minorities were paid a median average of 13.2 per cent more in its lowest pay band.
And senior leaders from a Black, Asian or other ethnic minority background are paid 5.3 per cent more than their white counterparts.
White employees' median pay was higher by 0.6 per cent in just one pay band.
But the BBC's report states that across all employees, ethnic minority staff are still paid 0.7 per cent less than their white colleagues.
This is a reduction in the pay gap from 2 per cent the year before.

BBC pays white staff less in every pay band except one as staggering salary gap revealed (GB News)

BBC pays white staff less in every pay band except one as staggering salary gap revealed

The BBC pays white staff less than ethnic minorities in almost every band, the corporation's "pay gap" report has revealed.

The disparities range from 1.3 per cent to a striking 13.2 per cent in the broadcaster's lowest pay grade, where black, Asian, mixed and other minority ethnic staff received considerably higher median hourly pay.

Only one band - Band F - bucked the trend, with white workers earning a marginal 0.6 per cent more. Senior leaders from an ethnic background earn 5.3 per cent more than white workers.
The data emerges despite the BBC's stated commitment to remuneration that is "fair, clear and competitive," raising fresh questions about how the publicly funded broadcaster determines staff salaries across its workforce.

Fury as BBC pays white staff less as staggering salary gap revealed | UK | News | Express.co.uk

Fresh scrutiny for BBC as it pays white staff less with staggering salary gap revealed
Black, Asian, mixed and other ethnic minority employees received median pay 13.2% higher than white colleagues in the BBC's lowest pay band.

The BBC is facing fresh scrutiny over staff pay after figures revealed white employees have lower median salaries than ethnic minority colleagues across six of its seven pay bands. Black, Asian, mixed and other ethnic minority employees received median pay 13.2% higher than white colleagues in the BBC's lowest pay band. At the other end of the scale, ethnic minority workers in the highest band had median salaries 5.3% above their white counterparts.