... to wonder why some people think there's no white privilege?

[IAmAnAlienHumansfrightenme]

Of course there is. Why do people correlate white privilege with economic opportunities and financial status?

Privilege is the same thing as 'Advantage'.

A white person is generally more privileged (at an advantage) than a black person and or person of ethnic minority.

A poor white person is generally more privileged (at an advantage) than a poor black/BAME person.

A rich white person is generally more privileged (at an advantage) than a rich black/BAME person.

A white person with disabilities or poor mental health is generally more privileged (at an advantage) than a BAME person with the same condition.

Having white privilege doesn't mean you have no other problems in life neither does it mean you're financially comfortable, it means your skin colour isn't one of your problems. It's not something you're conscious of.

My answer is this is why I've written "generally". Meaning, generally speaking a white person doesn't have to think about their whiteness in the world. Yes there are exceptions to every rule. You may be one...just like not every black person experiences (overt) racism but the majority do.

White privilege is similar to:

Male privilege. A man is generally more privileged (at an advantage) than a woman in many ways. It's a man's world for now.

Able-bodied privilege. An able bodied person is more privileged (at an advantage) than a person with a disability. It's an able bodied person's world (for now).

Financial privilege. A rich person is more privileged (at an advantage) than a poor person. It's a rich person's world (for now).

Extrovert privilege. An extrovert is generally more privileged (at an advantage in society) than an Introvert. It's an extrovert's world.

Those with privilege just means society caters much more to them and others are trying to be heard or noticed as equals or gain the understanding, acceptance, provisions, etc that those privileged in their category have.
Some who are underprivileged (in whatever category) can and do face serious issues with safety, violence, etc.

A person can be both financially privileged and underprivileged as a woman or a BAME person. A person can have white privilege and also be underprivileged as a person with disabilities. There's plenty of privileges and lack of to go round.

When people say "I can't have white privilege because I've never noticed being treated differently"...that's the point. A privileged person almost never notices that advantage till they face the opposite disadvantage. Ever heard of a person born rich never realising how privileged they were till they faced hardship or witnessed other people's financial hardship? Or rich people sending their children to poorer places so they can experience a different lifestyle and value their privilege?

Sometimes, knowing that others are suffering is different from empathising with/feeling the effects of their suffering. The latter is what gets you to understand and accept the privilege you have.

Oh and lastly (a different point), being underprivileged in one or more areas doesn't automatically make you a good person. There are good and bad people in every category.

I've deliberately not mentioned my race, sex, ability, etc because it doesn't matter, my argument stands regardless.

What do you think?

@Hearhoovesthinkzebras just to further my point. If we look at education outcomes girls do better than boys. Does that mean sexism doesn’t exist?

Understanding axes of privilege and that we're both lacking in financial privilege, is what will help us form a political coalition. Understanding that there may differences in some of the challenges we'll face while doing so, should increase our effectiveness as allies.

Race is a divider of class solidarity and always has been. In fact it's one of the reasons the idea of "whiteness" and "blackness" was promoted and institutionalised in the early American period - to prevent the coalition of slaves of African and European origin from together challenging the power of the elite as happened in Haiti.
Divide the underclass and tell one they are slightly better than the other, and nice for them they now have the "privilege" of even less substantial ability to influence events. And expect them to thank you for your generosity in saying they aren't enslaved permanently however unlikely it is they will ever be anything other than poor.

There is a reason uber-capitalist groups like The Democratic Party love identity politics, because they put the focus on race. So long as the poor and the rich reflect the demographics of the nation, it must be a just society.

Or you could look at it like this - empirically, in the UK, or the US, how well has identity politics managed to bring together the interests of poor whites and poor non-whites? It's been pretty spectacularly unsuccessful, and there has even been an increase in certain types of extreme race-nationalism.

@Hearhoovesthinkzebras

I don’t disagree with your last statement. I disagree that race isn’t a factor as well. It is a factor, just because white WC boys have the worse outcomes does not disprove that race isn’t a factor

How is it a factor though? If black children are achieving at or greater than expected outcomes in what way is race affecting them?

They aren’t achieving at or greater than expected outcomes. Have you looked at these stats you are bandying around. Lower than average progress was associated with White boys on FSM and not, Black African boys on FSM, all Mixed race boys on FSM, White British girls on FSM, all sections of Irish Traveller, all Black Caribbean children except girls not eligible for FSM etc.

Their race affects how people treat them, everyday. A PP just stated people disbelieve she has a PhD based on her accent and you want to believe that people aren’t treated unfavourably due to the colour of their skin?

[quote SoVeryLost]@Hearhoovesthinkzebras just to further my point. If we look at education outcomes girls do better than boys. Does that mean sexism doesn’t exist?[/quote]
It means in schools that for whatever reason girls have the advantage over boys and is something we should look at.

Would we be saying that in society sexism exists and so in schools we will give more help to girls, even though they already do better than boys in school?

That doesn't make sense to me. I'd be wanting to look at what happens after school to see what could be done to address sexism in the places that it's happening.

Isn't this part of the problem of insisting that focus is concentrated on just one area of discrimination? There are many inequalities that affect different people at different times, or even different inequalities that affect the same person at different times - surely if society pours all of its efforts and resources into tackling one specific form then it ignores all of the others too?

It seems particularly obvious to me that when we are talking about BLM it's heavily skewed towards black men isn't it?

@LonginesPrime

I know I am not being racist when I enquire and show interest in someone's life, yet because the definition has expanded so much, I would be put in that box

Right, but that's where an awareness of white privilege is useful, non?

You don't mean anything offensive by asking someone where they're originally from, and you wouldn't mind if someone asked you where you were originally from.

But can you see how someone being on the receiving end of that question who's had to put up with being told to go back to their own country, being asked 'yes, Manchester, but where are you really from? Like where are your parents from?' and has been identified as 'other' in one way or another for the whole of their life, might have a different perspective? They might not see it as such an innocuous question.

Although you don't mean it in a nasty way and are actually trying to show an interest, can you see how it sounds very similar to what someone who wants to subtly remind someone that they don't belong might say?

But that is my point.

Expanding the definition of white privilege into these areas just doesn't seem to me to be a great way to promote cohesion

Conversation is the only tool we have to make our way through these issues and I'm not sure that if you put all sorts of conditions on these conversations that it will ultimately help people

I am very aware that asking someone where they are from can be seen as offensive, so am unlikely to now do it. Do you think that helps?

@Hearhoovesthinkzebras

I don’t disagree with your last statement. I disagree that race isn’t a factor as well. It is a factor, just because white WC boys have the worse outcomes does not disprove that race isn’t a factor

How is it a factor though? If black children are achieving at or greater than expected outcomes in what way is race affecting them?

But making the least progress and being the most disadvantaged are two completely separate things. As the poster above said. Girls outperform boys in schools but that doesn’t mean sexism doesn’t exist.

It's funny how people who are perfectly able to recognise the importance of acknowledging sex, because so much oppression is carried out on the basis of sex, are suddenly unable to recognise that oppression is carried out on the basis of race.

After all, as long as people who are not the target of racism, politely ignore race, then racism will go away.

[quote SoVeryLost]**@hamstersarse* I will be totally honest and say that the BLM movement makes me walk on egg shells now, for fear of being called a racist. An example would be, I meet a BAME person who has a non-British accent, I am curious and interested to know about their life (not because of anything other than interest in human stories), yet apparently I could be accused of being racist if I ask about their origins. *
Then you aren’t listening. Everyone I know who complains about being asked where are they really from was born in the UK. Has an accent from a region of the UK yet is asked where are you from “x town in the UK” no where are you really from. There is a glaringly big difference between asking a person from the UK where they are really from and asking someone with an accent where their accent hails from.[/quote]
Am I really not listening?

The fact I wouldn't now have that conversation means I have listened and heard that it can be offensive.

But does that further the cause for BAME people?

I personally don't think it does.

So I complied and listened, and the outcome we have got is that 2 people are limited in conversation.

@LonginesPrime

People talk about stop and search but the policy was changed wasn't it, certainly in London

The policy might have changed but racial profiling still happens in practice. It's still a problem for black people. But many white people obviously wouldn't be aware as they're not stopped for being black.

How are issues such as gangs, knife crimes, absent fathers caused by white privilege?

They're not caused by white privilege - they result from a complex range of factors that can be traced back to structural racial oppression. White privilege is merely what prevents that same structural oppression disadvantaging white people.

That's not to say that white people aren't disadvantaged by structural oppression - obviously many of them are. But the fact that white people often suffer similar consequences as BAME people doesn't mean that racism doesn't exist or that racism isn't a cause of disadvantage for BAME people - it merely means there are other factors that can cause those disadvantages in addition to race.

A way to look at is if white people, who aren't subject to racial oppression, have it so bad, imagine how challenging it must be for BAME people where those issues are compounded with racism. Which is where intersectionality comes in.

I've always felt that totally getting rid of profiling is a bit of a pipe dream. It's how the brain works, not just about race but all kinds of things. We categorise and look at patterns, and in terms of police and intelligence work if used properly it can be an incredibly powerful tool.

It can also create injustices which is a real problem, but people sometimes imagine that means that it actually is ineffective. It's no less effective than FB crunching your demographics and choices to guess what sort of person you are.

That being said, there are people who look at the umbers and will tell you that the main reason that people of certain races are stopped or arrested more is that they are more liely to be poor, and the reason they are more likely to be involved in crime is that they are more likely to be poor. The reason they are more likely to be poor is their arents were poor and poorly educated too. Etc.

And there is good reason to think that for some groups that goes back to historic discrimination based on race, as well as things like religion or ethnicity. What is a lot less clear, statistically, is how much of that has to do with racial discrimination now. Any serious analysis of the numbers I've seen suggest that "poor" is, at the least, more important than race as a factor in this. Some analysts think it's almost the only factor.

The other thing I think is significant here is that harsher policing in black neighbourhoods historically since the 60s has in many cases been done at the request of the people in those neighbourhoods - the law-abiding majority complained about their lives being affected by crime and also that they were under-policed. (Which was absolutely true in many places where the police rarely entered those areas.) It was seen as helping those communities to step up policing of crime and especially of gang violence.

There are a heck of a lot of the people at the moment who think that the majority of those killed by the police in the US or UK are black, that it rarely happens to white people, that race is the major factor in these types of incidents. THat's actually completely wrong. But why are they getting that impression.

@PerkingFaintly

It's funny how people who are perfectly able to recognise the importance of acknowledging sex, because so much oppression is carried out on the basis of sex, are suddenly unable to recognise that oppression is carried out on the basis of race.

After all, as long as people who are not the target of racism, politely ignore race, then racism will go away.

I don't think oppression is carried out on the basis of sex though, and I'm.female.

No doubt data could be produced to show that my current situation is a result of sexism but I firmly believe that it's down to choices that I've made over the past thirty years. No one is responsible for them apart from me.

I reiterate what has been said. Some people don't think it existences they don't see it, the same as sexism.
If you are a white male you go about your life. You don't think (well in certain circumstances some do) I won't walk home alone. Women and black people do. In case they are attacked by the priviledged. I never fear walking near females ever. Now I'm older I don't fear makes so much but As a young woman I did. That is priviledge right there. The fact you believe you own the streets. The fact you put others down if they care to enter "your space".
I've said it on other threads lock down has been great. It's taken the aggressor off the streets and away from my place of work, men.

I understand that many 'black' neighbourhoods are calling out for more police stop and search. Since they stopped for all the reasons pointed out on this thread as it being racially motivated rather than 'crime' motivated, crime has actually gone up, and people are demanding more!

The Ferguson Effect in the US is similar. Accuse the police of being racist, so they pull back from making legitimate arrests, and crime goes up!

It isn't as simple as people make out.

BTW, I've strongly noticed a particular technique in some circles (Fox News springs to mind, but there are plenty), where they will merrily play identity politics through dogwhistles and photos to make sure everyone gets the picture – but the moment anyone replies and names what they're doing, they go: "Ummmmm, bummmmmm, I'm tellin' mum! You used said 'race' . You must be a racist!"

(Or woman/sexist, or whichever group they have identified and wish to attack.)

It's... tedious.

I also , as a white person, understand I am priveledge not having to suffer the prejudices which a black person does.

@PerkingFaintly

It's funny how people who are perfectly able to recognise the importance of acknowledging sex, because so much oppression is carried out on the basis of sex, are suddenly unable to recognise that oppression is carried out on the basis of race.

After all, as long as people who are not the target of racism, politely ignore race, then racism will go away.

I don't think anyone has said racism doesn't exist, much less that race hasn't had historical significance. The question is more, how and how does it work. (As it is for sexism, actually, people have many different views on that as well.)

But because sexism exists racism must is not actually any kind of rational argument.

I think perspectives that are based on race essentialism, like identity politics, will never solve problems around race. They can't, they can only make them worse. That's not hoping it will go away by ignoring it.

@PerkingFaintly

It's funny how people who are perfectly able to recognise the importance of acknowledging sex, because so much oppression is carried out on the basis of sex, are suddenly unable to recognise that oppression is carried out on the basis of race.

After all, as long as people who are not the target of racism, politely ignore race, then racism will go away.

Yeah I think this is the crux of this. So many people can understand immediately that they have an advantage on average, generalised terms when it comes to being male, or attractive, being born into more wealth or having no disabilities etc... but can’t see that race gives them an advantage in some areas too.

I think perhaps because it’s not as tangible for people to visualise because it’s not a learned experience. Many people can visualise how much harder their life would be having only one leg instead of two (because they know what having two legs is like) or can see the tangible effect of their more attractive friends having more mating opportunities in comparison to them or their richer friends being able to afford more things than they can because it’s in front of their eyes.

It’s more difficult to visualise race disparity because it’s more subtle, systematic and less out in the open and they often come from a different background culturally and familiarly e.g. a benefit claim put to the bottom of a pile because they’re black, someone not being called back for a job interview because they have a Muslim name, landlords not wanting to rent out their flat to someone Asian. I guess it’s not a learned experience so people can’t visualise it as easily.

It’s more difficult to visualise race disparity because it’s more subtle, systematic and less out in the open and they often come from a different background culturally and familiarly e.g. a benefit claim put to the bottom of a pile because they’re black, someone not being called back for a job interview because they have a Muslim name, landlords not wanting to rent out their flat to someone Asian. I guess it’s not a learned experience so people can’t visualise it as easily.

What you are failing to do is look at these situations through any other lens than race. Maybe they weren’t called back for the job because their CV was shit?

Seeing everything through one lens makes you more blind than you are accusing others of

Also, I 100% know that if you give that lens to a person who didn’t get the job (I.e. it was racism) they will be far more unlikely to make improvements to their CV, slipping into a helpless state where....”what’s the point? The system is rigged” becomes their outlook on life

Yeah I think this is the crux of this. So many people can understand immediately that they have an advantage on average, generalised terms when it comes to being male, or attractive, being born into more wealth or having no disabilities etc... but can’t see that race gives them an advantage in some areas too.

Well, this isn't so in my case.

I'm female and disabled - I don't think I've suffered particularly from being either. Some annoyances sometimes, life is harder certainly because I'm disabled but I don't particularly see that as society's issue to solve for me. I think the Equality Act goes a long way to balance out effects of my disability compared to able bodied people. Does it eradicate them? No because society is built for the majority and I'm not in the majority.

@Hearhoovesthinkzebras

Yeah I think this is the crux of this. So many people can understand immediately that they have an advantage on average, generalised terms when it comes to being male, or attractive, being born into more wealth or having no disabilities etc... but can’t see that race gives them an advantage in some areas too.

Well, this isn't so in my case.

I'm female and disabled - I don't think I've suffered particularly from being either. Some annoyances sometimes, life is harder certainly because I'm disabled but I don't particularly see that as society's issue to solve for me. I think the Equality Act goes a long way to balance out effects of my disability compared to able bodied people. Does it eradicate them? No because society is built for the majority and I'm not in the majority.

But people are not saying that black people are “suffering” or “oppressed” - only that in some situations they face in life, their race has made their life a little harder compared to a white person in that same situation. That’s it. Just as you yourself have admitted that whilst you haven’t suffered on the whole on account of your disability, some things have been harder for you than they would an able-bodied person.

I agree things are getting better and more equality acts and programmes to help to counterbalance any discrimination. But that’s an act that society has put in place exactly to lessen the disparity. Just like we as society build things like disabled parking spaces, access ramps, disabled toilets etc.. to make things as close to a level playing field as possible for disabled and non disabled people to go about their daily lives, shopping, social activities etc... like you said, eradication will never be possible. That’s not realistic. But we can all take steps to acknowledge our advantages whatever that may be (class, disability, race) and help us implement policy to level the field so only meritocracy is the deciding factor.

@hamstersarse

It’s more difficult to visualise race disparity because it’s more subtle, systematic and less out in the open and they often come from a different background culturally and familiarly e.g. a benefit claim put to the bottom of a pile because they’re black, someone not being called back for a job interview because they have a Muslim name, landlords not wanting to rent out their flat to someone Asian. I guess it’s not a learned experience so people can’t visualise it as easily.

What you are failing to do is look at these situations through any other lens than race. Maybe they weren’t called back for the job because their CV was shit?

Seeing everything through one lens makes you more blind than you are accusing others of

Also, I 100% know that if you give that lens to a person who didn’t get the job (I.e. it was racism) they will be far more unlikely to make improvements to their CV, slipping into a helpless state where....”what’s the point? The system is rigged” becomes their outlook on life

That’s not what I’m saying whatsoever. I’m talking about situations when there is no comparison in another axis and there are no confounding variables whatsoever aside from race. An example I am talking about would be two people sending off an identical CV to 1000 companies but only the name has changed on the top (British or African) and the white name getting a higher rate of callback (I have linked these experiments in a post above) The only variable that has changed between these two CVs is the name as an indicator of race.

Of course interviews would be based on other factors (performance, looks, competence) which is why the % gulf of jobs secured between white and black people is lessened significantly at an interview stage compared to a CV stage.

I know 99% of the time I wouldn’t get a job would be down to me not being qualified or not being good enough! I’m in agreement with you here. I’m talking about a blind test with only one axis changing.

That’s why I’m in agreement with you that it is so complicated to determine who has more of an advantage because most situations in life also take into account class, socioeconomics, gender, qualifications etc... white privilege is just a generalised comparative term based on averages and relative situations, not absolute situations. Privileged life isn’t the same as having an advantage

Whenever you create an abstraction like this, you have to ask, to what extent does it really capture the material phenomena it is trying to describe? Is it reductionist or does it tend to cause reductionist analysis? What's it really good for? Are there downsides of using this abstraction?

Here is a rather long but I think really worthwhile quote from Reed about the idea of racism, and everything he says applies equally to the abstraction of white privilege - including think his assessment that for some people accepting thee terms as articles of faith is what defines a racist as opposed to a non-racist.

"All too often, “racism” is the subject of sentences that imply intentional activity or is characterized as an autonomous “force.” In this kind of formulation, “racism,” a conceptual abstraction, is imagined as a material entity. Abstractions can be useful, but they shouldn’t be given independent life.

I can appreciate such formulations as transient political rhetoric; hyperbolic claims made in order to draw attention and galvanize opinion against some particular injustice. But as the basis for social interpretation, and particularly interpretation directed toward strategic political action, they are useless. Their principal function is to feel good and tastily righteous in the mouths of those who propound them. People do things that reproduce patterns of racialized inequality, sometimes with self-consciously bigoted motives, sometimes not. Properly speaking, however, “racism” itself doesn’t do anything more than the Easter Bunny does.

Yes, racism exists, as a conceptual condensation of practices and ideas that reproduce, or seek to reproduce, hierarchy along lines defined by race. Apostles of antiracism frequently can’t hear this sort of statement, because in their exceedingly simplistic version of the nexus of race and injustice there can be only the Manichean dichotomy of those who admit racism’s existence and those who deny it. There can be only Todd Gitlin (the sociologist and former SDS leader who has become, both fairly and as caricature, the symbol of a “class-first” line) and their own heroic, truth-telling selves, and whoever is not the latter must be the former. Thus the logic of straining to assign guilt by association substitutes for argument.

My position is—and I can’t count the number of times I’ve said this bluntly, yet to no avail, in response to those in blissful thrall of the comforting Manicheanism—that of course racism persists, in all the disparate, often unrelated kinds of social relations and “attitudes” that are characteristically lumped together under that rubric, but from the standpoint of trying to figure out how to combat even what most of us would agree is racial inequality and injustice, that acknowledgement and $2.25 will get me a ride on the subway. It doesn’t lend itself to any particular action except more taxonomic argument about what counts as racism."

When people talk about privilege it's supposed to be describing something real, a real disparity in the physical material world. But it's not really any more useful than saying "there are some persistent disparities in outcomes of this kind" and in fact the phrase tends to collapse all these together - its reductionist. Reductionism is always the enemy of effective action.

@Drag0nflye

Would you post the links to the studies. I am aware that they exist and do not in any way discount that this happens and may be an indicator of racism.

I am actually only interested in the dates.

I think these studies were very prominent and shocking in HR circles at the time and much has been done to try and prevent this happening, e.g. some companies do not allow names to be shown at first application level to the recruiting manager.

I work in sort of HR but not HR, and I work with most of the top employers in the UK and these studies were not ignored, I just cannot remember when things started to change and the view now in most (if not all of these employers) is definitely not to facilitate this happening - they are definitely working towards being colour blind. Of course they are not perfect, but to say that this still happens everywhere is just not true. All of them have very loud D & I policies....they need to keep their brand respectable after all

@hamstersarse - these might be what you’re looking for! I posted similar also. As you said, they were a very famous and eye-opening study at the time! People knew there would be a gap but not quite the extent of the gap. I think as time has gone on, the results are getting much much better and this gap is closing.

The CV test is actually quite a good example of showing “white privilege” because you are keeping all other factors (or as you said lens) constant and only changing one factor/lens. The contention on this thread is not the argument that multiple variables aren’t taken into account at the same time and that race is the only deciding factor on life outcomes but that it is one of many factors that give you an advantage vs people who don’t think it’s a factor that exists as an advantage at all.

fullfact.org/economy/job-applicants-ethnic-minority-sounding-names-are-less-likely-be-called-interview/

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-46927417

www.manchester.ac.uk/discover/news/four-ways-your-name-can-affect-your-job-prospects/

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/17/minority-ethnic-britons-face-shocking-job-discrimination

Oh I didn’t get the job, it’s obviously because I’m BAME’ Could it possibly be because you just weren’t good enough?

You know I hear this a lot from white people and it's one of the signs of white privilege that one doesn't realise there's more to it from a non-white person's point of view. I look at it like this:

White person didn't get the job - Oh it could be because I wasn't good enough or interview went badly.

BAME person didn't the job - Oh it could be because I wasn't good enough or interview went badly or because I'm a BAME person or all of it.

There's always that element as an ethnic minority that it could be more than what it could be for a white person. It's that fear/worry of not knowing which it is.

It's the same for a disabled person who declares their disability or a woman who declares they have school aged children.

There's always that element of it possibly being because of my disability or that I'm a single mum or all of it. Guess we'll never know.

You could say well the law says you can't discriminate against so and so but how can you prove you've been discriminated against? They don't owe you a job and if they say you didn't qualify because someone else was better suited for the job, well then you have to take their word for it. Doesn't stop you from having it at the back of your mind, does it? Whereas a white person or an able bodied person or a single woman or man will not have that to worry about on top of the other reasons.

In addition, many interview panels in top organisations in this country will consist of white people (in recent times, they've had to add one BAME person to "diversify" the panel) but that doesn't mean the a BAME person has a higher chance of getting looked at, if anything the chance of the BAME person on the panel bringing up the BAME interviewee specifically for consideration is slim because it will be obvious it's about race. Many ethnic minorities in certain positions try harder not to look like they're giving another ethnic minority a special chance so an ethnic minority may have it harder in that regard or at best, the chances of getting the job stay the same.

A BAME person will have to be exceptionally good to qualify above a white person, whereas a white person only needs to be 'good enough' to qualify above a BAME person.

It's one of those "working twice as hard" situations.

I still maintain there are exceptions but the majority experience is this.

@IAmAnAlienHumansfrightenme

Oh I didn’t get the job, it’s obviously because I’m BAME’ Could it possibly be because you just weren’t good enough?

You know I hear this a lot from white people and it's one of the signs of white privilege that one doesn't realise there's more to it from a non-white person's point of view. I look at it like this:

White person didn't get the job - Oh it could be because I wasn't good enough or interview went badly.

BAME person didn't the job - Oh it could be because I wasn't good enough or interview went badly or because I'm a BAME person or all of it.

There's always that element as an ethnic minority that it could be more than what it could be for a white person. It's that fear/worry of not knowing which it is.

It's the same for a disabled person who declares their disability or a woman who declares they have school aged children.

There's always that element of it possibly being because of my disability or that I'm a single mum or all of it. Guess we'll never know.

You could say well the law says you can't discriminate against so and so but how can you prove you've been discriminated against? They don't owe you a job and if they say you didn't qualify because someone else was better suited for the job, well then you have to take their word for it. Doesn't stop you from having it at the back of your mind, does it? Whereas a white person or an able bodied person or a single woman or man will not have that to worry about on top of the other reasons.

In addition, many interview panels in top organisations in this country will consist of white people (in recent times, they've had to add one BAME person to "diversify" the panel) but that doesn't mean the a BAME person has a higher chance of getting looked at, if anything the chance of the BAME person on the panel bringing up the BAME interviewee specifically for consideration is slim because it will be obvious it's about race. Many ethnic minorities in certain positions try harder not to look like they're giving another ethnic minority a special chance so an ethnic minority may have it harder in that regard or at best, the chances of getting the job stay the same.

A BAME person will have to be exceptionally good to qualify above a white person, whereas a white person only needs to be 'good enough' to qualify above a BAME person.

It's one of those "working twice as hard" situations.

I still maintain there are exceptions but the majority experience is this.

The problem is that the UK is still majority white though isn't it? Over 80% with only 3% black so it's very unlikely that a company will be 50% white 50% BAME or black isn't it? How can you legislate for this? Of course interview panels should not allow race to factor into decision making but I'm referring to your point about lack of representation on interview panels. How could this be dealt with better?