There is no such thing as positive discrimination. There is only discrimination — and when it creeps into life-or-death professions like policing, surgery or flying a plane, it stops being merely unjust. It becomes dangerous.
That lesson ought to be obvious. But in modern Britain, it seems it still needs spelling out — especially after the latest revelation from West Yorkshire Police (WYP).
As the Telegraph revealed earlier this month, the force had been ranking applicants not by ability, experience or potential — but by ethnicity. According to one whistleblower, candidates were being sorted depending on their skin colour.
A clumsy medal system for modern identity politics: gold for black and far-east Asian candidates; silver for South-East Asian; bronze for white applicants, including Irish and Eastern Europeans.
The so-called ‘oppression olympics’ is usually a glib online phrase, but here it has been given official form. It wasn’t just metaphorical — it was policy. All of this, in a country struggling to get a grip on rising crime.
We have seen record levels of mobile phone thefts in London. We have experienced what can only be described as a shoplifting epidemic. And to cap it all off, knife crime continues to soar in parts of the country.
And yet, even as criminals operate with near-impunity, some forces appear to be more concerned with assembling a Benetton advert than arresting burglars.
This isn’t new. In 2017, Cheshire Police rejected the application of Matthew Furlong, a physics graduate and son of a police officer, despite him being told he was “well-prepared“. He didn’t tick the right boxes. He was white, male and heterosexual. A tribunal later ruled he had been unlawfully discriminated against under the guise of ‘positive action’.
No institution is immune — not even the Church of England. In 2021, the CofE published its ‘From Lament to Action‘ report, setting an ambitious target of 30% UKME participation — despite ethnic minorities making up just 18% of the British population in England and Wales. The timing was no accident: the report was commissioned in the summer of 2020, in the wake of George Floyd’s killing. Never mind that church attendance is at record lows. Winning souls for Jesus was apparently less urgent than assembling a demographically-balanced congregation.
The same logic now pervades policing. Recruitment is no longer about competence or calling. It’s about hitting quotas — often entirely divorced from whether the relevant groups actually want to join in the first place.
Following the revelation, WYP put out a statement arguing that “the most recent census found that 23% of people in West Yorkshire identified as being from an ethnic minority background. Our current police officer representation from ethnic minority backgrounds is around 9%.”
But this line of argument misses the point entirely. It assumes representation should always directly mirror the population — that any discrepancy is evidence of failure or injustice. It ignores the many reasons certain groups might not choose to join the police in the first place. And it treats complex questions of trust, culture and vocation as little more than a spreadsheet problem.
The obsession with identity, imported from the worst corners of American HR culture, has turned recruitment into an ideological beauty pageant.
Take United Airlines, which in recent years outlined its goal that at least 50% of the 5,000 new pilots it trains should be “women or people of colour” by 2030. Admirable in theory, perhaps — but less so when you’re 30,000 feet in the air and the only thing that matters is technical competence.
Nobody checks the diversity metrics of their surgeon when they’re being wheeled into theatre. They care about whether their surgeon is the best.
Nobody cares about the ethnicity of the pilot landing their plane in a thunderstorm. They care about whether the pilot is capable.
And nobody being mugged in broad daylight on a British high street wants their attending police officer to reflect the exact demographic contours of modern Britain. They simply want their phone back.
The purpose of the police is not to be a social experiment in representation — it is to safeguard the conditions of civil life for all, regardless of their background.
Yet the tragedy of EDI policing is that it does precisely the opposite. Far from bringing people together, it plants the seeds of resentment. It tells applicants in the so-called bronze category that no matter how talented or dedicated they may be, they will always be less desirable than someone in gold. And worse, it burdens those in gold with the suspicion — however unfair — that they are there for optics rather than excellence.
What is left is a police force divided, demoralised and distracted — a hollowed-out institution where merit takes a back seat to identity, and where the very people tasked with protecting us are sorted and judged by their surname or skin tone before their skill.
In policing, as in medicine or aviation, there is only one standard worth defending: the best person for the job.
Once you start discriminating — ‘positively’ or otherwise — the outcome is always the same. You get discrimination. And in life-or-death professions, that’s not just wrong. It’s unforgivable.
Daniel Fessahaye is a freelance business journalist and a political commentator with Young Voices UK. Find him on X.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
There’s zero chance RFK endorsed the MMR vaccine… this article is paid propaganda!
Yesterday I checked the BBC weather forecast before going out, it said zero chance of rain. It rained. Why didn’t it say 1% chance of rain, just to be on the safe side? It seems my understanding of “zero chance” is not the same as other people’s understanding of it. To me, zero chance means literally zero chance.
The article to which you refer was written by RFK himself, as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Anyone with any intelligence can see that with the measles outbreak in Texas, RFK is in a ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t’ situation. He’s not stupid. His statement is very carefully worded.
I believe that measles is harmless if treated intelligently and children are raised healthily, but this is often not the case.
That is how it used to be when me and my two older siblings got it – no one batted an eyelid. And what no one ever mentions is that maybe getting some of these childhood illnesses tunes up the immune system in some way?
The word “literally” doesn’t mean what it did either!
I’m not against all vaccines, I’ve had most of the childhood ones (not rubella, that was after my childhood) and there side effects where not serious or as widespread as other types (mRNA based)
I’m against the mRNA messenger based vaccines, they should be banned outright
Sadly we have learned the hard way that vaccines damage the immune system. RFK jnr has promised a new approach to research and public health campaigns that should save the next generation from some of the neurological harms done to our young people. Look at the shocking rates of severe autism in the UK. See new substack called The Autism Tribune. Post on MMR today:
.https://theautismtribune.substack.com/p/in-wakefields-wake-in-perpetuum
See what you mean!
I remember having the TB shot, polio, mumps and diphtheria but no rubella or measles shots, chicken pox was regarded as harmless, so generally it was the mmr combined jab that started the problems?
There’s no “Ukraineophobia”, Brendan. We need to rebuild Britain, not fight unwinnable proxy wars.
What is the point in rebuilding Britain if we simply swap domination of our domestic and foreign policy by the EU and now the U.S., for domination of our domestic and foreign policy by a totalitarian dictator and war criminal?
The rebuilding that is required is that of an independent self confident Britain able to offer reassurance and security to its allies in return for international trade agreements.
That requires 5% of GDP spent on defence to restore our conventional deterrent to assist the rest of Europe in the containment of Putin.
President Trump (and the Ukrainophobes) is making the same mistake that President Roosevelt made before him, quite possibly for the same reason.
‘I think that if I give him everything that I possibly can and ask nothing from him in return, noblesse oblige, he won’t try to annex anything and will work for a world of democracy and peace.’
President Roosevelt Yalta 1945
That remark has not aged well.
‘I mean by that FDR’s well-known conviction that although Stalin was a rather difficult character, he was at bottom a man like everyone else; that the only reason why it had been difficult to get on with him in the past was because there was no one with the right personality, with enough imagination and trust to deal with him properly; that the arrogant conservatives in the Western capitals had always bluntly rejected him, and that his ideological prejudices would melt away and Russian cooperation with the West could easily be obtained, if only Stalin was exposed to the charm of a personality of FDR’s calibre. There were no grounds at all for this assumption; it was so childish that it was really unworthy of a statesman of FDR’s standing.’
George Kennan 1960
President Roosevelt was not even admired for it at the time.
‘I did not like the attitude of the President, who not only backed Stalin but seemed to enjoy the Churchill-Stalin exchanges. Roosevelt should have come to the defense of a close friend and ally, who was really being put upon by Stalin. . . . [Roosevelt’s] apparent belief that ganging up on the Russians was to be avoided at all cost was, in my mind, a basic error, stemming from Roosevelt’s lack of understanding of the Bolsheviks. . . . In his rather transparent attempt to dissociate himself from Churchill, the President was not fooling anybody and in all probability aroused the secret amusement of Stalin.
Charles Bohlen
‘It was my belief that since leaders of the Kremlin eventually were intending to contribute to the violent overthrow of all the countries with which the Soviet Union maintained relations, they considered Soviet relations with every country to be of a temporary or transitional character, subject to change at any moment.’
Loy Henderson
‘The fundamental obstacle in the way of the establishment with Russia of the relations usual between nations in diplomatic intercourse is the world revolutionary aims and practices of the rulers of that country. . . . It would seem, therefore, that an essential prerequisite to the establishment of harmonious and trustful relations with the Soviet Government is abandonment by the present rulers of Russia of their world revolutionary aims and the discontinuance of their activities designed to bring about the realization of such aims. More specifically and with particular regard to the United States, this prerequisite involves the abandonment by Moscow of direction, supervision, control, financing, et cetera, through every agency utilized for the purpose, of (espionage) and other related activities in the United States.’
State Department Memorandum, dated July 27, 1933
‘If anything, FDR unwittingly helped Stalin enforce his domination over Central and Eastern Europe.’
https://www.hoover.org/research/roosevelts-failure-yalta
Roosevelt was determined to end the British Empire and in that he succeeded. Churchill entered the war to protect Poland but ended up giving it to USSR. Still, we can be happy now since USSR no longer exists. It is just a shame that our PM (and others) appears to still believe in the glorious days of the past when UK was a dominant force in the world.
But Roosevelt did Britain a big favour:
‘There is a lot to be said for a ‘warts-and-all’ approach to history, which does not gloss over or relativise the darker chapters of a country’s past. But the problem with the above narrative is that it is bad economics. While imperialism was undoubtedly extremely lucrative for some people, it is not at all clear whether Britain as a whole benefited economically from it. If such overall gains existed at all, they must have been very modest, and it is quite possible that the empire was a net lossmaker for Britain.
Before modern container shipping, transport logistics, telecommunication technologies, etc., made high volumes of trade possible, trade and overseas investment accounted for much smaller proportions of the British economy than they do today. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the great bulk of Britain’s economic activity was domestic.
Even then, Britain’s most important trading partners in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries were not its colonies but other industrialising powers, such as Britain’s Western European neighbours.’
IEA Niemitz 2024
Spending on defence like all government spending is a doddle. How it is spent is another matter. We could spend 50% of GDP but it still won’t produce the armed forces required by this country.
In 2009, former Chief of Defence Materiel Sir Bernard Grey wrote that ‘acquisition reform … is a subject only about five minutes younger than the acquisition of military equipment itself
…while some initiatives have undeniably delivered improvement, few, if any, achieved all the change that was originally intended.
There are two reasons for this.
Firstly, politicians seldom invest sufficient time and effort to understand, and then oversee, the activities of the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and the armed forces.
Secondly, the single services, the Royal Navy, British Army and Royal Air Force, have the power either to rework unpalatable reforms to the extent that they become acceptable, or resist them altogether.
Unless these two issues are addressed, the successful reform of UK Defence management is likely to remain an impossible task.
Following the Levene Reforms in 2011, the MoD headquarters – known as Head Office – was supposed to set the strategic direction for Defence, impose a strong, pan-department corporate framework and hold others to account.
However, as part of the reform’s implementation, considerable personnel resources were moved out of Head Office and into the single service headquarters……even the most all-encompassing change programme is doomed to failure if the problems of political oversight and single service agency are not tackled first.’
https://www.karveinternational.com/insights/reforming-uk-defence-management-an-impossible-task Oct 2024
‘We’re introducing……four leaders who report to me as Defence Secretary and my ministerial team at the central point of accountability to the British people and to the British public.
The Chief of the Defence Staff, who, for the first time since this role was created, now commands the service chiefs and will be the head of newly established Military Strategic Headquarters, responsible for force design and war planning across our integrated force.
The Permanent Secretary, our principal accounting officer, who will run a leaner, more agile Department of State
Third, our new Armaments Director, who will fix procurement and drive growth.
Fourthly, our Chief of Defence Nuclear, who will continue to lead and deliver the national Nuclear Enterprise within the recently established ring fence and freedoms.
This new quad will lead a defence which is more concentrated on warfighting, readiness and on deterrence.
They’ll shift the approach…..to one focussed on outcomes
This new quad will be up and running from the 31st of March.’
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/defence-secretarys-speech-on-defence-reform–2 18 Feb 2025
You never know…it might work……
I prefer Trump’s idea to halve nuclear weapons around the world. Just what are France and UK doing with nuclear weapons? And it is better to create friends rather than enemies, so Trump’s moves to align himself with Russia are clearly beneficial for world safety. He now only has to be convinced to do the same with China. Sadly, there are so many voices like yours that just promote a world being full of enemies instead of being full of human beings like ourselves.
‘One area where the UK could demonstrate its commitment to a robust nuclear deterrent is by considering the adoption of a nuclear capability outside its current Continual at-Sea Deterrent construct.
Currently, the UK relies solely on its submarine-based Trident missiles. While this system has proven effective, diversifying the nuclear arsenal to include a second delivery method could enhance flexibility and resilience. The original Polaris Sales Agreement could serve as a model for future engagement and additional capability.
The signals sent by Labour’s ongoing review will be particularly significant in the context of an increased emphasis on allied burden-sharing. A clear and unambiguous commitment from the UK to a fully resourced nuclear modernisation programme, to include a second delivery platform, would serve as a powerful demonstration of burden-sharing and alliance solidarity.
Moreover, a strong UK nuclear posture would help maintain strategic stability in an era of renewed great power competition.
As Russia continues its aggressive behaviour and China rapidly expands its nuclear capabilities, the deterrent value of Western nuclear forces has only grown. The UK’s nuclear arsenal, though smaller than that of the US or Russia, plays a vital role in this broader deterrence landscape.’
https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/uk-nuclear-modernisation-crucial-us-uk-relations-and-natos-future
Brenda O’Neill – he has a talent for foot in mouth. So far removed from real life that he spouts this drivel.
I’m still waiting on his mandatory vaccine apology.
Yes, and while people like O’Neill are inventing new “phobias”, when is he going to start talking about “WHITEOPHOBIA”, for example?
The story out of Mannheim is horrific, more so when we learn children were victims, and is certainly a turn up for the books. Not what anyone was expecting at all. But it just shows that these homegrown psychos still exist and are still out there committing atrocities. If it’s not ‘the usual suspects’ there’s still one common denominator though…
Knife crime, rapes and sexual assaults, other serious crimes, with very few exceptions they all have one thing in common. Look at these names;
”In Liverpool 7 men are charged with violent disorder with knives. They are:
Mohammed Tariq Saleh, 30
Sina Mohammadi, 24
Homed Heydari, 31
Samim Habib, 29
Fahad Al-Tharfiri, 19
Fawad Habib, 31
Ghalib Habibi, 18, is also charged with GBH with intent.”
https://x.com/DaveAtherton20/status/1896672430527250938
There are 117 prisons in England and Wales, only 13 of them are women’s. Let’s look at the stats;
”In 2024, there were 87,869 men and 3,635 women in prisons in England and Wales. Compared with the previous year, this represented an increase for both men and women.”
https://www.statista.com/statistics/283475/england-and-wales-prison-population-by-gender/
So what does this tell us? Well, it obviously tells us that the blame for the breakdown of society and ever-increasing crime rate lies at the door of women ( seriously, ladies. You need to stop breeding murderous psychopaths and men with no respect for the law ) and if only you could ban women from voting and taking up positions of authority it would most certainly improve these figures significantly.
Or does it just tell us that the the courts are waaay more lenient on the lady crims and they skip going to jail altogether? Be interesting to hear what the misogynists have to say about this, or do they just communicate in ‘thumbs’?
*I note that those listed on the sex offenders register is at an all time high of 70,000+ in England and Wales. Best blame the dratted ‘Me Too’ movement and women telling porkies for that one.
Give it a rest, Mogs… The vast majority of commenters here, male or female or I-couldn’t-care-less, are balanced and courteous.
I value greatly the rest of your contributions.
Seconded! These rants are getting wearisome
Can you explain to me which part of my post qualifies as a “rant” in your opinion?
What kind of a peculiar person gets triggered by mere facts? Offended by reality, in a post nobody forced you to read….Pathetic.
“Give it a rest” says the man to the woman on a site that’s supposedly pro free speech!
Well, you’re certainly not the first man on here to laughably attempt to censor me and I’m sure you won’t be the last. It’s “free speech” but only when it suits, eh? BTW, show me where I’m not being courteous. Triggered, much? Can’t think why…
It’s fine, carry on as you believe is best.
I just thought you might value the opinion of one who really values your presence here, regardless of my sex or your sex. Take it or leave it
Erm, no they aren’t. I have only once posted here – under the Hunting topic – and was subjected to a wholly unexpected and exceedingly nasty pile on. I am also completely fed up of the lazy assumptions made about any woman with tattoos, piercings and/or coloured hair.
”I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it.”
The so-called ‘pro-free speech crowd’ on here ( who are also supposedly anti-censorship, laughably ) are out and out hypocrites. They’ll wheel out quotes such as the one above or the one about offense being taken but never given when it suits them, but as you can see, what they lack in integrity and authenticity they more than make up for in double standards and intolerance. Opinions are allowed, but only if it’s the opinions permitted by those inhabiting the DS echo chamber. ”Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right…” and here we are, lol.
A pile on. Of words. It’s called free speech. No-one was actually piling on.
To sum up Paul Sutton’s substack:
Politicians Love Villains Hate Heroes
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14454011/Britons-black-study-stonehenge.html
Probably because hot water was not available on tap and soap had not been invented.
Desperate stuff..chimps are white under their fur aren’t they?
Indeed.
“Starmer’s Churchill tribute act should fool no one”
Sir Two-Tier, the new Churchill, proferring British Armed Forces to serve in Eastern Europe, while Sir Two-Tier, the Human Rights Lawyer, condones persecution through the courts of soldiers who served in Northern Ireland decades ago.
Par for the Two-Tier course.
Absolutely this. If you know any young people thinking of joining up (unlikely, I know), tell them that most veterans, including this one, would strongly advise against it.
You will be treated like sh1t and cast onto the trash heap as soon as they’re done with you. Look at the way this pathetic country treats its veterans – with a big fat “F**K YOU”.
Well the chickens are coming home to roost now.
Why,should any of our,armed forces still left fight anywhere when Starmers human rights lawyers are out to get them for simply doing their job, fighting the enemy
Conveniently glossed over…
“Freedom is bad for you, Covid study concludes”
Latest offering from Cognitive Bias, Word Salad and Waffle Industry.
No chance of being retracted by a feeble-minded editor.
About time. Only the narcissistic and slightly unhinged would not be able to see its gone too far the other way. Time to rebalance.
I can’t read the DT but any article that mentions “women’s rights” needs to define what the writer means by that term. It has become meaningless. It may be what the author means is “preferential treatment for women” – quite possibly men (and women) might be “turning against” that. I don’t think many people want to remove “rights” from women that are equally shared by men. The main “right” that is being threatened is for women to be in traditionally female-only spaces like toilets, and to compete against other women in sport – a “right” threatened by the political left (composed of men and women).
“Alexander S. – reportedly a 40 year-old native German with no migrant background”
Oh well that’s ok then, other ethnicities and religions do the same thing too so it’s not a problem anymore!
The facts are the facts the majority of these attacks are radical Muslim based islamists
Absolutely, Dinger. Facts are facts. The uncomfortable facts being that it’s almost exclusively men that are the perpetrators of violent/sex crimes. Nothing sexist about that, because the evidence supports this, as do the amount of male prisons vs female prisons. However, it would appear that the ‘pitchfork brigade’ don’t do well with certain facts. Possibly it’s an overload of cognitive dissonance, the reality contradicts their narrative that the opposite sex must always be blamed for what is wrong in society. “Men committing most violent crime is because women have too many rights”, said no rational person, ever. But it’s like the elephant in the room around here.
And so, when we consider that the whole ethos of this site is ‘freedom of speech’, FoS goes out the window, attempted censorship from intolerant posters comes in and the hypocrites with their double standards show themselves.
“Certain opinions won’t be tolerated and step outside the DS echo chamber at your peril”, is my take away from being a long-time user of this site.
*Never fear, haters. I’ll be gone as soon as my next payment is due. Equilibrium will be restored to the Echo Chamber once more. People-pleasers for the win!
They still haven’t told us if he was a convert..
Good point
“What’s the real reason some on the Right hate Volodymyr Zelensky? asks Brendan O’Neill, coining a new word “UKRAINEOPHOBIA”…
Answer: Because he’s a Nasty, Ungrateful Little Weasel endlessly demanding that the West must give him huge amounts of their Taxpayers’ Money, and even the Blood of those Taxpayers’ Sons, Husbands and Fathers, so that the Nasty, Greedy Little Weasel can cling to power, and send thousands more Ukrainians to their deaths in the Meatgrinder War.
That’s why, you idiot Brendan O’Neill.
Absolute agreement