https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/too-whit...-help-pcpq9vjqc

 

The head of the British Red Cross has admitted the charity struggled with the Grenfell disaster because its workforce is too white.

 

Mike Adamson, the charity’s chief executive, said: “There is a risk that in a very diverse community like Grenfell, an organisation with the words ‘British’ and ‘Cross’ in its title is confused with a Christian establishment organisation.”

 

Although the charity is impartial in its work, he added: “There is no escaping the fact that with shining exceptions, such as our refugee services, we are nowhere near as diverse as we need to be in our volunteer base, our staffing or our leadership.”

 

{Unfortunately most of the article is trapped behind a paywall]

 

*************************************

 

Surely the ethnic make-up of a charity's staff doesn't matter, it's what they do to help that is crucial. Besides, charities are hardly in a position to pick & choose since their staff are volunteers.

 

Also, anyone who turns down sincerely offered help for racial/cultural reasons, is likely to lose a lot of sympathy.

 

There's also the factor that tax-exempt charitable status depends on being non-political...

Edited January 25, 20187 yr by Soy Adrián

Sounds to me like a quote that's been taken out of context, two separate statements that have been put together. That is, 1) they want to increase their diversity (probably for policy reasons or following new laws set by the government, or to get some particular kind of funding) and 2) they don't want to come across as a Christian charity when they're not one.

I can't read the article other than the quote you refer to because Times articles are behind a pay wall. Are there any examples of specific people from Greenwell refusing help because they had that impression?

 

I don''t read papers nowadays because the standard of journalism is so poor.

 

Articles now tend to contain biased opinion masquerading as impartiality. They also seem more and more to be cobbled out of news feed, quotes from other journalists' pieces and social media. It's the age of puffed out opinionated sound bites, often taken out of context, and lurid (sub) headlines.

 

Sometimes the broadsheets can still do research and produce a series of In-depth articles but it's so very rare. They know what good journalism is but won't spend the money. If they did, maybe more people would buy a daily paper.

 

 

I can't read the article other than the quote you refer to because Times articles are behind a pay wall. Are there any examples of specific people from Greenwell refusing help because they had that impression?

 

Unfortunately the paywall prevents me from knowing that, either.

 

Suffice to say, had the article been from the Mail I wouldn't have even bothered posting it, as I know the usual reaction to them, here. :lol:

 

 

I don''t read papers nowadays because the standard of journalism is so poor.

 

Articles now tend to contain biased opinion masquerading as impartiality. They also seem more and more to be cobbled out of news feed, quotes from other journalists' pieces and social media. It's the age of puffed out opinionated sound bites, often taken out of context, and lurid (sub) headlines.

 

I agree, except to say that that's not exactly new. :P

The Times made a complete mess of a story about a five-year-old girl's fostering arrangements a couple weeks ago so they seem to be trying to be as unreliable as the Mail.

 

It's not the first time the name Red Cross has been misinterpreted. It was, of course, named because their emblem is the reverse of the Swiss flag but they still felt they had to call themselves Red Crescent in Islamic countries.

The Times made a complete mess of a story about a five-year-old girl's fostering arrangements a couple weeks ago so they seem to be trying to be as unreliable as the Mail.

 

Are you saying that story was a complete fabrication, or that the wrong emphasis was placed on aspects of it?

Are you saying that story was a complete fabrication, or that the wrong emphasis was placed on aspects of it?

The "journalists" who wrote the coverage made no attempt to make sur they had a proper grasp of the facts. As a result, the repot was highly misleading and inflammatory.

The "journalists" who wrote the coverage made no attempt to make sur they had a proper grasp of the facts. As a result, the repot was highly misleading and inflammatory.

 

I bet I can guess which paper posted a more 'PC' version of the story. :rolleyes:

 

I should point out that virtually all the papers published a very similar version of the story, even most of the 'Buzzjack approved' ones.

 

I bet I can guess which paper posted a more 'PC' version of the story. :rolleyes:

 

I should point out that virtually all the papers published a very similar version of the story, even most of the 'Buzzjack approved' ones.

I assume you are referring to the Guardian. I have no idea how they covered the story although I assume it was more fact-based than the Times' distorted version. That wouldn't be difficult.

I assume you are referring to the Guardian.

 

Bingo!

 

I have no idea how they covered the story although I assume it was more fact-based than the Times' distorted version. That wouldn't be difficult.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/se...kewed-portrayal

 

Given the Tower Hamlets reputation, it's an easy target for unsophisticated journalism, though.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/se...t-defends-story

 

 

 

Bingo!

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/se...kewed-portrayal

 

Given the Tower Hamlets reputation, it's an easy target for unsophisticated journalism, though.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/se...t-defends-story

The fact that Tower Hamlets have had major failings in the past is no excuse for sloppy (or deliberately misleading) journalism.

The headline really doesn't seem to match up to the story.

 

Too white Red Cross struggled to help

 

The head of the British Red Cross has admitted the charity struggled with the Grenfell disaster because its workforce is too white.

 

Mike Adamson, the charity’s chief executive, said: “There is a risk that in a very diverse community like Grenfell, an organisation with the words ‘British’ and ‘Cross’ in its title is confused with a Christian establishment organisation.”

 

Although the charity is impartial in its work, he added: “There is no escaping the fact that with shining exceptions, such as our refugee services, we are nowhere near as diverse as we need to be in our volunteer base, our staffing or our leadership.”

 

The Red Cross was drafted in to help in the aftermath of the Grenfell Tower fire in June, but many survivors feel they have yet to see any benefit from the charity’s fundraising efforts, with some even accusing it of being “thieves”.

 

The charity has raised £6.2m, but only £2.4m has been sent to organisations that will distribute the money.

 

Adamson’s frank comments in a blog for the New Philanthropy Capital think tank are reminiscent of Greg Dyke, the former BBC director-general, who described the broadcaster as “hideously white” in 2001.

 

A large proportion of families living in Grenfell Tower were from ethnic minority and Muslim backgrounds.

 

It's obvious how a lack of diversity can impede help in these kinds of circumstances - where people being helped don't have English as their first language, for example.

 

I mean yes, the categories white and not speaking the family's first language / not having full knowledge of how being Muslim might mean someone after a disaster has different needs (on food they can eat, services they need access to, funeral traditions after death and the need to bury the day after a body is returned and how that might impact on a family's time and availability and access to charity help) likely generally coincide. But it isn't the whiteness that's the problem there, it's the not having the understanding. The headline's going for inaccurate sensationalism over portraying what the actual drift of the CEO was saying about how a more diverse volunteer base for Red Cross would make it easier for them to help in some instances.

Edited September 13, 20177 yr by Qassändra

Going off at a tangent, what does Political Correctness actually mean to people here?

 

From my pov : It started out as a well-meaning attempt to protect minorities from abuse (which I have no problem with), but it is now often hijacked by the left, and used by them as an Orwellian device to suppress opposition to the Left's ideology.

 

I await the inevitable request for examples... :rolleyes:

 

Going off at a tangent, what does Political Correctness actually mean to people here?

 

From my pov : It started out as a well-meaning attempt to protect minorities from abuse (which I have no problem with), but it is now often hijacked by the left, and used by them as an Orwellian device to suppress opposition to the Left's ideology.

 

I await the inevitable request for examples... :rolleyes:

So why not pre-empt that by providing some. BTW, the baa-baa green sheep story is a widely discredited myth.

So why not pre-empt that by providing some.

 

Well, I didn't want to jump the gun in case no-one did ask. ;)

 

'Rioting gets speaker 'banned'

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/uc-berkeley-of...t-wing-speaker/

 

For good or ill, he's part of our history...

 

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/...d-oriel-college

Od dear, the old statues argument again. I have been to Germany quite a few times over the years. I haven't seen a single statue commemorating Nazi-era leaders. Similarly, there are not many statues of Lenin and Stalin in the old USSR or of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

 

Opinions of people change over the years. It is, therefore, perfectly reasonable to reassess how we commemorate these people.

Od dear, the old statues argument again. I have been to Germany quite a few times over the years. I haven't seen a single statue commemorating Nazi-era leaders. Similarly, there are not many statues of Lenin and Stalin in the old USSR or of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

 

Opinions of people change over the years. It is, therefore, perfectly reasonable to reassess how we commemorate these people.

 

Strangely enough, in recent years there's been a resurgence of statues of Stalin being erected in Russia, fuelled by increasing nationalism amongst younger Russians and for his role in defeating the Nazis in WW2 (conveniently forgetting that when the war started, the USSR were on the Nazi's side). A recent article about it also claimed that 46% of Russian express admiration of Stalin, which is quite chilling.

 

Veering off topic slightly, on the subject of Germany, when I was in Berlin last year I visited the Berlin Film Museum, and when it came to the section of the museum surrounding film of the 30s, I found it interesting, yet understandable, that none of the materials surrounding this period was kept in open display, instead it was kept in drawers which had to be opened to learn more detail about it

Staying off topic slightly, I went to the Berlin Film Museum myself a few years ago. I was lucky enough to go when they had a fascinating full=scale exhibition devoted to Metropolis, in my opinion one of the greatest films ever made.

They still had an exhibition for Metropolis when I visited, which was quite impressive. It's to my shame that I still haven't watched Metropolis - as my degree's in Film, it's one of those key films that I really should have seen.

It is fair to say that I spent a long time on the Metropolis exhibition! When watching the film, it's fascinating to observe how many videos, adverts etc. have been influenced by it. It's also an extraordinary technical achievement for a film made in 1927, the year my Dad was born.