Why do so many doctors go into BTL?

[Neverwhere]

5 hours ago, Ah-so said:

My earlier point was making exactly the same point, rather than arguing for the hypothesis.

My earlier posts were all just pointing out that the specific hypothesis and associated question are not supported by the evidence.

[Bland Unsight]

 

Just when I thought I'd read all of this thread I find I'd missed a page.

On 22/09/2017 at 8:15 AM, Rozza said:

Oh i simply figured Beary was posting a load of utter ******** and calling people racist, therefore clearly needed to be called out as one too :-D

Look at the state of this! People just glibly posting racist nonsense. 

On 22/09/2017 at 8:28 AM, Gribble said:

Because for some "communities" becoming rich is the overriding thing. Thats why they become doctors (who are overpaid in the UK) and are into BTL. They have a very lax view on paying taxes also

 

On 22/09/2017 at 9:06 AM, insertcoinstocontinue said:

If making an observation that Asians do love a btl venture is racist and I've offended I apologise. Geez, next you'll be saying I can't say all Scots are drunks!

 

chill the deck out people

Of course it's bloody racist you daft muppet. It's textbook casual racism FFS.

 

 

[Option5]

On 22/09/2017 at 7:02 PM, Beary McBearface said:

I've always understood a key part of racism to involve attributing traits, attitudes, beliefs or dispositions (etc) to the individual on the basis of an assumed property of group from which they are deemed to be drawn. If if you meet a Welshman and just assume that he likes rugby because he's Welsh then what guides your cognition is prejudice.

I'm a teacher. I am repeatedly read about how teachers are over-represented amongst the BTL brigade. I've worked with something like two or three hundred other teachers (though I've worked closely with a far smaller number). I'm not sure the HPC meme about teachers being mad for the BTL stacks up but the sample size (and the quality of the sampling) that is the empirical basis for my judgement ain't worth much. I buy the argument that teachers enjoy excellent job security and as they are still largely paid on a basis that reflects pre-Academisation national pay frameworks there are going to be a lot of parts of the country where teachers have enjoyed a considerable advantage in local housing markets over the last twenty years (relative to those on median private sector earnings in the same area) and that therefore there will be some teachers who have gotten into the BTL game (Fatty Wilson being a particularly notable example). However, teachers are a heterogeneous lot when you step back. Young teachers in London will presently be shelling out half of their earnings for a studio flat and home-ownership will appear essentially impossible. Hence when one says "teachers are into BTL" one first formulates a stereotype about a group. One then applies that stereotype to all the members of that group and therefore you apply it to many in the group who do not fit the stereotype. For me, if somebody does the same thing with any racial category they choose to formulate (e.g. "Asian people") then they are being racist and leave themselves open to being labelled a racist.

The thing that I found most objectionable is the utter worthlessness of insertcoinstocontinue's contribution. If the thread was a pub conversation it would run like this:

"Why do so many doctors get into BTL?"

"It's because so many of them are Asian people and so many Asian people are into BTL"

Why drag race into the thread to make such a stupid, worthless point? (Red flag on the troll front IMO.)

Now, much as I expected, no poster has produced a shred of evidence which supports the claim that "Asian people" are into BTL. Hence you have a view that is predicated on a totally unevidenced claim being made about Asian people working in the NHS. Now that might strike some as an amusing aside but it struck me as dull-witted racism, so I called it out.

The idea that Asian and Asian British people are over-represented as NHS consultants relative to the workforce as a whole stacks up. However the dominant ethnicity of NHS consultants is, surprise surprise, white British (54%).

I also knew that there was nothing doing on the over-representation in the landlord population because I had a vague memory of this:

There's also this:

The source for both figures is this.

Hence the best possible interpretation is that insertcoinstocontinue was making a crap aside about all doctors being Asians and all landlord being Asians too. If you find casual racism amusing you might think that I over-reacted to his wonderful bon mot. Personally, having had time to turn over some rocks with the actual statistics, I think I nailed it.

"I've always understood a key part of racism to involve attributing traits, attitudes, beliefs or dispositions (etc) to the individual on the basis of an assumed property of group from which they are deemed to be drawn. If if you meet a Welshman and just assume that he likes rugby because he's Welsh then what guides your cognition is prejudice."

Predudice based on sterotypes is not racism as it has nothing to do with race. it has to do with ethnicity which is learned. Your Welshmans race is white, his ethnicity is Welsh. You're born whatever race you are black, white etc however you can (although few do) make a choice on your ethnicity.

Ethnicity is a a learned trait, children are not born with predudices and religions etc, they learn them from their surroundings and those they interact with, parents, teachers etc.. So saying a large percentage of a certain race have the similar values and beliefs is an observation of ethnic traits, usually based on the individuals own experience. It is not and never has been, racism. (BTW I'm Irish so you can consider me stupid if it makes you feel better)

Finally I was not agreeing (or otherwise) with insertcointocontinue, I was however disagreeing with your accusation of casual racism when in my opinion it was nothing of the sort.

"Hence the best possible interpretation is that insertcoinstocontinue was making a crap aside about all doctors being Asians and all landlord being Asians too. If you find casual racism amusing you might think that I over-reacted to his wonderful bon mot. Personally, having had time to turn over some rocks with the actual statistics, I think I nailed it."

The best possible interpretation in your opinion, I'm surprised that a teacher would use the phrase "actual statistics" as if there's any such thing. I note that you used the SSC as the source of your "facts", this is how they describe themselves:

"The Centre’s work is built on the application of strategic policy analysis – a distinct set of analytical techniques developed in Whitehall to provide Ministers with highly evidenced, reasoned, innovative policy recommendations and ideas."

Well we all know how successful that has been 

"having had time to turn over some rocks with the actual statistics" I take it you don't teach English?

"I think I nailed it." Feel free to think what you want, but I for one disagree with you.

[Option5]

4 hours ago, Beary McBearface said:

I reject this argument. As I reject most of yours

It requires that we accept the premise that one only defends somebody because one feel that they aren't capable of defending themselves

. Not what was suggested, however have yu actually asked the person you feel needs defending if they need or want your help or are yoou the sole arbiter of who needs what.

I can think of myriad social situations where one defends somebody else and the motivation is not that they aren't capable of defending themselves. So can most people, you're not that special.

For example, when working in an open office some joker starts shouting at another colleague. You might decide to intervene primarily because you don't want to work in an office where shouting at colleagues is just part and parcel of how things are done; it may lead to further conflict but now that conflict will revolve around the question of whether it is or is not acceptable to shout at colleagues. The motivation could be entirely self-interested and have nothing to do with whether or not the party being attacked is capable of defending themselves. I have only worked in civilised offices, but that's probably because most people don't take umbrage at everthing that could be perceived as a slight against them. A bit of advice, if someone says something that can be taken in more than one way and one of the possibilities would upset you, assume they intended one of the other meanings.

Next up you are arguing that we have to look at any racist statement and just read it and quietly nod unless we are part of the group being attacked. This is a deeply troubling argument. It would be if that was what I did, but I didn't, you chose to interpret it that way because you look for offence, even where it doesn't exist. I wasn't defending racism, I was just pointing out that this wasn't racism, It's actually ethnic stereotyping which is not the same thing.

You may feel that you've constructed something rather clever but what you've really come up with is a rationale for never opposing persecution of any anyone other than yourself.

Really? me clever? and you're so superior you had to correct me, talking to people like they're children is not a good trait to have.

You've turned the famous Niemöller quotation on its head: Which version of his quotation (there are several) BTW he was an antisemitist in his earlier years, he apologised in 1963.

Another thing. How exactly am I "playing the race card to [my] advantage"; I meant to sort the kitchen out but I spent the morning reading and responding to dreary posts from morons linking to BNP videos and jokers with crazy ideas about our "femcentric" culture. It would have been to my advantage to overlook the questionable post. (OK the stuff about current BNP leader was pretty funny, so that was to my advantage.)

I actually said "people", not "you", again your attributing things to yourself that aren't warranted, must be your superiority complex kicking in again.

Finally, when you suggest that perhaps insertcoinstocontinue didn't think I was "worth the effort" you touch on what really matters to me, which is the tone of threads on HP&TE. To me it is exactly the same as the shouting-in-the-office business. You seem to be in majority of one, I think a little introspection might be a good idea.

If someone makes me double-take regarding where the hell the poster is going with the spurious introduction of the idea that a particular ethnicity are mad keen on BTL then I react because I hang out on this forum and I don't want this forum to be the kind of place where that kind of thing is somehow OK. In that case I'd consider leaving if I were you, as you're not exactly garnering much support for your arguements.

It's not up to me what the forum is like but I do get my say and ultimately it's a forum and the point of the forum is to discuss. You don't discuss, you attack and accuse (and mildly irritate in my case)

None of the people who've taken me to task are still discussing it because none of you care. You just want to mouth off at another poster and then carry on about your business.

Or, it could be that they think your opinions  and predudices are so deep seated that it's pointless trying to debate with with you.

 

[StarsEnd]

Not much point in arguing. Brainwashed people don't know they're brainwashed.

I'm just glad I no longer have kids at school.

[sPinwheel]

Why do white people like to argue so much.

[Option5]

1 minute ago, sPinwheel said:

Why do white people like to argue so much.

For fun

[RomfordDon]

Borrowing money to buy houses is easy. Borrowing money for shares or gold is much for difficult.

[Bland Unsight]

12 hours ago, Option5 said:

Not what was suggested, however have yu actually asked the person you feel needs defending if they need or want your help or are yoou the sole arbiter of who needs what.

First up, please do not reply point by point within the quote box. The way the forum software hands replies means that if you do that I have to cut and paste manually. (Of course if you were frightened of being asked to stand behind your ideas it's a good move as it makes it makes the physical process of responding more tiresome.)

At this point we take a clear step towards a clear framing of the problem with your argument. The forum is a public space. I know some of the members are Asian and I know some of members are doctors. I know of no reason why one of the lurkers just starting reading the forum might not be drawn from an ethnic group captured by insertcoinstocontinue's slur against the ethnic groups covered by the word Asian. I have those lurkers in mind. I want them to be totally confident that whilst there are bigots posting on the forum it is not the case that everyone posting on the forum is a bigot or that bigotry is tacitly tolerated by everyone.

I am obviously the sole arbiter of what is acceptable to me.

[Neverwhere]

On 23/09/2017 at 10:30 AM, Beary McBearface said:

Yeah, these virtue signalling anti-(anti-racists) really get on my tits.

Apparently the best the virtue signalling anti-(anti-racists) can do is pretend that falsely assigning negative behaviours to a particular race isn't racist.

[Ah-so]

2 minutes ago, Neverwhere said:

Apparently the best the virtue signalling anti-(anti-racists) can do is pretend that falsely assigning negative behaviours to a particular race isn't racist.

There are so many negatives in that statement that I'm not not quite sure what it means! 

[Frugal Git]

42 minutes ago, RomfordDon said:

Borrowing money to buy houses is easy. Borrowing money for shares or gold is much for difficult.

Not now - times have changed. In the early 2000s with self cert etc that would be the case.

To buy a house now as an OO you would need to qualify for various MMR rules, and buy to let has become more strict too.

Whereas these days I can borrow a 100k to speculate on shares, long or short, in a spread betting account at a mouse click for between 1 and 20k down, depending on the margin requirements.

Not saying that's a good idea, but I would say it's substantially easier to do the latter than buy a house. It's just that most people only trust their beloved 'bricks and mortar'.

[Bland Unsight]

13 hours ago, Option5 said:

It would be if that was what I did, but I didn't, you chose to interpret it that way because you look for offence, even where it doesn't exist. I wasn't defending racism, I was just pointing out that this wasn't racism, It's actually ethnic stereotyping which is not the same thing.

I think that distinguishing between bigotry predicated on prejudice against a given ethnic group and racism is pure pedantry (and pedantry of an extremely dubious quality). I am arguing that holding prejudiced views about a given ethnic group is racism and that promulgating those view in a public space is acting out because of that racism.

That said, I'll ask you a straight question. If I had initially posted not "Get lost, you racist idiot" but "This is a view based on your prejudiced views of the ethnic groups we describe as Asian, you should delete your post" would you have accepted my first post without demur?

[Bland Unsight]

9 minutes ago, Ah-so said:

There are so many negatives in that statement that I'm not not quite sure what it means! 

Welcome to the Thunderdome; there will be subsidiary clauses (and emphasis that is difficult to interpret).

[Option5]

12 minutes ago, Beary McBearface said:

First up, please do not reply point by point within the quote box. The way the forum software hands replies means that if you do that I have to cut and paste manually. (Of course if you were frightened of being asked to stand behind your ideas it's a good move as it makes it makes the physical process of responding more tiresome.)

At this point we take a clear step towards a clear framing of the problem with your argument. The forum is a public space. I know some of the members are Asian and I know some of members are doctors. I know of no reason why one of the lurkers just starting reading the forum might not be drawn from an ethnic group captured by insertcoinstocontinue's slur against the ethnic groups covered by the word Asian. I have those lurkers in mind. I want them to be totally confident that whilst there are bigots posting on the forum it is not the case that everyone posting on the forum is a bigot or that bigotry is tacitly tolerated by everyone.

I am obviously the sole arbiter of what is acceptable to me.

Firstly, apologies for my presentation, my phone isn't the latest all singing etc. That also accounts for the tryping errurs

If they are ethnic groups it wasn't racist, it was stereotyping, which was the point I made.

 

[Option5]

Pedantry? "a person who is too interested in formal rules and small details that are not important." so you consider anyone who feels that wrongly accusing someone of being racist is a pedant? Count me in.

[Option5]

5 minutes ago, Beary McBearface said:

That said, I'll ask you a straight question. If I had initially posted not "Get lost, you racist idiot" but "This is a view based on your prejudiced views of the ethnic groups we describe as Asian, you should delete your post" would you have accepted my first post without demur?

I'm fairly laid back about insults, I've been insulted by experts so yours wouldn't bother me. I would respond in the same manner regardless, although without any long words to the first example. The main reason being that you didn't direct the insult at me, I didn't say anything that even you could perceive as racist, I just pointed out that you idea of what constitutes racism is flawed.

[Bland Unsight]

13 hours ago, Option5 said:

You seem to be in majority of one, I think a little introspection might be a good idea.

It would be a minority of one, not a "majority of one". Given that the oppo include somebody posting EDL videos in off-topic (honkydonkey) and somebody else pointing clips of BNP TV here on HP&TE (Arbitrage) I'd be happy even if I was in a minority of one.

Quote

The only tyrant I accept in this world is the "still small voice" within me. And even though I have to face the prospect of being a minority of one, I humbly believe I have the courage to be in such a hopeless minority.

 

[Mrs Bear]

On 21/09/2017 at 5:48 PM, RomfordDon said:

Reading this in the mail just got me thinking

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4907264/Landlords-35-men-live-squalor-DOCTORS.html

why do so many well paid professionals get into BTL as a sideline?

They must be on a decent wack so why not just go out and enjoy life why deal with BTL in your spare time.

I don't suppose they do deal with it.  They pay letting agents to do it for them. 

[Neverwhere]

25 minutes ago, Beary McBearface said:

Welcome to the Thunderdome; there will be subsidiary clauses (and emphasis that is difficult to interpret).

Speaking of which, there is a legal definition of race to which we can refer:

Quote

Equality Act 2010

9 Race

( 1 ) Race includes—

          ( a ) colour;

          ( b ) nationality;

          ( c ) ethnic or national origins.

( 2 ) In relation to the protected characteristic of race—

          ( a ) a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a person of a particular racial group;

          ( b ) a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons of the same racial group.

( 3 ) A racial group is a group of persons defined by reference to race; and a reference to a person's racial group is a reference to a racial group into which the person falls.

( 4 )The fact that a racial group comprises two or more distinct racial groups does not prevent it from constituting a particular racial group.

 

[Bland Unsight]

11 minutes ago, Option5 said:

I'm fairly laid back about insults, I've been insulted by experts so yours wouldn't bother me. I would respond in the same manner regardless, although without any long words to the first example. The main reason being that you didn't direct the insult at me, I didn't say anything that even you could perceive as racist, I just pointed out that you idea of what constitutes racism is flawed.

For the avoidance of doubt, you are refusing to answer the question? It's a yes or no question.

[Bland Unsight]

1 minute ago, Neverwhere said:

Speaking of which, there is a legal definition of race to which we can refer:

There goes the pedantry ball game.

[Neverwhere]

This seems to have been lost in all of the kerfuffle about how virtuously offended some people are that someone said a word on the internet, but as Beary pointed out up thread that survey does actually include information on the amount of PRS landlords employed by Health authorities or NHS Trusts compared to non-landlord homeowners and all adults over 16 years:

On 22/09/2017 at 7:02 PM, Beary McBearface said:

There's also this:

The source for both figures is this.

 

[Bland Unsight]

13 hours ago, Option5 said:

In that case I'd consider leaving if I were you, as you're not exactly garnering much support for your arguements.

"It's always too soon to go home. And it's always too soon to calculate effect."

[Neverwhere]

6 minutes ago, Beary McBearface said:

There goes the pedantry ball game.

Indeed.