Bogus Research

I have for some time admired The Devil's fakecharities.org campaign. (Just wish he'd get a logo so I can put it on my blog!)

But this week, I have been enraged by some astounding bogus research by so-called charities.

First, child poverty. According to Dr Banardos yesterday, "there are currently 3.9 million children living in poverty in the UK, and that's almost a third of all children". WTF? Now I know I drive fast, but as I have flashed through 'sarf' London avoiding the poor people, I have not noticed hordes of pot bellied children covered in flies on every street corner.

No, Dr B's are using NuLab maths, as approved by our triple counting wanker of a PM. If you bother to hit Dr B's website there is a page entitled 'What is Poverty'. In short, this is a page of spin subverting mathematics so they can get to a truly shockingly large number. (I have written previously about how to run a fake campaign and use fake maths, here).

There are not 3 million children in poverty in the UK. These do-gooding fuckwits need to get out more. Suggestion: try visiting Africa, Asia and South America. Those are the odd shaped bits on the map past Islington and further on south of Tuscany.

Second, glass ceilings. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (aka the taxpayer funded evil empire of Trevor Phillips) has today pumped out this, which tells us that:

a. Women earn up to 60% less than men in the finance sector
b. 28% of those working in professional occupations in the sector are women, compared with 42% in the economy as a whole
c. 11% of senior managers are women, compared to 28% in the economy as a whole

OMG, how I am bored with this PC bleating about the glass ceiling. Time for some reality:

Obvious Point 1 - The average age of a director of a City business is around the 50-60 yrs mark, meaning that they would have been entering the City market roughly in 1969-79.

Obvious Point 2 - There were many fewer women entering this market in those days. Things have now changed, but then, much much fewer. (Let's be bold. 30% of the total?)

Obvious Point 3 - It is safe to say that the overwhelming majority of this already comparatively small female cohort went off and had babies. (OK so now let's be conservative. 75% of that original 30%?)

Obvious Point 4 - The majority of this now dwindling number will never have returned to the workplace. (What do you think? 90% non-returns?)

Obvious Point 5 - A small percentage of this now severely reduced number will have rejoined but, after some years out of the market, will have been out of date and will therefore inevitably have suffered in their comparative promotion prospects as compared to their male counterparts.

So on these guesstimates, which I think you'd agree have been cautious, this means that in the 50-60 yrs age range, 10% of the City workforce will now be women. But only 7.5% will have had uninterrupted careers.

Now of course not everyone is good enough to be a board director, but if your talent pool is only 7.5-10% of the workforce, frankly it is amazing that we have any females at the top of any of our City businesses right now. As we go forward, then this will change, but it will be slow and always disproportionate because - and here's a really important point, Trevor - girls have babies and boys don't, you fuckwit.

But of course this obvious maths simply doesn't fit with the trendy, PC, NuLab, bleeding heart, anti-poverty, pro-wimmin dogma of the Left.