Why do they need to know?

Yes, Eleothan, it is virtually always ethnic minority families who choose to sit very close to the car park. Living very close by and walking there almost every day, we see it time and time again.

I was not implying that there is anything wrong with it, merely saying it in the context of walking as a pleasant leisure activity often being an alien concept in certain cultures. And I dare say that stems at least partly from ethnic-origin climate - when it's stinking hot much of the time most people will not choose to walk far unless they have to.
Might add that having lived for many years in parts of the world where it IS stinking hot much of the time, I can understand this only too well.

I think it might be to do with funding. They need to prove that they are attracting and retaining people from every part of society. Quite often it isn't compulsory to answer these questions and there is a "prefer not to say" option so, if you feel strongly about it, pick that option.

As for charities asking for (to me) irrelevant information, having agreed to a small monthly donation, I was once asked by a 'chugger' in the street for my age and phone number.
I declined to give both, on the grounds that my age was irrelevant, and I didn't want anyone phoning me, let alone passing my number on.
He said that was fine.

Next thing you know, there was letter from the charity, saying that they were 'unable' to process my 'application' without this information. I couldn't believe the cheek of it - anyone would think I was asking them for money!

Needless to say, the letter went in the bin - and the money started coming out of my account anyway.
This was ages ago when chuggers were a new thing - I invariably pass them by now.

I wonder how much these statistics actually prove other than getting grants. For instance, where I live most of the primary schools are CofE and there are no mosques. So Moslems are thin on the ground. Is this taken into account?

I am glad everyone can be so cheerful as the Common Purpose leftists salami slice the rights of the population. An Age UK course has nothing to do with anyone except the charity and the applicant,and, furthermore, the desire to impose ‘Diversity’ is malign. Quotas are inherently sexist, racist and unequal.

These forms are mission critical to any organisation that is ever inspected or is regulated or depends on public donations. The data is used anonymously to help organisations to measure how they are performing under their obligations arising from the Equality act.

They have to prove that they are NOT discriminating against any of the protected characteristics of gender, disability, race, age..... so it therefore follows that if you want services to be provided for you it is your part of the bargain to help them to plan, bid for funds and prove that they have delivered what they said would.

As customers it is in our interest to provide the data so that our needs are met and our money spent fairly.

As someone who worked for several charities over the years you would not believe the hoops they have to jump through to obtain funding. Being able to demonstrate the diversity of their service users may well be a requirement of some funding applications. Most organisations while getting some funding from the public also need to make lengthy applications to a smorgasbord of Grant making bodies. No grants no service! I actually worked for Age UK when it was Age Concern and remember folk being very uppity about the fact they put money in a tin every flag day but got no service. That flag day money was but a drop in the ocean compared to what the charity needs. Personally instead of petty complaining I would be doing anything I could to help a Charity raise funds. As someone else has said the information is anonimsed and only collected a statistics. This is the exact opposite of discrimination and helps Age UK support more older people in need.

Always remember reading about Peter Ustinov who when asked his colour on a form chose to put "pink!"

Neil Perhaps if you had a child in a wheelchair, or born with indeterminate sex, or with one arm you would not treat this as an opportunity to make a joke.

It's not about "aiming" courses at anyone is it? It's about seeing who is signing up for courses, if certain groups are significantly under-represented and, if so, why.

As I understand it, the diversity questionnaire is separate from any other forms and is therefore anonymous. So how can anyone be "frightened". In any case, they can choose not to complete it. And, as has already been pointed out, people who use the internet, have store cards, etc., have probably disclosed far more information already than diversity questionnaires seek.

Telling people with whom you disagree that they are unintelligent, insensitive, arrogant, etc., seems a little over the top to me.

Incidentally, is it predominantly "certain ethnic minority families" who choose to sit near the car park rather than venture out into the countryside?

If I chose to participate in any interests then why should I be asked such personal questions as shown on Age UK.
I may not have the same gender, colour the same religion as my neighbour but should that stop me pursuing my interests ? The fact I wished to participate is enough.
Who I am should not be questionable.

leeds22 .
Reminds me of giving a personality questionnaire to a teenage boy to fill in. Next to Sex? he wrote "not yet".

Debenhams sell Sloggis, while we still have a Debenhams, also the Next shop, and I think Evans. Mrs Neil gets a box every Christmas - along with lots of other presents I hasten to add !!

An old colleague always used to answer the Sex question with 'yes please'.

The world we live in, diversity funds everythingbthese days which is why the bbc is full of presenters with one arm or in wheelchairs or who can’t make up their minds if they are blokes or girls

I seem to remember 'concern' in some outdoors-y pursuits organisation, that not nearly enough ethnic minorities were joining up for country hikes, etc.

Those 'concerned' were completely ignoring the fact that in some cultures - perhaps particularly in non-northern European ones, going for long country walks when it's so often likely to be cold and/or wet, is just not something many of those people choose to do.

We have a lovely large green space nearby, where many families like to picnic on a nice day, and it's very noticeable that although there are 2000 acres to find a nice space in, certain ethnic minority families will so often choose a patch of grass as close as possible to the car park.

Eloethan

So the "sections of society" that you say need to have the courses aimed at, must include the people in the groups represented by answers given under the following aspects:

Religion
Gender
Whether I am transgender
Sexual orientation

So you plan for different sexual orientations? Or for transgender people, for example?

Do you not have the sensitivity to see that simply asking these questions is intrusive and very frightening for some people?

Do you not have the intelligence to know that your responses are going to be heavily biased and that they will be extremely unreliable?

Has it not occurred to you that this is a waste of money?

kittylester You said:
It won't lead to quotas just more effective targeting at the groups who are under represented.

I sincerely doubt this. The responses to the data collection will almost certainly not reflect the attendance of the courses. The very nature of being asked these questions is likely to lead to misleading responses. Sadly it is also likely to make some people turn away, or perhaps hear second-hand that there is a form to fill in which asks this type of thing and subsequently they do not even go to enquire.

I think the people who believe their little questionnaire is useful are very misguided and misinformed, not to say somewhat arrogant.

patriciageegee I know we want to believe times have changed and that such horrors could not happen again. However, I have been advised by so many people now that whatever we say on Social Media, we need to know is collected as data and never thrown away! I still find that hard to believe thinking about just how much data that must be! Yet the people who tell me these things show cogent evidence and come from backgrounds of undeniable knowledge. I'm sorry I cannot disclose it! Very sorry, it does sound quite silly, but they have to remain in the background.

There are the websites, generally written off as "conspiracy theories" places, that have some of the evidence the same as I have seen. Part of what I know is on the 'Richplanet' website, for example where Neil Sanders exposed Cambridge Analytica before it became general news. Many people do not even agree to have a smart metre because it is collecting your personal data! Your mobile phone shows where you are*, (unless like me you keep forgetting it!) and some people told me your computer camera can remotely be accessed and used. Sounds crazy? I really do not know. I just can't see why anyone would want to know about someone as dull as me! I'm just terribly boring in fact. But apparently, what we write here, on FaceBook, and all the other places, is gathered up.

*But then, how often has mobile phone location been used to rescue some one who is lost? It is more a help than a threat, I think.

My own feeling is that there is a careful watch for sensitive data/words/information on internet messaging. For that, I think, we are all very grateful, because it really applies to terrorist acts or any kind of dangerous act against our Country. I don't think any normal citizen would mind their emails etc. being electronically checked for sensitive information to rule out that kind of threat.

I will never answer the religion question on the government census form honestly for exactly the reason Patricia outlines.

The government has no damn business knowing at what address every [insert religion here] in the UK lives.

I do not consider myself libertarian, but the government are not entitled to keep tabs on the inside of my head.

Big brother is everywhere. When I did a photoshop course, the tutor had to include British values and world religions in it, to make sure I wasn't being radicalised by the course. I did wonder at first why I was being asked to name really hard to recognise Brits like the Queen and Prince Charles.

Well said Eloethan. I too think it’s petty to ignore those questions. After all, how else can the planners know that all sections of society are able to access their services?

NfkDumpling You are completely right.

My previous profession relied on good statistical evidence. A knowledge of Statistics as a subject in itself was required in my degree. I remember "reporting bias" being a hugely important feature. Your examples are very good. There are probably very many others, including all those where people misunderstood the form or filled it in wrongly.

I am really very dubious about this kind of data collection, mainly done by Councils who do not understand what they are doing but feel as if they are behaving in a "proper" way. Often it is done to tick the box saying they are addressing the needs of everyone. That is quite ridiculous of course. I am extremely suspicious about the underlying motives for asking these questions and about what is done with the data and whether it is kept in complete confidentiality and by whom.

I would advise everyone to ignore these questions.

Oldwoman70 crikey!! I feel inclined to say I'm too old to know what these are. But then my pride would stop me, we are all very well informed and intelligent despite our age, indeed probably we know more than younger people because we are older.

I suppose ignoring them is the only way, but I really think it's going too far and I would like to make some kind of statement.

Surely, for people looking for things to do after retirement age, these questions are irrelevant? Also, aren't they somewhat intrusive? Who has the right to know about things such as "transgender"? I would have thought that a trans person would simply say the gender they are, and not need to put on a form the "trans" bit or explain that an accident of birth called them another gender. Why can't they, as one example, just be an older person looking for things to do? It really seems intrusive to me. I don't accept the answer that they are just collecting data to see if they are addressing the needs of all sections of the community. That does not make sense, because how do they know the numbers in each group that there are in the community? I do not see the point of the questions except for unnecessary and prurient intrusion into people's lives.

I once attempted to buy some knickers after seeing them advertised in the press. They were the right brand, right colour, right price and right size so what could go wrong?
My cheque was returned saying that the order box had not been filled in completely
The missing feature was my age. I replied saying that my age in no way could indicate the size of knickers required and so I chose to leave that box blank. The firm refused to serve me.
They obviously required my DOB in order to sell my details on. My son said I should have lied as everybody else did
The local lingerie shop had closed so I did without my Sloggis

I just put 'prefer not to answer' for most of those questions. I NEVER answer the ethnicity questions. It is a ludicrous tick-box exercise, and I do not believe the data is used to improve reach. Some well-known organisations (no names, but I have read their annual reports) have been doing it for decades and still haven't widened their reach.