There was a tweet running on unconscious (implicit) bias, on the back of the Ministerial pronoucemnet that UB training should cease in Westminster, which inevitably ended talking UB in policing.

The first point to make is that this feels like a decision based on a political position of broadly being anti-diversity, pro the staus quo and an easy life for Ministers. Ending EIAs, withdrawing funds for Tribunals..this is another step

Second is that Patrick Forscher oft quoted paper is used as a justification was not studying UB training. He never has done and has trg no evidence. He was studying 'interventions' mainly 20 mins sessions with students. He corrected the comment about training attributed to him.

3rd. The training in Westminster cost £2.18p ahead. So I am thinking is is e-learning. If we measure trg against raising awareness (knowledge ck?) it may raise awareness but don't expect any training taking 30 minutes and costing £2.18 to change behaviour.

4th. Academics have been arguong amongts themselves for 14 years (since Blanton and Jaccard). They still don't have an answer but do like to point out there are no randomised, control group studies of behavioural change with UB Trg. No shit Sherlock.

5th. There are no studies showing that any training works that meet the standards required by academics (Maryland Scale style). Why do we think politicians and fragile white men are just prepared to jump all over UB training?

6th. The same people jump all over diversity training, anti bias training, critical race theory, postive action, BLM and everythng else which chanllenges the unearned advantage they have in life which got them where they are.

7th. Only BAD unconscious bias training allows delegates to use it as an excuse. They are th e same poeple delivering bad diversity training, bad negotiation skills training, bad training is bad training.

8. UB training has attracted the usual get-rich-quick trainers who next week will be selling goat sacrifice if it buys them a new BMW. I have seen the materials, and most if it isnt about UB, doesn't understand UB and is likley to make it worse not better.

9. Academic reviews tip all this shit 'training' into 1 pile and, call it UB training and then say it doesn't work. Imagine evaluating personal protection training along with the drunk down the chippy doing his king-fu moves to the queue and calling it PPT. That's what they do

10. Carter et al (2020) tell us what good UB trg looks like. It doesnt look like the £2.18p e-learning or the goat scarifice. Don't throw baby with bath water because one minister is playing to the anti BLM galllery and one academic loves a bit of media but doesnt check