And therein lies a further problem. The acknowledgement that something is wrong, but having neither the will or guts to do anything about it.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Is this allowed?
- Thread starter Daddies_Sauce
- Start date
And therein lies a further problem. The acknowledgement that something is wrong, but having neither the will or guts to do anything about it.
Interviewer: "Do you have any big firm experience?"
Candidate: "No, but I have big, firm breasts"
drew
Drew
Really! You come out with a statement that everyone in this country does get an equal opportunity and then claim you're all for common sense!!!!
The Merry Prankster
Pactum serva
The group itself is not fully diverse - that is the point.
It is not opportunity that matters, it is reality. As I said to someone else it is not equality just to be allowed to apply for jobs, it is equallity if you have an equal chance of getting that job. That is not currently the case. That is why it needs redressing.
looney
Banned
- Jul 7, 2003
- 15,652
Given the classiness of your posts, Primark.
looney
Banned
- Jul 7, 2003
- 15,652
Thats equality of outcome.
I'll buy you a pair of frillies as usual x
You know perfectly well that the right to play wheelchair basketball is not the same as the right of a man to experience childbirth. And, in terms of 'having more minorities in the workforce' I am stadfast that positive discrimination is discrimination. It was introduced in the US as a means to deal with outrageous discrimination, and back in the 70s I considered it a necessary evil, but when it leads to the best qualified person not getting the job it becomes a counterproductive farce, and was one of the original triggers of the odious term 'political correctness gone mad'. It also covers the cracks of ignorance because it allows that when the quota is met, there is no need to employ any more of 'them' (explaining why, in a predomonantly black nighbourhood, up to 50% of the workforce can be white - once the white bosses meet the quota they halt the hiring of the blacks - and exactly the same can work the other way; racist behavious is not rstricted to any one race). And then there is the detail - how do your base the quota? On national population demographics or local? Do you divide ethnicity into 'black' and 'white' (which means an 'Asian' boss can employ whites and 'asians' and need not employ any person of African origin) or do you go granular? How granular? Person of Norther Irish extraction versus Southern Irish? No.
No. All of this is disregarding who is best qualified for the job in order to enact social enginering, and meanwhile it deprives qualified folk of the 'majority' ethnicity (i.e., white, UK) of a job.
The solution is to have strict and open employment laws, as we have in the UK, and to enforce them. Educating our people on employment law would be useful, albeit I'm sure there are web sites. Yes, at Joe's garage, Joe may well get away with employing a long line of pneumatic blonds, but it is up to folk to challenge him. At the larger and more complex end of the employment tree, where I work there are tens of thousands of employees and the law is followed to the letter.
Albeit, 40 odd years ago a young heart surgeon failed to get a job here, allegedly due to him 'not being the right sort, don'tcha know?'. Harefield Hospital's gain was my place's loss; it was Magdi Yacoub, now knighted, the first surgeon to complete 1000 heart transplants ....FFS!
The Merry Prankster
Pactum serva
Yes it is.
drew
Drew
Why is this preventing the best person applying for the job regardless of race?
Sorry, to what does 'this' refer?
Yes, anyone can apply for any job (unless barred - see OP). I said I am against positive discrimination but I did not say getting rid of it would prevent anyone from applying for a job. The opposite, in fact.
Maybe you have grasped the wrong end of my stick.
drew
Drew
'This' is referring to Creative Access. I think you are making the assumption that Creative Access are the sole recruitment conduit for the positions they advertise. A quick search of the companies they are advertising vacancies for appears to show this is not the case. So whilst CA are stating they only put forward BAME candidates that doesn't mean they will be the only candidates for the job.
looney
Banned
- Jul 7, 2003
- 15,652
Utter gibberish.
Oh, right. OK. The conversation had moved on a bit I thought. So you are saying this is a non story, with creative access merely being a 'non white' advocasy group who seek out non white candidates for positions that are otherwise adverised elsewhere and open to all. OK. Fine. Cheers.
drew
Drew
In this case it is a non story. You got on your high horse about a perceived case of 'positive discrimination' when it isn't. The argument is about getting BAME candidates in front of an interview panel, surely nothing more nothing less.
Apologies. Easy mistake to make given the way it was presented, and the way others reacted (for or against positive discrimination).
Would it change anyone's position if they knew Katie Hopkins (and Breitbart) had criticised Creative Access for this back when they were advertising for a BBC position http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...S-jobs-come-colour-want-long-s-not-white.html ?
Last edited:
drew
Drew
Fair enough.
Reading the thread back it would have been helpful if you had pointed out your insight a bit earlier. You posted on page 4 but did not lance the boil by correcting the assumption by all posters this was positive discrimination rather than what you now claim it is.