is positive discrimination a good thing? is it really equality if others are being discriminated against?

76
Found 23rd Nov 2017Edited by:"eset12345"
like this ad for a BBC journalist,and the candidate has to come from certain ethnic backgroundS.

i'm sorry whities, no jobs for you.

w4mpjobs.org/Job…564

is this the equality that these minorities always speak of? don't they feel bad that a potential job offer is made simply because the majority of applications have been kicked to the roadside because they would have came from white people, statistically speaking, what with us being a predominantly white country.

what would the news headline be if a job ad stated 'WHITES ONLY'


2836985.jpg
Community Updates
Misc
76 Comments
When a company only hires people from one ethnicity, such as Caucasian/white people their staff directory will look like the UKIP 2013 manifesto cover

32525288-Fv2y0.jpg
Felicitous7 m ago

When a company only hires people from one ethnicity, such as …When a company only hires people from one ethnicity, such as Caucasian/white people their staff directory will look like the UKIP 2013 manifesto cover[Image]




maybe you'd like to answer the point raised, which is, is positive discrimination a good thing, considering it's discriminating in itself.
The wise thing to do would be to advertise it without openly discriminating, but only give black or asians interviews.

The stupid thing would be to openly discrimate, and the job role doesn't look like it even needs someone from a specific background.
Edited by: "J4GG4" 23rd Nov 2017
doesn't say what department or what role, just journo intern, so depends if race is applicable to the position. But no positive discrimination is never a good thing, the thing about positive discrimination is you are assuming that non white people couldn't get the job of their own volition or some how need a hand up (which is racist), again assuming race is not some how applicable to said position.
catbeans5 m ago

doesn't say what department or what role, just journo intern, so depends …doesn't say what department or what role, just journo intern, so depends if race is applicable to the position. But no positive discrimination is never a good thing, the thing about positive discrimination is you are assuming that non white people couldn't get the job of their own volition or some how need a hand up (which is racist), again assuming race is not some how applicable to said position.



More details are given in The Application

"The successful candidate will spend three months in each of the following departments:

  • The World Service’s Newsroom Programme
  • The World at One and PM R4 sequence programmes
  • The Global News Podcast, R4 1800 podcast and other digital duties
  • World Service and domestic bulletins and summaries"
Edited by: "tregs" 23rd Nov 2017
Definitely not a good thing, think a lot of companies are trying to go the right thing but just in the wrong way.

Race should be irrelevant when going for a role. The best candidate should get the job for their skills not because the employer has a box to tick.
tregs44 m ago

More details are given in The Application"The successful candidate will …More details are given in The Application"The successful candidate will spend three months in each of the following departments: The World Service’s Newsroom Programme The World at One and PM R4 sequence programmes The Global News Podcast, R4 1800 podcast and other digital duties World Service and domestic bulletins and summaries"




oh then race may very likely be applicable if its world services.
Discrimination is rife in the workplace. I was looking at a job for bra fitter. But would you believe it, they wanted females only.
radium8 m ago

Discrimination is rife in the workplace. I was looking at a job for bra …Discrimination is rife in the workplace. I was looking at a job for bra fitter. But would you believe it, they wanted females only.


Can you not identify as female for the purpose?
J4GG41 h, 22 m ago

The wise thing to do would be to advertise it without openly …The wise thing to do would be to advertise it without openly discriminating, but only give black or asians interviews.The stupid thing would be to openly discrimate, and the job role doesn't look like it even needs someone from a specific background.


Kirklees (and other) council used to stipulate candidates had to speak Urdu, not exactly discrimination.
OP, what you are describing is not positive discrimination or discrimination. You have , like others, abused the term since discrimination in this context is unjust by its definition. But let us say you can use "positive discrimination" but use it in the way it should be with fairness (shown below). But it is better to avoid using positive discrimination altogether (as BBC's case is not this). The BBC's act is to make amends for having had offered far in excess of jobs to whites. It is a far cry from what you asserted as "i'm sorry whities, no jobs for you." You would do better by asserting, " I am sorry whites, we offered far too many jobs for you already."

Detailed answer follows:-


The BBC uses a method to achieve a business objective, namely a target representation of all kinds once they have met all other business criteria. This is called "positive action" in Section 158 of the Equality Act 2010. This is allowed in the law and is perfectly the right mechanism to gain more equality where inequality persists.

This means that if you want to use the phrase positive discrimination. Then when you positively discrimated so many whites you have to positively discriminate likewise but for other non-whites and vice versa.

Mathematically, according to stochastic techniques or whatnot, suppose there is an expectation of 80:20 white to non-white. But you have positively discrimated whites so it is 99:1 with 99 whites and a token ethnic of 1. You have in effect positively discrimated whites so you ended up with 99 whites when 19 other non-whites have same skill set are discriminated. Then you are perfectly within reason and within the law (to abide with the law) to recruit more ethnics by way of positive action.

Whence the corollary is "positive action" is equality.
And if you wish to misuse the "positive discrimination" then you have to apply this to both whites and non-whites. Then "positive discrimination" for white is good, so is "positive discrimination" for non-white is equally good.

As to the scenario of having had recruited 99 whites and 1 ethnic. The law allows and requires you as employer to make amends. So if your next step is to make amends, in practice, the law is NOT an ass when you need to make amends. If you had to recruit non-white to abide by the law, the job advert would abuse and waste the effort of the whites if they were invited to an interview for job vacancies when the business purpose of that specific recruitment round was to make amends for achieving equality.
Edited by: "splender" 23rd Nov 2017
Imo, its racism of low expectations and in itself is deeming to the people it is seeking to give an advantage to.
It’s a bad thing as far as I’m concerned, ethnicity should never come into it – at times it seems certain elements are trying their best to alienate white people and make them feel guilty for simply being white.

They should have omitted the minority bit and simply chosen a non-white candidate.
As some others have rightly pointed out it shouldn't be advertised in the manner it is.

I see no reason why any well travelled and/or well educated or someone who has lived overseas being fit for the role irrespective of race/ethnicity - the description non-white is totally irrelevant IMHO and what they are saying is someone born white in for example Africa or Asia who is muslim or hindu (or similar) is not fit to fill the position because they are white.

But I'm not allowed to state ageism is discrimination so I suppose my keyboard warrior followers will have their normal responses.
splender1 h, 14 m ago

OP, what you are describing is not positive discrimination or …OP, what you are describing is not positive discrimination or discrimination. You have , like others, abused the term since discrimination in this context is unjust by its definition. But let us say you can use "positive discrimination" but use it in the way it should be with fairness (shown below). But it is better to avoid using positive discrimination altogether (as BBC's case is not this). The BBC's act is to make amends for having had offered far in excess of jobs to whites. It is a far cry from what you asserted as "i'm sorry whities, no jobs for you." You would do better by asserting, " I am sorry whites, we offered far too many jobs for you already."Detailed answer follows:-The BBC uses a method to achieve a business objective, namely a target representation of all kinds once they have met all other business criteria. This is called "positive action" in Section 158 of the Equality Act 2010. This is allowed in the law and is perfectly the right mechanism to gain more equality where inequality persists.This means that if you want to use the phrase positive discrimination. Then when you positively discrimated so many whites you have to positively discriminate likewise but for other non-whites and vice versa.Mathematically, according to stochastic techniques or whatnot, suppose there is an expectation of 80:20 white to non-white. But you have positively discrimated whites so it is 99:1 with 99 whites and a token ethnic of 1. You have in effect positively discrimated whites so you ended up with 99 whites when 19 other non-whites have same skill set are discriminated. Then you are perfectly within reason and within the law (to abide with the law) to recruit more ethnics by way of positive action. Whence the corollary is "positive action" is equality.And if you wish to misuse the "positive discrimination" then you have to apply this to both whites and non-whites. Then "positive discrimination" for white is good, so is "positive discrimination" for non-white is equally good. As to the scenario of having had recruited 99 whites and 1 ethnic. The law allows and requires you as employer to make amends. So if your next step is to make amends, in practice, the law is NOT an ass when you need to make amends. If you had to recruit non-white to abide by the law, the job advert would abuse and waste the effort of the whites if they were invited to an interview for job vacancies when the business purpose of that specific recruitment round was to make amends for achieving equality.



It doesn't matter what you call it, it's wrong.
Edited by: "tryn2help" 23rd Nov 2017
Maybe the south of England biased guardian reading champagne socialist BBC could try getting in black/white/brown people in from Cornwall or midlands or Norfolk or Manchester or even Wales.!?
freakstyler58 m ago

It’s a bad thing as far as I’m concerned, ethnicity should never come into …It’s a bad thing as far as I’m concerned, ethnicity should never come into it – at times it seems certain elements are trying their best to alienate white people and make them feel guilty for simply being white. They should have omitted the minority bit and simply chosen a non-white candidate.



As I wrote in my long reply. An explanation is that the BBC advert is nationwide, it would be a pretence to invite job applications and then to invite job applicants for interview for jobs which would not exist due to selection criteria. It is just as bad to invite black applicants to tick the box knowing there is not a vacancy for black as it is to solicit whites in contrast knowing also there is not a vacancy for white.
catbeans2 h, 54 m ago

oh then race may very likely be applicable if its world services.


Why? Can't a white person report on news from around the world?
splender2 h, 33 m ago

OP, what you are describing is not positive discrimination or …OP, what you are describing is not positive discrimination or discrimination. You have , like others, abused the term since discrimination in this context is unjust by its definition. But let us say you can use "positive discrimination" but use it in the way it should be with fairness (shown below). But it is better to avoid using positive discrimination altogether (as BBC's case is not this). The BBC's act is to make amends for having had offered far in excess of jobs to whites. It is a far cry from what you asserted as "i'm sorry whities, no jobs for you." You would do better by asserting, " I am sorry whites, we offered far too many jobs for you already."Detailed answer follows:-The BBC uses a method to achieve a business objective, namely a target representation of all kinds once they have met all other business criteria. This is called "positive action" in Section 158 of the Equality Act 2010. This is allowed in the law and is perfectly the right mechanism to gain more equality where inequality persists.This means that if you want to use the phrase positive discrimination. Then when you positively discrimated so many whites you have to positively discriminate likewise but for other non-whites and vice versa.Mathematically, according to stochastic techniques or whatnot, suppose there is an expectation of 80:20 white to non-white. But you have positively discrimated whites so it is 99:1 with 99 whites and a token ethnic of 1. You have in effect positively discrimated whites so you ended up with 99 whites when 19 other non-whites have same skill set are discriminated. Then you are perfectly within reason and within the law (to abide with the law) to recruit more ethnics by way of positive action. Whence the corollary is "positive action" is equality.And if you wish to misuse the "positive discrimination" then you have to apply this to both whites and non-whites. Then "positive discrimination" for white is good, so is "positive discrimination" for non-white is equally good. As to the scenario of having had recruited 99 whites and 1 ethnic. The law allows and requires you as employer to make amends. So if your next step is to make amends, in practice, the law is NOT an ass when you need to make amends. If you had to recruit non-white to abide by the law, the job advert would abuse and waste the effort of the whites if they were invited to an interview for job vacancies when the business purpose of that specific recruitment round was to make amends for achieving equality.


Regardless of what the BBC claims, they are excluding applications based on race, they are denying applications from the majority of people in the country.

I don't care in the slightest if they have a quota to fill, I don't care if 99 white people have already been. employed, they should be happy to get applications from a whole cross section of society, if that means their quota doesn't get filled because certain minority aren't as good as others, then tough titties
Edited by: "eset12345" 23rd Nov 2017
eset1234518 m ago

Why? Can't a white person report on news from around the world?



Of course they can, however it is a fact that people relate easier and hence trust and feel more comfortable with their own race. This is a much studied fact and one the media has known and put into practice for many years. Whether it be in adds, journos, researchers etc. Also a white person traveling around where the population is 99% black is far more conspicuous than a black person and they will be received completely differently.

People can call themselves not racist all they like and it isn't racist, it's just an indisputable much studied fact.

Edit; also the world service reports news to around the world rather from around the world mainly.
Edited by: "catbeans" 23rd Nov 2017
splender2 h, 49 m ago

OP, what you are describing is not positive discrimination or …OP, what you are describing is not positive discrimination or discrimination. You have , like others, abused the term since discrimination in this context is unjust by its definition. But let us say you can use "positive discrimination" but use it in the way it should be with fairness (shown below). But it is better to avoid using positive discrimination altogether (as BBC's case is not this). The BBC's act is to make amends for having had offered far in excess of jobs to whites. It is a far cry from what you asserted as "i'm sorry whities, no jobs for you." You would do better by asserting, " I am sorry whites, we offered far too many jobs for you already."Detailed answer follows:-The BBC uses a method to achieve a business objective, namely a target representation of all kinds once they have met all other business criteria. This is called "positive action" in Section 158 of the Equality Act 2010. This is allowed in the law and is perfectly the right mechanism to gain more equality where inequality persists.This means that if you want to use the phrase positive discrimination. Then when you positively discrimated so many whites you have to positively discriminate likewise but for other non-whites and vice versa.Mathematically, according to stochastic techniques or whatnot, suppose there is an expectation of 80:20 white to non-white. But you have positively discrimated whites so it is 99:1 with 99 whites and a token ethnic of 1. You have in effect positively discrimated whites so you ended up with 99 whites when 19 other non-whites have same skill set are discriminated. Then you are perfectly within reason and within the law (to abide with the law) to recruit more ethnics by way of positive action. Whence the corollary is "positive action" is equality.And if you wish to misuse the "positive discrimination" then you have to apply this to both whites and non-whites. Then "positive discrimination" for white is good, so is "positive discrimination" for non-white is equally good. As to the scenario of having had recruited 99 whites and 1 ethnic. The law allows and requires you as employer to make amends. So if your next step is to make amends, in practice, the law is NOT an ass when you need to make amends. If you had to recruit non-white to abide by the law, the job advert would abuse and waste the effort of the whites if they were invited to an interview for job vacancies when the business purpose of that specific recruitment round was to make amends for achieving equality.


Your argument is a "two wrongs make a right" argument:
~ X group of people were privileged at the expense of Y group of people on irrelevant grounds for a time. That was wrong, therefore, Y group of people should be privileged at the expense of X group of people now.

You'll notice that the people opposed to discrimination against white people are not opposed to it because the people are white, but because they oppose discrimination on principle. Their argument goes like this;
~ X group of people were privileged at the expense of Y group of people on irrelevant grounds for a time. That was wrong, never should one group be privileged at the expense of another group on irrelevant grounds again.


Here's a question I'd be interested in your answer to: Which do you think is the correct approach?

~ X group of people mass murdered Y group of people for superficial reasons. That was wrong, therefore, Y group of people should mass murder X group of people now.

~ X group of people mass murdered Y group of people for superficial reasons. That was wrong, no group of people should ever mass murder another group for superficial reasons again.

I know which I'd choose.
eset1234526 m ago

Regardless of what the BBC claims, they are excluding applications based …Regardless of what the BBC claims, they are excluding applications based on race, they are denying applications from the majority of people in the country. I don't care in the slightest if they have a quota to fill, I don't care if 99 white people have already been. employed, they should be happy to get applications from a whole cross section of society, if that means their quota doesn't get filled because certain minority aren't as good as others, then tough titties



No, they (BBC) haven't done what you alleged (exclude applications based on race; denying applications from majority of people in the country). I already explained in above. How about you write to the BBC and ask for an explanation and you accuse them of your allegation. Then publish here what their reply is. We shall discuss further here.

Why your allegations are false, I may as well quote the law to you, you can reference what the law ss.158-159 of the Equality Act 2010 prescribed the legal position legislation.gov.uk/ukp…r/2
Jpkboff26 m ago

Your argument is a "two wrongs make a right" argument:~ X group of people …Your argument is a "two wrongs make a right" argument:~ X group of people were privileged at the expense of Y group of people on irrelevant grounds for a time. That was wrong, therefore, Y group of people should be privileged at the expense of X group of people now.You'll notice that the people opposed to discrimination against white people are not opposed to it because the people are white, but because they oppose discrimination on principle. Their argument goes like this;~ X group of people were privileged at the expense of Y group of people on irrelevant grounds for a time. That was wrong, never should one group be privileged at the expense of another group on irrelevant grounds again.Here's a question I'd be interested in your answer to: Which do you think is the correct approach?~ X group of people mass murdered Y group of people for superficial reasons. That was wrong, therefore, Y group of people should mass murder X group of people now.~ X group of people mass murdered Y group of people for superficial reasons. That was wrong, no group of people should ever mass murder another group for superficial reasons again.I know which I'd choose.



No, you are false with your logic which is to argue that two wrongs do not make a right. This is not about this. BBC has done no wrong in this recruitment campaign, So your argument falls flat because there are no two wrongs.

The law came about to correct a social wrong (actual inequality). The law does not use "two wrongs make a right". All your examples are false logic and have no basis in social policy and in law. They are examples of "taking the law into your hands" and dishing out mob justice.

My technique is to reference the law which is ss.158-159 of the Equality Act 2010 prescribed the legal position legislation.gov.uk/ukp…r/2
T
Edited by: "splender" 23rd Nov 2017
i'd say discrimination, regardless of positive or negative, is wrong. it will disadvantage somebody unnecessarily.
It comes from good intentions but the problem is the further you go up an organisation the more critical it becomes that the best candidate is hired. It's not much of a sacrifice to hire a black intern instead of a slightly more qualified white intern, but there comes a point where a positive discrimination hire isn't going to get promoted over their peers on the same level who got there on pure merit. It's also another system to be gamed and those skilled at gaming the system can often push out those of the same minority who might be more talented.

Case in point: Despite priding themselves on being champions of women, Labour have never elected a female leader.
splender3 h, 10 m ago

OP, what you are describing is not positive discrimination or …OP, what you are describing is not positive discrimination or discrimination. You have , like others, abused the term since discrimination in this context is unjust by its definition. But let us say you can use "positive discrimination" but use it in the way it should be with fairness (shown below). But it is better to avoid using positive discrimination altogether (as BBC's case is not this). The BBC's act is to make amends for having had offered far in excess of jobs to whites. It is a far cry from what you asserted as "i'm sorry whities, no jobs for you." You would do better by asserting, " I am sorry whites, we offered far too many jobs for you already."Detailed answer follows:-The BBC uses a method to achieve a business objective, namely a target representation of all kinds once they have met all other business criteria. This is called "positive action" in Section 158 of the Equality Act 2010. This is allowed in the law and is perfectly the right mechanism to gain more equality where inequality persists.This means that if you want to use the phrase positive discrimination. Then when you positively discrimated so many whites you have to positively discriminate likewise but for other non-whites and vice versa.Mathematically, according to stochastic techniques or whatnot, suppose there is an expectation of 80:20 white to non-white. But you have positively discrimated whites so it is 99:1 with 99 whites and a token ethnic of 1. You have in effect positively discrimated whites so you ended up with 99 whites when 19 other non-whites have same skill set are discriminated. Then you are perfectly within reason and within the law (to abide with the law) to recruit more ethnics by way of positive action. Whence the corollary is "positive action" is equality.And if you wish to misuse the "positive discrimination" then you have to apply this to both whites and non-whites. Then "positive discrimination" for white is good, so is "positive discrimination" for non-white is equally good. As to the scenario of having had recruited 99 whites and 1 ethnic. The law allows and requires you as employer to make amends. So if your next step is to make amends, in practice, the law is NOT an ass when you need to make amends. If you had to recruit non-white to abide by the law, the job advert would abuse and waste the effort of the whites if they were invited to an interview for job vacancies when the business purpose of that specific recruitment round was to make amends for achieving equality.


Section 158 of the Equality Act 2010 as explained here, doesn't seem to suggest that you can exclude anyone, rather the job can be more suitable for some.

It is important to note the concept of “encouragement” in this context. The provision does not give employers the green light to operate a policy of positive discrimination, ie to give favourable treatment to a particular “group” of job applicants (eg women or ethnic minority candidates). The type of action that would be permitted could include, for example, aiming recruitment campaigns at people from minority ethnic groups, advertising vacancies in a publication read predominantly by younger (or older) people or encouraging female employees to apply for management posts. It is only encouragement that is permitted:

Perhaps you disagree with the link or my interpretation.
OllieSt8 m ago

Section 158 of the Equality Act 2010 as explained here, doesn't seem to …Section 158 of the Equality Act 2010 as explained here, doesn't seem to suggest that you can exclude anyone, rather the job can be more suitable for some.It is important to note the concept of “encouragement” in this context. The provision does not give employers the green light to operate a policy of positive discrimination, ie to give favourable treatment to a particular “group” of job applicants (eg women or ethnic minority candidates). The type of action that would be permitted could include, for example, aiming recruitment campaigns at people from minority ethnic groups, advertising vacancies in a publication read predominantly by younger (or older) people or encouraging female employees to apply for management posts. It is only encouragement that is permitted:Perhaps you disagree with the link or my interpretation.



go on and read section 159 about what is lawful for a protected characteristic
splender8 m ago

go on and read section 159 about what is lawful for a protected …go on and read section 159 about what is lawful for a protected characteristic


159 of the Equality Act 2010 allows preference to be given at the point of selection to a candidate from an under-represented or disadvantaged group in circumstances where the candidate in question is at least “as qualified as” other candidates who are in the running. This provision was introduced in April 2011 and was completely new at that time.

Again am I reading this incorrectly. Does preference mean exclusion for the overrepresented?
I don't need to worry because although I was born the colour you label white and having a winkle which sees society label me male,I am in fact a black, nine year old, Ugandan from 1886 and despite this white winkle, I am in fact female so take your prejudice and shove it!
splender54 m ago

No, you are false with your logic which is to argue that two wrongs do not …No, you are false with your logic which is to argue that two wrongs do not make a right. This is not about this. BBC has done no wrong in this recruitment campaign, So your argument falls flat because there are no two wrongs.The law came about to correct a social wrong (actual inequality). The law does not use "two wrongs make a right". All your examples are false logic and have no basis in social policy and in law. They are examples of "taking the law into your hands" and dishing out mob justice. My technique is to reference the law which is ss.158-159 of the Equality Act 2010 prescribed the legal position http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/part/11/chapter/2T


I'm finding it difficult to interpret what it is that you're saying exactly so I'm going to try and address what you've literally said:

"No, you are false with your logic which is to argue that two wrongs do not make a right."

- So do you believe two wrongs do make a right? e.g. You hit me, so I hit you.

"BBC has done no wrong..."

- I and many others believe that refusing to consider a person for a job because of an irrelevant characteristic is wrong. We see that as wrong.

"All your examples are false logic..."

- Why don't you just call me a heretic while you're at it?

"...dishing out mob justice."

- I don't know where you got "mob justice" from?

Just because something is legal doesn't mean it is just, nor do I have to agree with it. I don't agree with medically unnecessary circumcision, for example.


Please address what I actually said instead of just labelling it heresy. If you believe the logic is incorrect, explain why and how it is incorrect.
Edited by: "Jpkboff" 23rd Nov 2017
OllieSt34 m ago

159 of the Equality Act 2010 allows preference to be given at the point of …159 of the Equality Act 2010 allows preference to be given at the point of selection to a candidate from an under-represented or disadvantaged group in circumstances where the candidate in question is at least “as qualified as” other candidates who are in the running. This provision was introduced in April 2011 and was completely new at that time.Again am I reading this incorrectly. Does preference mean exclusion for the overrepresented?



Preference does not mean exclusion. Anyway the section 159(3) of the Act says, "That action is treating a person (A) more favourably in connection with recruitment or promotion than another person (B) because A has the protected characteristic but B does not.

If you read the BBC advert again , "This internship is only open to candidates from a black, Asian or non-white ethnic minority background." So this says "only open to" but does not say " exclude" or words to this effect. For want of a better analogy, suppose you have a door, you open it for those who are ladies only (first) as a first tranche, then you let men only through in the second tranche. You are expressing a wish to treat entrants favourably but you are not excluding them from entry.

It is still unlawful to exclude and to discriminate.
splender1 h, 7 m ago

No, they (BBC) haven't done what you alleged (exclude applications based …No, they (BBC) haven't done what you alleged (exclude applications based on race; denying applications from majority of people in the country). I already explained in above. How about you write to the BBC and ask for an explanation and you accuse them of your allegation. Then publish here what their reply is. We shall discuss further here.Why your allegations are false, I may as well quote the law to you, you can reference what the law ss.158-159 of the Equality Act 2010 prescribed the legal position http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/part/11/chapter/2



of course they have denied applications from the majority of the country that is predominantly white.

what would you call it to say that a whole race of people aren't welcome to apply for a job? it surely sounds like they are being denied the option of applying for the job
splender15 m ago

If you read the BBC advert again , "This internship is only open to …If you read the BBC advert again , "This internship is only open to candidates from a black, Asian or non-white ethnic minority background." So this says "only open to" but does not say " exclude" or words to this effect.................................It is still unlawful to exclude and to discriminate.


Did you just knock over your king?
Edited by: "OllieSt" 23rd Nov 2017
eset1234548 m ago

of course they have denied applications from the majority of the country …of course they have denied applications from the majority of the country that is predominantly white.what would you call it to say that a whole race of people aren't welcome to apply for a job? it surely sounds like they are being denied the option of applying for the job



My answer is as above for Ollie. Section 159 of the Equality Act 2010 is a specific exemption to the general rule that one cannot exclude. This specific exemption came about partly because of institutional failings found by Scarman Report and Macpherson Report etc. .. and latest is likely for Grenfell. It is a race-centred social policy intervention and many people do not accept this exception. It goes without saying the media such as Daily Mail, Sun, Express, The Sun are particular vocal. But the law makers had no other option but to act in the wake of these institutional failings (three decades). Scarman Report was 1981.
Edited by: "splender" 23rd Nov 2017
OllieSt5 m ago

Did you just knock over your king?



What does this mean?
OllieSt4 m ago

Here you go



In this case, I don't think so. What is your reasoning for thinking so and then I can try to checkmate you?
splender4 h, 52 m ago

OP, what you are describing is not positive discrimination or …OP, what you are describing is not positive discrimination or discrimination. You have , like others, abused the term since discrimination in this context is unjust by its definition. But let us say you can use "positive discrimination" but use it in the way it should be with fairness (shown below). But it is better to avoid using positive discrimination altogether (as BBC's case is not this). The BBC's act is to make amends for having had offered far in excess of jobs to whites. It is a far cry from what you asserted as "i'm sorry whities, no jobs for you." You would do better by asserting, " I am sorry whites, we offered far too many jobs for you already."Detailed answer follows:-The BBC uses a method to achieve a business objective, namely a target representation of all kinds once they have met all other business criteria. This is called "positive action" in Section 158 of the Equality Act 2010. This is allowed in the law and is perfectly the right mechanism to gain more equality where inequality persists.This means that if you want to use the phrase positive discrimination. Then when you positively discrimated so many whites you have to positively discriminate likewise but for other non-whites and vice versa.Mathematically, according to stochastic techniques or whatnot, suppose there is an expectation of 80:20 white to non-white. But you have positively discrimated whites so it is 99:1 with 99 whites and a token ethnic of 1. You have in effect positively discrimated whites so you ended up with 99 whites when 19 other non-whites have same skill set are discriminated. Then you are perfectly within reason and within the law (to abide with the law) to recruit more ethnics by way of positive action. Whence the corollary is "positive action" is equality.And if you wish to misuse the "positive discrimination" then you have to apply this to both whites and non-whites. Then "positive discrimination" for white is good, so is "positive discrimination" for non-white is equally good. As to the scenario of having had recruited 99 whites and 1 ethnic. The law allows and requires you as employer to make amends. So if your next step is to make amends, in practice, the law is NOT an ass when you need to make amends. If you had to recruit non-white to abide by the law, the job advert would abuse and waste the effort of the whites if they were invited to an interview for job vacancies when the business purpose of that specific recruitment round was to make amends for achieving equality.


OP, so after all the comments, the answer to your question at the top of this thread, "what would the news headline be if a job ad stated 'WHITES ONLY'"

The news headline could say, "Person X is found guilty for flagrant abuse of the Equality Act" because S. 159 does not offer an exemption from breach.
Jpkboff2 h, 34 m ago

I'm finding it difficult to interpret what it is that you're saying …I'm finding it difficult to interpret what it is that you're saying exactly so I'm going to try and address what you've literally said:"No, you are false with your logic which is to argue that two wrongs do not make a right."- So do you believe two wrongs do make a right? e.g. You hit me, so I hit you."BBC has done no wrong..."- I and many others believe that refusing to consider a person for a job because of an irrelevant characteristic is wrong. We see that as wrong."All your examples are false logic..."- Why don't you just call me a heretic while you're at it?"...dishing out mob justice."- I don't know where you got "mob justice" from?Just because something is legal doesn't mean it is just, nor do I have to agree with it. I don't agree with medically unnecessary circumcision, for example.Please address what I actually said instead of just labelling it heresy. If you believe the logic is incorrect, explain why and how it is incorrect.


I shall deal with all your points blow by blow.

You: "No, you are false with your logic which is to argue that two wrongs do not make a right."

- So do you believe two wrongs do make a right? e.g. You hit me, so I hit you.

Me: Two wrongs do not make a right as a general principle, I agree but it needs to be qualified with specifics.

"BBC has done no wrong..."

You: - I and many others believe that refusing to consider a person for a job because of an irrelevant characteristic is wrong. We see that as wrong.

Me: Your opinion can be that it is wrong. The law is the final arbiter and this is not a wrong in law. You say it is wrong but the law since 1981 Scarman Report has evolved to say this is an exemption for an exceptional social policy situation. It is not wrong according to BBC's (as indeed the same is used by many body corporates) own equality policy. Therefore the operand, "Two wrongs do not make a right" does not apply. You say it is wrong, they say it is not wrong. Moreover you use "irrelevant characteristic" which is contrary in law as the BBC has the law behind them by way of a statutory definition of "protected characteristic". How can you be more right than others without citation to the law and also to human resource best practice on this area of protected characteristic in recruitment?!

"All your examples are false logic..."

You:- Why don't you just call me a heretic while you're at it?

Me: I wouldn't say this is (heresy) at all. Yours was false logic because you offered a whole list of examples which are irrelevant because they have no basis in law and no company policies. Your example is , "~ X group of people mass murdered Y group of people...." just to name one. This "positive action" has legal basis and has company policy governance.

"...dishing out mob justice."

You - I don't know where you got "mob justice" from?
Me: You said, "You'll notice that the people opposed to discrimination against white people are not opposed to it because the people are white, but because they oppose discrimination on principle." It is mob rule if they oppose a legitimate action when the law clearly specified that this is permissible (This is a "positive action", it is not discrimination"). We have to abide by the law otherwise law and order break down. I know you oppose discrimination but so do we, this is not discrimation as it is specifically exempted from being so. The same law says discrimination is not permissible. We have plenty of laws which protect or promote interests of certain fractions in our society. The TFL offers those who are 60+ with a benefit of free travel to apply, this is not discrimination too in the eye of the law and social policy. You may think it is discrimination but it is your personal opinion.

You: Just because something is legal doesn't mean it is just, nor do I have to agree with it. I don't agree with medically unnecessary circumcision, for example.

Me: You are correct, a law can be just or unjust. You don't have to agree with it. However the external environment does not support you: the legal framework, the best practice in human resources, the corporate equality policy (If you are an employee are you required to sign an agreement that you shall conform to your company's equality policy? I did.)

S.158, S159 about "positive action" is a legal solution to correct an inequality that has prevailed unchecked, the law makers' last resort to, "allow an employer or service provider or other organisation to take positive action so as to enable existing or potential employees or customers to overcome or minimise a disadvantage arising from a protected characteristic" which is found in the background and summary to the Equality Act 2010 you can form your opinion as to whether this is just or unjust but all your examples are inappropriate analogies (from your first comment) because s.159 is a specific exemption of a general rule (no discrimination and no exclusion) and all your inappropriate analogies are general rules and have no specific exemption.
Edited by: "splender" 24th Nov 2017
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text

    Top Discussions