police

[Chopper the ex Copper]

Perhaps you could explain why you pose the question?

I'm guessing he did because you made the comment about the first black president?

Black? He's a Kenyan, Hawaiian, Irish, French president with vastly more IC1 in his heritage than any other influence. Mixed race if you please or the lefties will beat you for being something or other.

 

[Neil]

Perhaps you could explain why you pose the question?

I'm guessing he did because you made the comment about the first black president?

Black? He's a Kenyan, Hawaiian, Irish, French president with vastly more IC1 in his heritage than any other influence. Mixed race if you please or the lefties will beat you for being something or other.

In fairness, I was merely quoting highlandsflyer:-

We had the first black president.

And I think it's fair comment, and probably his own admission that his politics are somewhat to the left, so they're gonna end up beating themselves up at this rate.

 

[silverclaws]

Policies that specify what group of recruits would be preferable or indeed are the target audience to apply actually cause discrimination and with that a job spec carrying a 24k pay award in the local paper for an ethnic minorities liaison officer when I was living in Oxford actually said preference would be given to ethnic minorities. Now I understand the need given the situation perhaps but to state preference will be given to minority groups is in itself discrimination to non ethnic minority groups, yet this stuff is perfectly legal to state.

There are a lot of people feeling discrimination in this country and perhaps surprisingly they are mostly single white healthy males of UK origin. You see any group that does not have an action group attached to it loses out every time.

 

[highlandsflyer]

Perhaps you could explain why you pose the question?

because you think people should be given jobs based on ethnic origin rather than merit

Do I ???

In what way did I suggest this?

"Given equal abilities, the candidate who fulfils the need for diversity should always be taken. Simples."

which would suggest to me that race/gender might swing it

Perhaps you misread my post, or skipped over, "Given equal abilities".

You either believe our services should reflect the people they serve or you don't. That is a simple matter of principal, and personal attitude.

We disagree.

Fine by me.

 

[highlandsflyer]

Policies that specify what group of recruits would be preferable or indeed are the target audience to apply actually cause discrimination and with that a job spec carrying a 24k pay award in the local paper for an ethnic minorities liaison officer when I was living in Oxford actually said preference would be given to ethnic minorities. Now I understand the need given the situation perhaps but to state preference will be given to minority groups is in itself discrimination to non ethnic minority groups, yet this stuff is perfectly legal to state.

There are a lot of people feeling discrimination in this country and perhaps surprisingly they are mostly single white healthy males of UK origin. You see any group that does not have an action group attached to it loses out every time.

I don't really know. From your posts, you seem to feel discriminated against for all sorts of reasons. I fit into the same category bar the single part, and I have never felt discriminated against or limited in my options. I suppose it is a case of personal perspective. Having worked in social services and health services in the past I have always been subject to the equal opportunities act and missed out on posts or faced interviews where I was passed over for other candidates who better matched the requirements of the post. Shit happens, but I have never had a problem with it as I am aware of the reasoning and support the principal.

Silverclaws, what exactly are non-ethnic minority groups?

 

[highlandsflyer]

Given equal abilities, why not take the candidate that fulfils the person specification more completely?

Because many find the "person specification" to be spurious, and not actually helping, but simply sustaining the "different" concept.

Just who are these 'many'. I must have missed these articles in The Guardian or The Observer.

Is it desirable to prevent a Bengali women's refuge advertising for someone from that background as a preference?

There are all sorts of situations where it is fair to stream applicants by the use of a person specification.

For example, it would be preferable for someone being employed into a community team in a multi-cultural central London borough to have a background including work or life experience in a multi-cultural environment. How else do you query that without a person spec.?

I appreciate it would be a wonderful world where the concept of difference was not causal to societal problems, but we are not there yet. Meanwhile we need to work within the regulations to proactively enhance diversity.

That is not racism. To a large extent racism is the reason it is needed.

 

[Neil]

Given equal abilities, why not take the candidate that fulfils the person specification more completely?

Because many find the "person specification" to be spurious, and not actually helping, but simply sustaining the "different" concept.

Just who are these 'many'. I must have missed these articles in The Guardian or The Observer.

Just think about your discussion here - and those that object to it here - do you imagine that is magically unrepresentative of the rest of society?

Is it desirable to prevent a Bengali women's refuge advertising for someone from that background as a preference?

Only if there's some tangible reason - beyond simply opining by some - that people from other backgrounds couldn't do the job as well. Empathy, doesn't not require that people are identical.

There are all sorts of situations where it is fair to stream applicants by the use of a person specification.

I'm far from convinced - I think it's just a lazy concept - maybe it's a comfort thing - but I'm far from convinced it should be taken as read.

Plenty of volunteers from all sorts of background, go to countries all around the world and help out all sorts of other people, religions, colours, nationalities etc, without having to be the same. Why should this be any different.

For example, it would be preferable for someone being employed into a community team in a multi-cultural central London borough to have a background including work or life experience in a multi-cultural environment. How else do you query that without a person spec.?

I'd agree that background and experience may be significant values for a candidate for such a position. What I don't buy, is that it requires, or should have any weightings, simply on their skin colour, or religious background, though.

I appreciate it would be a wonderful world where the concept of difference was not causal to societal problems, but we are not there yet. Meanwhile we need to work within the regulations to proactively enhance diversity.

That is not racism. To a large extent racism is the reason it is needed.

I disagree - it's a lazy crutch of an argument, that suits people from a certain bent - I'm not buying nor seeing any true merit to the propostion beyond power of assertion.

I'll repeat, plenty of people, from divergent backgrounds, nationalities and religions, volunteer to go all around the world to help out countless other people of divergent backgrounds, nationalities and religions - why should that be any different domestically.

 

[dyna-ti]

, that suits people from a certain bent

It's now gone Homophobic :shock: :shock:

 

[Neil]

, that suits people from a certain bent

It's now gone Homophobic :shock: :shock:

How verrrry daaarre you.

Think I tee'd that one up quite nicely.

 

[highlandsflyer]

Just think about your discussion here - and those that object to it here - do you imagine that is magically unrepresentative of the rest of society?

You are talking about a handful of people at best. Far too small a sample to be relevant.