1st main C**k up of the Olympics

[Fred Bassett]

Quotas. I would agree with you, except that the reason this has been forced upon hiring procedures is because of the blatant racism that went on before where no-one or hardly anyone of different ethnicities would get given a job and where to equal capabilities, the white guy would get the job every time.

 

It's like asking the banks to self-regulate: doesn't happen, you HAVE to make them do it.

 

So yes, it's not ideal but unfortunately that's the only way to ensure that some ethnics DO get hired (thereby getting accused of stealing all our jobs), otherwise they'll stay unemployed and THEN the right-wing papers will claim they steal all our benefits! Can't win either way!!!

 

So logically, the result of this quota system MUST be that some people will not get a job because they are white. That is racism.

[Crazy Diamond]

So logically, the result of this quota system MUST be that some people will not get a job because they are white. That is racism.

No, it would be racism, or rather discrimination if NO jobs were open to whites, that is not the case.

[Fred Bassett]

No, it would be racism, or rather discrimination if NO jobs were open to whites, that is not the case.

 

But if somebody does not get a job because of the colour of their skin then that is racism whether they are white, black or whatever. The moment you introduce a quota system, somebody somewhere dips out because of the colour of their skin. How can this not be the case?

[tonycee]

WHERE do you draw the line. Our schools speak 150 DIFFERENT languages.

 

That matters a great deal. How can this possibly be beneficial to our children. As if they dont have enough to cope with already.

[determindator]

-Eastenders live now with Olympic torch:-D

[citizenB]

I have never been in favour of positive discrimination. I think the job should go to the person best able to do it.

[determindator]

Watching Ab Fab now titled 'Olympics'

[Fred Bassett]

-Eastenders live now with Olympic torch:-D

 

Big fat hairy whooppee.

[Fred Bassett]

I have never been in favour of positive discrimination. I think the job should go to the person best able to do it.

 

So do I. Unfortunately, if you have a quota system, there will inevitably be occasions when that does not happen - and it will always be the majority who are discriminated against which is institutionalised racism.

[tonycee]

I dont have/want a T.V.

 

I have YOU guys for entertainment.

[Fred Bassett]

I dont have/want a T.V.

 

I have YOU guys for entertainment.

 

I do have one but I don't watch it because most of the programmes are crap like AbFab and Eastenders. Mrs Bassett is currently watching AbFab. It's just as unfunny now as when it first came out.

[determindator]

Mrs B has a sense of humour:-D

[Fred Bassett]

Mrs B has a sense of humour:-D

 

Watching is maybe too strong a word. She seems to be snoring at the moment.

[determindator]

Don't believe you:madgrin:

[Fred Bassett]

Don't believe you:madgrin:

 

Well she's certainly not laughing. No surprise there really. I don't know if it was ever her thing to be honest, but I just don't think she can be arsed to find something good to watch.

[Crazy Diamond]

But if somebody does not get a job because of the colour of their skin then that is racism whether they are white, black or whatever. The moment you introduce a quota system, somebody somewhere dips out because of the colour of their skin. How can this not be the case?

But if you have a system where there is no quota and employers then are free to take only white, black or whatever, then ALL of the others don't get picked because of the colour of their skin, which is even worse!

 

With the quota system, the whites have a fair chance to get picked amongst the white quota and the blacks amongst the black quota, which surely you can see is a fairer system than allowing an employer to pick only one colour regardless of their talent or lack thereof? It works the other way in that if the quotas of say blacks is fulfilled then the employer can take any white regardless of the talent or lack thereof!

[Crazy Diamond]

WHERE do you draw the line. Our schools speak 150 DIFFERENT languages.

 

That matters a great deal. How can this possibly be beneficial to our children. As if they dont have enough to cope with already.

How can learning different languages be something so hard for the kids? Why should there be a line to draw? So your average English kid learns a few sentences in Punjabi or Latvian, how is that going to traumatise them for life? Maybe if they DID learn a bit more of the others' languages that would make them a bit more liked when they go abroad instead of expecting everyone to speak English!

 

Wherever I go abroad, I always make a point of learning sentences in the main language there, simple things like: Hello, goodbye, thank you, please etc... Even if I struggle, I get rewarded with smiles and the locals actually make the effort to reach out to me because I have tried, unlike the hundreds of uncouths who think that speaking slowly and loud will make the locals suddenly understand English!

 

It's not doing anyone nay harm if leaflets are written in different languages is it? So why so you care?

[Crazy Diamond]

I have never been in favour of positive discrimination. I think the job should go to the person best able to do it.

Lovely principle, yes. What do you do when you have employers who will NOT follow that principle and bypass the better qualified coloured person in favour of the far worse but white candidate? It's all very well saying it shouldn't happen, but the sad fact is that it does and still would if it weren't for positive discrimination.

[Fred Bassett]

But if you have a system where there is no quota and employers then are free to take only white, black or whatever, then ALL of the others don't get picked because of the colour of their skin, which is even worse!

 

With the quota system, the whites have a fair chance to get picked amongst the white quota and the blacks amongst the black quota, which surely you can see is a fairer system than allowing an employer to pick only one colour regardless of their talent or lack thereof? It works the other way in that if the quotas of say blacks is fulfilled then the employer can take any white regardless of the talent or lack thereof!

 

That is wrong. That means employers have to choose some people because of the colour of their skin and that is racist. If employers did what you suggest they might do then that of course is racist - as well as stupid because then they are not getting the best people for the job.

 

Also, there are practical problems with this. I live in a small town in Dorset with virtually no non-white people living here, so how do you apply that policy in this instance? how do you apply a quota system here? Pro rata for the town? (so virtually nil), pro-rata for the county? (still not very high) or pro rata for the country?, in which case non-white people would get more than their fair share of jobs. If you worked this out by the ratio in the town, then by my reckoning, you would have have to have a firm with a workforce of about 300 in order to employ 1 non-white person and companies that size just don't exist around here. Also, how do you classify the different groups? By the colour of their skin or by their country of origin if they weren't born here? If somebody is black or Asian but was born in Britain how do they fit in? It's an absolute minefield. The only sensible way is the one that states "regardless of colour, creed, religion etc." That's not what you get with a quota system.

Edited July 23, 2012 by Fred Bassett
Maths completely cocked up - it's late!

[Fred Bassett]

Lovely principle, yes. What do you do when you have employers who will NOT follow that principle and bypass the better qualified coloured person in favour of the far worse but white candidate? It's all very well saying it shouldn't happen, but the sad fact is that it does and still would if it weren't for positive discrimination.

 

Let's get this straight, there is absolutely nothing positive about discrimination. This is an abuse of the English language. It is discrimination pure and simple. Using the word positive in this way clearly indicates that it is OK to discriminate against white people but not OK to discriminate against non-white people. How many times does it have to be said - that is racist, pure and simple. If people are stupid enough to base their employment policies on skin colour then more fool them, they will not be getting the best people for the job. If it can be proved then they can of course be prosecuted. What is not in doubt is that "positive discrimination" is a policy which discriminates in favour of some because of the colour of their skin. By definition it therefore discriminates against others because of the colour of their skin. That is racist. How can it not be?

[Crazy Diamond]

That means employers have to choose some people because of the colour of their skin and that is racist.

You mean as opposed to when they had the choice of NOT picking people because of the colour of their skin?

 

The only sensible way is the one that states "regardless of colour, creed, religion etc."

Completely agree with the principle!.... What do you do when the employers are not prepared to do this though? And don't tell me that doesn't happen, if iut hadn't been an issue in the first place, no-one would have thought it necessary to introduce positive discrimination!

 

Yes, in a lovely, equal, fair world, it would be fantastic that the best person for the job get the job, regardless of what sex, colour etc they are. Welcome to the real world, where people are not even always aware how phobic they are even when it's clear for all to see!

 

Don't get me wrong, it's the same all over the world, I'm not saying we are unique in the UK. Positive discrimination was first introduced in the US universities to force them to accept black students when segregation was made illegal but in reality still very much existed. There are places in Africa where if you're white you have no chance of climbing the official ladder, but on the other side of the coin, 'white' companies have to be forced by the government to employ locals or they'd import all their workforce from European countries...

 

I wish there were a solution based on fairness and good will but I don't see that happening any time soon, tbh.

[Crazy Diamond]

Using the word positive in this way clearly indicates that it is OK to discriminate against white people but not OK to discriminate against non-white people.

No, that's YOUR interpretation. In other countries, positive discrimination is used to force non-white employers to take on white employees. (Japan for example)

[Fred Bassett]

You mean as opposed to when they had the choice of NOT picking people because of the colour of their skin?

 

Completely agree with the principle!.... What do you do when the employers are not prepared to do this though? And don't tell me that doesn't happen, if iut hadn't been an issue in the first place, no-one would have thought it necessary to introduce positive discrimination!

 

Yes, in a lovely, equal, fair world, it would be fantastic that the best person for the job get the job, regardless of what sex, colour etc they are. Welcome to the real world, where people are not even always aware how phobic they are even when it's clear for all to see!

 

Don't get me wrong, it's the same all over the world, I'm not saying we are unique in the UK. Positive discrimination was first introduced in the US universities to force them to accept black students when segregation was made illegal but in reality still very much existed. There are places in Africa where if you're white you have no chance of climbing the official ladder, but on the other side of the coin, 'white' companies have to be forced by the government to employ locals or they'd import all their workforce from European countries...

 

I wish there were a solution based on fairness and good will but I don't see that happening any time soon, tbh.

 

I don't have a clue how you fix this, but discriminating against white people because of the colour of their skin is not the answer. If I thought that had happened to me I would go to a tribunal, except of course that the law allows certain organisations to do this, so in this instance the racism (against white people) is institutionalised and it stinks just as much as racism against non-white people.

[Fred Bassett]

No, that's YOUR interpretation. In other countries, positive discrimination is used to force non-white employers to take on white employees. (Japan for example)

 

That's just as wrong. In your view, in this context, what is the difference between "discrimination" and "positive discrimination"?

[osdset]

Why not do away with English altogether then? Lets not bother printing signs in our own language, what a waste of time preventing an invasion during WW2 we have been invaded and occupied anyway, the only difference is this lot don't speak German.