What is equality to you?

[woodview]

13 hours ago, Cyclone said:

 

I am doing the same about black people, I assume that generally they are disadvantaged in the UK compared to white people.  I assume that they've experienced considerably higher levels of racism than the "me too" white men who bleat about once or twice in their lives having had a racist comment directed at them.

These are perfectly reasonable assumptions to make.

The fact is that it happens though.  I mentioned it to you and you totally ignored it.  It's also true of being female in some professions, send in my CV with a female name on it and my chance of interview drops considerably...

And whilst that is illegal, it's also impossible to prove it happened and it's not even deliberate racism or sexism.  It's a subconscious bias amongst the people making the selection and the organisation.

Prejudice is wrong in any form. Taking 'positive action' as described will disadvantage somebody, by definition.

Saying 'well you whites or you blokes are generally at an advantage, so suck it up' isn't a great selling point.

As I mentioned earlier, it's easy for people from a privelaged background to say.

[SnailyBoy]

2 minutes ago, woodview said:

I didn't say positive action is illegal. If you cant distinguish between a discussion about what is right, moral or fair, and illegal, then you show yourself as being a bit off the ball.

I didn't say you did.

 

 

 

[WiseOwl182]

4 minutes ago, SnailyBoy said:

Lol, sorry I'm out

 

Life's too short for this.

Shame you couldn't go the distance. The answer is, of course, which ever one wasn't chosen on which ever ground they weren't chosen on was discriminated against. The point would've worked better with specifics to illuminate it, but sadly you wouldn't paint the picture for me.

Edited March 7, 2019 by WiseOwl182

[SnailyBoy]

1 minute ago, WiseOwl182 said:

Shame you couldn't go the distance. The answer is, of course, which ever one wasn't chosen on which ever ground they weren't chosen on was discriminated against. The point would've worked better with specifics to illuminate it, but sadly you wouldn't paint the picture for me.

There's only so much painting that can be done before it gets painful.

 

 

 

 

[woodview]

4 minutes ago, SnailyBoy said:

I didn't say you did.

 

 

 

Bit pointless posting about it being legal and copying and pasting why it is then.

[SnailyBoy]

1 minute ago, woodview said:

Bit pointless posting about it being legal and copying and pasting why it is then.

Education, pure and simple

[woodview]

Just now, SnailyBoy said:

Education, pure and simple

 We are discussing the morals of it. Thanks for the input though.

[Mister M]

3 minutes ago, woodview said:

Prejudice is wrong in any form. Taking 'positive action' as described will disadvantage somebody, by definition.

Saying 'well you whites or you blokes are generally at an advantage, so suck it up' isn't a great selling point.

As I mentioned earlier, it's easy for people from a privelaged background to say.

I've not read through the whole thread so apologies if these points have already been made.

I think there's a wider aspect to consider. Many public sector organisations which exist to provide care, or a service to the public should be able to have 'a protected characteristic' as a genuine occupational qualification. 

So for example I use to work in the care industry and was employed as a male because many male service users (most of whom were elderly) would have felt uncomfortable for a female to help them with bathing. 

So whilst I get what your saying about prejudice - sometimes other factors like people's dignity has to be considered.

[woodview]

1 minute ago, Mister M said:

I've not read through the whole thread so apologies if these points have already been made.

I think there's a wider aspect to consider. Many public sector organisations which exist to provide care, or a service to the public should be able to have 'a protected characteristic' as a genuine occupational qualification. 

So for example I use to work in the care industry and was employed as a male because many male service users (most of whom were elderly) would have felt uncomfortable for a female to help them with bathing. 

So whilst I get what your saying about prejudice - sometimes other factors like people's dignity has to be considered.

I can accept that. There are a few examples where it could be relevant.

[Mister M]

1 minute ago, woodview said:

I can accept that. There are a few examples where it could be relevant.

There was a recent case with a police officer I think it was in Cheshire where he was incredibly well qualified, but got passed over for a job, because the employer, Cheshire Police wanted someone from an ethinic minority. 

I think whilst it's incredibly harsh on the guy who was applying to be a police officer - I think nowadays with the talk of stop and search and racial profiling with all the knife crime going through the roof. In this context having a black officer, (I believe Cheshire is the one force where there are no BME officers) could be positive and calm tensions in the community.