What is equality to you?

[SnailyBoy]

3 minutes ago, danot said:

Calling minority groups 'disadvantaged' isn't a term I chose. I've been quoting you snailyboy.

 

Check-out post 538. 

 

 

Exactly, that's why in the context of the thread it betrays you.

[WiseOwl182]

15 minutes ago, SnailyBoy said:

It works perfectly, you just can't answer it.

I can answer it. Group A is not disadvantaged by Group B getting another £5.

 

Here's an equally irrelevant question:

 

What will the weather be like tomorrow? Raining? Windy? Sunny?

 

Here's a more relevant question:

 

Person A and Person B both go for a job. They both, by some kind of magic, score identically on all assessment criteria. However, Person A has white skin and Person B has brown skin. The employer realises that, through no fault of Person A, they have previously given too many jobs to people who share Person A's skin colour. On that basis alone, they don't give the job to Person A (although they don't tell them it's because of their skin colour). How is Person A disadvantaged?

 

A) By losing out on a job purely for their skin colour

 

B) They're not disadvantaged, everyone loves to lose out on getting a job

 

Edited March 11, 2019 by WiseOwl182

[SnailyBoy]

1 minute ago, WiseOwl182 said:

I can answer it. Group A is not disadvantaged by Group B getting another £5.

 

Here's an equally irrelevant question:

 

What will the weather be like tomorrow? Raining? Windy? Sunny?

 

Here's a more relevant question:

 

Person A and Person B both go for a job. They both, by some kind of magic, score identically on all assessment criteria. However, Person A has white skin and Person B has brown skin. The employer realises that, through no fault of Person A, they have previously given too many jobs to people who share Person A's skin colour. On that basis alone, they don't give the job to Person A (although they don't tell them it's because of their skin colour). How is Person A disadvantaged?

Great, now apply the same thought process to an employer who wishes to encourage groups (Let's say Group B) that are proportionally under represented in the workforce compared to Group A, using the guildlines in Positive Action.

 

[leviathan13]

Just now, SnailyBoy said:

Great, now apply the same thought process to an employer who wishes to encourage groups (Let's say Group B) that are proportionally under represented in the workforce compared to Group A, using the guildlines in Positive Action.

 

There's encouragement to get people to apply, but it's discrimination to say, pretty much, that you don't need to be the best - just be equally as good and the job is yours because of your skin colour or sex.

 

All i want is the best person for the job...

[Halibut]

1 minute ago, WiseOwl182 said:

Now you answer my question:

 

Here's a more relevant question:

 

Person A and Person B both go for a job. They both, by some kind of magic, score identically on all assessment criteria. However, Person A has white skin and Person B has brown skin. The employer realises that, through no fault of Person A, they have previously given too many jobs to people who share Person A's skin colour. On that basis alone, they don't give the job to Person A (although they don't tell them it's because of their skin colour). How is Person A disadvantaged?

Mildly inconvenienced at worst. He'll find another job.

[leviathan13]

2 minutes ago, SnailyBoy said:

Oh dear, back to the £5 anology again, and you were doing so well.

 

 

 

 

I don't get what you're trying to explain with this analogy - all you're saying is that, if everyone is given £10 then that's equality.

 

But it depends on the person's situatuation who is receiving it as to whether it's fair or not.

 

And, why is someone randomly dishing out £10s??

[WiseOwl182]

3 minutes ago, Halibut said:

Mildly inconvenienced at worst. He'll find another job.

Ohhhh right. So one person losing out on a job because of the colour of skin they were born with is illegal, but another person losing out because of the colour of skin they were born with is "mildly inconvenienced".

 

There we have it in a nutshell. Left wing hypocrisy at its finest.

Edited March 11, 2019 by WiseOwl182

[SnailyBoy]

1 minute ago, WiseOwl182 said:

Now you answer my question:

 

Here's a more relevant question:

 

Person A and Person B both go for a job. They both, by some kind of magic, score identically on all assessment criteria. However, Person A has white skin and Person B has brown skin. The employer realises that, through no fault of Person A, they have previously given too many jobs to people who share Person A's skin colour. On that basis alone, they don't give the job to Person A (although they don't tell them it's because of their skin colour). How is Person A disadvantaged?

Your question is flawed demonstrating a lack of understanding of the Equality Act and recruitment when using Positive Action. Try to simplify it so it can work without having to resort to assumptions.

 

 

[leviathan13]

3 minutes ago, Halibut said:

Mildly inconvenienced at worst. He'll find another job.

But he won't if his skin colour is a barrier... do you not see the irony in your comment?

[Halibut]

Just now, leviathan13 said:

But he won't if his skin colour is a barrier... do you not see the irony in your comment?

He's white.