What is equality to you?

[leviathan13]

4 minutes ago, SnailyBoy said:

Please provide more information, a background story, family tree, education information, medical records for each person involved.

 

Let's get into the detail and really hammer it out.

 

Answer that question and then we'll progress the point.

[SnailyBoy]

2 minutes ago, woodview said:

So, can you answer two very simple questions for me, with Yes or No.

 

1. Is my scenario legal.

2. Do you think it is morally ok.

No I can't

 

1. I don't know, I'm not an lawyer

2. What do you mean by 'morally ok' (just so we're clear)

1 minute ago, leviathan13 said:

Answer that question and then we'll progress the point.

I need more details, come on, lets have them.

 

The more the better.

[danot]

10 minutes ago, SnailyBoy said:

We've been though this yesterday, it's getting tiring........again.

 

Inventing scenarios that suit your agenda adds nothing to the debate. Especially when you can't appear to grasp that equality doesn't advantage those that have the disadvantage.

 

Further information can be found below to help clear up any confusion you might have.

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/85046/positive-action-recruitment.pdf

The confusion lies in the term 'equallity' we're not debating equallity, we're debating  'tokenism' to be precise.

[SnailyBoy]

Just now, danot said:

The confusion lies in the term 'equallity' we're not debating equallity, we're debating  'tokenism' to be precise.

I'm not, I'm debating equality.

 

 

[woodview]

12 minutes ago, SnailyBoy said:

No I can't

 

1. I don't know, I'm not an lawyer

2. What do you mean by 'morally ok' (just so we're clear)

I need more details, come on, lets have them.

 

The more the better.

I know you're not a lawyer, but you've told us time and again PA is legal, so you must have an inkling what is and isn't legal about it. You've also posted links to websites and documents about it. Presumably you read them??

So, let's make it a bit easier for your Yes / No answers:

 

1. From what you know, do you think that scenario is legal.

2. Do you personally feel comfortable with that scenario.

 

 

[SnailyBoy]

1 minute ago, woodview said:

I know you're not a lawyer, but you've told us time and again PA is legal, so you must have an inkling what is and isn't legal about it. You've also posted links to websites and documents about it. Presumably you read them??

So, let's make it a bit easier for your Yes / No answers:

 

1. From what you know, do you think that scenario is legal.

2. Do you personally feel comfortable with that scenario.

 

 

No, I can't

 

1. It's your scenario, do you think it's legal?

2. How I personally feel about it is irrelevant.

[danot]

6 minutes ago, SnailyBoy said:

I'm not, I'm debating equality.

 

 

 

10 minutes ago, SnailyBoy said:

I'm not, I'm debating equality.

 

 

Precisely. It's your terminology that's at fault. You keep calling it 'equallity' when it's actually 'tokenism'.  Maybe you should check their definitive meanings. 

[Mister M]

46 minutes ago, SnailyBoy said:

No, you simply can't grasp that equality doesn't advantage those that have the disadvantage.

 

I went through scenarios yesterday, read those. Even one where I suggested that it could be justified that white people could be recruited using Positive Action, if they came from a disadvantaged group, as per the Equality Act 2010.

 

Frankly, it's getting boring now.

You've got my admiration / sympathies for persevering!

[woodview]

10 minutes ago, SnailyBoy said:

No, I can't

 

1. It's your scenario, do you think it's legal?

2. How I personally feel about it is irrelevant.

You've told us all we need to know.

[Mister M]

33 minutes ago, danot said:

The confusion lies in the term 'equallity' we're not debating equallity, we're debating  'tokenism' to be precise.

No he is debating equality as defined by the Equality Act 2010.