Positive Discrimination - Positive Action

[Big Tone]

You and others knew of him before me Cajar; so I will have to acquiesce to your experience of his previous incarnation/s and style. But I have attended the University of Life, so I know a wind-up or prevarication when I see it. As I said, it’s ‘Politician Speak’ instead of a direct yes or no answer.

And the reason for his woolly replies IMHO is because if he says a direct “no”, he looks like a fool for not recognising the obvious that PA does in fact disfavour someone purely by accident of birth, (discrimination), or he says “yes”, in which case it’s a home goal that he supports discrimination but just a lesser type. A sort of ‘discrimination Lite’ or ‘I can’t believe it’s not discrimination’.

I expect he’s waiting for either subsequent posts, like this one and others, to evade giving me the straight answer to my direct question or disappear like a fart in the wind to save face.

However I may have come across here, I’m not being nasty towards him and I won’t be. But I will stand my ground! PA is still discrimination and my explanation as to why could be understood by an eight year old.

 

[JBR]

Hey Red, Cajar's kicked your ass twice this month It must be a record.

If people continue to advocate kicking asses on here I shall have no alternative but to inform the RSPCA.

I take it back JBR. Five pages later, ALL the boys have kicked his ass.

No. ALL the boys have kicked his AR$E. I cannot stand Americanisms. The BBC journalists are now using the word 'airplane'. God help us. We'll either end up being either little Germans or little Americans.

 

[JBR]

I'll just post the link without faffing and maybe he'll get the message. Does Positive Action discriminate? Yes or no?

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1KHMO14KuJk

Good. It's working this time.

I thought everyone realised. The first thing politicians are taught at 'politician school' is how to avoid answering a direct question.

That Jeremy Paxman link is a perfect example.

To be honest, I haven't been reading 'The Thoughts of Chairman Herring', but I assume he has been equally persistent in avoiding direct questions.

 

[RogueHanger]

Yes I saw that thanks Cajar. It's hiding behind the law and his support/endorsement of the law on PA. It's not coming from him!

Subtle and very different to whether it's what he, impartiality, believes - otherwise it really wouldn't be hard to say a straight yes or no. That's because he's not stupid and knows either straight answer leaves him shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic...

Yes or no RH? Do you think PA discriminates? Yes or No? http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1KHMO14KuJk

What you are not saying speaks volumes more about you than the longwinded posts, replies and anecdotes, references, cross-references, links, quotes etc.

FFS, BT, for the umpteenth time. I don't thimk PA discriminates against anyone.
If you accept that a protected characterisitic is a quality that is desirable in a workforce to provide a balanced viewpoint and presentation of the organisation, then it makes absolute sense to actively seek to recruit some staff that represent the other cultures/viewpoints/sections of society.

For the umpteenth time I used to support PD, until I realised that a)EHRC had decreed all discrimination illegal and b) the Oxford dictionary describes discrimination as:

The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/discrimination[/QUOTE]
Now we can go further down the minutiae of definitions and look up "prejudice" but I already know that it is a belief based on ideology or misunderstanding.

So now I do not support discrimination, in any shape or form. I do support PA and I do not think that PA is in any shape or form discrimination against anyone.
It's positive in seeking to redress the imbalance.
I used to use the terminology of PD, and I have modified my stance due to increased understanding of the concepts and definitions, as explained on Page 12 and 13.

Moreover, going back to my statement about wanting/needing a fair and proportional representation of the "service base" within the workforce, I think it's a negative and short-sighted view to think that "proportional representation within the wokforce" is not desirable, and may have a negative effect on the success of the organisation.



Going on to your mention of why I think it's time to retire from the forum, there are many reasons:
a) there are no reasonable arguments against PA. There are only racist and/or counter-intuitive arguments. There are also repetitive, circuitous and fallacious arguments being forwarded. Additionaly, there are absurd claims and my posts are being altered and twisted for perverted ad hominem attacks.
b) the opponents of PA are relying on ad hominem attacks to sustain their opposition and attempt to "prove me wrong". It's not about me. It's about PA. But I have become the subject of the thread, not PA
c) there are misrepresentations of what PA is, in an attempt to undermine it, by people who fail to properly understand the concepts and definitions.
c) whatever I propose as a thread subject will be met with further ad hominem attacks and I will become the subject of the thread again.
d) the oppenents of PA are now dredging up absurd claims and accusations which have absolutely nothing to do with the thread.
e) the thread is providing some posters to rant racially abusive slogans and terminology. I don't want to be associated with a forum that allows such abhorrent behaviour. If necessary I will take alternative action to discourage it or preferably stop it altogether. That will take up more of my time but may be more productive. It means that I won't have time to respond to repititive arguments. Although the racist slogans and posts have povided valuable justification for any action.
f) the opponents to PA resort to abusive behaviour and there have been the many occasions when I've sunk to their level.(and justified it as retalliation)
g) the opponents have sought to represent a defeat of me and my arguments as justification for their prejudiced views and agenda. I think it's a perfect example of how far people will go to justify their self-cognition, i.e. If I'm wrong they and their views must be right.
h) the half-dozen racially abusive posters are well entrenched and I'm wasting my time trying to reason with them. However the thread has caused them to appear from the woodwork and present themselves clearly and obviously in one thread.

Need I go on?

 

[Big Tone]

What a cop-out! Looks like the Jeremy Paxman interview all over again.

So you cannot say the word yes or no then; that much is obvious. That’s okay, I get it. (I think we all do). Instead of a yes or no you just re-post what you have already said, and you have the nerve to accuse others of making a circular argument or dragging the thread out.

Whatever your cause was, it’s a lost one Rogue. When you can come up with something which truly does give everyone a level playing field for employment then please do re-post. But whatever that is, it’s not Positive Action unless or until they redefine it. (I’ve enjoyed the banter and wish you well).

Kind regards

Tony

 

[Whitespirit66]

Need I go on?

No, but you do anyway.

 

[RogueHanger]

Yes I saw that thanks Cajar. It's hiding behind the law and his support/endorsement of the law on PA. It's not coming from him!

Subtle and very different to whether it's what he, impartiality, believes - otherwise it really wouldn't be hard to say a straight yes or no. That's because he's not stupid and knows either straight answer leaves him shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic...

Yes or no RH? Do you think PA discriminates? Yes or No? http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1KHMO14KuJk

What you are not saying speaks volumes more about you than the longwinded posts, replies and anecdotes, references, cross-references, links, quotes etc.

FFS, BT, for the umpteenth time. I don't thimk PA discriminates against anyone.If you accept that a protected characterisitic is a quality that is desirable in a workforce to provide a balanced viewpoint and presentation of the organisation, then it makes absolute sense to actively seek to recruit some staff that represent the other cultures/viewpoints/sections of society.

FFS, BT, what's this, bold and in blue, that I posted last post? It's not been the first time either.
I can't make it any clearer.

Another analogy to try to prise out your negative attitude.

I'm owning/running/managing an organisation.
I'm the kind of person who "manages from without". I assume that most people know what that is, but just in case, it means I'm rarely in the office. I'm always out on the road, selling/promoting/advertising the oganisation.
Business is doing well, and either I'm getting old or the business is doing so well, there's a real risk of dissappointing some customers, thereby negatively affecting the organisation.
So I advertise for an assistant to help me run the business.
I have, say, five reasonable applicants, all might fit the bill.
Three are from an advetising/selling backgound, one from a managerial background, and one is from an accountancy background.

I could recruit one of the advertising/selling applicants. They have a similar outlook and approach to business as myself and I recognise myself in them, a little. But that would mean I'd have to change my style. Perhaps learn to manage from within, i.e. always in the office. The new assistants would do all the "managing fom outside" work.
But I enjoy the part of the job that I've been doing, and I do it well.
So I consider either the manager or the accountant.
Well accountancy has never been my forte.
So I recruit the accountant on the basis that he will compliment, not mirror my style.
I haven't discriminated against any of the others. I've positively added to the team by selecting somebody different to the others in the team. Thereby strengthening the team.

That's PA!. It's not discriminatory, it's improving, strengthening, adding to the staus quo.


Additionally, lets take one of the racists' arguments:
"They never integrate"
That's partly because they never get the chance, jobs, social circles, courses, etc are closed to them. Either through negative discrimination or because they don't see the advert or the information in the places that they frequent, or printed matter that they read. (I don't mind if anyone makes an abusive comment after that. It's just additional evidence of racism within the forum.)
So the racist say "They wouldn't if they had the chance".
They don't get the opportunities for the reasons stated above.
Look at the example you want to set; "Make it on your own. Don't expect any help from us!"

That's just like the union reps of the 60's: "We didn't want you but as you are here, and a member of our union, I suppose we have to support you!"

 

[EFLImpudence]

Three are from an advetising/selling backgound, one from a managerial background, and one is from an accountancy background.

FFS How dense can you be?

Is there a discrimination act supporting any of those characteristics saying you have to employ an accountant when you want a manager?

No? Well there is regarding race, sex, etc.


Get it?

 

[RogueHanger]

Three are from an advetising/selling backgound, one from a managerial background, and one is from an accountancy background.

FFS How dense can you be?

Is there a discrimination act supporting any of those characteristics saying you have to employ an accountant when you want a manager?

No? Well there is regarding race, sex, etc.


Get it?

Just why do you think it was necessary to create an Equality Act?
Was it just because someone was bored and had time and finance available, so they said, "I know, lets waste a whole bunch of time and money on something which isn't needed."?

And it was an analogy!

And you accuse me of being dense?

 

[Big Tone]

FFS, BT, what's this, bold and in blue, that I posted last post? It's not been the first time either.
I can't make it any clearer.

Yes you could Rogue! How many times to I have to say it? I refuse to give you anymore clues. (Although my opening sentence starts with one of two options).

I have answered your question about PA and how it DOES discriminate here. But you didn't answer or reply and I refuse to believe you don't understand OR are not familiar with yes and no responses to a straight question

So, here it is again.

I'm not fixated on PD anymore. You have explained your change on that Rogue, to your credit. So that's history as far as I'm concerned. I'm focusing on Positive Action alone now and still think it discriminates.

Minority group aside, if you have two "equally qualified" candidates and you favour one over the other, the 'loser' HAS been discriminated against just because of accident of birth!

Here it is RH. What can't speak can't lie.

"In the United Kingdom in Harriet Harman's Equality Act 2010 ss 158-159, the term is used in the context of employment to allow selection of a candidate from an "under-represented" group, so long as he or she is no less than equally qualified compared to another potential candidate that is not from the under-represented group"

"Under-represented" is not some sort of trump card that makes it NOT discriminatory! It just makes it a matter of legality. By definition though, it has discriminated!

If you address this point directly I don't think you'd be getting such heat here. (But I will remain civil).

 

[Norcon]

Three are from an advetising/selling backgound, one from a managerial background, and one is from an accountancy background.

FFS How dense can you be?

Is there a discrimination act supporting any of those characteristics saying you have to employ an accountant when you want a manager?

No? Well there is regarding race, sex, etc.


Get it?

Just why do you think it was necessary to create an Equality Act?
Was it just because someone was bored and had time and finance available, so they said, "I know, lets waste a whole bunch of time and money on something which isn't needed."?

And it was an analogy!

And you accuse me of being dense?

It was a dumb analogy.

Try 3 Irishmen, a jew and a black.
We all know you'll employ the black.
You can claim the positive action being his colour complimenting yours.

 

[longdogs]

Need I go on?

No, but you do anyway.

 

[Trazor]

He's behind you, no he isn't, yes he is. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

 

[Deleted member 63160]

Funny really. People like RH inflame so much racial tension with their constant lefty drivel. So counter productive. My mate "big Eric" (coloured chap) has read some of his posts and classes him, and I quote, as "a right effin w**ker". Oh the irony PMSL

 

[Big Tone]

What's more, or most, important to me is that I, (always), try to attack the post, rather than the poster. (So do both hot and very cold - towards anyone!).

There are posters here I like and respect on all sides of any argument. But it does decend into a 'everyone sticking the boot in' at times...

(Not aimed at you Mitch, as the last/previous poster).