Positive Discrimination - Positive Action

[groovynooby]

You're not wrong Mitch.

This thread should have ended about 46 pages ago with something like

Someone says: “PA is discrimination”

R.H. “No it’s not”

THE END

The very telling thing and a constant theme throughout this thread is that he’s more interested in the law than discrimination itself. He didn’t come to his senses on PD because he saw it for what it was, (like we did before his eureka moment), he did so because of the law.

That is quite damning and he’s still coming up with the same nonsense on PA; i.e. that it doesn’t discriminate, when we can see it does. I think he's just trolling now...

I had a chat with a friend who works in NHS (QE in liver dept) and showed him your posts, BT.
He was a little appalled that you didn't fully state that your views are yours alone and in no way inidicative of the NHS.
He told me that NHS fully supports and utilises PA.
He referred me to this website:
http://www.nhsbreakingthrough.co.uk/FAQs/Default.aspx

He suggested that you should make it very clear that your views are not those expressed by NHS.

Ha, ha, ha... 'kin 'ell

 

[jockscott]

You're not wrong Mitch.

This thread should have ended about 46 pages ago with something like

Someone says: “PA is discrimination”

R.H. “No it’s not”

THE END

The very telling thing and a constant theme throughout this thread is that he’s more interested in the law than discrimination itself. He didn’t come to his senses on PD because he saw it for what it was, (like we did before his eureka moment), he did so because of the law.

That is quite damning and he’s still coming up with the same nonsense on PA; i.e. that it doesn’t discriminate, when we can see it does. I think he's just trolling now...

I had a chat with a friend who works in NHS (QE in liver dept) and showed him your posts, BT.
He was a little appalled that you didn't fully state that your views are yours alone and in no way inidicative of the NHS.
He told me that NHS fully supports and utilises PA.
He referred me to this website:
http://www.nhsbreakingthrough.co.uk/FAQs/Default.aspx

He suggested that you should make it very clear that your views are not those expressed by NHS.

Ha, ha, ha... 'kin 'ell

WTF does RH think he's doing there?? FFS Am I to make it clear my views are my own and not those of my employer too? Who do you work for RH ?? (French Govt I reckon)

 

[groovynooby]

You're not wrong Mitch.

This thread should have ended about 46 pages ago with something like

Someone says: “PA is discrimination”

R.H. “No it’s not”

THE END

The very telling thing and a constant theme throughout this thread is that he’s more interested in the law than discrimination itself. He didn’t come to his senses on PD because he saw it for what it was, (like we did before his eureka moment), he did so because of the law.

That is quite damning and he’s still coming up with the same nonsense on PA; i.e. that it doesn’t discriminate, when we can see it does. I think he's just trolling now...

I had a chat with a friend who works in NHS (QE in liver dept) and showed him your posts, BT.
He was a little appalled that you didn't fully state that your views are yours alone and in no way inidicative of the NHS.
He told me that NHS fully supports and utilises PA.
He referred me to this website:
http://www.nhsbreakingthrough.co.uk/FAQs/Default.aspx

He suggested that you should make it very clear that your views are not those expressed by NHS.

Ha, ha, ha... 'kin 'ell

WTF does RH think he's doing there?? FFS Am I to make it clear my views are my own and not those of my employer too? Who do you work for RH ?? (French Govt I reckon)

I showed this thread to a Frenchman and he was appalled at some of RH's comments, especially those advocating illegal practices and he said that RH should make it clear that his views are his own and do not represent those of other inhabitants of France...

 

[Deleted member 63160]

He's one fecked up Teddy that RH.

 

[Brigadier]

Current employment law can be invoked, if someone feels unfairly treated. Ideally, the same law will prevent any unfair treatment in the first place.


Don't replace an old wrong with a new wrong.


By favouring one, you by necessity have to

not favour another.


Not difficult, is it?

You're being ridiculous, Brigadier.
Are you suggesting that all unsuccessful applicants have been treated unfavourably?
If so, then yes you are favouring one against another.
But then favouritism is not illegal and employment law does not legislate for it.

I thought we were talking about protected characteristics, not whims and foibles.....


South-Birmingham school. Practising PA.
Rejection interview transcript (hypothetical).

"Your CV and experience were very good, and your references were very complimentary.
However, because you are of Pakistani origin, you were unsuccessful.
The successful applicant is the Somali gentleman, as Somalians are currently under-represented.
We do however wish you every success in your future career."

The less cuddly side to PA?

You notably fail to indicate the CV, experience and references of the succesful applicant. They may have been equal or better than the unsuccessful candidate.
As long as the essential criteria were met, and the organisation can justify PA. Then I suspect that EHRC guidelines have not been broken, as long as it was a tie-break situation and, except of course, that nationality is not a protected characterisitc, as far as I know.
Race is. So the school would not have been actively seeking Somalians, but they may have been actively seeking Africans, Muslims or even African Muslims.
Similarly, they would not have mentioned Pakistani as it is a nationality, but they may have quoted Asian, as a race.

So your hypothetical example is an example of discrimination, discrimination against Pakistani, and in favour of Somalians, not PA.

I deliberately did not mention the equally-good CVs and other credentials, as I took that to be implicit (and I do know how utterly tiring you find repetition )

I deliberately used the phrase "Pakistani origin" as I was referring to an ethnic group (although to be truthful, I was also doing other things at the time, so only had one eye, so to speak, on this forum). I'll give you the missing "origin" from my post re: Somali gentleman, though.

I (and most other contributors on here) do not doubt that some hand-wringing eggheads have fiddled with words and definitions, to make PA legal - so no need to push on an open door.
But it is pretty clear that you are in a minority (of one) in not wanting to see, hear or believe that telling [a Pashtun] that they were "just as good as the successful applicant, but just unlucky in birth", is plainly unfair.

You yourself posted this (in the Reparations for Slavery thread, page 3):

"I believe that before we can move forward, we need to know where we have been, where we are now, and how we arrived here."

Read more: //www.diynot.com/forums/general-discussion/reparations-for-slavery.397464/page-3#ixzz30UkgilnU

Which is very much akin to learning from mistakes of the past - yet you are advocating not just not learning from them, but repeating them!

A new wrong to replace an old wrong - clearly it is you who is the unenlightened one here.

 

[RogueHanger]

Mitch, jockscott, and groovynobody, my post was particularly for the notice of BT because BT had mentioned that he worked for NHS, and thus implied that he was stating the policy and views of the NHS.

Which he clearly wasn't but failed to explicitly address that.

Now if you want to state who you work for, then be pepared for your opinions to be compared to that of your employer.

In the meantime if you want to assume that all posts are directed specifically at you, that's fine by me, but I'll need to know who your employer is so I can check their policy against your opinion.
If you wish to remain anonymous and not linked to any organisation, that's fine.

For your further consideration, if I call you an imbecile, there's little harm done because we are both anonymous.
However If I imply, or link to an organisation who is not anonymous, that my views are those of my employer, who is, say a large national or international corporation who's image may be damaged by my comment, there may be hell to pay.

Unless I specifically state that any comments I make on here are my own opinion and not that of my employer, or any other organisation, if it could be construed that my opinions are in anyway linked to the organisation.

Getit?

 

[RogueHanger]

Current employment law can be invoked, if someone feels unfairly treated. Ideally, the same law will prevent any unfair treatment in the first place.


Don't replace an old wrong with a new wrong.


By favouring one, you by necessity have to

not favour another.


Not difficult, is it?

You're being ridiculous, Brigadier.
Are you suggesting that all unsuccessful applicants have been treated unfavourably?
If so, then yes you are favouring one against another.
But then favouritism is not illegal and employment law does not legislate for it.

I thought we were talking about protected characteristics, not whims and foibles.....


South-Birmingham school. Practising PA.
Rejection interview transcript (hypothetical).

"Your CV and experience were very good, and your references were very complimentary.
However, because you are of Pakistani origin, you were unsuccessful.
The successful applicant is the Somali gentleman, as Somalians are currently under-represented.
We do however wish you every success in your future career."

The less cuddly side to PA?

You notably fail to indicate the CV, experience and references of the succesful applicant. They may have been equal or better than the unsuccessful candidate.
As long as the essential criteria were met, and the organisation can justify PA. Then I suspect that EHRC guidelines have not been broken, as long as it was a tie-break situation and, except of course, that nationality is not a protected characterisitc, as far as I know.
Race is. So the school would not have been actively seeking Somalians, but they may have been actively seeking Africans, Muslims or even African Muslims.
Similarly, they would not have mentioned Pakistani as it is a nationality, but they may have quoted Asian, as a race.

So your hypothetical example is an example of discrimination, discrimination against Pakistani, and in favour of Somalians, not PA.

I deliberately did not mention the equally-good CVs and other credentials, as I took that to be implicit (and I do know how utterly tiring you find repetition )

I deliberately used the phrase "Pakistani origin" as I was referring to an ethnic group (although to be truthful, I was also doing other things at the time, so only had one eye, so to speak, on this forum). I'll give you the missing "origin" from my post re: Somali gentleman, though.

I (and most other contributors on here) do not doubt that some hand-wringing eggheads have fiddled with words and definitions, to make PA legal - so no need to push on an open door.
But it is pretty clear that you are in a minority (of one) in not wanting to see, hear or believe that telling [a Pashtun] that they were "just as good as the successful applicant, but just unlucky in birth", is plainly unfair.

You yourself posted this (in the Reparations for Slavery thread, page 3):

"I believe that before we can move forward, we need to know where we have been, where we are now, and how we arrived here."

Read more: //www.diynot.com/forums/general-discussion/reparations-for-slavery.397464/page-3#ixzz30UkgilnU

Which is very much akin to learning from mistakes of the past - yet you are advocating not just not learning from them, but repeating them!

A new wrong to replace an old wrong - clearly it is you who is the unenlightened one here.

Bit of a ramble thee, Brigadier. But if I'm not mistaken, you are suggesting that PA is a wrong to replace a previous wrong.
and you're suggesting that my mesage in "knowing where we've been, etc" is the same as "replacing one wrong..etc"

If that is your comment.
a) it's based on the assumption that PA is a mistake and you've failed to convince me of that.
b) you're suggesting that PA is similar to a previous mistake that we've made. Please convince me as to which previous mistake it is similar to.

If I haven't understood your comment correctly, perhaps you could surmise it more explicitly.

 

[Brigadier]

RH - you'd know a ramble if you saw one, I'll give you that.

a. you've made your position very clear on PA - it's legal (not disputed); you just absolutely fail to acknowledge that (all other things being equal), by favouring a "protected characteristic", an applicant better get lucky with what they were born with / into, or where they were born.
b. previous mistake was discrimination. If you were as clever as you purport to be, that would have jumped out at you. Occam's Razor says you're a troll.

 

[RogueHanger]

a. you've made your position very clear on PA - it's legal (not disputed); you just absolutely fail to acknowledge that (all other things being equal), by favouring a "protected characteristic", an applicant better get lucky with what they were born with / into, or where they were born.

But when discrimination is practised, then the favoured are the lucky ones. This allows discrimination to be perpetuated and never addressed. Moreover, it creates an underclass in the minority who are never successful because of the discrimination. this then permates into the treatment of the minority in society.
By ensuring that there are some minority in the workforce, you are achieving two important things, a) you now have some alternative representation, thus a diversity of views, and b) you are demonstrating to the minority that employment, etc is available. Thus not creating an underclass.

b. previous mistake was discrimination. If you were as clever as you purport to be, that would have jumped out at you. Occam's Razor says you're a troll.

But PA does not discriminate, therefore it cannot be compared to previous discrimination.

So, unless I'm mistaken, your whole argument rests on the premise that PA discirminates. As it does not, you have no argument.

 

[Brigadier]

RH posted "By ensuring that there are some minority in the workforce, you are achieving two important things, a) you now have some alternative representation, thus a diversity of views, and b) you are demonstrating to the minority that employment, etc is available. Thus not creating an underclass."

That is what current employment law is for.

RH also posted "But PA does not discriminate, therefore it cannot be compared to previous discrimination.

So, unless I'm mistaken, your whole argument rests on the premise that PA discirminates. As it does not, you have no argument."


As you do not know what discrimination means, do us all a favour, and stop using the word.

 

[EFLImpudence]

PA - it's legal (not disputed)

Not in the choice of successful applicant for the job, it's not; the whole point of the original question.

 

[RogueHanger]

RH posted "By ensuring that there are some minority in the workforce, you are achieving two important things, a) you now have some alternative representation, thus a diversity of views, and b) you are demonstrating to the minority that employment, etc is available. Thus not creating an underclass."

That is what current employment law is for.

RH also posted "But PA does not discriminate, therefore it cannot be compared to previous discrimination.

So, unless I'm mistaken, your whole argument rests on the premise that PA discirminates. As it does not, you have no argument."

You've taken part of my comment, without the previous sentence which leaves it without context, but, never mind.
As PA is part of current employment law, it stands to reason, by your own logic, that PA is lawful.
What's your point?

As you do not know what discrimination means, do us all a favour, and stop using the word.

I know what it means and I assume you do. But just for the record, I'll remind you.
Discrimination is unjust or prejudicial treatment of a group of people, based on their protocted charcteristics.
Now I don't mind not using the word, but you compared PA to previous discrimination.

b. previous mistake was discrimination.

So as I'm absolutely sure that PA has nothing to do with discrimination, I'm happy to stop using the word, if you will.
But then your argument has nowhere to go.

 

[RogueHanger]

PA - it's legal (not disputed)

Not in the choice of successful applicant for the job, it's not; the whole point of the original question.

Can you explian yourself a little more lucidly,please. Because at the moment your comments don't make a great deal of sense.
Are you saying that PA is not legal?
Or are you saying it's only not legal, in the choice of the successful applicant? Whatever that means.
Or are you referring to the whole point? which is?
Or are you refering to the original question? Which is?

Or is just a comment that you haven't really thought through?

 

[EFLImpudence]

You really are a pain.

PA is allowed in making up the numbers in the applicant list for a job.
It is not allowed in the final selection of the successful candidate.
Don't forget that I am referring to race which was the subject of your original post.


I think this is where you have been confused throughout the thread.

 

[RogueHanger]

You really are a pain.

PA is allowed in making up the numbers in the applicant list for a job.
It is not allowed in the final selection of the successful candidate.
Don't forget that I am referring to race which was the subject of your original post.


I think this is where you have been confused throughout the thread.

The Act specifically states that in tie-break situations it is perfectly acceptable. Therefore PA is acceptable in final selection.