|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Feb 1, 2018 11:52:40 GMT
I don't know about the story you're referring to but there are very few circumstances where you can specify an age / race / sexuality as part of a job advert. Now if the BBC were advertising for Asian actors to play an Asian family in a TV series, they're totally entitled to advertise the role specifically for Asians. If they're advertising a job in the canteen and asking for Asians only because they think white people are workshy dickheads, then it's not allowed. Surely you can see that to openly state that they will not employ from an entire race because of a few bad experiences in the past isn't just 'PC gone mad' it's wrong? You regularly hear in the news that, for example, the police force is actively recruiting more officers from ethnic minority backgrounds to bring the percentage more in line with that of the general public. There is also a drive for more women. This is nicely categorised as positive discrimination, but in my eyes it is simply discrimination. So what you potentially have here is the strongest candidate for a job not being given that job because of some warped view on ensuring a better balance of race and gender in the workplace. It would be great to see more people being employed who are not Mr. Average White Male, but only if they deserve their employment on merit. I can also confirm that this policy is actively encouraged in my organisation (I work for a huge multi-national corporation) but isn't stated publicly in any shareholder reports etc. Positive discrimination is illegal, except in very limited and defined circumstances. That is not the same as taking measures to counteract previous indirect ( and sometimes direct) discrimination and encourage more applicants from certain groups who have historically been under-represented. That is what the police ( and other organisations) are doing and it's surely a good thing - particularly for public-facing organisations like the police, and with the Met having been found to be institutionally racist by the Lawrence enquiry. If some of those who now complain and label this with the meaningless phrase "political correctness" had been equally vocal in objecting to the discriminatory employment and other practices which have been commonplace for generations, we might as a society have got to the right place long before now.
|
|
|
Post by kristoff on Feb 1, 2018 12:04:35 GMT
You regularly hear in the news that, for example, the police force is actively recruiting more officers from ethnic minority backgrounds to bring the percentage more in line with that of the general public. There is also a drive for more women. This is nicely categorised as positive discrimination, but in my eyes it is simply discrimination. So what you potentially have here is the strongest candidate for a job not being given that job because of some warped view on ensuring a better balance of race and gender in the workplace. It would be great to see more people being employed who are not Mr. Average White Male, but only if they deserve their employment on merit. I can also confirm that this policy is actively encouraged in my organisation (I work for a huge multi-national corporation) but isn't stated publicly in any shareholder reports etc. Positive discrimination is illegal, except in very limited and defined circumstances. That is not the same as taking measures to counteract previous indirect ( and sometimes direct) discrimination and encourage more applicants from certain groups who have historically been under-represented. That is what the police ( and other organisations) are doing and it's surely a good thing - particularly for public-facing organisations like the police, and with the Met having been found to be institutionally racist by the Lawrence enquiry. If some of those who now complain and label this with the meaningless phrase "political correctness" had been equally vocal in objecting to the discriminatory employment and other practices which have been commonplace for generations, we might as a society have got to the right place long before now. Some people have been vocal but the media only listen when they choose to. As for positive discrimination, there is no such thing. You do not get equality by discriminating another group. We should be looking past groups, colour, religion, sex are all just words, take the person on face value. Hammering white men now for problems that have been around since dawn of time is not helping anyone. Take oxford University last week announcing women will be getting 15 minutes extra compared to men in exams. This is due to men having a higher pass rate. How is that a good thing? If that was the other way around the entire board would be sacked, buildings burnt down and the mob on the march. The message of equality is sadly lost by the fucktards crying sexism/racism or whatever for every little thing and lessens people’s reactions when sexism and racism actually occur
|
|
|
Post by Mr_DaftBurger on Feb 1, 2018 12:08:04 GMT
Positive discrimination is illegal, except in very limited and defined circumstances. That is not the same as taking measures to counteract previous indirect ( and sometimes direct) discrimination and encourage more applicants from certain groups who have historically been under-represented. That is what the police ( and other organisations) are doing and it's surely a good thing - particularly for public-facing organisations like the police, and with the Met having been found to be institutionally racist by the Lawrence enquiry. If some of those who now complain and label this with the meaningless phrase "political correctness" had been equally vocal in objecting to the discriminatory employment and other practices which have been commonplace for generations, we might as a society have got to the right place long before now. Is the Rooney Rule positive discrimination?
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on Feb 1, 2018 12:10:24 GMT
Positive discrimination is illegal, except in very limited and defined circumstances. That is not the same as taking measures to counteract previous indirect ( and sometimes direct) discrimination and encourage more applicants from certain groups who have historically been under-represented. That is what the police ( and other organisations) are doing and it's surely a good thing - particularly for public-facing organisations like the police, and with the Met having been found to be institutionally racist by the Lawrence enquiry. If some of those who now complain and label this with the meaningless phrase "political correctness" had been equally vocal in objecting to the discriminatory employment and other practices which have been commonplace for generations, we might as a society have got to the right place long before now. Some people have been vocal but the media only listen when they choose to. As for positive discrimination, there is no such thing. You do not get equality by discriminating another group. We should be looking past groups, colour, religion, sex are all just words, take the person on face value. Hammering white men now for problems that have been around since dawn of time is not helping anyone. Take oxford University last week announcing women will be getting 15 minutes extra compared to men in exams. This is due to men having a higher pass rate. How is that a good thing? If that was the other way around the entire board would be sacked, buildings burnt down and the mob on the march. The message of equality is sadly lost by the fucktards crying sexism/racism or whatever for every little thing and lessens people’s reactions when sexism and racism actually occur The extra 15 minutes is in case they pack a mascara pencil instead of a Biro.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Feb 1, 2018 12:17:55 GMT
Where do they stand on Caribbean Players, or indeed Black British players... He has not said no more Blacks at all. A few years ago, totally unrelated, Sainsbury's would not allow East European HGV drivers to work for them, because they were just so bad...Is that racist... It's discriminatory and making appalling generalisations based on someone's origins. If Stoke fans were banned from attending games because 'all Stoke fans are hooligans', would that be fair enough?
|
|
|
Post by Kilo on Feb 1, 2018 12:19:29 GMT
“The West Ham United family is an inclusive one where, regardless of gender, age, ability, race, religion or sexual orientation, everybody feels welcome and included." I've not bothered checking their squad but do they have any over 50's women who are crap at football? If anyone knows can they please report them to the FA for breaking these rules as well, with a bit of luck we can get them a 40 point deduction to strengthen our chances of staying up. Does anyone know if they serve their pies at the correct temperature?
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Feb 1, 2018 12:21:23 GMT
So you've got no problems with sweeping, negative generalisations about a whole continent of people? Funny how often the stuff people describe as 'PC Gone Mad' on here in reality equates to basic decency and not being a dick. I don't see it as a big issue, being honest it does not affect me therefore doesn't bother me. People need to to worry about themselves not focus on everyone else. No but it does affect the game of football which is the reason we all come together on this forum. The game as a whole is dealing with accusations of being institutionally racist. Comments such as the ones attributed to this guy only go towards supporting the view that such accusations are justified. Which doesn't really do much to help anyone associated with the game. Unless of course you just happen to be a fully paid up member of Britain First and run your own Championship Manager competition where goals scored by black players don't count. In which case you probably think it's great.
|
|
|
Post by sheriffofrockridge on Feb 1, 2018 12:22:00 GMT
You regularly hear in the news that, for example, the police force is actively recruiting more officers from ethnic minority backgrounds to bring the percentage more in line with that of the general public. There is also a drive for more women. This is nicely categorised as positive discrimination, but in my eyes it is simply discrimination. So what you potentially have here is the strongest candidate for a job not being given that job because of some warped view on ensuring a better balance of race and gender in the workplace. It would be great to see more people being employed who are not Mr. Average White Male, but only if they deserve their employment on merit. I can also confirm that this policy is actively encouraged in my organisation (I work for a huge multi-national corporation) but isn't stated publicly in any shareholder reports etc. Positive discrimination is illegal, except in very limited and defined circumstances. That is not the same as taking measures to counteract previous indirect ( and sometimes direct) discrimination and encourage more applicants from certain groups who have historically been under-represented. That is what the police ( and other organisations) are doing and it's surely a good thing - particularly for public-facing organisations like the police, and with the Met having been found to be institutionally racist by the Lawrence enquiry. If some of those who now complain and label this with the meaningless phrase "political correctness" had been equally vocal in objecting to the discriminatory employment and other practices which have been commonplace for generations, we might as a society have got to the right place long before now. That may well be true Malcolm, but in my opinion it should still be the best person for the job on merit (qualifications, experience, performance in interviews and assessments etc.) that gets the job, regardless of any desire to correct any previous wrongdoings of people going generations back. Why should today's and tomorrow's generations pay for the errors of their ancestors? I'll probably get shot down here: if a black lesbian gets a job because she is better than all other candidates then that is perfectly fine by me, but if she gets it simply to improve some nonsensical statistic then in my opinion the whole system is just as bad as it would be if that same woman was not given the job for being black and/or gay.
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Feb 1, 2018 12:22:39 GMT
Not all Africans have to be black. No. But I'd bet my fucking mortgage that's what the mentality was. Why would that be then ?
|
|
|
Post by kristoff on Feb 1, 2018 12:23:49 GMT
Positive discrimination is illegal, except in very limited and defined circumstances. That is not the same as taking measures to counteract previous indirect ( and sometimes direct) discrimination and encourage more applicants from certain groups who have historically been under-represented. That is what the police ( and other organisations) are doing and it's surely a good thing - particularly for public-facing organisations like the police, and with the Met having been found to be institutionally racist by the Lawrence enquiry. If some of those who now complain and label this with the meaningless phrase "political correctness" had been equally vocal in objecting to the discriminatory employment and other practices which have been commonplace for generations, we might as a society have got to the right place long before now. That may well be true Malcolm, but in my opinion it should still be the best person for the job on merit (qualifications, experience, performance in interviews and assessments etc.) that gets the job, regardless of any desire to correct any previous wrongdoings of people going generations back. Why should today's and tomorrow's generations pay for the errors of their ancestors? I'll probably get shot down here: if a black lesbian gets a job because she is better than all other candidates then that is perfectly fine by me, but if she gets it simply to improve some nonsensical statistic then in my opinion the whole system is just as bad as it would be if that same woman was not given the job for being black and/or gay. 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Feb 1, 2018 12:24:24 GMT
Positive discrimination is illegal, except in very limited and defined circumstances. That is not the same as taking measures to counteract previous indirect ( and sometimes direct) discrimination and encourage more applicants from certain groups who have historically been under-represented. That is what the police ( and other organisations) are doing and it's surely a good thing - particularly for public-facing organisations like the police, and with the Met having been found to be institutionally racist by the Lawrence enquiry. If some of those who now complain and label this with the meaningless phrase "political correctness" had been equally vocal in objecting to the discriminatory employment and other practices which have been commonplace for generations, we might as a society have got to the right place long before now. Is the Rooney Rule positive discrimination? No - there is still a requirement that the job is given to the best candidate regardless of ethnicity ( and also that all shortlisted candidates are suitably qualified)
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Feb 1, 2018 12:28:11 GMT
|
|
|
Post by itsallgonepetetone on Feb 1, 2018 12:29:47 GMT
The guy was an idiot for saying it, but they recruit where they see fit. Every club will try and exploit areas of the world to maximise value and every club probably has a preferred area to extract talent from. That can be affected by a multitude of things, culture, price, language, corruption if unregulated, wages, work permits, distance to travel etc
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Feb 1, 2018 12:32:22 GMT
Positive discrimination is illegal, except in very limited and defined circumstances. That is not the same as taking measures to counteract previous indirect ( and sometimes direct) discrimination and encourage more applicants from certain groups who have historically been under-represented. That is what the police ( and other organisations) are doing and it's surely a good thing - particularly for public-facing organisations like the police, and with the Met having been found to be institutionally racist by the Lawrence enquiry. If some of those who now complain and label this with the meaningless phrase "political correctness" had been equally vocal in objecting to the discriminatory employment and other practices which have been commonplace for generations, we might as a society have got to the right place long before now. That may well be true Malcolm, but in my opinion it should still be the best person for the job on merit (qualifications, experience, performance in interviews and assessments etc.) that gets the job, regardless of any desire to correct any previous wrongdoings of people going generations back. Why should today's and tomorrow's generations pay for the errors of their ancestors? I'll probably get shot down here: if a black lesbian gets a job because she is better than all other candidates then that is perfectly fine by me, but if she gets it simply to improve some nonsensical statistic then in my opinion the whole system is just as bad as it would be if that same woman was not given the job for being black and/or gay. The law ( and me) are on your side, so you won't get shot down ( at least not by me). That's why positive discrimination is illegal, unless there is a specific job-related requirement e.g for a female because of the nature of the job. But that's not the same as taking active measures to attract candidates from previously under-represented groups.
|
|
|
Post by Squeekster on Feb 1, 2018 12:32:50 GMT
Is this ex Stoke midfielder Tony Henry? No thankfully, he's an ex defender and too young to be our TH. Although he did play for Northwich vics.
|
|
|
Post by sheriffofrockridge on Feb 1, 2018 12:35:23 GMT
That may well be true Malcolm, but in my opinion it should still be the best person for the job on merit (qualifications, experience, performance in interviews and assessments etc.) that gets the job, regardless of any desire to correct any previous wrongdoings of people going generations back. Why should today's and tomorrow's generations pay for the errors of their ancestors? I'll probably get shot down here: if a black lesbian gets a job because she is better than all other candidates then that is perfectly fine by me, but if she gets it simply to improve some nonsensical statistic then in my opinion the whole system is just as bad as it would be if that same woman was not given the job for being black and/or gay. The law ( and me) are on your side, so you won't get shot down ( at least not by me). That's why positive discrimination is illegal, unless there is a specific job-related requirement e.g for a female because of the nature of the job. But that's not the same as taking active active measures to attract candidates from previously under-represented groups. Good to see for the most part we're on the same page. Your point about attracting candidates from previously unrepresented groups. This I understand and would accept...as long as the job was then given only to the best candidate.
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Feb 1, 2018 12:42:50 GMT
The law ( and me) are on your side, so you won't get shot down ( at least not by me). That's why positive discrimination is illegal, unless there is a specific job-related requirement e.g for a female because of the nature of the job. But that's not the same as taking active active measures to attract candidates from previously under-represented groups. Good to see for the most part we're on the same page. Your point about attracting candidates from previously unrepresented groups. This I understand and would accept...as long as the job was then given only to the best candidate. Recruitment should be guided by ability not diversity surely, gaining an unfair advantage due to ethnicity is wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Birchesheadpotter on Feb 1, 2018 12:45:19 GMT
Is the Rooney Rule positive discrimination? No - there is still a requirement that the job is given to the best candidate regardless of ethnicity ( and also that all shortlisted candidates are suitably qualified) It is a policy that formally renders classification of candidates for a job based solely on ethnicity. It’s inarguably racist.
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on Feb 1, 2018 12:56:33 GMT
Not all Africans have a bad attitude, just as not everyone who voted to Leave is septuagenarian, white and racist.
|
|
|
Post by jaybee on Feb 1, 2018 13:02:04 GMT
Is this ex Stoke midfielder Tony Henry? No thankfully, he's an ex defender and too young to be our TH. Although he did play for Northwich vics. Erm .... linky thingysays <<As a West Ham employee, Henry, who started his playing career with Manchester City before spells at Bolton, Oldham, Stoke and Shrewsbury ............>>
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Feb 1, 2018 13:14:00 GMT
If the bloke said the following:
After being confronted by Sportsmail, Henry made the shocking admission that West Ham do indeed want to limit the number of African players because ‘they have a bad attitude’ and ‘cause mayhem’ when they are not in the team.
He is clearly saying that he believes (presumably based on some individual cases) that all Africans have a bad attitude and cause mayhem. He did not specify black Africans but as a defence that really isn't going to hold water. The fact is he's making sweeping generalisations that discriminates against a particular group of people. It is nothing to do with a group being incapable of doing the job - is he claiming there are no good African footballers out there, really? Are there good African players out there that have a good attitude and don't cause mayhem? Of course there are.
Is his behaviour discriminatory? Yes. Is it racist discrimination? Probably. Should he and the club be sanctioned? Yes.
Let's face it - anyone minded to defend this bloke is really making a thinly disguised defence for their own conscious or unconscious bias. And anyone who thinks that this bloke should get away with it wants a world where conscious and unconscious bias is given free reign. And you'd have to know nothing about history to not understand where that leads.
"The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing"
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Feb 1, 2018 13:18:45 GMT
The only surprise is that I am surprised anyone is defending him.
This would have been outrageous thirty or even forty years ago.
|
|
|
Post by trickydicky73 on Feb 1, 2018 13:25:38 GMT
Not all Africans have a bad attitude, just as not everyone who voted to Leave is septuagenarian, white and racist. Yet it's been perfectly OK to perpetuate this fallacy.
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Feb 1, 2018 13:35:07 GMT
No thankfully, he's an ex defender and too young to be our TH. Although he did play for Northwich vics. Erm .... linky thingysays <<As a West Ham employee, Henry, who started his playing career with Manchester City before spells at Bolton, Oldham, Stoke and Shrewsbury ............>> wrong Tony henry ? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Henry_(footballer,_born_1979)
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on Feb 1, 2018 13:36:22 GMT
Not all Africans have a bad attitude, just as not everyone who voted to Leave is septuagenarian, white and racist. Yet it's been perfectly OK to perpetuate this fallacy. Any other spin wouldn't suit the agenda.
|
|
|
Post by drfootball on Feb 1, 2018 13:51:11 GMT
Not all Africans have a bad attitude, just as not everyone who voted to Leave is septuagenarian, white and racist. Indeed, but the generalisation could have been made person specific regarding, say, Gianelli Imbulla and it`s not an unreasonable observation.
|
|
|
Post by thedeadlyshart on Feb 1, 2018 13:53:28 GMT
Discrimination based on stereotypes and broad generalizations is dumb.
|
|
|
Post by Scrotnig on Feb 1, 2018 14:21:11 GMT
The statement was ill advised and stupid, and promotes exactly the kind of discrimination that football, and wider society, rightly wants to eradicate.
Imagine being an African footballer and realising your progress is to be blocked because someone else who happens to be of similar ethnic origin behaved badly. I'd be bloody furious. This has no place in football.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Feb 1, 2018 14:26:13 GMT
No - there is still a requirement that the job is given to the best candidate regardless of ethnicity ( and also that all shortlisted candidates are suitably qualified) It is a policy that formally renders classification of candidates for a job based solely on ethnicity. It’s inarguably racist. Or, it's a measure which has unfortunately had to be introduced to try to counteract the undoubted institutional racism in the appointment processes to top coaching jobs in english football, which is inarguable in my view given the stats on the number of black coaches compared with top black players, their success rate in getting jobs and the anecdotal experience of many of them. It is deeply ironic if the Rooney rule is criticised on the grounds that it's racist. I should perhaps add that I don't think the Rooney rule should be the only or even the main measure to counteract this. It's a bit of a side-show in my view.
|
|
|
Post by kristoff on Feb 1, 2018 14:45:17 GMT
It is a policy that formally renders classification of candidates for a job based solely on ethnicity. It’s inarguably racist. Or, it's a measure which has unfortunately had to be introduced to try to counteract the undoubted institutional racism in the appointment processes to top coaching jobs in english football, which is inarguable in my view given the stats on the number of black coaches compared with top black players, their success rate in getting jobs and the anecdotal experience of many of them. It is deeply ironic if the Rooney rule is criticised on the grounds that it's racist. I should perhaps add that I don't think the Rooney rule should be the only or even the main measure to counteract this. It's a bit of a side-show in my view. You cannot fight discrimination with discrimination. End of!
|
|