|
Post by Birchesheadpotter on Feb 1, 2018 20:06:20 GMT
I’d actually be interested in seeing statistics that show ‘minority’ applicants success rates when challenging for jobs relative to their ability, qualifications and experience. Please don’t think I’m being facetious on the grounds of provocation, I’m not; I have yet to be convinced, statistically, of this widespread, “institutionalised racism” in arguably one of the most liberal and multicultural societies ever to have existed on earth though. Be it ironic or not, ANY legislation, regulation, rule or rhetoric advocating the classification of race as an ‘attribute’ to be considered when discussing the viability of applicants for a skill based role is racial discrimination. It is disgusting. When I have time I will dig out some of the evidence. The PFA among others have done a lot of work on this. But I'm sure you must have wondered about the wide discrepancy between the number of top players who are black and the number of managers and coaches. Personally, I think you take a rather rose tinted view of our society. Although in many areas things have undoubtedly improved, there is still widespread employment and other discrimination in our society (as in a different context the BBC are currently demonstrating) and, unfortunately, in this, as in some other areas, I think the football industry is behind many other sections of society. That would be good Malcom, thanks. Not at all, I find the commonly cited reasons for this ratio difference more than reasonable. I (obviously) don’t think my view is skewed heavily towards any direction really, though I do find myself astounded by the level of entitlement and hypocracy that resonates from most current social movements. In fact, this new wave of ill/uneducated, “I’m oppressed blah blah” culture is reflected perfectly by the BBCs absurd, patronising hand out of a ‘diversity’ program, and honestly in the long run I just don’t understand how it’s productive towards creating true societal equity. For everything said about the English football industry, can you name another profitable vocation that has opened its arms so willingly to those of every race, colour or creed?
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Feb 1, 2018 20:19:24 GMT
I have in the past quite successfully now retired due to ill health I have no problem with employing anybody who is good enough I just wouldn't saddle a business with the extra burden and cost of maternity pay You would find that your attitude may change if those extra costs were coming out of your pocket Some how I doubt you could have been that successful and I find it interesting that you retired due to ill health. Maybe you would have been more successful if you hadn’t been so narrow minded and biased. How did you manage when you or your employees were off sick? Did you make them come in any way so they infected everyone else? This is a really poor business so many reasons. Firstly, you are eliminating about 30-40% of the most qualified appplicants (50% of all high school and college graduates), which is double jeopardy because not only are you not hiring the best, they are also going to the competiton. Secondly, how did prove that your female employees were post-menopausal - it’s not uncommon for women to have babies in their late forties and early fifties (a friend of ours just had her first baby at the age of 50 - a bit of a surprise but it happens). So to be safe, you could only hire women over 55. Thirdly, what do you do about homosexual couples that chose to adopt a baby - I assume that happens in the UK, so there goes another potential 10%. Fourthly, what happens in times of war? My mother worked in a munitions factory in WWII, 12 years before she had me and 15 years before she had my sister; so I assume she was of child-bearing age. PS: At one time I managed a department of over 700 people, including more than 100 with post-graduate degrees. We had babies all over the place - it was wonderful and we were highly successful. I have four kids born to mothers who were all working at the time. So I do kinda know how this works. The businesses were successful enough they were small never employed more than four at a time As you seem to find my health so interesting I truly hope you never find yourself in my position Due to health problems I have been unable to work for the last 18 years Having had many stops in hospital I now rely on 200 mg of tramadol twice a day and a dose of morphine when required just to get out of bed and exist ( along with 17 other type of medications ) As I said earlier when you were managing all these women with babies Were you personally paying them as well as paying there replacements and the added cost of training the for said replacement If so you have my admiration if not think would you do it
|
|
|
Post by kristoff on Feb 1, 2018 22:16:47 GMT
I am not paid to come up with that type of solution, however I can’t sit and watch discrimination against anyone with the excuse that we’ll they did it to us first. That’s schoolground stuff. Perhaps first let’s look at why it’s happening. Are enough Ethnic (and female for that matter) people apply for their badges? Are enough getting their badges? When they get a job are they successful enough? How many are applying for these jobs and if they do apply who are they losing out to? Yes these questions should have been asked long ago, and it’s disgusting how long it’s taken football to catch up with other sports when tackling racism, but once again all you cannot discriminate. If you do all your going to achieve is pissing people off who feel they being victimised themselves due to the colour of their skin. The whole thing is a nightmare, but I think it’s time for torches, pitchforks to be put down and have a reall open and serious conversation (for all walks of life). Because by trying to knock down segregating barriers, all half these rules do are put more up sadly. You don't have to be paid to express a view on some alternative ideas if you are strongly opposed to the Rooney rule do you ? There is an open and serious conversation going on about these matters. They were the major item on the agenda of the last FA Council in which I spoke, and the Rooney rule was only a relatively small part of that. But to characeture the thinking behind that specific proposal to achieve positive change, which has proved successful in American sport, as "they did it to us first" and that discussion as being "pitchforks and torches" is, I'm afraid, inaccurate, unfair and unhelpful to that serious debate. But it isn’t unfair, unhelpful or inaccurate. Quite simply, your saying that white/male (whatever people have had an advantage in getting a job or whatever due to their race/gender (whatever), so you will swing the pendulum the other way which literally hits somebody else. If somebody is good enough they should get a chance, if that isn’t happening then we need to ask where is t it happening, and why. You can throw all the statistics you like around to show anything you like, I will stand by my point to the end of time, you cannot get equality by discriminating. It’s a sad state of affairs when people who make decisions on things can’t see that point. One example I will give you. My partner recently went to work for the government. During her application she was told to just tick the section for he guaranteed interview scheme due to her disability. She flatly refused and got her way through to the interviews and got the job. She clary states it wouldn’t be in anyway fair or satisfying to get a job or a better chance at it due to her health or her gender. Either way I am not wanting to argue with you on this. I assume we both want the same thing which is 100% equality. I just cannot condone the tactics to achieve it that you speak of. Btw, you speak of the American Success of these types of schemes, whilst they may have worked to a point, but as a keen fan of American sports and spend as much time on their forums as this I promise you the fans and general populace agree with the destination, but the journey has been a disgrace
|
|
|
Post by Boothen on Feb 1, 2018 22:22:26 GMT
How exactly is this racist? What race are Africans, because as far as I know you get both black and white Africans.
|
|
|
Post by wherty on Feb 1, 2018 22:31:04 GMT
The same Tony Henry that played for Stoke from 87 to 89 isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2018 22:36:16 GMT
How exactly is this racist? What race are Africans, because as far as I know you get both black and white Africans. It’s ethnic discrimination rather than racial discrimination to be precise......
|
|
|
Post by Squeekster on Feb 1, 2018 23:10:43 GMT
The same Tony Henry that played for Stoke from 87 to 89 isn't it? There seems to be two the link in the original article says defender but ours was a midfielder and it's now pointing to him so I was wrong in original post.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2018 23:36:00 GMT
Is this ex Stoke midfielder Tony Henry? Yes that's him link"In January 2018, Henry was suspended from his role at West Ham following a report in the Daily Mail. The report alleged that he had told agents that the club did not want to sign any more African players as they "cause mayhem" when they don't play, citing the recently departed Diafra Sakho as an example.[5][6] A club statement confirmed the suspension "pending a full and thorough investigation".
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Feb 1, 2018 23:36:40 GMT
Some how I doubt you could have been that successful and I find it interesting that you retired due to ill health. Maybe you would have been more successful if you hadn’t been so narrow minded and biased. How did you manage when you or your employees were off sick? Did you make them come in any way so they infected everyone else? This is a really poor business so many reasons. Firstly, you are eliminating about 30-40% of the most qualified appplicants (50% of all high school and college graduates), which is double jeopardy because not only are you not hiring the best, they are also going to the competiton. Secondly, how did prove that your female employees were post-menopausal - it’s not uncommon for women to have babies in their late forties and early fifties (a friend of ours just had her first baby at the age of 50 - a bit of a surprise but it happens). So to be safe, you could only hire women over 55. Thirdly, what do you do about homosexual couples that chose to adopt a baby - I assume that happens in the UK, so there goes another potential 10%. Fourthly, what happens in times of war? My mother worked in a munitions factory in WWII, 12 years before she had me and 15 years before she had my sister; so I assume she was of child-bearing age. PS: At one time I managed a department of over 700 people, including more than 100 with post-graduate degrees. We had babies all over the place - it was wonderful and we were highly successful. I have four kids born to mothers who were all working at the time. So I do kinda know how this works. The businesses were successful enough they were small never employed more than four at a time As you seem to find my health so interesting I truly hope you never find yourself in my position Due to health problems I have been unable to work for the last 18 years Having had many stops in hospital I now rely on 200 mg of tramadol twice a day and a dose of morphine when required just to get out of bed and exist ( along with 17 other type of medications ) As I said earlier when you were managing all these women with babies Were you personally paying them as well as paying there replacements and the added cost of training the for said replacement If so you have my admiration if not think would you do it Its a good point about the cost of paying the price of employing women of child bearing age in case they go off on statutory maternity leave and you have to fund the inconvenience. I'd go further. I wouldn't allow anyone to be unable to work due to ill health for any period longer than six months due to the drain on the taxpayer. 18 years off sick? 19 different drugs and numerous hospital stays. And you object to the possibility of paying for six months maternity cover in a business of just four? Fuck me, some folk have some serious self awareness blind spots!
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Feb 2, 2018 4:59:34 GMT
The businesses were successful enough they were small never employed more than four at a time As you seem to find my health so interesting I truly hope you never find yourself in my position Due to health problems I have been unable to work for the last 18 years Having had many stops in hospital I now rely on 200 mg of tramadol twice a day and a dose of morphine when required just to get out of bed and exist ( along with 17 other type of medications ) As I said earlier when you were managing all these women with babies Were you personally paying them as well as paying there replacements and the added cost of training the for said replacement If so you have my admiration if not think would you do it Its a good point about the cost of paying the price of employing women of child bearing age in case they go off on statutory maternity leave and you have to fund the inconvenience. I'd go further. I wouldn't allow anyone to be unable to work due to ill health for any period longer than six months due to the drain on the taxpayer. 18 years off sick? 19 different drugs and numerous hospital stays. And you object to the possibility of paying for six months maternity cover in a business of just four? Fuck me, some folk have some serious self awareness blind spots! One I wasn't ill At the time Two. funny enough I didn't choose to have debilitating illnesses Three your compassion for.people struck Down with illness does you credit are you sure your not really a Tory As I said to the previous poster have you personally employed anybody When operating on small margins you have to give consideration to extra costs If you have run or do run a business could you afford to increase your wage bill by 20 /25 % overnight without any increase in productivity We All wish we could live in a utopian world Stoke might even win the league Children wouldn't die of cancer ect But sadly we don't life is often unpredictable hard and sometimes down right cruel But it is still life and precious
|
|
|
Post by terryconroysmagic on Feb 2, 2018 6:07:27 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. Can't agree with that. A job should be awarded solely on merit and not to reverse some previous injustices. Yes you can encourage minority's and those from ethnically under represented sections of society to apply but award the job to the person best suited to it regardless of gender, colour or creed
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Feb 2, 2018 8:27:42 GMT
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? But is it fair enough had he said all British players cause mayhem? Same thing just a different race. People need chill out. SGS Of course it wouldn't be fair enough. Why would it be?
|
|
|
Post by kristoff on Feb 2, 2018 8:54:25 GMT
But is it fair enough had he said all British players cause mayhem? Same thing just a different race. People need chill out. SGS Of course it wouldn't be fair enough. Why would it be? Tbf, I remember Stoke being the first (possibly right in thinking) club to enforce ID cards due to thuggish behaviour. Seems that was a perfectly acceptable thing, and even celebrated in the media. So because Stoke has a lot of thugs, we were all branded so. Not too dissimilar surely? Again, the moral outrage in this country over some things is 100% hypocrisy. The media don’t want change, and they keep blowing things up and spinning things that aren’t half as bad as they actually are (not saying some are good I may add) but ignore blatant issues. Example, are grid/walk on girls really an issue when there are still women being killed/abused by their partners or ex partners? Is it fair that men are being charged with rape when it turns out not just to be not guilty, but be completely innocent, children being refused treatment for life threatening illnesses whilst people still get plastic surgery and treatments for self inflicted issues. Forced arranged marriages and mutilations and the such are still going on yet middle class mum doesn’t want her little bo seeing a girl with skin on display up town. I could go on all day. This country is a disgrace yet we constantly give attention to side issues instead of the big issues the media won’t publish because people do t want to see the ugly issues, just the ones they can preach until their holier than thou hearts are content
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Feb 2, 2018 8:59:09 GMT
Of course it wouldn't be fair enough. Why would it be? Tbf, I remember Stoke being the first (possibly right in thinking) club to enforce ID cards due to thuggish behaviour. Seems that was a perfectly acceptable thing, and even celebrated in the media. So because Stoke has a lot of thugs, we were all branded so. Not too dissimilar surely? Again, the moral outrage in this country over some things is 100% hypocrisy. The media don’t want change, and they keep blowing things up and spinning things that aren’t half as bad as they actually are (not saying some are good I may add) but ignore blatant issues. Example, are grid/walk on girls really an issue when there are still women being killed/abused by their partners or ex partners? Is it fair that men are being charged with rape when it turns out not just to be not guilty, but be completely innocent, children being refused treatment for life threatening illnesses whilst people still get plastic surgery and treatments for self inflicted issues. Forced arranged marriages and mutilations and the such are still going on yet middle class mum doesn’t want her little bo seeing a girl with skin on display up town. I could go on all day. This country is a disgrace yet we constantly give attention to side issues instead of the big issues the media won’t publish because people do t want to see the ugly issues, just the ones they can preach until their holier than thou hearts are content I don't get your point or how any of that means that this bloke from West Ham shouldn't be criticised for awful generalisations and discriminating against people based on where they come from? Because other stuff is shit as well doesn't mean this isn't shit or that it should be swept under the carpet. As far as the ID Card thing goes, that was precisely my point. That we were all tarnished and branded because of a minority. Wasn't a very nice feeling, was it?
|
|
|
Post by kristoff on Feb 2, 2018 9:03:26 GMT
Tbf, I remember Stoke being the first (possibly right in thinking) club to enforce ID cards due to thuggish behaviour. Seems that was a perfectly acceptable thing, and even celebrated in the media. So because Stoke has a lot of thugs, we were all branded so. Not too dissimilar surely? Again, the moral outrage in this country over some things is 100% hypocrisy. The media don’t want change, and they keep blowing things up and spinning things that aren’t half as bad as they actually are (not saying some are good I may add) but ignore blatant issues. Example, are grid/walk on girls really an issue when there are still women being killed/abused by their partners or ex partners? Is it fair that men are being charged with rape when it turns out not just to be not guilty, but be completely innocent, children being refused treatment for life threatening illnesses whilst people still get plastic surgery and treatments for self inflicted issues. Forced arranged marriages and mutilations and the such are still going on yet middle class mum doesn’t want her little bo seeing a girl with skin on display up town. I could go on all day. This country is a disgrace yet we constantly give attention to side issues instead of the big issues the media won’t publish because people do t want to see the ugly issues, just the ones they can preach until their holier than thou hearts are content I don't get your point or how any of that means that this bloke from West Ham shouldn't be criticised for awful generalisations and discriminating against people based on where they come from? Because other stuff is shit as well doesn't mean this isn't shit or that it should be swept under the carpet. As far as the ID Card thing goes, that was precisely my point. That we were all tarnished and branded because of a minority. Wasn't a very nice feeling, was it? Sorry, I made abundantly clear earlier in the thread, if what he’s claimed to have said is 100% true and in context he should be sacked, then charged for racial discrimination. My point was the media only get outraged when it suits them.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Feb 2, 2018 9:12:30 GMT
I don't get your point or how any of that means that this bloke from West Ham shouldn't be criticised for awful generalisations and discriminating against people based on where they come from? Because other stuff is shit as well doesn't mean this isn't shit or that it should be swept under the carpet. As far as the ID Card thing goes, that was precisely my point. That we were all tarnished and branded because of a minority. Wasn't a very nice feeling, was it? Sorry, I made abundantly clear earlier in the thread, if what he’s claimed to have said is 100% true and in context he should be sacked, then charged for racial discrimination. My point was the media only get outraged when it suits them. Which media though? The press is predominantly right wing and the quickest to play the 'PC Gone Mad' card at every opportunity. It's all shite, obviously, and outrage culture is one of the worst developments of the social media age. That doesn't mean nothing is worth getting outraged over though.
|
|
|
Post by potterblade on Feb 2, 2018 9:16:53 GMT
Sorry, I made abundantly clear earlier in the thread, if what he’s claimed to have said is 100% true and in context he should be sacked, then charged for racial discrimination. My point was the media only get outraged when it suits them. Which media though? The press is predominantly right wing and the quickest to play the 'PC Gone Mad' card at every opportunity. It's all shite, obviously, and outrage culture is one of the worst developments of the social media age. That doesn't mean nothing is worth getting outraged over though. You've nailed that one. When everything is an outrage noone takes the real issues seriously (much like this board) and the status quo can continue without challenge. This is the real political and media motivation.
|
|
|
Post by kristoff on Feb 2, 2018 9:19:45 GMT
Sorry, I made abundantly clear earlier in the thread, if what he’s claimed to have said is 100% true and in context he should be sacked, then charged for racial discrimination. My point was the media only get outraged when it suits them. Which media though? The press is predominantly right wing and the quickest to play the 'PC Gone Mad' card at every opportunity. It's all shite, obviously, and outrage culture is one of the worst developments of the social media age. That doesn't mean nothing is worth getting outraged over though. Fully agree with the social media age. Perhaps I’m not explaining myself. I want people to be outraged, but on outrageous things. The media play the ‘PC GONE MAD’ card when it suits them. The rest of the time then sensationalise everything just to get a reaction then when the mob goes mad claim it’s ‘pc gone mad’ but they are the cause. Again, what this bloke has said (again if true and in context) is awful, but how many people all over football have moaned about signing overpaid lazy English players so they look abroad, or moan about English managers being awful yet nothing is said. I don’t see any difference whatsoever.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Feb 2, 2018 9:32:46 GMT
Which media though? The press is predominantly right wing and the quickest to play the 'PC Gone Mad' card at every opportunity. It's all shite, obviously, and outrage culture is one of the worst developments of the social media age. That doesn't mean nothing is worth getting outraged over though. Fully agree with the social media age. Perhaps I’m not explaining myself. I want people to be outraged, but on outrageous things. The media play the ‘PC GONE MAD’ card when it suits them. The rest of the time then sensationalise everything just to get a reaction then when the mob goes mad claim it’s ‘pc gone mad’ but they are the cause. Again, what this bloke has said (again if true and in context) is awful, but how many people all over football have moaned about signing overpaid lazy English players so they look abroad, or moan about English managers being awful yet nothing is said. I don’t see any difference whatsoever. I think it's quite different to be honest. For a start, I've never heard the 'lazy English players' trope. If anything, the cliche is the opposite, that you need British lads to run around and have PASHUN, which lazy Carlos Kickaball supposedly doesn't have. I think the English managers thing is a reaction to the idea that English managers should be entitled to walk into top jobs because they're English, when the reality is there just aren't that many top ones out there, and the ones that are out there generally get a chance to manage at a higher level. That's a world different from denigrating the character of all Africans and using it as a blanket reason not to employ them.
|
|
|
Post by kristoff on Feb 2, 2018 9:50:18 GMT
Fully agree with the social media age. Perhaps I’m not explaining myself. I want people to be outraged, but on outrageous things. The media play the ‘PC GONE MAD’ card when it suits them. The rest of the time then sensationalise everything just to get a reaction then when the mob goes mad claim it’s ‘pc gone mad’ but they are the cause. Again, what this bloke has said (again if true and in context) is awful, but how many people all over football have moaned about signing overpaid lazy English players so they look abroad, or moan about English managers being awful yet nothing is said. I don’t see any difference whatsoever. I think it's quite different to be honest. For a start, I've never heard the 'lazy English players' trope. If anything, the cliche is the opposite, that you need British lads to run around and have PASHUN, which lazy Carlos Kickaball supposedly doesn't have. I think the English managers thing is a reaction to the idea that English managers should be entitled to walk into top jobs because they're English, when the reality is there just aren't that many top ones out there, and the ones that are out there generally get a chance to manage at a higher level. That's a world different from denigrating the character of all Africans and using it as a blanket reason not to employ them. If you have never heard the constant comment about overpaid, overpriced lazy English players then your either have great selective memory’s or listen to the tv with the sound off. Last thing I’m going to say, I have said it a million times, if this is what he’s said, and I’m the correct context, hang the bastard from a tree, but let’s not eat shocked when things like this are said all the time but are only raged about when it suits
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Feb 2, 2018 9:53:23 GMT
I think it's quite different to be honest. For a start, I've never heard the 'lazy English players' trope. If anything, the cliche is the opposite, that you need British lads to run around and have PASHUN, which lazy Carlos Kickaball supposedly doesn't have. I think the English managers thing is a reaction to the idea that English managers should be entitled to walk into top jobs because they're English, when the reality is there just aren't that many top ones out there, and the ones that are out there generally get a chance to manage at a higher level. That's a world different from denigrating the character of all Africans and using it as a blanket reason not to employ them. If you have never heard the constant comment about overpaid, overpriced lazy English players then your either have great selective memory’s or listen to the tv with the sound off. Last thing I’m going to say, I have said it a million times, if this is what he’s said, and I’m the correct context, hang the bastard from a tree, but let’s not eat shocked when things like this are said all the time but are only raged about when it suits Who specifically? Do you mean the fallout from every international tournament we go out of? I agree, that's a load of bollocks too, but none of them are saying 'all English players are lazy', they tend to target the England squad and specific individuals. The Sun, for example, targeted Sterling for the heinous crime of buying his mum a house.
|
|
|
Post by kristoff on Feb 2, 2018 9:58:41 GMT
If you have never heard the constant comment about overpaid, overpriced lazy English players then your either have great selective memory’s or listen to the tv with the sound off. Last thing I’m going to say, I have said it a million times, if this is what he’s said, and I’m the correct context, hang the bastard from a tree, but let’s not eat shocked when things like this are said all the time but are only raged about when it suits Who specifically? Do you mean the fallout from every international tournament we go out of? I agree, that's a load of bollocks too, but none of them are saying 'all English players are lazy', they tend to target the England squad and specific individuals. The Sun, for example, targeted Sterling for the heinous crime of buying his mum a house. Google overpaid young English players, 2 or 3 articles saying young English players have no hunger, are overpaid ect. It’s a sweeping generalisation which is wrong. Yes some are, I also bet some aren’t. That’s the point I was making, we only get outraged when the media tell us it’s ok.
|
|
|
Post by Stokyo on Feb 2, 2018 10:13:44 GMT
Storm in a teacup, you can hire or not hire whoever you want, its a private business. Leftys and commies will cry about it (they have nothing better to do) but if youve been bitten before you have every right to be selective next time.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Feb 2, 2018 10:31:24 GMT
According to our president, Africa, Haiti and El Salvador are all shitholes (there’s some debate whether he said that or shithouses). There’s no way to polish this turd - it’s all racism. End of discussion. "Our" president? I assume that KU is speaking about himself and his fellow US residents - so he is correct to say "our president". Just as if I were chatting on a US based website I would be entitled to say "our Prime Minister" when referring to Mrs May.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Feb 2, 2018 10:33:57 GMT
How exactly is this racist? What race are Africans, because as far as I know you get both black and white Africans. It probably isn't technically racist (for the reasons you give) but it IS discriminatory. Just as it would be discriminatory for an employer to say he would employ anyone but a European because Europeans are "trouble".
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2018 10:34:38 GMT
I found parts of this article quite interesting with regards to immigration and race... BBC...
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Feb 2, 2018 10:38:06 GMT
Storm in a teacup, you can hire or not hire whoever you want, its a private business. Leftys and commies will cry about it (they have nothing better to do) but if youve been bitten before you have every right to be selective next time. So if someone didn't give you a job purely because another Stokie or Englishman had done a shit job for them, you'd be fine with that would you? That's an acceptable reason, yes?
|
|
|
Post by kristoff on Feb 2, 2018 10:39:38 GMT
I found parts of this article quite interesting with regards to immigration and race... BBC...Thumbs up because agree or disagree with the article, it’s nice to see what on the surface looks like a well put together article other than headline grabbing none stories
|
|
|
Post by thegift on Feb 2, 2018 10:46:43 GMT
If the story was about white british players nothing more would be said on it.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Feb 2, 2018 10:49:31 GMT
If the story was about white british players nothing more would be said on it. I disagree. If a West Ham employee had said the club would not employ any White British players because of their attitude I would have had plenty to say about it - and I suspect I would not have been alone.
|
|