Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Another 'positive discrimination' or 'affirmative action' case hit the pres today, I got as thumbs up to look for it. Normally its papers lie the Mail who break these stories, and are thus dismissed out of hand. I can beleive them, I know of at least one case where someone couldnt join the ambulance serice because of ethnic quotas. Because this story was broken locally and made it to other newspapers before the Daily Mail have got any wind of it perhaps people will now accept this sort of gak happens in New Britain. Too long we have had to put up with the low IQ squad claiming all such cases as hysteria and lies.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/7744544/Woman-denied-bus-firm-training-post-because-she-is-white.html
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/827214-woman-told-she-couldnt-apply-for-job-because-she-was-white

And in cased you are wondering, this story is not 'pro-racist' or 'pro-BNP', let us hit that one on the head. It is about time this nation learned there is nothing positive about discrimination.

I don't know what the law is in the UK, or the United States for that matter, but my personal belief is that discriminatory hiring practices are just that. I think the concept of "reverse" or "positive" discrimination is not necessary, it should just be discrimination.

Is this a private or public entity? Not to get in an argument about "affirmative action" or equal opportunity, but I believe these days any company that lets it be known that they discriminate on basis of race is going to lose too many customers.

Like most things, it gets back to money, now there are more non-racists in the west rather than racists, so now it doesn't make any sense to discriminate on basis of race. Its not political activism or morality, its economics.

Maybe it's just that the person she went to see was a complete dill weed?

J.Black wrote:Maybe it's just that the person she went to see was a complete dill weed?

Thats possible, but it does happen. My brother and I once was trying to get a specialized government loan to start a business we came up with. When we went to the place to talk to whom ever we needed to about it, we were literally told and I quote "Yea you guys cant get these loans, they are for "minorities" only"

And yea the guy even did the quote with fingers thing. I was pretty pissed off about it

KingCracker wrote:

J.Black wrote:Maybe it's just that the person she went to see was a complete dill weed?

Thats possible, but it does happen. My brother and I once was trying to get a specialized government loan to start a business we came up with. When we went to the place to talk to whom ever we needed to about it, we were literally told and I quote "Yea you guys cant get these loans, they are for "minorities" only"

And yea the guy even did the quote with fingers thing. I was pretty pissed off about it

That is different though in my opinion, which is probably the reason there is any debate at all. What is considered justice, and what is reverse discrimination or PC dogma? In that instance, while I'm sorry you couldn't get the loan, I have no problem with loans designated for disadvantaged groups, though I would prefer them to not be so narrow as being defined by "race". I look at that as a hand up, not a hand out.

I agree to some extent that businesses should be able to serve or not serve whomever they want, even if the reason is because they're racists. If we empower these traditionally disadvantaged groups economically and legally, then they can vote with their wallets. Like I say, these days you'd be a fool to have any discriminatory practices, if you want to make money. Some people would say that would make me racist.

On the other hand, I think that the government should to some extent level the playing field. Loans for minorities is one thing, but I think such measures should be available for non minorities from impoverished areas. Some people might say that makes me to PC, or whatever.

However, when she inquired at the firm’s head office in Hackney, east London, a female member of staff said they were only looking for candidates of mixed race, Afro-Caribbean or Asian backgrounds.

Mrs Ryan said: “It did not register in my head at first what she was telling me – that I could not do the programme because of the colour of my skin.

“I am so angry and upset. I have never heard or seen anything like this.

“I just thought: ‘I don’t think you should be allowed to do that. That is discrimination. It’s not right’.”

HCT admitted that the incident had happened but said Mrs Ryan had mistakenly been given false information that she was ineligible to enrol on its course.

Frank Villeneuve-Smith, an HCT spokesman, said: “She was given incorrect information by a member of staff.

“In fact, Marion is eligible. We have been trying to get hold of her to say that she is eligible and to apologise. We are very sorry.

“There is no policy that would prevent anyone from applying for one of our training courses.”

Mrs Ryan had wanted to take up the post as a step towards returning to work after spending the past 18 years bringing up her children.

She had hoped that the position, learning how to help disabled passengers on buses, would lead to work in social care.

Mrs Ryan, from Clapton, east London said it was too late for HCT to apologise now.

On the face of it I think that this has been blown out of all proportion. Yeah, they probably have to take action to encourage ethnic minorities into work and some jobsworth just said what they 'thought' was right. Mrs Ryan has probably been getting 'advice' from some of that Daily Mail readership afterwards, increasing her sense of supposed indignation.

Grignard wrote:

That is different though in my opinion, which is probably the reason there is any debate at all. What is considered justice, and what is reverse discrimination or PC dogma? In that instance, while I'm sorry you couldn't get the loan, I have no problem with loans designated for disadvantaged groups, though I would prefer them to not be so narrow as being defined by "race". I look at that as a hand up, not a hand out.

Define disadvantaged? I waited twelve years for a council flat while lving in a hostel. I saw asylum seekers from Kurdist move into the same blcok and move out into council housing in three months, this happened a LOT. When you add all the 'hand ups' together from free SIA licences to top of the queue for council housing dental etc then it totals to a heck of a lot more advantages than whitey is assumed to having. After all racism goes several ways, minorties can get a lot of hassle from skineheads narrow minded white businesses etc, but the reverse is also true if not worse. I am seeing that one hell of a lot. Most ethnics and for that matter most whites dont discriminate but 'desi' is a very frequently recurring phenomena. It even got a nemtion or two on the BBC recently.

On top of that we get the PC crowd who will bend over backwards to help ethnic minoritees 'survive' in or evil white nation.

Grignard wrote:
I agree to some extent that businesses should be able to serve or not serve whomever they want, even if the reason is because they're racists. If we empower these traditionally disadvantaged groups economically and legally, then they can vote with their wallets. Like I say, these days you'd be a fool to have any discriminatory practices, if you want to make money. Some people would say that would make me racist.

In the Uk you cant do that, or at least you cant do that if the person discrimiated against is non white, female, gay or disabled. I know of a pub owner who didnt hire a heavily pregnant woman because the job involved heavy lifting (beerr barrels weigh a lot). Had he hired her he could have been done for health and safety if she injured herself or her baby manhandling barrels, he didnt hire her and had a five figure five for being a bigot. Meanwhile the police ambulance service even the fricking armed forces play ethnic quota, let alone a number of private companies.

Grignard wrote:
On the other hand, I think that the government should to some extent level the playing field. Loans for minorities is one thing, but I think such measures should be available for non minorities from impoverished areas. Some people might say that makes me to PC, or whatever.

Yes give the poor and hand up, but the criteria should not be defined by gender, ethnicity or sexuality. after all none of those three factors prescribe proverty though admittedly women are not equally paid and that should be addressed. Even so equal pay rights are a world of difference from women only positions outside of rape councilling, womens centre staff and similar roles.

I don't really know what the culture is in the UK. For instance, in my state, being gay is not something that is defined under the state employees discrimination/hostile work environment policies. I think private business follows the same rules. As far as I know, you may can someone for being gay. Again though, as a business owner, I would be reluctant to do so because you'll end up in the papers.

Mr. Burning wrote:

However, when she inquired at the firm’s head office in Hackney, east London, a female member of staff said they were only looking for candidates of mixed race, Afro-Caribbean or Asian backgrounds.

Mrs Ryan said: “It did not register in my head at first what she was telling me – that I could not do the programme because of the colour of my skin.

“I am so angry and upset. I have never heard or seen anything like this.

“I just thought: ‘I don’t think you should be allowed to do that. That is discrimination. It’s not right’.”

HCT admitted that the incident had happened but said Mrs Ryan had mistakenly been given false information that she was ineligible to enrol on its course.

Frank Villeneuve-Smith, an HCT spokesman, said: “She was given incorrect information by a member of staff.

“In fact, Marion is eligible. We have been trying to get hold of her to say that she is eligible and to apologise. We are very sorry.

“There is no policy that would prevent anyone from applying for one of our training courses.”

Mrs Ryan had wanted to take up the post as a step towards returning to work after spending the past 18 years bringing up her children.

She had hoped that the position, learning how to help disabled passengers on buses, would lead to work in social care.

Mrs Ryan, from Clapton, east London said it was too late for HCT to apologise now.

On the face of it I think that this has been blown out of all proportion. Yeah, they probably have to take action to encourage ethnic minorities into work and some jobsworth just said what they 'thought' was right. Mrs Ryan has probably been getting 'advice' from some of that Daily Mail readership afterwards, increasing her sense of supposed indignation.

Come on Burnie cant you tell a whitewash when you see it?

This is how discrimination works. The guy I know who was refused application for the ambulance service was a trained paramedic (who now makes his living doing first aid courses) he was failed several times and got the answer from a symapthetic employee. What happened in this case is that an employee got out of hand, that much is true, and told the truth.

If you need any further clue just ask yourself what would have heppened if the applicant was black and was told no blacks allowed? Do you think ther spokesmans comment would be as mild as Frank Villeneuve-Smith, an HCT spokesman, said: “She was given incorrect information by a member of staff. In fact, Marion is eligible. We have been trying to get hold of her to say that she is eligible and to apologise. We are very sorry." No they would be talking about rooting out racists, immediate suspensions and probably offers of compensation. The council might also take an active interest enough to comment and the managers might be fighting to save their own jobs.
you tell me what the effective difference would be, if it would truly be any worse.

I went on a cruise last year and every single member of crew who wasn't an officer, head chef or entertainment manager was from indo-china. UK Cruise companies used to recruit in the UK, but this is now blatantly not the case. I'm not that bothered, I just think it's interesting.

Flashman wrote:I went on a cruise last year and every single member of crew who wasn't an officer, head chef or entertainment manager was from indo-china. UK Cruise companies used to recruit in the UK, but this is now blatantly not the case. I'm not that bothered, I just think it's interesting.

Ships are 'international' so they pay international crewe international wages. This is quite normal nowadays. Most ship crew are from Phillipines or Hong Kong, some from Thailand, they are given very poor pay, which amounts to a fortune back home, work very hard without comlaint, and dont demand union representation. Most of the officers, in fact nearly all are European or American, Aussie or Canadian.

The exception amongst staffing is for beauticians and customer services. Most of those are contractors, young women aged 18-25 mostly from western countries again, but with a full ethnic mix. The major company that provides these contractors is Steiner. Pay is still poor, but you get most of your money from clients services and tips. The Steiner school is nearby and they were housed locally, so I got to meet plenty of the girls over the years. Few complained at their work despite the long hours and low pay, most saw it as a way to make a tax free fortune, see the world and get paid while doing so.

The irony of course is that White British people are a minority in the UK now.

Gwar! wrote:The irony of course is that White British people are a minority in the UK now.

2040 is the estimated 'changeover'.

Gwar! wrote:The irony of course is that White British people are a minority in the UK now.

A. I don't believe that

B. There is a difference between a numerical and social minority.

Too long we have had to put up with the low IQ squad claiming all such cases as hysteria and lies.

What
you mean any one that isn't a rascist reactionary is of low intelligence?

My money is on the contrary being the case.

And yet another OMG the (insert ethnic minority here) are going to eat our babies thread to wind up the bigoted members.
Whoo hoo

Yeah I know. I am a useless liberal hippy pinko commie gay who doesn't deserve to breathe the same pure British air as the aryan purebreds amongst us S)-

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:

Too long we have had to put up with the low IQ squad claiming all such cases as hysteria and lies.

What
you mean any one that isn't a rascist reactionary is of low intelligence?

My money is on the contrary being the case.

And yet another OMG the (insert ethnic minority here) are going to eat our babies thread to wind up the bigoted members.
Whoo hoo

Yeah I know. I am a useless liberal hippy pinko commie gay who doesn't deserve to breathe the same pure British air as the aryan purebreds amongst us S)-

No....I don't think the OP was making an alarmist statement. He was just questioning something that happened.

With respect, it is yet another thread that is guaranteed to appeal to those who wish to portray ethnic diversity in a negative light.

To say "I am not being rascist but..." generally means that the speaker has been or is going to be.

Orlanth quoting the Metro as a source is hilarious. It is a free paper on the transport system. Not having to pay for it is the only thing that really distinguishes it from the alarmist Daily Fail.

The Telegraph is a more distinguished paper, but noted for its conservative leanings.

To accuse people of being of low intellect because they refuse to take notice of the Mail, and to warn people about the, "gak that is happening in New Britain" sounds alarmist and insulting.

What is the point of the thread? What is the purpose it is meant to serve?
Does Orlanth really need to tell us that discrimination is bad?

I just don't understand the need for these threads that are simply mouthpieces for dubious political beliefs.

Good grief is the lot of the white male really so bad that we are unable to paint our little plastic dudes?

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:

Too long we have had to put up with the low IQ squad claiming all such cases as hysteria and lies.

What
you mean any one that isn't a rascist reactionary is of low intelligence?

Well you are proving my point by assuing anyone who dares critique PG dogmas like positive discrimination is a 'racist'. Feth that, just in case this mud got slung I made a point in my opening post. We be offended by what we are seeing and not be white supremesists and most of those who find these trends appaling dont consciously discriminate ourselves, but dont see why we should tolerate when dogmatists comes along and insist we put up with ethnic only opportunities. How can this possibly be fair?

Fear is what its all about. Fear of being labelled. The dogmatics make the policies in government in business, the low IQ squad acts as thought police outing anyomne who considers them unfair a bigot. And I make no apologies for using the term low IQ squad. How can anyone who actually understands the meaning of 'equal opportunities' support this gak? Its simply not defendable in any logical way, the dogmatists have a point (an evil one) but a point nonetheless. PC dogma is a power factor, it means promotion for some, its a means of ridding oneself of rivals etc. This is how Blair party politicised the civil service, not New Labour and not singing the same tune equals not fitting in and not being modern or equality aware, which of course means not a viable prospect for promotion. Complain and the finger pointing starts.
It makes sense for them. Sure its evil and corrupted but I can see a twisted logic behind it, its politics and it builds careers.

The low IQ squad however bang the dogma drum for free, monkey see, monkey do. Anyone who points out flaws in the New Britain PC machine is a racist to be hounded, for free. How fething stupid can they get.

Surely 2040 isnt going to be the "changeover" date mate, im in North Yorkshire and its still.. i dunno.. id guess like, 90% white.

I dont think its as bad as we are mde to believe, but this ios a shocking case to be sure. We need to be shot of this PC gak once and for all.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:With respect, it is yet another thread that is guaranteed to appeal to those who wish to portray ethnic diversity in a negative light.

To say "I am not being rascist but..." generally means that the speaker has been or is going to be.

Orlanth quoting the Metro as a source is hilarious. It is a free paper on the transport system. Not having to pay for it is the only thing that really distinguishes it from the alarmist Daily Fail.

The Telegraph is a more distinguished paper, but noted for its conservative leanings.

To accuse people of being of low intellect because they refuse to take notice of the Mail, and to warn people about the, "gak that is happening in New Britain" sounds alarmist and insulting.

What is the point of the thread? What is the purpose it is meant to serve?
Does Orlanth really need to tell us that discrimination is bad?

I just don't understand the need for these threads that are simply mouthpieces for dubious political beliefs.

Good grief is the lot of the white male really so bad that we are unable to paint our little plastic dudes?

See, I'm not even particularly interested in this article, or the viewpoint it's trying to push. However, I find your post just as bad, and on the other side of the fence. My God I despise PC people telling me what to think.

Yeah i agree with Ketara.. if i had to pick to be stuck a lift with bigoted Nick Griffin or some fething... wheat free cake eating, bearded "modern parents" holier than thou left wing save the whales activist fether then i would pick the wonky faced bloke every single time.

Orlanth wrote:

Mr. Burning wrote:

However, when she inquired at the firm’s head office in Hackney, east London, a female member of staff said they were only looking for candidates of mixed race, Afro-Caribbean or Asian backgrounds.

Mrs Ryan said: “It did not register in my head at first what she was telling me – that I could not do the programme because of the colour of my skin.

“I am so angry and upset. I have never heard or seen anything like this.

“I just thought: ‘I don’t think you should be allowed to do that. That is discrimination. It’s not right’.”

HCT admitted that the incident had happened but said Mrs Ryan had mistakenly been given false information that she was ineligible to enrol on its course.

Frank Villeneuve-Smith, an HCT spokesman, said: “She was given incorrect information by a member of staff.

“In fact, Marion is eligible. We have been trying to get hold of her to say that she is eligible and to apologise. We are very sorry.

“There is no policy that would prevent anyone from applying for one of our training courses.”

Mrs Ryan had wanted to take up the post as a step towards returning to work after spending the past 18 years bringing up her children.

She had hoped that the position, learning how to help disabled passengers on buses, would lead to work in social care.

Mrs Ryan, from Clapton, east London said it was too late for HCT to apologise now.

On the face of it I think that this has been blown out of all proportion. Yeah, they probably have to take action to encourage ethnic minorities into work and some jobsworth just said what they 'thought' was right. Mrs Ryan has probably been getting 'advice' from some of that Daily Mail readership afterwards, increasing her sense of supposed indignation.

Come on Burnie cant you tell a whitewash when you see it?

This is how discrimination works. The guy I know who was refused application for the ambulance service was a trained paramedic (who now makes his living doing first aid courses) he was failed several times and got the answer from a symapthetic employee. What happened in this case is that an employee got out of hand, that much is true, and told the truth.

If you need any further clue just ask yourself what would have heppened if the applicant was black and was told no blacks allowed? Do you think ther spokesmans comment would be as mild as Frank Villeneuve-Smith, an HCT spokesman, said: “She was given incorrect information by a member of staff. In fact, Marion is eligible. We have been trying to get hold of her to say that she is eligible and to apologise. We are very sorry." No they would be talking about rooting out racists, immediate suspensions and probably offers of compensation. The council might also take an active interest enough to comment and the managers might be fighting to save their own jobs.
you tell me what the effective difference would be, if it would truly be any worse.

Of course the company is putting spin on this, why the hell wouldn't they but employees saying 'sorry you isn't black enough innit' does not mean we should all storm HTC with placards saying 'stop putting whitey down'.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:With respect, it is yet another thread that is guaranteed to appeal to those who wish to portray ethnic diversity in a negative light.

You have one half of the concept. What you are looking for is called 'Equality and Diversity' not 'diversity'. It's justifiable to point that out as an example of failure because the Equality part is entirely missing.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:
To say "I am not being rascist but..." generally means that the speaker has been or is going to be.

I heard this one before, its almost Sovietesque, and very alarming.

I remember Youth and Community Service training courses where this dogma reared its ugly head in the Equal Ops lectures.
In brief it means 'think dogma', if you dont think dogma you are racist already. So when you see something wrong with dogma you might want to critique it with the prefix "I am not being rascist but..." or the suffix "I have friends who are black/gay/whatever" to show that you have sympathy with the principles of Equal Opportunities. We were taught that those were racist comments used by racists to diguise their racism while trying to critique policy.
Yes I remember being told that the comment "I have friends who are black" is a sign of a racist.

To quote your question below: What is the purpose it is meant to serve?

Why look for hidden racism in people who are not discriminating? Racism is what people do or perhaps say to someone face, not what they think. By getting people in public service to question motives behind comments such as that can only mean one think: 'Orwellian Goodthink'.
No wonder Blair was able to purge the civil service with tactics like this at hand, its a short step down from McCarthyism or Communist social control techniques.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:
Orlanth quoting the Metro as a source is hilarious. It is a free paper on the transport system. Not having to pay for it is the only thing that really distinguishes it from the alarmist Daily Fail.

The Telegraph is a more distinguished paper, but noted for its conservative leanings.

Actually I had plenty of papers to choose from.

http://news.coachbroker.co.uk/woman-refused-bus-job-on-the-grounds-of-race-213600/
http://www.hackneygazette.co.uk/content/hackney/gazette/news/story.aspx?brand=HKYGOnline&category=news&tBrand=northlondon24&tCategory=newshkyg&itemid=WeED20%20May%202010%2010%3A41%3A07%3A000

The usual defence of dismissing all exposures of PC dogma and positive discrimnination as lies or distortions. It never takes long for thart one to get rolled out, maninly because irt requires thought, just a wave of the hand and a dismissing comment. But are you going to write them all off as racist alarmist? Perhaps but you will be clutching at thinner straws than usual while doing so. Hackney Gazette, a reactionary scaremongering right wing rag? I dont think so, not that I should have to find non right wing papers every time this happens just to point out that it might not be the right wing propoganda some would like to assume it is.

To cut to the chase are you saying, not in a left wing rag = not the truth?

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:
To accuse people of being of low intellect because they refuse to take notice of the Mail, and to warn people about the, "gak that is happening in New Britain" sounds alarmist and insulting.

My reasons for accusing those who automatically assume any critique of 'positive discrimination' as a racist slur are described above. They are based on clear transparent logic due to analysing the blatant hypocracy of those who discrimate and label under the banner of not discriminating and labeling.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:
What is the point of the thread? What is the purpose it is meant to serve?
Does Orlanth really need to tell us that discrimination is bad?

Same as other poltics threads its an opportunity to vent or point something out. Need I have a higher calling? Need uyou or anyone else.

Puit it this way, if we were having another chat about the BNP would you be asking that question. Likely not, at least you didnt olast time. Of course its perfectly ok to tell people such scum exist and to warn that they would like to do this and that. Fair enough, the BNP are scum, of course they would support what I am saying right now, that that is pure cooincidence, just because they dont like positive discrimination either doesn't mean they dont like it for the same reasons or have the same agenda. A point forgotten by those who would rather everyone forget that positive discrimination occurs and more importantly it stinks as much any other form of discrimination. In fact it stinks more, regular bigotry is reasonably honest in that it hates and hates openly, the PC dogmatists like to tell everyone they are doing good when they discriminate. Many people see though it and shut up because its a dangerous dogma to contradict, but it takes low IQ squad membership to actually fall for it, though they are who the dogmatists are relying on.
The dogmatists would not get very far if they didnt have their mouthpieces to echo 'racist', 'homophobe', 'sexist', 'Islamophobe' or whatever right on cue.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:
I just don't understand the need for these threads that are simply mouthpieces for dubious political beliefs.

What is so dubious about thinking that making jobs ethnic only is wrong? Answer that one, so far you have not. All I get normally is flat denial that such events take place, talk about head in the sand. I have seen such discrimination many times over the last few years, I see it is emplymenty and in housing alarmingly frequently.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr. Burning wrote:
Of course the company is putting spin on this, why the hell wouldn't they but employees saying 'sorry you isn't black enough innit' does not mean we should all storm HTC with placards saying 'stop putting whitey down'.

Damage control I can understand, but it is rather odd.
What would have happened if the opposite occured? Look at the press and what happens when it does.

This comment is not just to Mr Burning, but all readers:

Also why do you get the idea that speaking out against positive discrimination is akin to storming offices with placards. Do you have a mental image that to critique PG dogma means you must be foaming at the mouth, demonstating, hateful or deranged? Sorry mate quite calm over here. But anyway where do you get that mental image thet lets you dismiss all this as Dail Mail inspired propoganda leapt upon by fanatics.

So far if you read my posts I have called for the end to discrimination and the establishment of genuine equality of opportunity. Quote me if you think I have not.
That should sound reasoanble yes, why not it is reasonable. So if all you might see is ranting raving and hatred and blindly reading Dail Mail, perhaps that is entirely in your own head and is a possible sign that you have swallowed too much PC dogma.
Trust me it takes balls to speak out against PC dogma for exactly this reason. Some are starting to see the pattern but only see it when it concerns the rights of Islam. The dogma behind it is the same though. I am dangerously close to being labelled a bigot simply for asking for the end of positive discrimination on this and other threads. I get a lot of concerned looks but noone has ever given a solid convincing reason why positive discrimination is positive, or why it is not as bigoted as any other from of discrimination.

Perhaps this is a public service, standing alone here, politely not discriminating, calling for the end of discrimnination and getting (almost) discriminated against by veiled concerns that I might be discriminatory. It would be a joke if it were not so serious and were people not so blind to what is going on.

Its long past time to wash the dogmas out of peoples heads and get them to ask questions about what they are expected to think.

Given that the company doesn't appear to have a history of such practices (presumably they would encounter problems every time they tried something of this sort) then it's quite possible that the employee was giving incorrect information as per the companies admittance.

Where have I prescribed what other people should think?

Where did I discriminate betweem positive and negative discrimination?
Where did I say that positive discrimination is legitimate?

Of course the Coachbroker and the Hackney Gazette- how remiss of me not to have recalled those fine, notable journals.

Re: Everytime someone starts a sentence with I am not being rascist but... How is that Sovietesque?
The very implication of the phrase is that the statement will be rascist because of that big but. This is less about my political correctness than your own inabilty to understand the implications of what you are saying.

Again, I have not prescribed any opinions or dogma. I have no interest in political correctness. I am concerned about the nature of rascist politicking on the forum of late,
and questioning the need for these threads that are going to agitate and incite rascist feelings.
Why the insulting and alarmist nature of the OP comments which could have been ommitted.
You still have not redressed my questioning of this - Why did you need to add the phrases about gakky New Britain and the low IQ of others?
The latter is insulting and in contravention of Dakka rules. The former is complaining about preferential treatment of one ethnic group over another. The implication is that "Jonny Foreigner is coming over here getting preferential treatment and taking our jobs"
Even if that is not what you intended,that is how it is going to be perceived. Nothing to do with political correctness. To think otherwise is somewhat niave.

A rational debate discussing something other than cutandpaste up alarmist articles from the rags about Immigration would make a pleasant change.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:
Where have I prescribed what other people should think?

Re: Everytime someone starts a sentence with I am not being rascist but... How is that Sovietesque?
The very implication of the phrase is that the statement will be rascist. This is less about my own political correctness than your own inabilty to understand the implications of what you are saying.

Chibi, I'm going to take your former post apart, and show you exactly why I feel like you are trying to push political correctness and your own viewpoint on me.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:With respect, it is yet another thread that is guaranteed to appeal to those who wish to portray ethnic diversity in a negative light.

Opening statement:- You're basically saying that anyone who might think the article has a point is one of 'those who wish to portray ethnic diversity in a negative light.'

No. Stop. Positive discrimination does exist, and to be concerned about it has sod all to do with ethnic diversity. I was looking quite recently into funding for a masters. There were half a million grants which were 'women specific' that I could not access, and none for men. Positive discrimination. Pure and simple. In fact, ditch the word 'positive'. It's not. Regardless of who it's for, discrimination is bad. You're telling me before I've even read the article, that if I even so much as to dare to think the article has any validity, I'm challenging 'ethnic diversity' in a negative way.

To say "I am not being rascist but..." generally means that the speaker has been or is going to be.

Bullcrap. Do you know what it means? It means that we're afraid that hyper charged political correctness freaks are going to accuse us of racism for what we're about to say. As it turns out, you'll accuse us of racism whether we add the prefix or not. All it means, is that we know that the PC brigade is going to label us as racist bigots for disagreeing with them, whether we're racists or not. The prefix is just our way of trying to demonstrate how we're not racist, in a calm and rational way.

Orlanth quoting the Metro as a source is hilarious. It is a free paper on the transport system. Not having to pay for it is the only thing that really distinguishes it from the alarmist Daily Fail.

So you're seriously telling me that journalism in a paid paper has so much less bias than than an unpaid for one?

The Telegraph is a more distinguished paper, but noted for its conservative leanings.

Your own version of the 'I'm not racist BUT' here. By saying it's conservative and ignoring it thereafter, you're basically saying that a conservative viewpoint is bad.

What is the point of the thread? What is the purpose it is meant to serve?
Does Orlanth really need to tell us that discrimination is bad?

Yes. Clearly. Because some people clearly don't understand the concept of positive discrimination, and believe that it occurs.

I just don't understand the need for these threads that are simply mouthpieces for dubious political beliefs

Woah. Hang on a second. Opposing positive discrimination is a 'dubious political belief'? To quote a certain pear image, lolwut?

Positive discrimination occurs. Fact. Discrimination of any kind is bad. Fact. Where do 'dubious political beliefs' come into it? Again, you're basically telling me that if I identify with this article in any way, I associate with 'dubious political beliefs'. How dare you tell me where I stand! The arrogance inherent in this statement is sheerly astounding! I think positive discrimination is starting to become an issue. This does not make me a neo-nazi, or a racist, and I resent being made to feel like one. If you choose to close your eyes to ANY kind of discrimination, that's entirely your affair. Do not try and guilt trip me, or blacklist me just for disagreeing with you though.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:So you are accussing me of having a low IQ because I don't subscribe to the alarmist nature of a British rag?

I actually accused noone of having a low IQ. I just mentioned what the low IQ squad do. If you think you are a member thats not my problem.
It has nothing to do with 'alarmist British rags' either. Low IQ squad membership as described above is due to beleiving that in order to proliferate equal opportunities, it is best to restrict those equal opportunities to minorities and to critique anyone who considers this odd. This is so blatantly logically contradictory that it can only be proported by those who clearly dont understand what they are saying due to low IQ, or worse do understand that they are supporting dangerously biased dogmas but continue to do so because it suits their purposes. Frankly its a mercy to assume a low IQ, those who support PC bollocks with their eyes open are in my mind far worse than those who follow with eyes shut.

Noone has yet even attempted to explain why equal opportunities can mean ethnic only or for that matter women only shortlisting. Discrimination is discrimination.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:
Where have I prescribed what other people should think?
Re: Everytime someone starts a sentence with I am not being rascist but... How is that Sovietesque?

These two questions answer each other when you stop and think about them.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:
Where did I discriminate betweem positive and negative discrimination?
Where did I say that positive discrimination is legitimate?

When you write off concerns of those who point out that positive discrimination occurs, either in your case by denying it occurs and writing off those who believe it occurs as being blinkered right wing rag readers. In others cases by directly accusing those who point out the logical holes in positive discrimination as a sign of bigotry.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:
The very implication of the phrase is that the statement will be rascist. This is less about my own political correctness than your own inabilty to understand the implications of what you are saying.

Again, I have not prescribed any opinions or dogma. I am questioning the need for these threads that are going to [italics]agitate and incite rascist feelings.[/italics]

My very point above. You would rather sweep this under the carpet and prepent it didnt exist, lest it offends people. The trouble is ignoring bigotry lets it fester. this is what has been happening, some people now think it perfectly normal to have an ethnic or gender only shortlist, even political parties for their election campaigns. New Labour was full of this gak.
I try and keep New Labour MP selection ouit of this, not because of being easy on New Labour, that isnt how I normally write here, but because to be a New Labour MP you have to beleive what New Labour spouts and if they think that positive discrimination is ok then so be it. So long as they only apply it to themselves.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:
Otherwise the insulting and alarmist nature would have been absent.
You still have not redressed my questioning of this - Why did you need to add the phrases bout gakky New Britain and the low IQ of others?

The latter is insulting and in contravention of Dakka rules.

Like I said, I pointed no fingers at individuals and broke no rules.

My comments are neither insulting or alarmist. You presume I want to stir people to hate, sorry asking for an end to positive discrimination (my goal here repeated so that you might get to understand it) is hardly hatespeech unless you happen to have an IQ low enough to beleive that a call for genuine equality is a hateful act.
Sure you might have been led to think this by PC dogma, but if you stop and think about what I am asking for its quite logical and reasonable yes.
The bottom line positive discrimination is discrimination, and it should be stopped. Personally I think it should be outlawed, but we have too many controlling laws at the moment thanks to the dogmatists it would be hypocritical for me to join them allowing for how much I dislike PC dogma.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:
It would be interesting to see what the recent political threads in the OT forum actually consist of. A rational debate discussing something other than cutandpaste up alarmist articles from the rags about Immigration would make a pleasant change.

So you think my comments are veiled anti-immigration comments. Is that so? I hope not and will assume not. Some people do prefer to assume that, in the same way they might to assume all articles on positive discrimination expsoures are lies or exagerrations, it gives them the opportunity to label and attain a flase moral high ground. But there is no reasoning with those bigots, they go beyond our level of disagreement and are the polar opposites and moral pars to the BNP.

I lose more faith in humanity every time this kind of conversation comes up. Discrimination of any type is short sighted and ignorant. I don't care if your white, black, yellow, male or female. Everybody has the potential to be a complete idiot. With the amount of education that is redily available PC should be irrelevant because discrimination should have been done away with decades ago. Unfortunately people will continue to suck so I will continue to go with my belief that everybody sucks and is an idiot until proven otherwise regardless of discriminatory factors.

rocklord2004 wrote:I lose more faith in humanity every time this kind of conversation comes up.

Well I apologise for that, but not for the thread. I find such threads necessary as positive discrimantion is too widespread and damaging and disturbing, and I too have been a victim of it in the past.

rocklord2004 wrote:
Discrimination of any type is short sighted and ignorant. I don't care if your white, black, yellow, male or female. Everybody has the potential to be a complete idiot. With the amount of education that is redily available PC should be irrelevant because discrimination should have been done away with decades ago.

Thing is I agree with you. I am hoping more people will see that opposing PC dogma is not the hatemongering some would like you to think it is, quite the opposite in fact.

rocklord2004 wrote:
Unfortunately people will continue to suck so I will continue to go with my belief that everybody sucks and is an idiot until proven otherwise regardless of discriminatory factors.

Everybody...sucks... well I suppose noone can accuse you of discrimination there.

Well I apologise for that, but not for the thread. I find such threads necessary as positive discrimantion is too widespread and damaging and disturbing, and I too have been a victim of it in the past.

Technically this case would just be discrimination. Positive discrimination is a construct built off of a persecution complex held by those with majority power. It doesn't actually exist. Discrimination at the most basic level doesn't really have a moralistic value attached to it. It's just a delegation of resource based on other criteria (That criteria being possibly moralistic but separate from the concept of the discrimination itself).

Thing is I agree with you. I am hoping more people will see that opposing PC dogma is not the hatemongering some would like you to think it is, quite the opposite in fact.

Most people opposing 'PC hatemongering' aren't worldy or intelligent enough to do it without sounding racist or discriminatory. Hence the reason the conversation keeps coming up.

Everybody...sucks... well I suppose noone can accuse you of discrimination there.

Pessimism certainly though!