Positive Discrimination - Positive Action

[enyam]

Medicinal and Pharmaceutical chemistry.

 

[JBR]

Perhaps when we have left the EU?

(Why are we the only country to NOT ignore EU diktats?)

But this is surely why we should stay in the EU... to help design those diktats which everyone other than us ignores

Yes, I suppose it keeps the bureaucrats in business...
...at a cost.

 

[JBR]

Only recenly I asked a guy on contract a question at our work base who does Portable Appliance Testing. (Those small labels that get stuck on electrical items for safety).

I said "that's a good number I hear; well paid?". He said, "No! It used to be and I got into it for that reason but now I'm looking to go back as a sparky).

In short, when he started he told me he got paid £6 per item tested. For those who don't know, it only takes a couple of minutes or so to do one test! (I know cuz I'm also a qualified PAT tester.). But, in his words, "It's more like 60 pence now".

I believe it costs (the consumer) £2 per item. Who gets the other £1.40?

Let me guess, the EU!

 

[JBR]

You come up with some corkers Joe. Er, soz about yesterday

Hey BT, less of the 'soz'. You're not a teenager any more!

 

[Big Tone]

You come up with some corkers Joe. Er, soz about yesterday

Hey BT, less of the 'soz'. You're not a teenager any more!

Ah no prob JB. In the post after that I called "a duplicate" I really called him a ****!

 

[JBR]

You come up with some corkers Joe. Er, soz about yesterday

Hey BT, less of the 'soz'. You're not a teenager any more!

Ah no prob JB. In the post after that I called "a duplicate" I really called him a ****!

Oh, that's a very naughty word! It must be, it has four letters.

 

[Big Tone]

Is that the end? Have we put it to bed now...?

 

[groovynooby]

Is that the end? Have we put it to bed now...?

Looks like it... did we learn anything ?

 

[Brigadier]

Some are more concerned with being 'legal', than being fair?

 

[Dextraneous]

Some are more concerned with being 'legal', than being fair?

Thought the purpose of the law was to verify what is fair

 

[groovynooby]

I have learn't that ethnicity can be a preferred attribute and can legally be used as the deciding factor when choosing between two 'equals' when one equal doesn't have the preferred attribute, although in simplistic terms this is blatant racial discrimination it is not a bad thing because the ultimate aim is to achieve equal representation and, as an organisation has expressed a desire to achieve equal representation, this is ok.

Obviously the candidate without the preferred attribute could feel negatively discriminated against however in reality they should feel good because they have been sacrificed on the alter of progression and because some people may think that they are racially prejudiced if they complain, so... probably best keep schtum.

I think the general rule of thumb here is that if you discriminate against the majority on grounds of ethnicity then this is not racist, conversely, discrimination in favour of a majority is racist.

I must admit I find this slightly counter intuitive as I was always led to believe that discrimination was a bad thing but obviously things change!

Is my understanding correct?

 

[RogueHanger]

I have learn't that ethnicity can be a preferred attribute and can legally be used as the deciding factor when choosing between two 'equals' when one equal doesn't have the preferred attribute, although in simplistic terms this is blatant racial discrimination it is not a bad thing because the ultimate aim is to achieve equal representation and, as an organisation has expressed a desire to achieve equal representation, this is ok.

Obviously the candidate without the preferred attribute could feel negatively discriminated against however in reality they should feel good because they have been sacrificed on the alter of progression and because some people may think that they are racially prejudiced if they complain, so... probably best keep schtum.

I think the general rule of thumb here is that if you discriminate against the majority on grounds of ethnicity then this is not racist, conversely, discrimination in favour of a majority is racist.

I must admit I find this slightly counter intuitive as I was always led to believe that discrimination was a bad thing but obviously things change!

Is my understanding correct?

No! There is a difference between racism and discrimination.
Pardon me for being tetchy again, groovy, we have discussed this several times in previous posts.
If you won't make yourself aware of those previous discussions, you can hardly blame others for being tetchy, when you expect others to repeat themselves all over again.
Moreover, your first paragraph in this post of yours, gives rise to a suspicion of some degree of intellect, yet you continue to propose the idea that you don't understand all the previous discussions.

 

[groovynooby]

I have learn't that ethnicity can be a preferred attribute and can legally be used as the deciding factor when choosing between two 'equals' when one equal doesn't have the preferred attribute, although in simplistic terms this is blatant racial discrimination it is not a bad thing because the ultimate aim is to achieve equal representation and, as an organisation has expressed a desire to achieve equal representation, this is ok.

Obviously the candidate without the preferred attribute could feel negatively discriminated against however in reality they should feel good because they have been sacrificed on the alter of progression and because some people may think that they are racially prejudiced if they complain, so... probably best keep schtum.

I think the general rule of thumb here is that if you discriminate against the majority on grounds of ethnicity then this is not racist, conversely, discrimination in favour of a majority is racist.

I must admit I find this slightly counter intuitive as I was always led to believe that discrimination was a bad thing but obviously things change!

Is my understanding correct?

No! There is a difference between racism and discrimination.
Pardon me for being tetchy again, groovy, we have discussed this several times in previous posts.
If you won't make yourself aware of those previous discussions, you can hardly blame others for being tetchy, when you expect others to repeat themselves all over again.

Ok, you're quite right but we are talking about discrimination on the basis of race, aka racial discrimination... or are we not?

 

[groovynooby]

Corrected Version

I have learn't that ethnicity can be a preferred attribute and can legally be used as the deciding factor when choosing between two 'equals' when one equal doesn't have the preferred attribute, although in simplistic terms this is blatant racial discrimination it is not a bad thing because the ultimate aim is to achieve equal representation and, as an organisation has expressed a desire to achieve equal representation, this is ok.

Obviously the candidate without the preferred attribute could feel negatively discriminated against however in reality they should feel good because they have been sacrificed on the alter of progression and because some people may think that they are racially prejudiced if they complain, so... probably best keep schtum.

I think the general rule of thumb here is that if you discriminate against the majority on grounds of ethnicity then this is good racial discrimination, conversely, discrimination in favour of a majority is bad racial discrimination.

I must admit I find this slightly counter intuitive as I was always led to believe that discrimination was a bad thing but obviously things change!

Is my understanding correct?

 

[RogueHanger]

Corrected Version

I have learn't that ethnicity can be a preferred attribute and can legally be used as the deciding factor when choosing between two 'equals' when one equal doesn't have the preferred attribute, although in simplistic terms this is blatant racial discrimination it is not a bad thing because the ultimate aim is to achieve equal representation and, as an organisation has expressed a desire to achieve equal representation, this is ok.

Excellent understanding of Positive Discrimination....ooops sorry Positive Action, except that it is not only limited to ethnicity or race. Gender, religion, even sexuality or disability can be the reason for Positive Action.

Obviously the candidate without the preferred attribute could feel negatively discriminated against

Accepted.

however in reality they should feel good because they have been sacrificed on the alter of progression and because some people may think that they are racially prejudiced if they complain, so... probably best keep schtum.

Is this your argument against Positive Action?

I think the general rule of thumb here is that if you discriminate against the majority on grounds of ethnicity then this is good racial discrimination, conversely, discrimination in favour of a majority is bad racial discrimination.

Now the "words" are Positive Action not Discimination because any discrimination is not legal.
Additionally, it is not limited to ethnicity, see above.

I must admit I find this slightly counter intuitive as I was always led to believe that discrimination was a bad thing but obviously things change!

Only in that all discrimination has been declared illegal.

Is my understanding correct?

I hope I've clarified where necessary.