Positive Discrimination - Positive Action

[Big Tone]

Okay, I'll give you that one.

But if you asked me that question I'd say "YES, I still love you!". (Answer followed by qualification )

 

[RogueHanger]

Talk about squriming. That's the best example I've ever seen.

First of all you wanted my opinion, with a yes or no answer, then when I'd given it to you several times, and you continued to ask, you tried to make out you really wanted me to explain how PA does not discriminate.

Then when I'd pointed out to you I'd done so over and over again, you tried to make out it was some kind of ruse to see if I could say yes or no.

Then when I'd explained what and how an affirmative or negative answer looks like, you still claim, you'd do it differently.
Well, we're all different and we all have different ways of responding to a question.

And according to the raving racist party on here I should consider my ass kicked.
Well if that's what ass kicking looks like I've just become a masochist.

I'm sorry I didn't give you the answer that you wanted, or in the way that you wanted it, but that's life.

And as PA is volountary, you're welcome to your opinion.
If you're running your own business you don't have to instigate it.

 

[Big Tone]

I can see how you 'might' be successful in business.

Other members who knew you better here knew all along. I just wanted to find out for myself.

Now £cuk off please....

 

[Deleted member 63160]

I can see how you 'might' be successful in business.

Other members who knew you better here knew all along. I just wanted to find out for myself.

Now £cuk off please....

You seem like a nice well adjusted guy. Glad you see him for what he is.

 

[Big Tone]

I can see how you 'might' be successful in business.

Other members who knew you better here knew all along. I just wanted to find out for myself.

Now £cuk off please....

You seem like a nice well adjusted guy. Glad you see him for what he is.

You guys knew him long before me. I gave the 'benefit of the doubt'.

Would I do it again? "YES" Probably, because it's in my nature to help people and consider every angle and the other man's side. (Dale Carnigie)

But sometimes you can't pick a turd up from the clean end, no matter how much you care or try...

 

[jockscott]

PA does not discriminate!

Again,, You stated early on in this thread that "Positive Discrimination " and "Positive Action" were one and the same (the only difference is the terminology) Therefore PA must discriminate. You have failed to comment on this (I feel ) very pertinent point. ( I feel the filibustering coming on shortly)

FFS, how many times must I repeat myself.
I knew what I meant and used the term PA before this thread even started. (I have provided a link to that occasion way back about Page 12 or 13)

And here' exactly what you posted on page 13....

To all intents and purposes, I meant "Positive Action" which is the same in the concept, meaning and results as Positive Discimination.

FFS, do you suffer from Alzheimers?? Your saying there that PD and PA are one and the bloody same.... Ooh, it's the letters in the words that are different,,,,,, I see now.

 

[RogueHanger]

You guys knew him long before me. I gave the 'benefit of the doubt'.

Would I do it again? "YES" Probably, because it's in my nature to help people and consider every angle and the other man's side. (Dale Carnigie)

But sometimes you can't pick a turd up from the clean end, no matter how much you care or try...

I'm not sure if you're aware, BT, but you appear to have swapped arguments, once or twice. And you've been asking the same question since at least page 3. Although I admit (and have previously admitted) that I was mistakenly using the term "PD" instead of "PA":
Page 3

I'm going to make this REAL simple for you, (as they say in America), and I would like a straight 'yes' or 'no' answer because it's really not rocket science.

You have two equal candidates in your analogy, A and B. They are of equal merit in some photo finish type interview which simply cannot be called either way.

Without mentioning which colour you have just favoured, (yes FAVOURED), have you or have you not just discriminated against one of the two candidates based on his or her colour? Yes or no RogueHanger???

If they are both truly equal, then they will both be of an ethnicity that the organisation is looking to recruit. So therefore, the target that is failing by the most should influence the recruitment.
So yes. You have applied positive discimination.

In addition, BT, it was you who first used PD, and I subsequently and mistakenly conitued to use, instead of the correct term PA, and you seemed to support PA, when you reminded me of the correct term, on page 8:

Okay, I think I've just stumbled on something which puts it better and over which we may all agree, including RH.
Positive discrimination is still discrimination. It was like pulling teeth from the start for me and I didn’t get the straightforward yes or no without some resistance, qualifying or justification; but no matter. I’m over it now…
What I have just seen in an interview from a woman Liberal MP puts it very well. (I wish I’d thought of it). Although she is talking about gender it applies equally here.
She disagrees with positive discrimination saying that it should be Positive Action instead.
So how about it, Positive Action. Sounds better and certainly much fairer to me.

I acknowledged, apologised and confronted my mistake on page 12, the first time I'd posted since your comment above, (it was Easter w/e and a busy w/e for me.):

What I have just seen in an interview from a woman Liberal MP puts it very well. (I wish I’d thought of it). Although she is talking about gender it applies equally here. She disagrees with positive discrimination saying that it should be Positive Action instead. /.........

So how about it, Positive Action. Sounds better and certainly much fairer to me.

In recruitment, equality law allows positive action before or at the application stage. At this stage, the steps could include encouraging particular groups to apply, or helping people with particular protected characteristics to perform to the best of their ability (for example, by giving them training or support not available to other applicants).
An example of when an employer might decide to take positive action is if they find that the make up of their workforce is different from the make up of their local population, so they decide to encourage people who share particular under-represented protected characteristics to apply for vacancies.

This is not the same as ‘positive discrimination’ or ‘affirmative action’ which equality law does not allow.
http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/...ment/positive-action-and-recruitment/[/QUOTE]

Interesting, something which I need to read up on.

waits for brickbats, etc, etc.........

But at least I have the honesty to share the infomation when I discover that I may be mistaken, either in the description, the concept, or the small print of the action.

Now I hope all those, including jockshott, will notice the sentence in bold and blue.
Now I accept, apologise and own up to the fact, that it took me a few posts to rid myself of the misconception that I had allowed to be formulated in my head.

I suspect that there is some technical term for evolution of thought caused by greater understanding of issues.
Surely that is the benefit and purpose of debate, rather than "winning the argument". I have improved my understanding and I hope that this debate has served to improve others understanding.

Now in the quote of mine that jockscott mentioned on page 13:

I've changed the heading to read "Positive Discrimination - Positive Action" in recognition of my mistaken use of an incorrect terminology.

To all intents and purposes, I meant "Positive Action" which is the same in the concept, meaning and results as Positive Discimination.

I now realise and accept that Positive Discrimination is illegal (under EHRC) whereas Postive Action is legal.

I hope the reader will note the part of the quote that jockscott omitted, and as I said above , my understanding was still evolving.
I hope it still is.

For those of us who are a little longer in the tooth, PD was in practice and acceptable, up until 2010 when EHRC declared the new terminology and that PD was illegal.

Is this another contender for the longest post?

Is this thread a contender for the longest thread?

In addition, I think Norcon, especially, should be banned from taking part in activities again and fined $2.5m.

 

[EFLImpudence]

For those of us who are a little longer in the tooth, PD was in practice and acceptable, up until 2010 when EHRC declared the new terminology and that PD was illegal.

I would say that it was not that the EHRC declared PD illegal but that they realised it, and what they espouse, was and is illegal.

They then coined a politically correct phrase, PA, so that politically correct simpletons would think it something different when in actual fact it is not different, therefore still illegal.


After all, it is not in the remit of the EHRC to decide what is illegal or not, is it?


RH, you seem to be under the impression that we do not understand, hence multiple explanations and analogies of varying validity.

It it not that we don't understand; it is that we do not agree.

We may be wrong but logic, common sense and the law states otherwise.

 

[RogueHanger]

For those of us who are a little longer in the tooth, PD was in practice and acceptable, up until 2010 when EHRC declared the new terminology and that PD was illegal.

I would say that it was not that the EHRC declared PD illegal but that they realised it, and what they espouse, was and is illegal.

They then coined a politically correct phrase, PA, so that politically correct simpletons would think it something different when in actual fact it is not different, therefore still illegal.


After all, it is not in the remit of the EHRC to decide what is illegal or not, is it?


RH, you seem to be under the impression that we do not understand, hence multiple explanations and analogies of varying validity.

It it not that we don't understand; it is that we do not agree.

We may be wrong but logic, common sense and the law states otherwise.

I think your last two sentences display a total confusion.
Sort yourself out, then if you are not regugitating old points, then I'll maybe respond.

 

[Brigadier]

The only confusion around here is you, RH - even the "racists" [your opinion] on here are clear on their actions, words and motives.

 

[EFLImpudence]

I think your last two sentences display a total confusion.

Au contraire.

Sort yourself out, then if you are not regugitating old points, then I'll maybe respond.

You're not good with sarcasm, are you?

I shall reword it:
You are wrong and logic, common sense and the law states this.

 

[RogueHanger]

I think your last two sentences display a total confusion.

Au contraire.

Sort yourself out, then if you are not regugitating old points, then I'll maybe respond.

You're not good with sarcasm, are you?

I shall reword it:
You are wrong and logic, common sense and the law states this.

That's better, at least it's a logical argument now, even if a mistaken position. It wasn't just the last sentence, it was the last two sentences together that were confusing. It wasn't clear whether your last sentence referred to your penultimate sentence, or was a stand alone statement.

So, how am I wrong? Please explain, using example from logic, common sense and law to illustrate your points. But, please, please don't just regurgitate old arguments. They've all been done and dusted.

To address you point about EHRC and it's remit, I quote from the EHRC website:

Equality Act Codes of Practice
These Codes of Practice became law on 6 April 2011.
http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/...ctice-publications/codes-of-practice/[/QUOTE]

Now the Equality Act does not enforce PA, but it can and does declare all discrimination to be illegal (and Affirmative Action)

The PA is volountary and Best Practice Guides are available from EHRC

If you have any expereince in commerce or industry you will know that no-one can be sued or prosecuted under the "Best Practice Guidelines".
However, in any lawsuit or prosecution for illegal activity, the guidelines are referred to and can/will carry a great deal of "expert analysis" testimony. Deviation from the guidelines may increase the risk of the judgement against you.

Edit:
Just pasted this for you:

The legal status of this guidance
This guidance applies to England, Scotland and Wales. It has been aligned with the Codes
of Practice on Employment and on Equal Pay. Following this guidance should have the
same effect as following the Codes. In other words, if a person or an organisation who has
duties under the Equality Act 2010’s provisions on employment and other work situations
does what this guidance says they must do, it may help them to avoid an adverse decision
by a court in proceedings brought under the Equality Act 2010.
http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/EqualityAct/employers_recruitment.pdf[/QUOTE]

 

[EFLImpudence]

2.46
A racial group is a group of people who have or share a colour, nationality
or ethnic or national origins. For example, a racial group could be ‘British’
people. All racial groups are protected from unlawful discrimination under
the Act.

3.2
Direct discrimination occurs when a person treats another less favourably
than they treat or would treat others because of a protected characteristic.
3.3
Direct discrimination is generally unlawful. However, it may be lawful in the
following circumstances:
• where the protected characteristic is age, and the less favourable treatment
can be justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim (see
paragraphs 3.36 to 3.41);
• in relation to the protected characteristic of disability, where a disabled
person is treated more favourably than a non-disabled person (see
paragraph 3.35);
• where the Act provides an express exception which permits directly
discriminatory treatment that would otherwise be unlawful
(see Chapters 12 to 14).

12.7
Third, there are actions – often referred to as ‘positive discrimination’ –
which involve preferential treatment to benefit members of a disadvantaged
or under-represented group who share a protected characteristic, in order
to address inequality. However, these actions do not meet the statutory
requirements for positive action, and will be unlawful unless a statutory
exception applies (see Chapters 13 and 14).



Please point out to me the clause which states that race is a statutory exception.

 

[RogueHanger]

2.46
A racial group is a group of people who have or share a colour, nationality
or ethnic or national origins. For example, a racial group could be ‘British’
people. All racial groups are protected from unlawful discrimination under
the Act.

3.2
Direct discrimination occurs when a person treats another less favourably
than they treat or would treat others because of a protected characteristic.
3.3
Direct discrimination is generally unlawful. However, it may be lawful in the
following circumstances:
• where the protected characteristic is age, and the less favourable treatment
can be justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim (see
paragraphs 3.36 to 3.41);
• in relation to the protected characteristic of disability, where a disabled
person is treated more favourably than a non-disabled person (see
paragraph 3.35);
• where the Act provides an express exception which permits directly
discriminatory treatment that would otherwise be unlawful
(see Chapters 12 to 14).

12.7
Third, there are actions – often referred to as ‘positive discrimination’ –
which involve preferential treatment to benefit members of a disadvantaged
or under-represented group who share a protected characteristic, in order
to address inequality. However, these actions do not meet the statutory
requirements for positive action, and will be unlawful unless a statutory
exception applies (see Chapters 13 and 14).



Please point out to me the clause which states that race is a statutory exception.

First off, did you not get your answer from the link to EHRC guides that I provided. Did you even read them?

Now your quotes, where are they from?
How do I know that you haven't just made them up?

Finally, you ask me to point out how race is a "statutory exception".
In what sense have I ever said that race is a statutory exception.

BTW, EHRC and PA is about lots of other protected characterisitics, not just race.

Can I suggest that you get some assistance with your questions because you ain't making much sense yet.
So far you are reminding me of the great Eric Morecombe, the right words but not necessarily in the right order.

 

[EFLImpudence]

First off, did you not get your answer from the link to EHRC guides that I provided. Did you even read them?

Yes, I think so.
I wanted you to confirm it by not being able to answer my question.

Now your quotes, where are they from?

Your link - Code of practice on employment.

How do I know that you haven't just made them up?

You can look them up for yourself. Have you not read it?
You linked to it to, presumably, back up your cause.

Finally, you ask me to point out how race is a "statutory exception".
In what sense have I ever said that race is a statutory exception.

Because it has to be for Positive Action to be allowed.

BTW, EHRC and PA is about lots of other protected characterisitics, not just race.

Yes, but your original post (remember that?) is about ethnicity and my first reply (post 5) said it was racist.
You have since been trying to wriggle out of it by bringing up other examples.

Can I suggest that you get some assistance with your questions because you ain't making much sense yet.

If you can't keep up, don't reply.

So far you are reminding me of the great Eric Morecombe, the right words but not necessarily in the right order.

It's Morecambe - after the resort.

As there are no valid points or answers in your latest offering, I shall draw the only possible conclusion.