Positive Discrimination - Positive Action

[Big Tone]

Since he picked up the challenge on PD/PA, he has been trying to prove how non-racist he is when in fact he has done the exact opposite by showing support for discrimination; first of all in the form of PD, from which he’s recanted, and now in the form of PA, from which he won’t recant.

He doesn’t see that he adds insult to racist injury by not even recognising that PA still discriminates, citing links and laws etc.. Here’s the news bud, a law doesn’t change what something is! (Like arguing the law on cannabis to re-categorise it doesn’t make it any less cannabis).

All it has proved to anyone is that he wouldn’t know discrimination if it sat on his lap. He furthermore thinks he can win an argument by a war of attrition instead of simply recognising something for what it is.

I think the high watch count is from people seeing him perform fifty different ways of squirming. He can’t back down so he’s got to keep trying to defend the indefensible using ‘the best form of defence.......’. But he’s neither convincing nor fooling anyone.

I predict one day PA will either go through another name change or will be redefined - or preferably disbanded altogether. Why? Because I don’t think you actually need anything like it if you have workable laws on racism in place. (With emphasis on workable). Time will tell...

 

[Brigadier]

Current employment law can be invoked, if someone feels unfairly treated. Ideally, the same law will prevent any unfair treatment in the first place.


Don't replace an old wrong with a new wrong.


By favouring one, you by necessity have to

not favour another.


Not difficult, is it?

 

[RogueHanger]

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.

You think so! Are you sure about that? Either you did or you didn't.! However, I'll answer your question re Statutory exception.

Now your quotes, where are they from?

Your link - Code of practice on employment.

OK, but it's usual to provide a link to your source material otherwise, I'm guessing and I might guess wrong.

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

You can look them up for yourself. Have you not read it?

I could have done if you'd provided a link to your souce material. You didn't. I couldn't.

You linked to it to, presumably, back up your cause.

So why didn't you follow my example?

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.

No it doesn't. I suggest you re-read the guides.
But for your guidance "statutory exception" is where it says in the guides that it is a statutory exception, i.e. age limit for driving instructors, etc.

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.

If you think I've been trying to wriggle out of something it is a reflection on your understanding. But then you haven't understood the guidelines. I've been mentioning other characterisitcs as examples, analogies and illustrations to help with the understanding of EHRC.
EHRC and PA is not just about race! I used that example to generate a discussion, at the request of BT.

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.

If I can't what?
I'm the one who's leading. You're the one who's been lagging.

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.

Thank you. Shall I correct your typing mistakes as well?

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

You may draw whatever conclusion you like. You obviously can't understand the guides. How do you expect to discuss them sensibly.

 

[RogueHanger]

Since he picked up the challenge on PD/PA, he has been trying to prove how non-racist he is when in fact he has done the exact opposite by showing support for discrimination; first of all in the form of PD, from which he’s recanted, and now in the form of PA, from which he won’t recant.

...

I'll only respond to this part of your comment, BT 'cos the rest is regurgitated nonesense.

First of all, for someone who has publiclly denounced racism, you ain't walking the walk and you've stopped talking the talk.

Secondly, you're being utterly absurd suggesting that I am racist. But I assume you are trying to shift attention away from the real racists. That's OK, your true attitude is being exposed.

Thirdly , PA does not discriminate. Discrimination is illegal. FFS, how many time do I have to say it?

Finally, I did initialy use PD. Ths was a mistake that I realised around about page 12, even though I had previously used the terminology PA in a previous thread way before this one.
I made a mistake in allowing the continued use of PD, when I should have realised and corrected it to the correct terminology of PA.
How many times do I have to repeat myself ad nauseum?

Now if you can't stop regurgitating old nonesense I suggest you do your own research.

 

[RogueHanger]

Current employment law can be invoked, if someone feels unfairly treated. Ideally, the same law will prevent any unfair treatment in the first place.


Don't replace an old wrong with a new wrong.


By favouring one, you by necessity have to

not favour another.


Not difficult, is it?

You're being ridiculous, Brigadier.
Are you suggesting that all unsuccessful applicants have been treated unfavourably?
If so, then yes you are favouring one against another.
But then favouritism is not illegal and employment law does not legislate for it.

 

[Deleted member 63160]

RH I think you may be the most "desperate to be right" person I have ever seen online. Well done.

 

[Big Tone]

You're not wrong Mitch.

This thread should have ended about 46 pages ago with something like

Someone says: “PA is discrimination”

R.H. “No it’s not”

THE END

The very telling thing and a constant theme throughout this thread is that he’s more interested in the law than discrimination itself. He didn’t come to his senses on PD because he saw it for what it was, (like we did before his eureka moment), he did so because of the law.

That is quite damning and he’s still coming up with the same nonsense on PA; i.e. that it doesn’t discriminate, when we can see it does. I think he's just trolling now...

 

[Brigadier]

Current employment law can be invoked, if someone feels unfairly treated. Ideally, the same law will prevent any unfair treatment in the first place.


Don't replace an old wrong with a new wrong.


By favouring one, you by necessity have to

not favour another.


Not difficult, is it?

You're being ridiculous, Brigadier.
Are you suggesting that all unsuccessful applicants have been treated unfavourably?
If so, then yes you are favouring one against another.
But then favouritism is not illegal and employment law does not legislate for it.

I thought we were talking about protected characteristics, not whims and foibles.....


South-Birmingham school. Practising PA.
Rejection interview transcript (hypothetical).

"Your CV and experience were very good, and your references were very complimentary.
However, because you are of Pakistani origin, you were unsuccessful.
The successful applicant is the Somali gentleman, as Somalians are currently under-represented.
We do however wish you every success in your future career."

The less cuddly side to PA?

 

[JBR]

You're not wrong Mitch.

This thread should have ended about 46 pages ago with something like

Someone says: “PA is discrimination”

R.H. “No it’s not”

THE END

The very telling thing and a constant theme throughout this thread is that he’s more interested in the law than discrimination itself. He didn’t come to his senses on PD because he saw it for what it was, (like we did before his eureka moment), he did so because of the law.

That is quite damning and he’s still coming up with the same nonsense on PA; i.e. that it doesn’t discriminate, when we can see it does. I think he's just trolling now...

In all fairness, he's only doing that because you lot keep replying to his blatherings!

 

[jockscott]

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

You can look them up for yourself. Have you not read it?

I could have done if you'd provided a link to your souce material. You didn't. I couldn't.

You linked to it to, presumably, back up your cause.

So why didn't you follow my example?

EFLI probably didn't link to it, because you had already provided the link. I think it's reasonable to assume you have actually read items you link to. Shame on you RH

 

[RogueHanger]

Current employment law can be invoked, if someone feels unfairly treated. Ideally, the same law will prevent any unfair treatment in the first place.


Don't replace an old wrong with a new wrong.


By favouring one, you by necessity have to

not favour another.


Not difficult, is it?

You're being ridiculous, Brigadier.
Are you suggesting that all unsuccessful applicants have been treated unfavourably?
If so, then yes you are favouring one against another.
But then favouritism is not illegal and employment law does not legislate for it.

I thought we were talking about protected characteristics, not whims and foibles.....


South-Birmingham school. Practising PA.
Rejection interview transcript (hypothetical).

"Your CV and experience were very good, and your references were very complimentary.
However, because you are of Pakistani origin, you were unsuccessful.
The successful applicant is the Somali gentleman, as Somalians are currently under-represented.
We do however wish you every success in your future career."

The less cuddly side to PA?

You notably fail to indicate the CV, experience and references of the succesful applicant. They may have been equal or better than the unsuccessful candidate.
As long as the essential criteria were met, and the organisation can justify PA. Then I suspect that EHRC guidelines have not been broken, as long as it was a tie-break situation and, except of course, that nationality is not a protected characterisitc, as far as I know.
Race is. So the school would not have been actively seeking Somalians, but they may have been actively seeking Africans, Muslims or even African Muslims.
Similarly, they would not have mentioned Pakistani as it is a nationality, but they may have quoted Asian, as a race.

So your hypothetical example is an example of discrimination, discrimination against Pakistani, and in favour of Somalians, not PA.

 

[RogueHanger]

You're not wrong Mitch.

This thread should have ended about 46 pages ago with something like

Someone says: “PA is discrimination”

R.H. “No it’s not”

THE END

The very telling thing and a constant theme throughout this thread is that he’s more interested in the law than discrimination itself. He didn’t come to his senses on PD because he saw it for what it was, (like we did before his eureka moment), he did so because of the law.

That is quite damning and he’s still coming up with the same nonsense on PA; i.e. that it doesn’t discriminate, when we can see it does. I think he's just trolling now...

I had a chat with a friend who works in NHS (QE in liver dept) and showed him your posts, BT.
He was a little appalled that you didn't fully state that your views are yours alone and in no way inidicative of the NHS.
He told me that NHS fully supports and utilises PA.
He referred me to this website:
http://www.nhsbreakingthrough.co.uk/FAQs/Default.aspx

He suggested that you should make it very clear that your views are not those expressed by NHS.

 

[RogueHanger]

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

You can look them up for yourself. Have you not read it?

I could have done if you'd provided a link to your souce material. You didn't. I couldn't.

You linked to it to, presumably, back up your cause.

So why didn't you follow my example?

EFLI probably didn't link to it, because you had already provided the link. I think it's reasonable to assume you have actually read items you link to. Shame on you RH

For not being a mind reader, I accept full responsibility.

The accepted practice is to acknowledge your sources, not assume the reader guesses where your infomation comes from.


It's basic rules:

The reader is invited to assume that everything not covered by a citation represents the author's own work or common knowledge.
http://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/softeng/handbook/acknowledgement.html[/QUOTE]

But you knew that all along, didn't you?

 

[jockscott]

But,, RH we all thought you'd bother to read the links you use. Apparently in this case you didn't.. Makes me wonder if you read through any of the links you put on threads. I do wonder now if you google links then copy and paste without clicking them.

 

[RogueHanger]

But,, RH we all thought you'd bother to read the links you use. Apparently in this case you didn't.. Makes me wonder if you read through any of the links you put on threads. I do wonder now if you google links then copy and paste without clicking them.

Of course I have a photographic memory and I can remember exactly what each reference that I refer to might contain.

Be sensible, not a halfwit. you know you want to be. [/i]