Reform Policies

[festive]

So you don't want to have rights and you want discrimination...

Prime deform cannon fodder!

What have you taking?

But just for a laugh, tell us who you think it's racist against.

I will answer it also if i may.

I’m fully supportive of equality (believe me i absolutely am!!) and the aim of removing barriers so that everyone has a fair opportunity. Where I struggle is when equality is applied in a way that overrides merit, experience, or suitability for a role.

If diversity becomes a deciding factor rather than an enabler of fair access, there’s a risk that the best candidate can be overlooked simply because they’re seen as the “expected” or “common” choice. That doesn’t serve the organisation, the role, or equality itself, that happens too many times, and that is the crux of the issue here.

True equality, to me, means widening the pool and judging everyone by the same standards, not adjusting outcomes to fit a predetermined balance. That is absoutely crucial. This is the problem, oh i didn't get the job because i am 'X'. No sorry its mostly about profit for the company, its about maximising profit first and if the cap fits....in my line of work its predominantly men, id love more women in there for other qualities they bring but if i used the equality policies we would end up losing to our competitors and failing as a business, you think that's right?

Or you can just stand there with a placard shouting racist sexist etc when the ideas dont align or you dont understand the reasons.

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

So you don't want to have rights and you want discrimination...

Prime deform cannon fodder!

What have you taking?

But just for a laugh, tell us who you think it's racist against.

You've just proven my point. That gullible people really are taken in by the loaded names they give to these toxic laws.

Obviously DEI is anti-white. And also creates friction between all races. Anyone of colour who does make the grade is likely to be seen by colleagues as "The DEI hire", so it's insulting to those of colour who have abillity.

Just ignore colour, it's the only non-racist way. If some races are less successful then provide them with education and training to give them more ability, don't just promote them beyond their ability.

 

[ellal]

I will answer it also if i may.

I’m fully supportive of equality (believe me i absolutely am!!) and the aim of removing barriers so that everyone has a fair opportunity. Where I struggle is when equality is applied in a way that overrides merit, experience, or suitability for a role.

If diversity becomes a deciding factor rather than an enabler of fair access, there’s a risk that the best candidate can be overlooked simply because they’re seen as the “expected” or “common” choice. That doesn’t serve the organisation, the role, or equality itself, that happens too many times, and that is the crux of the issue here.

True equality, to me, means widening the pool and judging everyone by the same standards, not adjusting outcomes to fit a predetermined balance. That is absoutely crucial. This is the problem, oh i didn't get the job because i am 'X'. No sorry its mostly about profit for the company, its about maximising profit first and if the cap fits....in my line of work its predominantly men, id love more women in there for other qualities they bring but if i used the equality policies we would end up losing to our competitors and failing as a business, you think that's right?

Or you can just stand there with a placard shouting racist sexist etc when the ideas dont align or you dont understand the reasons.

You are wrong in your placard presumption in this case

What you are talking about is positive discrimination not equality.

And it is often wrongly practised, but this is what is being used for the all the arguments about removing the act.

But you don't throw the bay out with the bath water...

You alter the interpretation, because to do otherwise means that we all lose our rights!

I'm sure if you have a female partner she'll love you wanting to reverse the shrinking pay gap

 

[festive]

You are wrong in your placard presumption in this case

What you are talking about is positive discrimination not equality.

And it is often wrongly practised, but this is what is being used for the all the arguments about removing the act.

But you don't throw the bay out with the bath water...

You alter the interpretation, because to do otherwise means that we all lose our rights!

I'm sure if you have a female partner she'll love you wanting to reverse the shrinking pay gap

I hear you Ellal, I think we’re actually closer in view than you’re suggesting. I told you I am not arguing against equality, or against 'an' Equality Act and I’m certainly not advocating rolling back protections that address real, evidenced disadvantage.

My point is precisely the distinction you mention: equality versus positive discrimination. Where that distinction becomes blurred in practice, it risks undermining trust in fair selection rather than strengthening it, it is currentlly being abused, i see it, businesses see it.

Adjusting how equality is interpreted or applied is a legitimate discussion, BUT!!! that cuts both ways ellal. If and when (lets not deny it doesn't happen) the interpretation drifts into outcome-driven decision making, it can create new unfairness while trying to correct old ones.

Supporting equal opportunity, 'closing pay gaps', and removing barriers doesn’t require sidelining merit or assuming that disagreement equals opposition to equality itself. Those goals aren’t in conflict and framing them as such doesn’t really move the conversation forward, and i bring you back to 'hes a liar its only 186k!' argument. I think and id like to think this is what they are addressing, lots of issues not just showing women a yellow card ' and pushing them/(us!) back into the kitchen'

I repeat this is another 186k argument... lets be real here.

 

[MNW67]

Reform are entirely in favour of equality.

The "equality" act is divisive and racist. It promotes inequality.

Repealing the equality act means repealing all race discrimination, sex discrimination and equal pay laws. Are Reform planning to introduce new laws. Or will there no protections for these groups. If not, it will be legal again to ban people from hotels and restaurants etc. because of the colour of their skin.

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

Anything related to DEI is the exact opposite of equality. DEI is about giving some an advantage over others, based on skin colour or gender, is utterly toxic and should be outlawed as soon as possible.

 

[motorbiking]

"Positive" discrimination and pushing "privilege" based on colour should not be part of any equality strategy.

It's one thing to prevent discrimination, its another to create an unfair playing field in an attempt to create balance.

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

As I say, if some groups aren't represented proportionally then target them with training and education to correct the balance.

Don't promote people beyond their talents just to correct an imbalance. It's not fair on them, others or the employers - who end up with someone less capable than they would recruit otherwise.

My suspicion is that those pushing DEI secretly believe that the minorities aren't actually capable of being educated, so racial discrimination is their patronising quick-fix solution. I really hope that this isn't the case, but targeted education would prove or disprove this.

 

[MNW67]

"Positive" discrimination and pushing "privilege" based on colour should not be part of any equality strategy.

It's one thing to prevent discrimination, its another to create an unfair playing field in an attempt to create balance.

My point was that the Equality Act is massive. It consolidated all the previous discrimination legislation. If it is repealed, it would take us back to pre-1968, to a time when it was legal to refuse people service in hotels, restaurants etc. based on the colour of their skin.

I was just wondering if that is what Reform supporters really want. Or whether there is a plan to do it more selectively.

 

[Highway Man]

My point was that the Equality Act is massive. It consolidated all the previous discrimination legislation. If it is repealed, it would take us back to pre-1968, to a time when it was legal to refuse people service in hotels, restaurants etc. based on the colour of their skin.

I was just wondering if that is what Reform supporters really want. Or whether there is a plan to do it more selectively.

No just the illegals out. No other gender than that.

 

[algas]

You only have to watch television to see that blacks are over represented , especially in the adverts, makes me want to puke !

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

I was just wondering if that is what Reform supporters really want. Or whether there is a plan to do it more selectively.

So just random unfounded prejudice against Reform voters then?

Reform voters mostly just want fairness and common sense, which is a long way from the toxic rubbish we're currently enduring from this current mob.

 

[blup]

Re form want to legislate so that anti Musslim discrimination is authorised, simple as that.

 

[MNW67]

So just random unfounded prejudice against Reform voters then?

Reform voters mostly just want fairness and common sense, which is a long way from the toxic rubbish we're currently enduring from this current mob.

Steady on.

Reform have just announced that they will repeal the Equality Act.

I am just explaining what is actually in the Equality Act.

And asking whether people who are minded to vote Reform, would still be in favour if they knew what repealing it would actually mean in practice. I wasn't attacking Reform voters. I was analysing the policy pronouncement.

 

[MNW67]

No just the illegals out. No other gender than that.

Agenda?