Fancy a new job?

Lots of different points there..

Sec 13 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/13
covers the disability etc.

I deliberately didn't pick disability examples, previously because they are exempt.

So back to the discrimination part. A white Male / female is considered less favourably as they can only be considered if they are from a disadvantaged socio-economic background. A black male /female does not need to tick this box. It is therefore discriminatory.

not disadvantaged and BAME - your in
not disadvantaged and white - no chance

socio-economic discrimination is not unlawful.

But that's not discrimination against a protected characteristic, that's discrimination because of a protected characteristic
Click to expand...
.

No thats an operational exemption/legitimate goal.

You cannot have a legitimate goal of excluding white people because you want more BAMES.

if in doubt - blame the lawyers
news.sky.com

Royal Air Force unlawfully discriminated against white male recruits in bid to boost diversity, inquiry finds

The Royal Air Force unlawfully discriminated against white men in a recruitment drive aimed at boosting diversity, an official inquiry has found.
news.sky.com news.sky.com
 
Sponsored Links
It doesn't have to exclude them just treat them less favourably.
 
motorbiking said:
It doesn't have to exclude them just treat them less favourably.
Click to expand...
Some people are a bit green round the gills, it's not just come on the scene, back in the 1970s employers were employing people who wouldn't make the grade as long as they had an hole in their ar*e
 
Sponsored Links
Why do you claim that?

Are you suggesting a non-disabled, white male from a middle class background is eligible.
 
I think thats what the RAF hoped they were doing, they were wrong.

It's ok to target, encourage, support etc etc. But you cross the line if you have a job advert like the one in this thread.

They think they can get away with it by making it a non-job. A scholarship, etc. It probably isn't.
 
motorbiking said:
Why do you claim that?

Are you suggesting a non-disabled, white male from a middle class background is eligible.
Click to expand...
Read the advert.

Read ALL of the qualifying criteria, not just the bit that everybody jumps at.

And then ask yourself, given the details of the job, what people are most likely to apply.

It's just a cleverly worded advert that has triggered the usual suspects
 
I read both the advert and the JD. According to you: is a white male, non-disabled person from a middle class background encouraged to apply under the criteria? Then ask yourself, what is the opposite of encourage? Then ask yourself is that treating someone less favourably.

They think they can get away with it. Not because its a carefully worded JD, but because they think its isn't a job.
 
motorbiking said:
I think thats what the RAF hoped they were doing, they were wrong.

It's ok to target, encourage, support etc etc. But you cross the line if you have a job advert like the one in this thread.

They think they can get away with it by making it a non-job. A scholarship, etc. It probably isn't.
Click to expand...
They clearly are 'getting away with it'. :rolleyes:
And as I said pages ago, I'm quietly confident that they have taken sufficient legal advice to make your opinion worthless.

You could offer your services to anyone who wishes to take action against TfL, Best of luck with that. :rolleyes:

You do have a habit of taking issue with large organisations over their supposed illegal practices.
I suggest you set yourself up as a people's champion against such issues. Ypu appear to think you have a better understanding of these issues than a myriad of specialist legal advisors. :rolleyes:

It isn't a job, it's a one-year scholarship.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Sponsored Links
Back
Top