Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2023 18:24:10 GMT
However much you wish to pretend it isn’t so, the simple fact is that it is illegal to base employment decisions on race. Sorry guys that is simply a fact. Unless there is a positive discrimination action policy, dappy. The positive action measures in the Equality Act 2010 allows employers to take proportionate action that aims to reduce disadvantage, meet different needs and increase participation. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2023 18:25:05 GMT
However much you wish to pretend it isn’t so, the simple fact is that it is illegal to base employment decisions on race. Sorry guys that is simply a fact. I was under no illusion that you'd accept it. You rely on the headline and not the details. That's OK, it's like I said before, there's a higher authority over this collectivism. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Sept 25, 2023 19:46:25 GMT
However much you wish to pretend it isn’t so, the simple fact is that it is illegal to base employment decisions on race. Sorry guys that is simply a fact. I am afraid it is a 'fact' that is not actually a fact. If it was a fact then there would be no need in equality and inclusion policies to refer to unlawful discrimination which clearly indicates that there is lawful discrimination. The problem being of course that the lawful discrimination proportionally negatively affects white British individuals far more than ethnic minority individuals, if affects them at all. A specific example would be training whereby some ethnic minority individuals were not sufficiently trained for promotion. On the basis of their race they can be given extra training to ensure they are equally as qualified as the white British individuals who were already adequately trained. Then to pile insult on injury if they are equally qualified the ethnic minority person can be selected for the position based on his racial profile, which of course means the white British person can be discriminated against based on his racial profile. This is called lawful discrimination, no matter which way you turn it, look at it, shuffle it about and try and justify it it is basing an employment decision(s) on race. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Sept 25, 2023 20:31:47 GMT
per dappy: "We have established that the racial mix of fast track offerees is broadly in line with the racial mix of the 18-24 age group from which they are drawn."
We have?
"If you wish to claim that the racial mix of the graduate subset of 18-24s differs materially from the total racial mix for that age, you need to show some evidence."
That's not the claim, as you well know. What is however incontrovertible is that the intake into the Civil Service Fast Stream is wildly out of sync with the racial composition of the racial composition of the undergraduate degree awards made by UK universities.
In 2021, for example, 256,980 white students were awarded degrees, compared to 85,785 non whites.
If you still maintain that Fast Stream places ought to be awarded on the basis of the racial composition of the graduate stream then more than 75% of places ought to have been awarded to white* applicants. This is little different from the proportion based upon the white British proportion of the population. Whichever way you want to slice or dice it white British are seriously under-represented as I have maintained from the outset.
*White in this context more or less equates to White British since the statistics in question do not include foreign students, whether EU/EEA or elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Sept 25, 2023 20:34:26 GMT
Sandy, let’s keep this simple.
A) Two applicants go for a job with Acme Widgets Ltd. A is judged on fair criteria to be a better candidate for the job than person B. A has black skin, B has white skin. Would it be legal for Acme to award the job to B
B) Two applicants go for a job with Acme Widgets Ltd. A is judged on fair criteria to be a better candidate for the job than person B. A has white skin, B has black skin. Would it be legal for Acme to award the job to B
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Sept 25, 2023 20:42:05 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Sept 25, 2023 20:51:09 GMT
per dappy: "We have established that the racial mix of fast track offerees is broadly in line with the racial mix of the 18-24 age group from which they are drawn." We have? "If you wish to claim that the racial mix of the graduate subset of 18-24s differs materially from the total racial mix for that age, you need to show some evidence." That's not the claim, as you well know. What is however incontrovertible is that the intake into the Civil Service Fast Stream is wildly out of sync with the racial composition of the racial composition of the undergraduate degree awards made by UK universities. In 2021, for example, 256,980 white students were awarded degrees, compared to 85,785 non whites. If you still maintain that Fast Stream places ought to be awarded on the basis of the racial composition of the graduate stream then more than 75% of places ought to have been awarded to white* applicants. This is little different from the proportion based upon the white British proportion of the population. Whichever way you want to slice or dice it white British are seriously under-represented as I have maintained from the outset. *White in this context more or less equates to White British since the statistics in question do not include foreign students, whether EU/EEA or elsewhere. Dan No offence but do you understand maths? The figures you have just quoted completely undermine the story you have tried to portray. Let’s summarise the figures. Proportion of 18-24 population that have white skin - 75.8% Proportion of 2021 graduates that have white skin - 75.0% Proportion of acceptees to fast track in 2021 that have white skin - 76.6% Yet you claim anti-white skin discrimination What on earth are you talking about? |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Sept 25, 2023 20:54:14 GMT
However much you wish to pretend it isn’t so, the simple fact is that it is illegal to base employment decisions on race. Sorry guys that is simply a fact. Seems that dappy's 'facts' don't have much relevance to the real world..  from a Black, Asian or ethnic minority background, |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Sept 25, 2023 20:57:19 GMT
Sandy, let’s keep this simple. A) Two applicants go for a job with Acme Widgets Ltd. A is judged on fair criteria to be a better candidate for the job than person B. A has black skin, B has white skin. Would it be legal for Acme to award the job to B B) Two applicants go for a job with Acme Widgets Ltd. A is judged on fair criteria to be a better candidate for the job than person B. A has white skin, B has black skin. Would it be legal for Acme to award the job to B You are dealing with unlawful discrimination, my point is as regards lawful discrimination. In ACME widgets a managerial position opens up. There is only one suitably qualified candidate who is white. The company trains up several ethnic minority candidates (by choosing them through racial discrimination) to a level equal to the white candidate and decide that one of them is equally qualified to do the job. The selection process then judges the white and ethnic minority candidates to be equally qualified and can therefore choose the ethnic minority by applying racial discrimination and rejecting the white candidate on that basis. This is lawful discrimination and it is undoubtedly racial discrimination. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Sept 25, 2023 20:58:44 GMT
Actually dappy, yet again you are confusing anti-white discrimination with anti white British discrimination.
I do wish you could develop the habit of reading a little more carefully.
The proportion of 2021 graduates that have 'white skin' are almost entirely white British. The note that no foreign students were included ought to have provided you with enough of a clue as to that.
Are you really that dense?
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Sept 25, 2023 21:07:36 GMT
No they are not. You have just made that up! Of course some white graduates will be white Irish ancestry or white other - eg Polish ancestry just like some of the general population and some of the acceptees to the fast track scheme.
You have dug yourself a huge great hole and keep digging. Very amusing it’s true but put the shovel down while you have a shred of dignity remaining.
|
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Sept 25, 2023 21:11:07 GMT
They are not my words, they are a copy and pasted definition of Civil Liberty. They refer to being subjected the laws of the land established for the good of the country. A right to be treated equally and fairly? I just told you - the words are not wrong, but you are interpreting them incorrectly. I gave an illustration (a marriage proposal) to show that your interpretation is absurd. I did not interpret anything, I just posted some information. Sorry but your post is the one that is absurd. My other point was 'Justice and Fairness' are they not a requirement for a get along society? |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Sept 25, 2023 21:21:00 GMT
Why has such discrimination been made legal? |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Sept 25, 2023 21:24:09 GMT
Sandy, let’s keep this simple. A) Two applicants go for a job with Acme Widgets Ltd. A is judged on fair criteria to be a better candidate for the job than person B. A has black skin, B has white skin. Would it be legal for Acme to award the job to B B) Two applicants go for a job with Acme Widgets Ltd. A is judged on fair criteria to be a better candidate for the job than person B. A has white skin, B has black skin. Would it be legal for Acme to award the job to B You are dealing with unlawful discrimination, my point is as regards lawful discrimination. In ACME widgets a managerial position opens up. There is only one suitably qualified candidate who is white. The company trains up several ethnic minority candidates (by choosing them through racial discrimination) to a level equal to the white candidate and decide that one of them is equally qualified to do the job. The selection process then judges the white and ethnic minority candidates to be equally qualified and can therefore choose the ethnic minority by applying racial discrimination and rejecting the white candidate on that basis. This is lawful discrimination and it is undoubtedly racial discrimination. I suppose that is a long way of saying the actions in both A and B scenario would be illegal. Which is what I have been saying all along. In the sweet way of this forum no doubt we will have exactly the same conversation debunking exactly the same lie in a month or two. And on it goes…. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Sept 25, 2023 21:29:57 GMT
Why has such discrimination been made legal? If racial discrimination is morally indefensible then it should not have been made legal. However we are now in the situation where racial discrimination is OK when some say it is OK and that defeats the moral argument for making the laws in the first place. Any individual discriminated against because of the colour of his skin to his specific disadvantage is surely morally unacceptable? |
|
