|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 25, 2023 21:30:14 GMT
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? You did not just post a definition - you added a commentary Justice and fairness are important. Removing people's right to choose what they want for themselves is unjust and unfair. It is also a massive enabler for corruption (as we are seeing) |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Sept 26, 2023 6:24:27 GMT
Like I said Sandy, its a political choice balancing conflicting rights - just like for example speeding laws. Our representatives have decided that the need to prevent people from being treated unfairly based on race, sex, sexuality etc is more important than protecting the rights of those who wish to discriminate based on those characteristics. Choosing between conflicting rights is the essence of what politics is about. Hence we have jointly decided that it is not allowed under the law to base recruitment decisions on race - (in any direction) Bollocks. Read the Equality Act. It's perfectly legal to base recruitment decisions on race, for a whole host of reasons. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Sept 26, 2023 6:30:21 GMT
Black Lives Matter organiser behind the protest which toppled Edward Colston's statue in Bristol admits fraud after £30,000 raised from donors goes missing Xahra Saleem, 23, pleaded guilty to one count of fraud by abuse of position One of the organisers of the Black Lives Matter protest which saw slave trader Edward Colston's statue toppled has admitted fraud after £30,000 raised from donors went missing. Xahra Saleem, 23, pleaded guilty to one count of fraud by abuse of position following an investigation by Avon and Somerset Police into a GoFundMe page called 'BristBLM' set up ahead of the protest in Bristol in June 2020.  Xahra Saleem (pictured) has pleaded guilty to one count of fraud by abuse of position Saleem had set up the crowdfunding page to raise money for face masks and other equipment to help facilitate the march legally, given it was taking place at the time of the Covid-19 pandemic. An agreement is said to have been made that any excess funds would go to charity Changing Your Mindset Ltd - which was a youth group based in the St Pauls area of Bristol - so young people could go on a trip to Africa. The Colston statue was pushed into Bristol harbour on June 7, 2020, during protests related to the death of George Floyd in the US, and the subsequent global BLM movement.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Sept 26, 2023 8:15:46 GMT
Like I said Sandy, its a political choice balancing conflicting rights - just like for example speeding laws. Our representatives have decided that the need to prevent people from being treated unfairly based on race, sex, sexuality etc is more important than protecting the rights of those who wish to discriminate based on those characteristics. Choosing between conflicting rights is the essence of what politics is about. Hence we have jointly decided that it is not allowed under the law to base recruitment decisions on race - (in any direction) Bollocks. Read the Equality Act. It's perfectly legal to base recruitment decisions on race, for a whole host of reasons. The discussion so far in this thread has been limited to the application of positive action in employment decisions but you are right, the case law has allowed for many situations in which race may be used as the basis for recruitment decisions. As does the Equality Act itself with its exceptions for 'occupational requirements' (Schedule 9). |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Sept 26, 2023 10:08:10 GMT
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…. No it is not. It is a way of saying that racial selection for both training and employment can be, and often is, lawful. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Sept 26, 2023 10:36:38 GMT
The approach often taken is an oblique one where members of 'under-represented groups' are invited to apply for 'internships' which are likely to result in offer of employment if the intern meets the standard (whatever they may be). This recent initiative on behalf of the security services is typical for the genre. www.civilservicejobs.service.gov.uk/csr/jobs.cgi?jcode=1874533About YouYou’ll need to be in your penultimate or final year of university, from a Black, Asian or ethnic minority background, and from a socially or economically disadvantaged background. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Sept 26, 2023 10:47:22 GMT
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? You did not just post a definition - you added a commentary Justice and fairness are important. Removing people's right to choose what they want for themselves is unjust and unfair. It is also a massive enabler for corruption (as we are seeing) I did not add an interpretation, but I think that you did, and made an incorrect one with your comment. So where is the suggestion that one removes the other? How do you explain how one removes the other? What is the "corruption (as we are seeing)"? |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Sept 26, 2023 11:00:12 GMT
Black Lives Matter organiser behind the protest which toppled Edward Colston's statue in Bristol admits fraud after £30,000 raised from donors goes missing Xahra Saleem, 23, pleaded guilty to one count of fraud by abuse of position One of the organisers of the Black Lives Matter protest which saw slave trader Edward Colston's statue toppled has admitted fraud after £30,000 raised from donors went missing. Xahra Saleem, 23, pleaded guilty to one count of fraud by abuse of position following an investigation by Avon and Somerset Police into a GoFundMe page called 'BristBLM' set up ahead of the protest in Bristol in June 2020. Xahra Saleem (pictured) has pleaded guilty to one count of fraud by abuse of position Saleem had set up the crowdfunding page to raise money for face masks and other equipment to help facilitate the march legally, given it was taking place at the time of the Covid-19 pandemic. An agreement is said to have been made that any excess funds would go to charity Changing Your Mindset Ltd - which was a youth group based in the St Pauls area of Bristol - so young people could go on a trip to Africa. The Colston statue was pushed into Bristol harbour on June 7, 2020, during protests related to the death of George Floyd in the US, and the subsequent global BLM movement.
Yes more dishonesty, it's is found in all walks of life. Why the obsession with BLM organizations, they have nothing to do with footballers taking the knee in opposing racism? |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 26, 2023 11:19:57 GMT
You did not just post a definition - you added a commentary Justice and fairness are important. Removing people's right to choose what they want for themselves is unjust and unfair. It is also a massive enabler for corruption (as we are seeing) I did not add an interpretation, but I think that you did, and made an incorrect one with your comment. So where is the suggestion that one removes the other? How do you explain how one removes the other? What is the "corruption (as we are seeing)"? Yes you did add an interpretation. Do i have to go back and fish your post out? Go and take a look. If you have discretion to disallow my decisions, you have removed freedom from me and expanded your power. The corruption comes from people's inability to protect themselves from decisions they know are bad but are forced to make by the legislation - one simple example is the bloated HR departments that have no commercial purpose. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Sept 26, 2023 12:26:32 GMT
I did not add an interpretation, but I think that you did, and made an incorrect one with your comment. So where is the suggestion that one removes the other? How do you explain how one removes the other? What is the "corruption (as we are seeing)"? Yes you did add an interpretation. Do i have to go back and fish your post out? Go and take a look. If you have discretion to disallow my decisions, you have removed freedom from me and expanded your power. The corruption comes from people's inability to protect themselves from decisions they know are bad but are forced to make by the legislation - one simple example is the bloated HR departments that have no commercial purpose. I posted; "Civil Liberty. __"a person's rights to be subject only to laws established for the good of the community:"__ which does not include being subjected to or controlled by racism or prejudice. The latter part of that posted comment was pointing out an exclusion from the those Laws. You posted; "You are using words in that definition incorrectly - ie the word subject If you ask a person to marry you, you are (of course) subject to their refusal." That is where you have misinterpreted the meaning of the use of the word subject ~~~ subject only to laws established ~~~ Page 2 if you wish to look it up. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 26, 2023 12:36:52 GMT
Yes you did add an interpretation. Do i have to go back and fish your post out? Go and take a look. If you have discretion to disallow my decisions, you have removed freedom from me and expanded your power. The corruption comes from people's inability to protect themselves from decisions they know are bad but are forced to make by the legislation - one simple example is the bloated HR departments that have no commercial purpose. I posted; "Civil Liberty. __"a person's rights to be subject only to laws established for the good of the community:"__ which does not include being subjected to or controlled by racism or prejudice. The latter part of that posted comment was pointing out an exclusion from the those Laws. You posted; "You are using words in that definition incorrectly - ie the word subject If you ask a person to marry you, you are (of course) subject to their refusal." That is where you have misinterpreted the meaning of the use of the word subject ~~~ subject only to laws established ~~~ Page 2 if you wish to look it up. See2, You posted the following - "a person's rights to be subject only to laws established for the good of the community:"__ which does not include being subjected to or controlled by racism or prejudice.I take you can read the part in bold? The part in bold is not part of the definition is it? Your interpretation incorrectly suggests that nobody should be subject (colloquially) to anything at all that isn't law. This is not what it is saying. It is saying a government's interaction with citizens should be governed by law. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Sept 26, 2023 14:44:52 GMT
I posted; "Civil Liberty. __"a person's rights to be subject only to laws established for the good of the community:"__ which does not include being subjected to or controlled by racism or prejudice. The latter part of that posted comment was pointing out an exclusion from the those Laws. You posted; "You are using words in that definition incorrectly - ie the word subject If you ask a person to marry you, you are (of course) subject to their refusal." That is where you have misinterpreted the meaning of the use of the word subject ~~~ subject only to laws established ~~~ Page 2 if you wish to look it up. See2, You posted the following - "a person's rights to be subject only to laws established for the good of the community:"__ which does not include being subjected to or controlled by racism or prejudice.I take you can read the part in bold? The part in bold is not part of the definition is it? Your interpretation incorrectly suggests that nobody should be subject (colloquially) to anything at all that isn't law. This is not what it is saying. It is saying a government's interaction with citizens should be governed by law. Correct it is not part of the definition, it refers to those not covered by Civil Law. i.e. "which does not include". "Incorrectly suggests", That is your assertion, not only is it wrong but it is contradictory to what I have posted. Are you suggesting that it is ok to control people through racism or prejudice? The government's interaction with citizens, where appropriate, is governed by Civil Law. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2023 15:05:11 GMT
Trying to hide behind the law is one thing, but ignoring the law whilst doing so is dishonest and something to be expected from Blairites. There's enough evidence on this thread alone to determine that recruitment, especially within the civil service and overall public sectors, are relying of advertisements requesting specific races and/or ethnic backgrounds. That's a fact. IF you're going to support it then at least be honest about it. Admit to being a racist, otherwise your accusations of racism only demonstrates a severe case of self-loathing and a total lack of all human decency.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Sept 26, 2023 15:09:52 GMT
I posted; "Civil Liberty. __"a person's rights to be subject only to laws established for the good of the community:"__ which does not include being subjected to or controlled by racism or prejudice. The latter part of that posted comment was pointing out an exclusion from the those Laws. You posted; "You are using words in that definition incorrectly - ie the word subject If you ask a person to marry you, you are (of course) subject to their refusal." That is where you have misinterpreted the meaning of the use of the word subject ~~~ subject only to laws established ~~~ Page 2 if you wish to look it up. See2, You posted the following - "a person's rights to be subject only to laws established for the good of the community:"__ which does not include being subjected to or controlled by racism or prejudice.I take you can read the part in bold? The part in bold is not part of the definition is it? Your interpretation incorrectly suggests that nobody should be subject (colloquially) to anything at all that isn't law. This is not what it is saying. It is saying a government's interaction with citizens should be governed by law. Mabe this will help mate... |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Sept 29, 2023 9:59:38 GMT
Trying to hide behind the law is one thing, but ignoring the law whilst doing so is dishonest and something to be expected from Blairites. There's enough evidence on this thread alone to determine that recruitment, especially within the civil service and overall public sectors, are relying of advertisements requesting specific races and/or ethnic backgrounds. That's a fact. IF you're going to support it then at least be honest about it. Admit to being a racist, otherwise your accusations of racism only demonstrates a severe case of self-loathing and a total lack of all human decency. If the highlighted part of your post "is a fact" please provide proof. Either from this thread or from some authentic source. You might be correct but I ask because there is so much misinformation spouted by Rightists that it is unwise to take their clams as accurate. |
|
