[Goneinsixtyseconds]

Originally Posted by Craig-SM

Yes, it normally comes down to qualifications, experience and fit within the team. Most people start at the bottom for their qualification and lack of experience. As they gain in experience they are considered for better positions that help the company and everyone else in it. If you put someone in a place that would have been better suited to another candidate just because of their skin colour then no one benefits from it.

Who would you like to be the surgeon operating on your life threatening condition.Someone who has done the operation many times with a great track record. Alternatively you could have the positive discrimination candidate who has done the surgery on a dummy and knows the theory but yet to have experience on an actual person. What's your choice?

So the best you can come up with is a totally exaggerated and unrealistic example.

They wouldn’t be selected for interview if they weren’t good enough to do the job in the first place.

I’ve recruited on gut feeling before. He had qualifications and experience, but he was less experienced, and had less qualifications than other applicants. But I could tell he had drive and something about him, so he got the job and he hasn’t looked back since.

Now at that time I wasn’t even considering race or skin colour, but he did happen to be an Asian Muslim. I then saw what my colleagues made of that. Text message jokes about the new guy Alex recruited. I didn’t speak out, other than to ask them to stop including me on the circulation of them. I would do more now.

My boss, who I’d always considered something of a father figure and a kind man, found a way to surprise me with his racism. He came into the office and asked Sayed if he could take a joke, to which Sayed said yes. My boss then said to him, would you mind putting your rucksack outside, it’s making me nervous.

Sayed went into the warehouse, he was the manager, and on that occasion I did pull my boss for his actions. I doubt it made much difference when he wasn’t in my company, but he didn’t do it again when he was.

I think in some industries, mine included, some positive discrimination is required to balance the conscious and unconscious decisions of others. It is very white male dominated. Is that because they’re the only ones that can do the job? Of course it isn’t, so something needs to be done to make sure the industry is more diverse and inclusive.

[Hooded]

Originally Posted by Goneinsixtyseconds

Yeah, let’s get him. We could all chase him down the street, beat him a bit maybe.

I’m sure course of action will teach em and stop all the protests.

Or maybe we could just quietly report him to the police and let them deal with it quietly. I think I’d prefer that route to a lynch mob fuelled by social media outrage.

Me too, so don’t get your panties in a twist

It was simply reinforcing my agreement with what JNW1 had posted regarding ‘far more likely to alienate people than gain their support’.

[Goneinsixtyseconds]

Originally Posted by Hooded

Me too, so don’t get your panties in a twist
It was simply reinforcing my agreement with what JNW1 had posted regarding ‘far more likely to alienate people than gain their support’.

By sharing an image on social media that is being circulated elsewhere to track this man down. Got you.

Of course he shouldn’t be encouraging damage to a Churchill statue.

Wonder why they want to locate him though. Quickly. Doesn’t sound threatening to me at all. I think it’ll be to just give him a friendly history lesson.

After all, it’s outrageous to think people might be angry, emotional and violent. In fact I’m going to tell them how wrong it is by being angry, emotional and violent. That’ll teach them.

[Hooded]

Originally Posted by Goneinsixtyseconds

By sharing an image on social media that is being circulated elsewhere to track this man down. Got you.

Of course he shouldn’t be encouraging damage to a Churchill statue.

Wonder why they want to locate him though. Quickly. Doesn’t sound threatening to me at all. I think it’ll be to just give him a friendly history lesson.

After all, it’s outrageous to think people might be angry, emotional and violent. In fact I’m going to tell them how wrong it is by being angry, emotional and violent. That’ll teach them.

I haven't shared anything on social media, its simply something that is going around on there which I noticed after reading a post on here where it was mentioned that some people might be alienated, which it looks like they are!

I never said anything about agreeing with the social media post though, so wind your neck in a bit

[Goneinsixtyseconds]

Originally Posted by Hooded

I haven't shared anything on social media, its simply something that is going around on there which I noticed after reading a post on here where it was mentioned that some people might be alienated, which it looks like they are!

I never said anything about agreeing with the social media post though, so wind your neck in a bit

This is social media

[Hooded]

Originally Posted by Goneinsixtyseconds

This is social media

I don't personally consider motoring forums and the like as 'social media'. When I use that term I'm referring to what people traditionally refer to as social media, the likes of Face Book and Twitter etc.

[KRS_SN]

is criminal damage to statues and monuments fair?
is criminal damage to sadam husseins statue and adolf hitlers sratues fair?
There is a distinction between the 2 above.
Standing statues of horrible people who did things which may have been acceptable in the past(like enslavement and sale of people) in modern Britain is wrong. This is the main issue.

[JNW1]

Originally Posted by KRS_SN

is criminal damage to statues and monuments fair?
is criminal damage to sadam husseins statue and adolf hitlers sratues fair?
There is a distinction between the 2 above.
Standing statues of horrible people who did things which may have been acceptable in the past(like enslavement and sale of people) in modern Britain is wrong. This is the main issue.

Criminal damage in the UK is illegal so if there's a desire to have a statue removed it should go through the proper process and be done in the correct way - mob rule isn't the way forward IMO.

[Goneinsixtyseconds]

Originally Posted by Hooded

I don't personally consider motoring forums and the like as 'social media'. When I use that term I'm referring to what people traditionally refer to as social media, the likes of Face Book and Twitter etc.

Fair enough. 1255 views of this thread and counting though. I imagine your Facebook account gets less online exposure.

[Goneinsixtyseconds]

Originally Posted by JNW1

Criminal damage in the UK is illegal so if there's a desire to have a statue removed it should go through the proper process and be done in the correct way - mob rule isn't the way forward IMO.

What proper process do you suggest?

The Colston statue went through lots of “proper” processes. Since the 90’s there have been several campaigns and petitions to have it removed. Since 2018 there has been several versions of a new plaque suggested to reflect history, with most versions rejected by one group or another and stuck in a never ending bureaucratic circle.

I imagine that after 30 years of peaceful campaigns patience might have worn a little thin. I think it’s fair to suggest that voices have not been listened to.

Imagine the process to remove statues of less controversial people, how long would that take?

[Craig-SM]

Originally Posted by Goneinsixtyseconds

So the best you can come up with is a totally exaggerated and unrealistic example.

They wouldn’t be selected for interview if they weren’t good enough to do the job in the first place.

I’ve recruited on gut feeling before. He had qualifications and experience, but he was less experienced, and had less qualifications than other applicants. But I could tell he had drive and something about him, so he got the job and he hasn’t looked back since.

It was yourself that started the criteria for who should get the position. I just put it into a role. In my example they both had the same qualifications, one had less experience but was a positive discrimination candidate. The same as you listed in your criteria below and in your example above.

Originally Posted by Goneinsixtyseconds

How do you determine the best person?

The one with the most qualifications and most experience? Good argument. In my industry that is generally a 40 year old white man.

If others that aren’t traditionally working in that sector, women and ethnic minorities for example, aren’t sometimes helped along by positive discrimination, how will they ever become the best candidate for the position?

I will give you two examples. First when I was in the army and on completion of our leadership course the highest rated soldier got an instant promotion. At the time we had two coloured soldiers in the regiment. One was a staff sergeant, well liked and Sikh. The other was just out of training. He got nicknamed Flash, not because he was fast but the opposite in brain speed, he was of African origin but born and bred in Birmingham. Anyway Flash seemed to be struggling on the course but somehow didn’t get kicked off. It was a surprise that at the end of the course that he was announced along with another as top soldier and got promoted. 4 months after we were getting ready to go on tour to Northern Ireland and Flash was moved to a position normally done by a private as punishment and stayed behind in Germany where couldn’t do any harm.
Second example much later and we were recruiting for an accounts junior. The position was met with lots of applications. The majority were ignored just because they weren’t suitable. Further thinned out by those that failed the practical part of the process. The right candidate was given the job and we recommended a second to a client. A month later we received a letter from a solicitor accusing us of not selecting a candidate on racial grounds and he was going to sue us. It only took a letter explaining that they didn’t get through the practical part of the interview and the successful applicant was from Ghana. We never heard from them again.

You put the right person in the position and everyone benefits. When skills and experience are matched then it who will fit into your team best and bring something that you’re lacking. Colour of their skin is irrelevant.

[Goneinsixtyseconds]

Originally Posted by Craig-SM

It was yourself that started the criteria for who should get the position. I just put it into a role. In my example they both had the same qualifications, one had less experience but was a positive discrimination candidate. The same as you listed in your criteria below and in your example above.



I will give you two examples. First when I was in the army and on completion of our leadership course the highest rated soldier got an instant promotion. At the time we had two coloured soldiers in the regiment. One was a staff sergeant, well liked and Sikh. The other was just out of training. He got nicknamed Flash, not because he was fast but the opposite in brain speed, he was of African origin but born and bred in Birmingham. Anyway Flash seemed to be struggling on the course but somehow didn’t get kicked off. It was a surprise that at the end of the course that he was announced along with another as top soldier and got promoted. 4 months after we were getting ready to go on tour to Northern Ireland and Flash was moved to a position normally done by a private as punishment and stayed behind in Germany where couldn’t do any harm.
Second example much later and we were recruiting for an accounts junior. The position was met with lots of applications. The majority were ignored just because they weren’t suitable. Further thinned out by those that failed the practical part of the process. The right candidate was given the job and we recommended a second to a client. A month later we received a letter from a solicitor accusing us of not selecting a candidate on racial grounds and he was going to sue us. It only took a letter explaining that they didn’t get through the practical part of the interview and the successful applicant was from Ghana. We never heard from them again.

You put the right person in the position and everyone benefits. When skills and experience are matched then it who will fit into your team best and bring something that you’re lacking. Colour of their skin is irrelevant.

It was a ridiculous example and remains so. Whilst I haven’t been through surgical training, and I assume you haven’t either, I don’t imagine that a newly qualified doctor that has never operated on a person gets to just go ahead on their own in any circumstance. Also medical training isn’t just carried out on dummies. It’s carried out on real people. And in your example they presumably never get a job, so there wasn’t much point in getting their qualifications.

And the most experienced person for each individual role doesn’t necessarily make up the most effective workforce if there is no diversity at all.

Take the very small current government covid strategy team. All made up of privately educated middle aged men. I suspect that they would have benefitted from some different viewpoints in their strategy meetings, even if on an individual level they were the best people for the job.

[jackstrath]

Originally Posted by Goneinsixtyseconds

What proper process do you suggest?

The Colston statue went through lots of “proper” processes. Since the 90’s there have been several campaigns and petitions to have it removed. Since 2018 there has been several versions of a new plaque suggested to reflect history, with most versions rejected by one group or another and stuck in a never ending bureaucratic circle.

I imagine that after 30 years of peaceful campaigns patience might have worn a little thin. I think it’s fair to suggest that voices have not been listened to.

Imagine the process to remove statues of less controversial people, how long would that take?

I dont know the full ins and outs but if after all them years it wasn't removed it almost sounds like the greater population of Bristol didn't want it removed, or at least wasn't as bothered by it.... Where do you draw the line? Anyone could take offence to anything.
Im not justifying the actions of the man the statue is off, but why now? How has it lasted all these years if it was such a big issue? Surly it would of been tossed in the drink long ago? I do feel the "rioting" side of the protesters is just people looking for an excuse to cause criminal damage....
I think the fact that the mayor of the town didn't see the need to remove it as soon as he became a public figure says it all.

[Craig-SM]

Originally Posted by Goneinsixtyseconds

It was a ridiculous example and remains so. Whilst I haven’t been through surgical training, and I assume you haven’t either, I don’t imagine that a newly qualified doctor that has never operated on a person gets to just go ahead on their own in any circumstance. Also medical training isn’t just carried out on dummies. It’s carried out on real people. And in your example they presumably never get a job, so there wasn’t much point in getting their qualifications.

And the most experienced person for each individual role doesn’t necessarily make up the most effective workforce if there is no diversity at all.

Take the very small current government covid strategy team. All made up of privately educated middle aged men. I suspect that they would have benefitted from some different viewpoints in their strategy meetings, even if on an individual level they were the best people for the job.

It was your criteria just put into a context.

You may want to look at the list of SAGE advisors and seen they’re not all white middle aged men, no idea where they were educated

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...ted-sub-groups

Stop reading racism into everything as it doesn’t help

[Alscoob]

Originally Posted by JR1664

Down our way the loony left have decided to pick on Baden Powell

https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/ne...hour-security/

It transpires this totally innocuous statue appeared on a far left socialist website as something to target. The liberal council leader did a knee jerk and said she'd remove it, blaming it on Police advice who quickly came back and said they didn't advise her to remove it.

I popped down today to view the scene and feelings are running high to say the least so the council have backed down.

The worlds gone mad.

Agreed. Next they'll be saying the Italians should dismantle the Colosseum for the persecution of the Christian and the use of slave labour from other countries !

[KRS_SN]

There is a distinction between statues of people who held a different view and are heroes who saved Britain and imperialists who engaged in looting the wealth from a different country thereby stifling their growth and businessmen who uprooted people of colour from their homeland and killed maimed and enslaved them.
If 90% of people in a city are not bothered by such a statue it means nothing other than they don't understand the offence that statue causes to 10% of the population.

[KRS_SN]

I arrived in the UK in 2004. On my way to work my first day in the hospital as I am about to enter A and E in scrubs a 5 year old and his young mom were walking by.
The kid says to her mom loudly ' Is this what you call a tax paying alien'
The mom chortled and looked at the son in pride and their eyes met.
Clearly the boy had been coached. Broke my heart but I couldn't respond as it was my first experience of someone taking a shot at me just because they enjoyed it and felt they could do it.
Let me acknowledge that people like this are a tiny minority.

[Goneinsixtyseconds]

Originally Posted by jackstrath

I dont know the full ins and outs but if after all them years it wasn't removed it almost sounds like the greater population of Bristol didn't want it removed, or at least wasn't as bothered by it.... Where do you draw the line? Anyone could take offence to anything.
Im not justifying the actions of the man the statue is off, but why now? How has it lasted all these years if it was such a big issue? Surly it would of been tossed in the drink long ago? I do feel the "rioting" side of the protesters is just people looking for an excuse to cause criminal damage....
I think the fact that the mayor of the town didn't see the need to remove it as soon as he became a public figure says it all.

Which part about the multiple campaigns and petitions, without success, did you miss?

[Goneinsixtyseconds]

Just seen this exchange shared from Twitter

Martin - the statue was erected for his philanthropy in Bristol, not his activity in the slave trade

Matt - hi Martin, am I alright building a statue of Jimmy Saville on your front garden. For his charity work obviously, not his paedophilia

[MashinBenzin]

Originally Posted by Goneinsixtyseconds

Just seen this exchange shared from Twitter

Martin - the statue was erected for his philanthropy in Bristol, not his activity in the slave trade

Matt - hi Martin, am I alright building a statue of Jimmy Saville on your front garden. For his charity work obviously, not his paedophilia

[Goneinsixtyseconds]

Originally Posted by Craig-SM

It was your criteria just put into a context.

You may want to look at the list of SAGE advisors and seen they’re not all white middle aged men, no idea where they were educated

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...ted-sub-groups

Stop reading racism into everything as it doesn’t help

I don’t mean the Sage advisors, I mean the cabinet committee that was made up of Boris, Gove, Hancock and Sunak, all then controlled by Cummings.

Diversity doesn’t just mean colour, I think it could have benefited from a woman’s point of view for example.

In England when loosening lockdown we went with 2 families totalling 6 people that could meet up. In Scotland at the same time they went for 8. I think that difference was purely from understanding family units better. A family of 4, fairly common, can meet almost no other family, with even 1 child, and stay within the 6 limit. Which led to loads of people breaking the rules anyway from what I could see in the local parks.

You are entitled to your opinion that diversity isn’t important, it’s just the best person for each job that matters. And I will continue in my belief that diversity benefits a team of workers as a whole unit.

It’s hard to believe that in this age, that someone doesn’t believe diversity is important. Diversity provides diversity of thought, not just a line up of different skin colours or sexes to make up numbers.

[Craig-SM]

Originally Posted by Goneinsixtyseconds

I don’t mean the Sage advisors, I mean the cabinet committee that was made up of Boris, Gove, Hancock and Sunak, all then controlled by Cummings.

Diversity doesn’t just mean colour, I think it could have benefited from a woman’s point of view for example.

In England when loosening lockdown we went with 2 families totalling 6 people that could meet up. In Scotland at the same time they went for 8. I think that difference was purely from understanding family units better. A family of 4, fairly common, can meet almost no other family, with even 1 child, and stay within the 6 limit. Which led to loads of people breaking the rules anyway from what I could see in the local parks.

You are entitled to your opinion that diversity isn’t important, it’s just the best person for each job that matters. And I will continue in my belief that diversity benefits a a team of workers as a whole unit.

It’s hard to believe that in this age, that someone doesn’t believe diversity is important. Diversity provides diversity of thought, not just skin colour or sex to make up numbers.

Where did I say that diversity doesn't matter? Just because your argument is weak don't resort to making things up.

What the lockdown measures and meeting up with other family members has to do with statues being removed I have no idea.
Same with the argument that 1 in 4 of the cabinet committee being BAME wasn't good enough, even though it is double the national average by population. It should have been a female BAME but I guess if Priti Patel was on there it still wouldn't have suited you and should have been LQBT BAME too.

Your argument is weak and constantly changing, stating things that have never been said or implied by others is pathetic too.