Time we woke up -

[Observer II]

The politically correct wave that's washing over our society, with demands for "diversity" in all areas of the workplace, has hit the RAF.   Seems the RAF is not recruiting white males in order to increase quotas of women and ethnic minorities, which imo is positive descrimination based on sexism and racism.   Since when does an organisation based on diversity represent the best on offer, surely that's got to be one based on merit.   85% of British subjects are white, so it's no surprise if organisations don't resemble a bag of jelly babies. 😠

[Observer II]

This woke disease continues to spread, with Universities, the womb of this cultural marxist insurgency, now changing entry qualification criteria to engineer entry by black Carribean applicants.   Rather than the simple A level requirements, they now have a contextualises addition to allow for "socially deprived" sections of the community to leap frog into an intake.  This will further dumb down the quality of graduates and ultimately our workforce, and place us on a trajectory comparable to sub-saharan Africa imo.   The position of Universities as the seed bed of dissent, has been with us for a long time, with it's generation of post war spies, like Burgess & MaClean;  but with the huge drive to increase student numbers under Bliar, we've seen the production of lefty liberal politicians and now the more sinister advent of political "activists", both overt and covert.  The overt variety block our roads and tear down statues, in attempts to re-write history; while the covert ones spread out to occupy positions of power in our civil service, media and corporate business, where they pursue PC policies without any accountability to the general public, who have no say in it.       😠  

[Bill]

I can live with a degree of political correctness and wokeness, but sometimes announcements come along that smack you in the face prompting some choice expletives.

One such news item had that effect on me yesterday when the BBC were announcing NASA’s readiness to return man to the moon. But rather than say man, they instead said it paved the way for the first person of colour and members of the LGBTQIA+ communities to venture to the moon. What a load of old crock.

 

Bill 😊

[Evil Sid]

I do sometimes wonder what the average (insert half a dozen random letters of tHe alphabet here) thinks of all this, or doesn't think as the case may be.

there seems to be a hard core set that stir up "trouble" (for want of a better word) about these issues but i would bet the "majority" just get on with their lives without even giving it a second thought and are probably just as sick and tired of "people" banging on about "inclusion" as anybody else.

I was dragged up in the 60's with all that that entailed where phrases such as "queer as a nine bob note" were commonplace and half the time were not meant as a nasty attack on a person but just as a description of how they were, my uncle springs to mind who was "queer" as they put it and unfortunately looked and sounded like your stereotypical example of what that implied at that time, roughed shirts and a foppish manner with a slight lisp.

i have relatives now who are confused by what orientation they should tag themselves as when filling out forms. (i generally opt for human)

At the end of the day the only question that needs to be asked is "can they do the job".

[Observer II]

7 hours ago, Evil Sid said:

 

At the end of the day the only question that needs to be asked is "can they do the job".

But it's not, and that's the point; a meritocracy would be colour blind; but what we have now is positive descrimination   😠

[Ian]

Unfortunately Companies are now biased in recruiting diverse individuals to fit with the Companies written policy for diversity rather than the best qualified / suited for the job. Don`t get me wrong I have nothing against individuals whatever their colour or sexuality but the bias has gone too far the other way now. Let’s get back to employing the right person for the job before starting to consider ethnicity or sexual persuasion.

[Confused52]

1 hour ago, Ian said:

Unfortunately Companies are now biased in recruiting diverse individuals to fit with the Companies written policy for diversity rather than the best qualified / suited for the job. Don`t get me wrong I have nothing against individuals whatever their colour or sexuality but the bias has gone too far the other way now. Let’s get back to employing the right person for the job before starting to consider ethnicity or sexual persuasion.

What you wish for is close to the only thing that is lawful, despite what many people think. Having a quota based purely on a protected characteristic is unlawful because it is positive discrimination which is not permitted by the Acts. Positive action is lawful, but amounts to using using a protected characteristic as a tie breaker when two candidates are otherwise equally suited.  They are also allowed, under positive action, to advertise roles in a way likely to encourage those with protected characteristics but that behaviour must not cause someone without that characteristic to have less chance of being selected for a role. It is about time the HR "wokeists" got taken to the cleaners by someone to really wake them up! Positive discrimination is only permitted where it is proportionate, such as not employing Men in Women's Refuges for the resident's well being. I find it unlikely that meeting a company policy objective that happens to be in vogue would meet the test of proportionality because it is not essential to make the operation meet its function.  </rant>

[Ian]

1 hour ago, Confused52 said:

What you wish for is close to the only thing that is lawful, despite what many people think. Having a quota based purely on a protected characteristic is unlawful because it is positive discrimination which is not permitted by the Acts. Positive action is lawful, but amounts to using using a protected characteristic as a tie breaker when two candidates are otherwise equally suited.  They are also allowed, under positive action, to advertise roles in a way likely to encourage those with protected characteristics but that behaviour must not cause someone without that characteristic to have less chance of being selected for a role. It is about time the HR "wokeists" got taken to the cleaners by someone to really wake them up! Positive discrimination is only permitted where it is proportionate, such as not employing Men in Women's Refuges for the resident's well being. I find it unlikely that meeting a company policy objective that happens to be in vogue would meet the test of proportionality because it is not essential to make the operation meet its function.  </rant>

Agreed Confused, but I’m sure you Are just as aware as I that justified tie breaks between equally qualified and experienced personnel can easily be manipulated within the decision making process.

[Confused52]

8 minutes ago, Ian said:

Agreed Confused, but I’m sure you Are just as aware as I that justified tie breaks between equally qualified and experienced personnel can easily be manipulated within the decision making process.

The thing is that a tie in every respect is a very unlikely event and if it happens often it is very likely to be unlawful manipulation .