|
|
Post by Gastafari on Feb 3, 2021 19:59:42 GMT
I'm making them up because it shows how absurd it is, that you're mentioning certain things as discrimination. You stated "As an example, if you were choosing a candidate between a pregnant lady vs a 30 year old man - i’d put my neck on the line that 99% of times the man will be hired. The only way he wouldn’t was if the woman was 100000x better" I then stated "On the point of a pregnant woman v 30 year old male, it could just be the fact that the majority of women, take maternity leave for sustained periods of time, I dont have the exact figures but im sure the amount of women who take maternity leave far outweighs the men taking paternity, so taking that into account, hiring a pregnant woman whose going to be away from work for a year/18 months/2 years or whatever comes into the consideration" So there you have it, it's not just the fact they're pregnant,there's other factors in it, and as I said, which we both agreed on it's hard to prove whether it's just because they're pregnant. The other factors come into it, which goes back to suitability to the role and also depending on what the role is. I didn't say anything about good business sense. I did say it would make bad business sense to employ somebody if they're not going to be able to do the role they've been employed to do for a substantial amount of time, however. So what points did I say that were absurd? And what you're saying is that a pregnant woman taking time off should not be selected for a role because she is taking time off because she's pregnant. You say you know the law, but if you did that, you'd be breaking it. That is a fact. It doesn't matter how you try and rephrase it, you're discriminating against her because she is going to have a baby. As it comes to it, I totally understand why you'd do it. But it still doesn't change the fact that its illegal and the system isnt good enough at protecting people from discrimination. The disability one. Again it depends on the scenario doesn't it? For the umpteenth time it depends on different factors, i.e Suitability to the role, what role it is, what line of work, what the work entails, as well as factoring in Maternity, Paternity, amount of time they'll be off. How far through the pregnancy are they,is it 1 week or 40 weeks, 2 weeks or 20 weeks. Has the employee even told their employer in sufficient time, I think its 15 weeks before the birth due date(I could be mistaken), etc, etc. Right at the very start of this conversation on this subject, we've pretty much agreed on it. It's very hard to prove whether a person is simply not being hired because she's pregnant. The same thing applies to the initial BBC link you've posted, which we also pretty much agreed on. |
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Feb 3, 2021 20:13:51 GMT
So what points did I say that were absurd? And what you're saying is that a pregnant woman taking time off should not be selected for a role because she is taking time off because she's pregnant. You say you know the law, but if you did that, you'd be breaking it. That is a fact. It doesn't matter how you try and rephrase it, you're discriminating against her because she is going to have a baby. As it comes to it, I totally understand why you'd do it. But it still doesn't change the fact that its illegal and the system isnt good enough at protecting people from discrimination. The disability one. Again it depends on the scenario doesn't it? For the umpteenth time it depends on different factors, i.e Suitability to the role, what role it is, what line of work, what the work entails, as well as factoring in Maternity, Paternity, amount of time they'll be off. How far through the pregnancy are they,is it 1 week or 40 weeks, 2 weeks or 20 weeks. Has the employee even told their employer in sufficient time, I think its 15 weeks before the birth due date(I could be mistaken), etc, etc. Right at the very start of this conversation on this subject, we've pretty much agreed on it. It's very hard to prove whether a person is simply not being hired because she's pregnant. The same thing applies to the initial BBC link you've posted, which we also pretty much agreed on. What you think, "not hiring someone disabled being they're in a wheelchair and it isn't practical for you" is absurd? Emphasis on the word practical. Please explain to me why that example specifically is "absurd" because there the "Suitability to the role, what role it is, what line of work, what the work entails" is not applicable. No where did I mention about whether they can do the job, I've only mentioned about not hiring a disabled person because it wasn't practical for you. You've made up an entire set of examples, tried to make them out as my opinion - when all I've done is give you one specific example which is a fact that you'd be discriminating against that person. And finally, your point about factoring maternity paternity and amount of time they'll be off is yet again, illegal and discriminatory. If you have such an issue with it, feel free to take it up with Boris. Not sure if there are any women on here reading the thread, but please be aware: Don't ever apply for a job whilst pregnant because Gastafari thinks you shouldn't get it because you're taking time off. Hell, it's just like "going travelling for 2 years". |
|
|
|
Post by Gastafari on Feb 3, 2021 20:47:55 GMT
The disability one. Again it depends on the scenario doesn't it? For the umpteenth time it depends on different factors, i.e Suitability to the role, what role it is, what line of work, what the work entails, as well as factoring in Maternity, Paternity, amount of time they'll be off. How far through the pregnancy are they,is it 1 week or 40 weeks, 2 weeks or 20 weeks. Has the employee even told their employer in sufficient time, I think its 15 weeks before the birth due date(I could be mistaken), etc, etc. Right at the very start of this conversation on this subject, we've pretty much agreed on it. It's very hard to prove whether a person is simply not being hired because she's pregnant. The same thing applies to the initial BBC link you've posted, which we also pretty much agreed on. What you think, "not hiring someone disabled being they're in a wheelchair and it isn't practical for you" is absurd? Emphasis on the word practical. Please explain to me why that example specifically is "absurd" because there the "Suitability to the role, what role it is, what line of work, what the work entails" is not applicable. No where did I mention about whether they can do the job, I've only mentioned about not hiring a disabled person because it wasn't practical for you. You've made up an entire set of examples, tried to make them out as my opinion - when all I've done is give you one specific example which is a fact that you'd be discriminating against that person. And finally, your point about factoring maternity paternity and amount of time they'll be off is yet again, illegal and discriminatory. If you have such an issue with it, feel free to take it up with Boris. Not sure if there are any women on here reading the thread, but please be aware: Don't ever apply for a job whilst pregnant because Gastafari thinks you shouldn't get it because you're taking time off. Hell, it's just like "going travelling for 2 years". I've already given you 2 examples on the disability front, I took it as you meant it isn't practical to the company or the occupation, hence my 2 examples, and why it would be applicable. Here's another one, would a company who specialises in voice over work for advertisements or one which is looking for Masters Of Ceremony's, hire a person who is mute? It wouldn't be discrimination would it? The role wouldn't be practical for both parties. Again, just showing the absurdity. My point about factoring maternity, paternity and amount of time they have off is not illegal or discriminatory at all. You cannot stay off work after your maternity leave has ended as you will lose your right to return to your old job. An employer does not have to agree to a further period off work. Again, your last sentence is poppy cock too, and once again it depends on the scenario. The fact that we've agreed on pretty much most things on this subject, it does seem bizarre how we're still arguing over such miniscule detail  |
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Feb 3, 2021 21:02:20 GMT
What you think, "not hiring someone disabled being they're in a wheelchair and it isn't practical for you" is absurd? Emphasis on the word practical. Please explain to me why that example specifically is "absurd" because there the "Suitability to the role, what role it is, what line of work, what the work entails" is not applicable. No where did I mention about whether they can do the job, I've only mentioned about not hiring a disabled person because it wasn't practical for you. You've made up an entire set of examples, tried to make them out as my opinion - when all I've done is give you one specific example which is a fact that you'd be discriminating against that person. And finally, your point about factoring maternity paternity and amount of time they'll be off is yet again, illegal and discriminatory. If you have such an issue with it, feel free to take it up with Boris. Not sure if there are any women on here reading the thread, but please be aware: Don't ever apply for a job whilst pregnant because Gastafari thinks you shouldn't get it because you're taking time off. Hell, it's just like "going travelling for 2 years". I've already given you 2 examples on the disability front, I took it as you meant it isn't practical to the company or the occupation, hence my 2 examples, and why it would be applicable. Here's another one, would a company who specialises in voice over work for advertisements or one which is looking for Masters Of Ceremony's, hire a person who is mute? It wouldn't be discrimination would it? The role wouldn't be practical for both parties. Again, just showing the absurdity. My point about factoring maternity, paternity and amount of time they have off is not illegal or discriminatory at all. You cannot stay off work after your maternity leave has ended as you will lose your right to return to your old job. An employer does not have to agree to a further period off work. Again, your last sentence is poppy cock too, and once again it depends on the scenario. The fact that we've agreed on pretty much most things on this subject, it does seem bizarre how we're still arguing over such miniscule detail But its not a fitting scenario.. If you've misunderstood or I didn't explain myself well enough then fair enough. When I said "isn't practical for you", I'm going on the assumption that they can do the role, just that as an employer you just think it would be easier to hire someone who isn't disabled. EG, a salesperson, cashier, accountant etc. I hope that makes sense? The paternity/maternity would be completely discriminatory/illegal if it was at job interview (and more than 15 weeks), which is all I'm arguing. I'm not sure if you're even allowed to ask if someone is pregnant, never mind ask how long they're going to take off. But lol yes it is true, it's actually quite impressive how we've kept it going. Especially if it was all a miscommunication over my original statement on disability  |
|
|
|
Post by Gastafari on Feb 6, 2021 11:47:44 GMT
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55910874There are fewer black people at the top of FTSE 100 firms despite long-standing diversity targets, research has found. For the first time in six years, there are no black chairs, chief executives or finance chiefs, the Green Park consultancy found. Only just picked up on this. Trevor Phillips stating that 'A Vanilla Boys Club' was to blame. I'm a fan of Trevor Phillips, but could you imagine if it was the other way round? Greg Clarke was forced to resign from the FA over the 'Offensive' remark "Coloured Footballers', what would be the outcome if somebody used the term "Chocolate Boys Club" to refer to Trevor Phillips or other Black people in positions like Trevors? It's also interesting that Green Park Consultancy's offices are in Mayfair, where many of the UK's wealthy elite live, It's not in Brixton, Hackney or Tower Hamlets is it? |
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Feb 6, 2021 13:35:36 GMT
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55910874There are fewer black people at the top of FTSE 100 firms despite long-standing diversity targets, research has found. For the first time in six years, there are no black chairs, chief executives or finance chiefs, the Green Park consultancy found. Only just picked up on this. Trevor Phillips stating that 'A Vanilla Boys Club' was to blame. I'm a fan of Trevor Phillips, but could you imagine if it was the other way round? Greg Clarke was forced to resign from the FA over the 'Offensive' remark "Coloured Footballers', what would be the outcome if somebody used the term "Chocolate Boys Club" to refer to Trevor Phillips or other Black people in positions like Trevors? It's also interesting that Green Park Consultancy's offices are in Mayfair, where many of the UK's wealthy elite live, It's not in Brixton, Hackney or Tower Hamlets is it? Yeah I'd also forgot that part, I don't like the comment either and you're right, if it was the other way around - all hell would be set loose. I guess the question comes into play about whether black people can be racist against white people in the UK/America? In its most basic form of hating a person of colour, yes of course. I'm still undecided on this, I see both sides of the argument. On Greg Clarke, I believe it was discussed to death on here, but you're being disingenuous in your post - you've bent the situation to suit your argument. Firstly we don't know whether he was forced to resign (although likely), he made comments about women, gay people & asian/african people in the same speech. On top of that, he was also in charge of the FA and is an elected official where a lot of his job is to tackle racism, homophobia & sexism. Trevor Phillips is the chair of a private company, so it's not a direct comparison but I do understand where you're coming from. On the last point of office location, what difference does it make where their office is located? |
|
yattongas
Forum Legend
Posts: 15,491 
Member is Online
|
Post by yattongas on Feb 6, 2021 14:02:05 GMT
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55910874There are fewer black people at the top of FTSE 100 firms despite long-standing diversity targets, research has found. For the first time in six years, there are no black chairs, chief executives or finance chiefs, the Green Park consultancy found. Only just picked up on this. Trevor Phillips stating that 'A Vanilla Boys Club' was to blame. I'm a fan of Trevor Phillips, but could you imagine if it was the other way round? Greg Clarke was forced to resign from the FA over the 'Offensive' remark "Coloured Footballers', what would be the outcome if somebody used the term "Chocolate Boys Club" to refer to Trevor Phillips or other Black people in positions like Trevors? It's also interesting that Green Park Consultancy's offices are in Mayfair, where many of the UK's wealthy elite live, It's not in Brixton, Hackney or Tower Hamlets is it? I think the term vanilla just means ordinary , nothing special etc |
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Feb 6, 2021 14:10:21 GMT
Only just picked up on this. Trevor Phillips stating that 'A Vanilla Boys Club' was to blame. I'm a fan of Trevor Phillips, but could you imagine if it was the other way round? Greg Clarke was forced to resign from the FA over the 'Offensive' remark "Coloured Footballers', what would be the outcome if somebody used the term "Chocolate Boys Club" to refer to Trevor Phillips or other Black people in positions like Trevors? It's also interesting that Green Park Consultancy's offices are in Mayfair, where many of the UK's wealthy elite live, It's not in Brixton, Hackney or Tower Hamlets is it? I think the term vanilla just means ordinary , nothing special etc A quick google suggests you’re right |
|
henry
Reserve Team
Posts: 365
|
Post by henry on Feb 6, 2021 15:56:09 GMT
I think the term vanilla just means ordinary , nothing special etc A quick google suggests you’re right I think we all know what is meant. People who are at the top of major business are hardly ‘ordinary’ they are very intelligent. |
|
|
|
Post by Gastafari on Feb 6, 2021 16:00:21 GMT
Only just picked up on this. Trevor Phillips stating that 'A Vanilla Boys Club' was to blame. I'm a fan of Trevor Phillips, but could you imagine if it was the other way round? Greg Clarke was forced to resign from the FA over the 'Offensive' remark "Coloured Footballers', what would be the outcome if somebody used the term "Chocolate Boys Club" to refer to Trevor Phillips or other Black people in positions like Trevors? It's also interesting that Green Park Consultancy's offices are in Mayfair, where many of the UK's wealthy elite live, It's not in Brixton, Hackney or Tower Hamlets is it? I think the term vanilla just means ordinary , nothing special etc You're possibly right. Phillips also made the statement "Daunted by the "snowy peaks" of UK business", too. I take it that means the 'Whiteness' at the top? Again if the opposite was said regarding Trevor Phillips or Black people in general, I'm sure the outcome would be different as well. Anyway it's not really a major issue and it doesn't bother me, It just got me thinking about if roles were reversed, especially as the article was about 'Diversity'. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2021 17:31:44 GMT
A quick google suggests you’re right I think we all know what is meant. People who are at the top of major business are hardly ‘ordinary’ they are very intelligent. It sounds like this troll is saying that black people are less intelligent. |
|
henry
Reserve Team
Posts: 365
|
Post by henry on Feb 6, 2021 17:39:58 GMT
I think we all know what is meant. People who are at the top of major business are hardly ‘ordinary’ they are very intelligent. It sounds like this troll is saying that black people are less intelligent. That is not a very nice thing to accuse someone of especially when there is nothing remotely written for you to come to that conclusion. It is expected of you and Others on here by your history. Try TROLLING and having nothing arguments with someone else as you’ll get no change from me. Your spineless, accusing attitude is boring as are your jealous left wing bollocks. By the way, is that your trumpet call for back up pmsl. |
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Feb 6, 2021 17:59:10 GMT
It sounds like this troll is saying that black people are less intelligent. That is not a very nice thing to accuse someone of especially when there is nothing remotely written for you to come to that conclusion. It is expected of you and Others on here by your history. Try TROLLING and having nothing arguments with someone else as you’ll get no change from me. Your spineless, accusing attitude is boring as are your jealous left wing bollocks. By the way, is that your trumpet call for back up pmsl. 2/3 of your posts in this section have been abusive. No surprise which political side you sit on. Give it a rest with the abuse, eh? |
|
yattongas
Forum Legend
Posts: 15,491
Member is Online
|
Post by yattongas on Feb 6, 2021 18:08:39 GMT
It sounds like this troll is saying that black people are less intelligent. That is not a very nice thing to accuse someone of especially when there is nothing remotely written for you to come to that conclusion. It is expected of you and Others on here by your history. Try TROLLING and having nothing arguments with someone else as you’ll get no change from me. Your spineless, accusing attitude is boring as are your jealous left wing bollocks. By the way, is that your trumpet call for back up pmsl. ✅ And another one to added to the blocked list 🙄. ps writes a bit like Oldgas 🤔 |
|
henry
Reserve Team
Posts: 365
|
Post by henry on Feb 6, 2021 18:14:09 GMT
That is not a very nice thing to accuse someone of especially when there is nothing remotely written for you to come to that conclusion. It is expected of you and Others on here by your history. Try TROLLING and having nothing arguments with someone else as you’ll get no change from me. Your spineless, accusing attitude is boring as are your jealous left wing bollocks. By the way, is that your trumpet call for back up pmsl. 2/3 of your posts in this section have been abusive. No surprise which political side you sit on. Give it a rest with the abuse, eh? [br Both post were justified especially the second one. If Grover wants wants to tar people then expect an answer with extras. You are absolutely and totally wrong with your assumption but it is not surprising reading through this thread. You, Yatton and Grover are the worst kind of people with your high moral ground and wrong labelling. As you were. |
|
henry
Reserve Team
Posts: 365
|
Post by henry on Feb 6, 2021 18:14:54 GMT
That is not a very nice thing to accuse someone of especially when there is nothing remotely written for you to come to that conclusion. It is expected of you and Others on here by your history. Try TROLLING and having nothing arguments with someone else as you’ll get no change from me. Your spineless, accusing attitude is boring as are your jealous left wing bollocks. By the way, is that your trumpet call for back up pmsl. ✅ And another one to added to the blocked list 🙄. ps writes a bit like Oldgas 🤔 👍 |
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Feb 6, 2021 18:25:54 GMT
2/3 of your posts in this section have been abusive. No surprise which political side you sit on. Give it a rest with the abuse, eh? [br Both post were justified especially the second one. If Grover wants wants to tar people then expect an answer with extras. You are absolutely and totally wrong with your assumption but it is not surprising reading through this thread. You, Yatton and Grover are the worst kind of people with your high moral ground and wrong labelling. As you were. What assumption have I made that’s totally wrong? Anyone who thinks it’s justified to personally abuse someone randomly on a forum probably needs to go back to school. I guess actually debating without slinging insults is too much for you? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2021 11:51:37 GMT
Wilfried zaha has commented that taking a knee has become an empty gesture now as nothing has changed, and it's time to try something else.
Very interesting that it seems racists have taken his comments as a win against BLM.
And that anti-racists would be fully behind him if there is a genuine plan to tackle racism.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gastafari on Feb 19, 2021 23:43:50 GMT
Wilfried zaha has commented that taking a knee has become an empty gesture now as nothing has changed, and it's time to try something else. Very interesting that it seems racists have taken his comments as a win against BLM. And that anti-racists would be fully behind him if there is a genuine plan to tackle racism. I believe Lyle Taylor has come out with something similar recently as well. He's been pretty much lambasted for it too. There's plenty of Black people who agree with them as well. We all want to tackle racism, but you don't have to agree with BLM the organisation and the people behind it. BLM the organisation seem to want to pick and choose what Black lives actually matter just to fit the agenda. I've mentioned this before months ago on this thread, BLM don't seem to care about the hundreds of Black people killing eachother every day in places like Baltimore, Philadelphia, Chicago, Detroit, Milwaukee, St Louis etc They don't seem to care about the amount of Black babies being aborted through Planned Parenthood. They don't seem to care about other things happening across the globe, i.e in Ethiopa right now where thousands have been massacred and millions having to flee their homes. Do these Black lives not matter? Or is that you just care about certain ones that fit into an agenda? |
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Feb 19, 2021 23:48:32 GMT
Wilfried zaha has commented that taking a knee has become an empty gesture now as nothing has changed, and it's time to try something else. Very interesting that it seems racists have taken his comments as a win against BLM. And that anti-racists would be fully behind him if there is a genuine plan to tackle racism. I believe Lyle Taylor has come out with something similar recently as well. He's been pretty much lambasted for it too. There's plenty of Black people who agree with them as well. We all want to tackle racism, but you don't have to agree with BLM the organisation and the people behind it. BLM the organisation seem to want to pick and choose what Black lives actually matter just to fit the agenda. I've mentioned this before months ago on this thread, BLM don't seem to care about the hundreds of Black people killing eachother every day in places like Baltimore, Philadelphia, Chicago, Detroit, Milwaukee, St Louis etc They don't seem to care about the amount of Black babies being aborted through Planned Parenthood. They don't seem to care about other things happening across the globe, i.e in Ethiopa right now where thousands have been massacred and millions having to flee their homes. Do these Black lives not matter? Or is that you just care about certain ones that fit into an agenda? The problem is, I don't think that's true. Your argument here is looking at the situation the wrong way round. It's easy to look at any organisation who focus on let's say 10% and say 'you're not doing enough'. But what we should be doing is applauding them for attempting to help the 10%. What does 99% of the country on here do to help end racism? Sit on a forum and moan about BLM? I bet its working wonders. |
|
