Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by rockape34, Feb 14, 2008.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
... apologies if posted elsewhere
Can't he sue them for discrimination?
This does not surprise me in the least. This country has been skewed to the needs of "minorities" to the extent that those whose ancestors founded this land, and who abide by the laws, and who pay their taxes, or who take up arms in it's defence, are now the minority.
As such, and with no protection under the new rulings, all they can expect is to be treated as outcasts and pariahs. The greatest disadvantage it is possible to have today is a conscience and respect for others.
It would seem that "positive discrimination" is legal under this (Neue Arbeit) administration
Yeah the Racist cnuts just call it "Positive Action."
Stand by for a possible thread by me on this subject at the end of the month!
Positive action is just positive discrimination spelt wrong!
Thats as maybe but I'm sure even a minor lawyer could rip the living crap out of the Mets actively seeking to raise interest from black and minority ethnic communities and females statement.
The 1976 Race Relations Act
maybe he should report them to the police:
What's the French for deja vu?
Right, forgive me for actually trying extract truth from a Scum story, but the deal is that he didn't get a pack becuase they're not recruiting. Not because he's the 'wrong colour'.
So, yet anohter 'ethnic ate my hamster' hysteria fest.
Thanks for that.
Which was what I said in the first thread on this, linked above.
"Bloke applies to force who aren't recruiting to be told they aren't recruiting" as a headline doesn't shift papers.
Missed your link Sixty, soz.
The psychology of Tabloid readers never fails to facinate me. Day in, day out the process of suggestion, misnformation and general cack gets regurgitated (here and everywhere else) as if it was truth.
Makes it easy to see how the Nazis took power.
AND New Labour...
Personally I think the whole thing is much of a muchness - but there is a difference between positive action and positive discrimination.
Positive Action - promotes the practice of choosing one group of people over another where it is shown that a group had been disadvantaged in the past. For instance in the Metropolitan Police it was found that black applicants had been treated unfairly (whether you agree with that or not simply does not enter into the equation - that was the finding - bust). So it would be completely lawful to appoint a black candidate over a white one under the terms of positive action.
Positive Discrimination - seeks to provide for favourtism over one group when compared to another (this does not require that the disadvantaged group had suffered some past wrong doing - as is the case with positive action). Positive discrimination is against the law (supposedly), however it does exist (albeit not in name) within the Disability Discrimination Acts. You will observe it in action in cases where companies are obliged to provide steps, lifts etc and to employ a certain number of disabled persons as part of their employment strength.
Do not misunderstand me - a disabled person deserves all the lucky breaks he can get - but the bottom line is that they are receiving favourable treatment. (I do not believe that anyone would kick off about it though, which is why it probably goes on unhindered).
They are being very careful with their wording, but technically treading the right side of the law!
Its illegal for them to discriminate in recruitment, but not illegal for them to discriminate in their provision of "training" for underrepresented groups.
They are not actually "recruiting" at the moment, so reject his application
But, they then "encourage" minority groups by giving them priority for training places before recruitment.
so, technically they are not discriminating in the recruitment of police officers, but for all practical purposes the only way to get into training is by being a minority group member.
Only himself to blame - should have known to put that he was Gay on the application forms!
were they ever disadvantaged or was it not the case they just never applied not quite the same thing.
Separate names with a comma.