In the wake of the recent racial protests by the #BLM group .... with its ill defined demands ....
Sanjay Bhandari, the chairman of the Kick It Out anti racism campaign, in what seems like the much discredited 'affirmative action' that plagued the US for a decade or so, is calling for BAME job quotas at the top of sport and football in particular ....
.... well that's what I assume "real change can only come from setting targets" means. I say 'assume,' because he doesn't spell it out in black and white terms, because in point of fact its totally illegal to appoint people based solely upon their race, or gender, or sexuality, except in very specific circumstances, which certainly don't apply in football or sports.
This doesn't stop some employers seemingly applying quotas ... the BBC for example happily, nay proudly proclaims that currently more than 11 percent of the BBC’s workforce and 12 percent of its leaders identify as LGBT, which is far in excess of the LGBT proportion of the UK population. The official government figure for Britain’s LBGT population – obtained by means of a direct question posed to respondents in the Office of National Statistics Integrated Household Survey – is 1.5 per cent, and even allowing for under reporting, 3 per cent is an acceptable figure ..... which makes the BBC's employment practises look remarkably like quotas, and even direct exclusion of straight people ... in theory a legal no no, and a possible cause for legal litigation if it could be proved.
In fact so blatant is the BBC's skewed employment practices, that a 2016 Government White Paper on the future of the BBC, also suggested that the BBC should set a target for 15 per cent of its senior roles to be filled by Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) employees by 2020. Again, far in excess of the current Black population of the UK, although the Asian and Minority Ethnic population (which doesn't include white minorities such as Poles ... only non whites), may well be far above 10 per cent by 2020.
Now it has to be pointed out that legally, race or gender discrimination in the UK is a possibility, when you can show that you are treated unfairly (or even advantageously), because of your race or gender (including colour, nationality, citizenship and ethnic or national origins). This covers a number of social spheres, including employment (both in recruitment and selection), and training opportunities.
Only an employer who can show that they need to employ a member of particular race (or sex/sexuality), in order to perform a certain job, can insist on employing someone of that race or sex. So for example, anti-racism charity Kick it Out should be able to show why a person who is not white, has to be employed as chairman of an anti-racism charity (which could be a tricky one ... can only BAME people represent these issues fairly?).
Direct race discrimination is where someone from a different racial group who, in similar circumstances, has been treated more favourably than you. e.g. an employer refuses to appoint you because, the employer says the quota for your race has already been filled, or that lower recruitment standards are applied to someone from another race or ethnicity, in order for them to be offered the role.
Now with the Kick It Out's demands, they are effectively referring only to racial quotas for high level jobs to given to black ex-footballers, as there are virtually no Asian ex-professional footballers ... so presumably this is a request for a quota system based upon race. On the face of it illegal .... but not one TV or News media reporter, has felt brave enough to challenge this publicly, or even ask Mr Bhandari why its not illegal, and how it would work so as to be fair to everyone and not discriminate against non BAME applicants.
Personally I would rather we challenged the idea of, and then dropped all demands for 'equality quotas' (there's no such thing, just another inequality) ..... but such is the state of fear that the #BLM and related groups reduced our press to, that this seems a forlorn idea. This inability of the media to stand up for fairness is pathetic - and for people "not be judged by the colour of their skin, but by the content of their character," and earning what they get through their abilities, rather than being given it by illegal quotas - and only leads to contempt from the rest of us, as we watch this nonsense unfold.
If the press feel cowed into acceptance of illegal unfair activity, simply because those dong it are of a different skin colour, then this country is on the slide to anarchy, and the Fourth Estate is failing in its duty to challenge.
It seems to me that the Fourth Estate no longer fulfils its role in this matter, and has deliberately and knowingly abrogated its responsibility, when faced with the fear of being labelled 'racists,' by a left wing emboldened by the violence that has underpinned its activities this year.
 |
| Taking Its Chance To Create A New Inequality? |
Sanjay Bhandari, the chairman of the Kick It Out anti racism campaign, in what seems like the much discredited 'affirmative action' that plagued the US for a decade or so, is calling for BAME job quotas at the top of sport and football in particular ....
.... well that's what I assume "real change can only come from setting targets" means. I say 'assume,' because he doesn't spell it out in black and white terms, because in point of fact its totally illegal to appoint people based solely upon their race, or gender, or sexuality, except in very specific circumstances, which certainly don't apply in football or sports.
This doesn't stop some employers seemingly applying quotas ... the BBC for example happily, nay proudly proclaims that currently more than 11 percent of the BBC’s workforce and 12 percent of its leaders identify as LGBT, which is far in excess of the LGBT proportion of the UK population. The official government figure for Britain’s LBGT population – obtained by means of a direct question posed to respondents in the Office of National Statistics Integrated Household Survey – is 1.5 per cent, and even allowing for under reporting, 3 per cent is an acceptable figure ..... which makes the BBC's employment practises look remarkably like quotas, and even direct exclusion of straight people ... in theory a legal no no, and a possible cause for legal litigation if it could be proved.
In fact so blatant is the BBC's skewed employment practices, that a 2016 Government White Paper on the future of the BBC, also suggested that the BBC should set a target for 15 per cent of its senior roles to be filled by Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) employees by 2020. Again, far in excess of the current Black population of the UK, although the Asian and Minority Ethnic population (which doesn't include white minorities such as Poles ... only non whites), may well be far above 10 per cent by 2020.
Now it has to be pointed out that legally, race or gender discrimination in the UK is a possibility, when you can show that you are treated unfairly (or even advantageously), because of your race or gender (including colour, nationality, citizenship and ethnic or national origins). This covers a number of social spheres, including employment (both in recruitment and selection), and training opportunities.
Only an employer who can show that they need to employ a member of particular race (or sex/sexuality), in order to perform a certain job, can insist on employing someone of that race or sex. So for example, anti-racism charity Kick it Out should be able to show why a person who is not white, has to be employed as chairman of an anti-racism charity (which could be a tricky one ... can only BAME people represent these issues fairly?).
Direct race discrimination is where someone from a different racial group who, in similar circumstances, has been treated more favourably than you. e.g. an employer refuses to appoint you because, the employer says the quota for your race has already been filled, or that lower recruitment standards are applied to someone from another race or ethnicity, in order for them to be offered the role.
 |
| Press Self Censorship Is A Failure Of Democracy |
Now with the Kick It Out's demands, they are effectively referring only to racial quotas for high level jobs to given to black ex-footballers, as there are virtually no Asian ex-professional footballers ... so presumably this is a request for a quota system based upon race. On the face of it illegal .... but not one TV or News media reporter, has felt brave enough to challenge this publicly, or even ask Mr Bhandari why its not illegal, and how it would work so as to be fair to everyone and not discriminate against non BAME applicants.
Personally I would rather we challenged the idea of, and then dropped all demands for 'equality quotas' (there's no such thing, just another inequality) ..... but such is the state of fear that the #BLM and related groups reduced our press to, that this seems a forlorn idea. This inability of the media to stand up for fairness is pathetic - and for people "not be judged by the colour of their skin, but by the content of their character," and earning what they get through their abilities, rather than being given it by illegal quotas - and only leads to contempt from the rest of us, as we watch this nonsense unfold.
If the press feel cowed into acceptance of illegal unfair activity, simply because those dong it are of a different skin colour, then this country is on the slide to anarchy, and the Fourth Estate is failing in its duty to challenge.
 |
| Democracy Needs A Press That Challenges Injustice ..... In Any Quarter |
It seems to me that the Fourth Estate no longer fulfils its role in this matter, and has deliberately and knowingly abrogated its responsibility, when faced with the fear of being labelled 'racists,' by a left wing emboldened by the violence that has underpinned its activities this year.
No comments:
Post a Comment
All comments are welcomed, or even just thanks if you enjoyed the post. But please make any comment relevant to the post it appears under. Off topic comments will be blocked or removed.
Moderation is on for older posts to stop spamming and comments that are off topic or inappropriate from being posted .... comments are reviewed within 48 hours. I don't block normal comments that are on topic and not inappropriate. Vexatious comments that may cause upset to other commentators, or that are attempting to espouse a particular wider political view, are reviewed before acceptance. But a certain amount of debate around a post topic is accepted, as long as it remains generally on topic and is not an attempt to become sounding board for some other cause.
Final decision on all comments is held by the blog author and is final.
Comments are always monitored for bad or abusive language, and or illegal statements i.e. overtly racist or sexist content. Spam is not tolerated and is removed.
Commentaires ne sont surveillés que pour le mauvais ou abusif langue ou déclarations illégales ie contenu ouvertement raciste ou sexiste. Spam ne est pas toléré et est éliminé.