I posted recently about the racism at the bbc

It's racism as an internship at the BBC for those jobs is only allowed if you are none white.

 

So nothing to back up your rant?

 

Then under your understanding of the system only people who apply and are best for the opportunity according to a mostly white selection committee who are mostly picking white candidates should have no questions to answer.
And that brings into question the internships which were given to well bred connected students who were always deemed the best for the role but has now been allocated to forcibly include other candidates of a different background

 

I was given a grant to study a uni by the NUM. This was only available to the children of miners. Positive discrimination. I might not have gone without it. There are all types of schemes aimed at promoting specific groups.

 

If the right person is recruited based on abiity/ best fit then race/ethnicity and gender become irrelevant othrwise you are saying that the interviewer is racist. Why cannot a white person represent a ethnic minority. If ethnic views/ideas are relevant to the post then, all thing being equal, the 'best fit' WOULD be a candidate from that ethnic group. So your argument does not make sense. I say again. What is positive for one becomes a negative for another.

 

Rooney rule (and not just that Wayne is a ****)

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2013/sep/29/nfl-rooney-rule-premier-league

 

No, as I clearly said, if a selection committee or interviewer is only giving jobs to white people and turning down better candidates who are none white then they should be removed as THEY are racist. See my example with 'bob' above where I clearly stated that.

As I've said, an interview in itself is not racist but an interviewer can be.

Also they haven't been forced to include candidates of different backgrounds they've EXCLUDED white people.

That's he key for me, you talk about them including black people, I talk about them excluding white people. An open application system does not exclude anybody, only the people making the selections re doing that. And that means that the open application system wasnt racist but the selectors were.

 

So you were given funding which happens a lot. were other people outright banned from attending based on their skin colour though?

 

You didn't answer my point on whether the selection process was without flaws or prejudices.
Yes we know the best candidates should get the role but this to say they are . are they being left out because of the colour,disability,working class backgrounds ?
If only certain sections of society are able to get on with the system in place then surelybit is only right to scrutinise the system.
I don't hold that the white community are far more superior than every other race ,creed or whatever do for a system to be predominantly favouring whites totally out of kilter with the population then IMO its only right that it is robustly scrutinised.

 

Surely offering internships to disadvantaged is one thing but disadvantaged only of you are of an ethnic minority non-white IS surely (in terms of the race discrimination legislation) a breach in law. Arguing that it is not offering jobs when internships are often quoted as being the first rung on the corporate ladder leading to emplyment is tenuous at best. If the Government is part funding this then it it means taxpayers money is being diverted from schemes designed to help disadvantaged from ALL area of society to a specific group of people to the exclusion of others. By any definition THAT is discrimination and I am amazed the charity is Govt supported

 

What if they have hardly anyone from ethnic minorities in their workforce and they want someone who can relate to people of those origins in order to cater their service to everyone in our diverse population more effectively. Would that not make a non-white person more suitable for the job?

 

But that's exactly what they are doing ,giving jobs to mostly whites and that's why this is being put into place.
Obviously they are not gonna say its because of this or that.but that is what's happening.
Its as I have said the same criteria for women candidates for MPs councils etc. If a percentage is portioned inline with the populace they represent then the discrimination will be put to rest and the people using the term best for the job will not be under scrutiny.
When they have the job will dter whether they are up to it or not .as in mist cases

 

Are you actually kidding me? You're seriously saying you have it harder by being a straight, white male and you have 'no chance'? Speechless.

 

Then you would surely allow anyone to apply and would then consider the person's background to be an asset of theirs and use it in their favour. I certainly wouldn't give the job to someone JUST for being black though if on all other counts they were far behind someone else in terms of ability.

 

You need to get out more. Are you not running out of things to whinge about?

Christ.

 

Its obviously because they are not represented that this has come about.
And the question is why.

 

But they are not solving the issue of racist interviewers are they? They are simply forcing them to employ black people regardless.
In that sense it is like the BBC knowing about Saville and instead of sacking him for being a paedophile they instead banned under 16s from attending top of the pops. Of course they have eliminated the risk of him sexualy abusing a kid but they haven't actually dealt with the issue that they have a sexual predator working for them.

I know it isn't actually like that but hopefully you see what I mean

 

Because of racist interviewers, not because white people were allowed to apply.

 

But it's not just about ability, companies might employ people for all sorts of reasons. The police force for example were actively trying to get more Asian police men/women to work out on the streets in order to make the Asian community feel represented and less suspicious of the police. They weren't recruiting for the 'best' police man/woman. A white, non-Asian officer wouldn't have helped them in that regard in the slightest, whether they were the best officer in the country or not. An Asian police officer in that respect was the best possible person for the job. Perhaps the BBC has similar motives?

 

But at the same time they may not be giving the job to the best candidate because they are black . and give the job to a white person just as a vice versa.
My point is, who is to say the selection is fair ? Especially if it is made up of mostly one ethnic background.
Would you change your view if things were the other way round?