I posted recently about the racism at the bbc

I'm not sure how a runner (as in the one who runs around doing errands in set and things) would have any benefit to being black though? That's one of the positions available solely to none whites.

Actually at work we have a position where I am pretty certain having an Asian employee would be a huge advantage to the role but it would only be an advantage, his skin colour alone wouldn't get the job done and other skills would have to be considered as well

 

That's my whole point. You change the selectors, you don't outright ban one ethnicity from applying.

 

How can you say that.
How do you know they are racist interviewers

Maybe the genuinely believed their choice.
That's a whole new ball game IMO.
But a fairer system with a diverse selection committee would put to bed any or most suspicions from all sides and maybe as I've said the best way to start it off is by legislation just has it has done in picking women candidates for CPPs

 

This also reminds me of a conversation I had with the husband last night. I was looking through a job site when I saw an advert for a mechanic. Now that is not a job I personally have an interest (or any skills) in but I joked about applying for it. Hubby said (also kind of jokingly) that I might be more likely to get it as a woman as they may want to tick some boxes. Now I am sure that there are more female mechanics (and builders and in other jobs known for being more male-orientated) than there used to be, but those jobs are still far more male dominated. I replied that I wouldn't want to work there as although women are more likely to be accepted now than previously, I imagine (here in my awful generalised evil mind) that it probably wouldn't be a very pleasant working environment as women are not traditionally found in such roles and I can forsee there would be quite a bit of 'banter'. I seem to remember there being a push to get women into these types of jobs a few years ago, and to some extent it has worked, and without the push for it, I don't think it would have ever happened. Perhaps if places such as those were made to take on more women (which I'm not saying they should) then more women would apply and somewhere down the line it will be seen as a job that is completely equal for both sexes. Whilst that was happening it would look like a bad thing (if you are male), and it possibly would be, but wouldn't it be better for everyone overall once the sexism has gone (on both sides). I can imagine whilst first implementing this policy that men probably would be better qualified for the job as they would have had more opportunities (even if only because dad encouraged the young son to help out with the car, knowing that he might one day go in for this job, whereas he didn't bother with his daughter as she never, ever would) but as the overall make up for the work force began to be more balanced across both genders, both male and females would get the same opportunities and eventually they would both be equally as talented and then in an ideal world we could get back to employing people based on skills only.

 

Parochial naivety bordering on xenophobia. I explained it to you once, doubt you'll get it now either so will save my breath.

 

The fact is though that certain people are massively under represented in certain roles and regardless of whatever the reason for that is (unless they simply don't want to do those roles) I'd like it not to be the case. Therefore, if we have to have a bit of 'positive' discrimination to make it happen then I'll take it, even if it puts me at a disadvantage whilst that happens. I realise that being white puts me at an advantage (despite me not wanting it to or doing anything to make that so) and I'd like the balance to be addressed.

 

How many people of colour do you think accessed the grant in the 40 years it ran for? Zero. None. Zilch. Nadal.

It was positive discrimination however you cut it I was given a financial advantage over other students to promote participation. Just because it benefitted a white guy doesn't make it any better or worse. All targeted funding is a form of positive discrimination.

 

The football is going well and Ben has had the Mr Sheen on the bird shitty seats so it's a slow news day.

 

A white Liverpudlian without a ticket should get the job IMO

 

I have (or at least my daughter has) direct experience of gender issues both good and bad. The bad ws that she studied music Music Tech and got high grades, applied herself and really made an effort to learn. The prize and Best student award went to a lad who was often missing from class nd did not exactly shine. In spite of this she applied for job in a Studio and in spite of being up against graduates in a male dominae field, after a full day of practical exercises and interviews she got offered the position. This was becase she had practical skills and in-depth knowledge of the technology which she would use. She is still regarded as a 'novelty' in the industry but has progressed from the initial role of sound engineering to a Project Manager based one as well as mantaniing a hands on approach. This may well be an exception to the rule but still think that if you are good enough and have the right attitude you can get somewhere without the need for so-called positive discrimination.

 

I'm pleased for your daughter (genuinely, tone can be hard to express in text) and it was good of the studio to recognise her skills in spite of her gender. The problems come though when companies are not brave enough to do this. I imagine other studios could have forseen possible difficulties arising due to your daughter being possibly the only female there. Not because of your daughter but because of how some of the men could have potentially treated her. Obviously, you would hope that a company would hire the female anyway and discipline the men who treat her as an inferior but I can imagine that a lot of companies would rather avoid the issue altogether and just hire a male for simplicities sake. Therefore, the person doing the hiring may not actually be sexist (or in the case of the BBC racist) themselves but still favour people who conform to the majority for an easier life.

 

I didn't mean at this current moment. I should have put 'we will' not 'we'.

 

It's clearly discriminatory.

Seem to remember that music museum in Sheffield did the same thing, glad they went down the toilet.

At least 5 years before the BBC gets off the public purse though thanks to the government bottling it.

 

Not if hes a brickie who cant speak English
hth

 

Supertyke are you reading this ?

There are people with similar views sat on selection boards etc.
Now do you see why we need legislation to stamp this unfairness out
You have only to see his username to see the kind of views he holds,
Surely you can see now.

 

Sounds like the black empowerment scheme in SA. Jobs should be decided on skills and who is best to fill the job, not on colour in any society

 

It's also meant to be illegal.

 

It's called a pun.

I could be gay for all you know.

 

A charity offering under priveliged minorities internship opportunities? How dare they.

Favouring ethnic minorities is no different to taxing poorer people at lower rates, offering free school meals, university grants etc. It's aimed at levelling the playing field.

 

I do have some sympathy with the op. Any discrimination, positive or negative makes me uncomfortable. However, until we have equality of living standards and educational opportunity there will be a case for this kind of thing.
However, the best argument in favour of the BBC's policy comes, as usual, from the usual suspects who are stridently opposed to it.
Yearning to get the BBC off the public purse!!? FFS! Presumably some people would prefer the single news provider that is revered around the world as being unbiased and trustworthy in a sea of hate and vested interest to be run by someone like Rupert Murdoch. Mind boggling.