Discrimination is discrimination

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by slim, Apr 19, 2007.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. I find this unacceptable. By all means encourage ethnic minorities to apply for membership of police forces or any other organisation, however positive discrimination is wrong.

    Police heads debate ethnic quotas

  2. Slim, this has been happening for quite a while now mate, if memory serves, the South Wales force was in the news a couple of years ago for this very thing. They were turning down perfectly good candidates at an early stage purely on the basis of them being White Welsh because their quota of ethnic minority recuits needed raising. Sorry state of affairs.
  3. Slim,

    I had exactly the same reaction when I read it. Positive discrimination is as unfair as negative discrimination whether it is by race religion, gender, parent's educational background, schooling, or whatever. The only time discrimination can be justified is when a government legislates to protect the rights of all its own citizens within its own territories.
  4. There is no such thing as "POSITIVE" discrimination.
  5. Slim,
    Having just completed Divisional Officers course I'm sad to say that Positive discrimination is alive and well in the Armed Forces. We have an entire team dedicated to the recruitment of 'minority groups' and it is encouraged by the government.
    We also have a 'diversity' group, for those whole like to shop on the other/both sides of the street.

    Personnaly I think it's disgusting, if a man or woman wants to join up they will. I think asian people do not want to join up because their culture encourages them to be doctors,lawyers etc or business owners. The Forces do not suit their lifestyles.
    As for Rainbow coloured people, I just plain disagree with it, but the powers that be say that we really must be pink and fluffy now.
  6. Any form of discrimination is wrong, in the past educational standards have been lowered and promotions accelerated for both gender and race reasons. Surely a person should be given their position for one reason only. The qualifications held and the ability to carry out the job.
    Positive discrimination is a primary factor in encouraging normal people towards racism and sexism. The same applies to gays. Daytime television and now increasingly evening television there is a far higher proportion of limp wristed gay presenters than ever before. Seems that if you don't have a limp wrist TV presenting is difficult to break into.
  7. wet_blobby

    wet_blobby War Hero Moderator

    Avon and Somerset police got rapped on the nuckles for this a couple of years ago, its a daft policy. Anyone with any knowledge Somerset just knows its awash with ethnic minorities down here.... :roll:

    I think one of the failed white candidates took the police to task over it.
  8. I don't see active targetting of a target segment as positive disccrimination, different target markets need approached in different ways, is there any point in seeking to recruit a doctor in the same way as a bridge-watchkeeper or either in the same way as a gunner/ AW?
  9. Whilst I would wholeheartedly agree with those who suggest that positive discrimination is wrong, I too see nothing wrong with targeted recruitment to encourage those who may not naturaly consider the forces as a career. To not try to bring in all groups is to deny ourselves some excellent talent that may be out there
  10. I have no problems with this at all Peter, so long as standards are retained. The navy have in the past recruited some excellent personnel from ethnic minorities. When I was R1 on Manchester a mate of mine was R1 on Fife. Abi had been my REM on buccaneers a few years previous, he was now a chief mechanician. One of the best guys that I ever worked with. as a civie a few years later I installed Phalanx on the Manchester. It was a great surprise when during sea trials the Lynx was embarked with Abi now as the SMR.
    Now if only the RN could get a few dozen like him :)
  11. Nothing wrong with either targetting certain areas of society or backgrounds to increase the presence in the RN of different people, it only makes sense to mirror the make up of our country.
    But actively taking one person over another on the grounds of racial makeup/religion/sexuality ETC is just plain wrong, and quite frankly I just cannot see how this is seen as ok by our political "masters"
  12. Oh B*GGER there we go agreeing again.
  13. Slim, Groups like Stonewall have criticised the media, and BBC in particular, for reinforcing these stereotypes about gays by only depicting effeminate gays and not the many of us who are straight-acting. Many TV people (like Newsnight's Evan Davis) are gay yet they were recruited on the basis of their expertise and presentation skills and NOT because they happened to belong to a minority. This is as it should be.

    Golly, there is no reason us rainbow types shouldn't be recruited, so long as our sexuality is treated the same way at heterosexual sexuality. There should be no positive discrimination, simply a culture of non-discrimination. Full stop.

  14. I completely agree with you but would take slight issue (only very slight) with the phrase 'straight-acting'.
    No self respecting gay person would ever want to 'act' straight. Some gay men and women are 'camp' in exactly the same way that some 'straight' men and women are 'camp'; others and the great majority certainly do not appear camp, they are simply themselves (The man on the Clapham omnibus).
    Our sexuality in the same way as the colour of our skin or ethnic origin is not something any of us can control.
    The armed forces are grown up services and have taken the non discrimination steps they have often ahead of legislation. Famous court cases and the risk of being sued have also played a significant part.
    Discrimination is discrimation as you say and it is all negative, there can be no positive in this issue.
    Honestly as we hurtle into the 21st century should we even have this as a topic.
    Best wishes to all


    Deleted off topic unattractive homosexual drooling irrelevance.

  16. Devil's advocate time.

    It is acceptable to discriminate on the basis of one's ability to do the job. For example, by taking people who score highly in pyschometric selection tests, which is (more or less) discriminating on the basis of intelligence.

    If one's ethnic background had a bearing on one's ability to do a job (and I'm not saying that in the case of being a police officer it does, I'm just making a general point about selection procedures), why would it not be acceptable to make that discrimination when one could discriminate on the grounds of intelligence?
  17. erm, because it is against the race relations act?
  18. So are the police forces exercising such selection procedures breaking the act? Is there any moral difference between selecting on grounds of intelligence and grounds of ethnic origin?
  19. I think it has to be reasonable for an employer to select from only those capable of doing the job, other wise nothing would ever get done.

    I thnk in some jobs though there can be times when belonging to one ethnic/religious/sexual/ group or other can be a factor, for example there are time when for various reasons female or male medical staff can be more appropriate and thus have a greater chance of getting the job done. Equally I can understand why a police force may need to change the balance between ethnic groups or other groups within the force. On the other hand selecting some one with a performance standard below the normal required level in either of these cases would equally be unacceptable as the selectee would be unable to do the required job.

    As ever it is a problem of selecting the attributes required and being able to justify them
  20. Uncle Albert,
    I don't think your argument stands. You cannot say that it may be illegal to discriminate on basis of effective intelligence. That would mean that total dullards would have the same right to a job as someone who has strived to educate themselves.
    The premise that someone can be employed/promoted on the basis of their race or gender above someone of equal intelligence is wrong, even if it is described as 'positive discrimination'.
    A person should be promoted or recruited on their suitability for the task. That is why in some very small cases of discrimination rightfully exist, e.g. Black workers employed in a Black Workers Advice Forum.

    I agree with targeted employment drives, I wholeheartedly disagree with promotion based on appearence or belief

Share This Page