So, how do you fill vacancies...

[servodude]

Do you want to work somewhere such discriminatory comments are just brushed under the carpet?

If someone says something discriminatory in the work place I'd expect them to be picked up on it. As I suspect would everyone.

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything else in this thread.

True.

But perhaps a work place needs guidelines?

Perhaps it's a forum where it hasn't been explained that it's a "equal opportunity" space and we shouldn't point out that the self identifying diversity poster has their [expletive deleted] out the window again?

Perhaps it helps the hard of thinking if it's spelled out for them (especially if the words are long)?.....but on the evidence above I doubt it

[kempiejon]

Adverts like this

People are at the heart of the organisation and we are constantly working towards creating a fully inclusive working environment where people from all backgrounds are free to be themselves and can succeed. Diversity makes sense for us, for our customers and for our future. We value different perspectives, skills and experiences, and welcome applications from all sections of our communities
The client is:
A Disability Confident Employer and guarantee an interview to candidates who meet our essential criteria. Open to considering flexible working, such as part-time hours, hybrid working and other flexible options. Happy to offer a wide range of Family Friendly policies including emergency time off for dependants and to provide generous maternity, paternity and adoption leave provisions for our valued colleagues.

Who'd work for these sods?

[Niksen]

Again your imagination is getting the better of you.

You keep changing your mind. So which it is? Does such discrimination exist or does it not?

You really don't understand the issue do you, so lets try explaining it yet again so hopefully you get it this time (although I am rather doubtful).

- The best person was appointed to the job, but comments are made that they only got the job because of their race/sex/sexuality/disability/etc.

- The discrimination is not the appointment of the person to the job as the best person was appointed.

- The discrimination is the snide and aggressive comments that they only got the job because of their race/sex/sexuality/disability/etc.

Do you understand now or do you need it explained yet again?

[Lootman]

You keep changing your mind. So which it is? Does such discrimination exist or does it not?

The best person was appointed to the job, but comments are made that they only got the job because of their race/sex/sexuality/disability/etc.

The discrimination is not the appointment of the person to the job as the best person was appointed.

The discrimination is the snide and aggressive comments that they only got the job because of their race/sex/sexuality/disability/etc.

I understand your argument perfectly. I just think it is wrong. In particular you cannot credibly claim to know that "The best person was appointed to the job" in every case. There is a widespread perception that employers and colleges are very conscious of the racial breakdown of their staff and students, and they take steps to ensure that it does not deviate too much from the "norm".

And that is not just about hiring, but also about not firing. I have a clear memory of an elderly black woman at one place I worked who lacked the ability to do her job, but was kept on in a harmless role for the sake of appearances. That is the kind of thing that upsets other employees, and rightly so.

[Niksen]

The best person was appointed to the job, but comments are made that they only got the job because of their race/sex/sexuality/disability/etc.

The discrimination is not the appointment of the person to the job as the best person was appointed.

The discrimination is the snide and aggressive comments that they only got the job because of their race/sex/sexuality/disability/etc.

I understand your argument perfectly. I just think it is wrong. In particular you cannot credibly claim to know that "The best person was appointed to the job" in every case. There is a widespread perception that employers and colleges are very conscious of the racial breakdown of their staff and students, and they take steps to ensure that it does not deviate too much from the "norm".

From that I assume you would not challenge anyone making such comments, despite the fact they had no evidence to support their view, and your silence would be taken as affirmation that their accusation that the person only got the job because of their race/sex/sexuality/disability/etc. was correct.

[Lootman]

I understand your argument perfectly. I just think it is wrong. In particular you cannot credibly claim to know that "The best person was appointed to the job" in every case. There is a widespread perception that employers and colleges are very conscious of the racial breakdown of their staff and students, and they take steps to ensure that it does not deviate too much from the "norm".

From that I assume you would not challenge anyone making such comments, despite the fact they had no evidence to support their view, and your silence would be taken as affirmation that their accusation that the person only got the job because of their race/sex/sexuality/disability/etc. was correct.

I would not necessarily know whether they had such evidence or not. But I certainly would not rule out them having such evidence as you appear to do. The most likely situation is that such people are sometimes right and sometimes wrong.

[Niksen]

From that I assume you would not challenge anyone making such comments, despite the fact they had no evidence to support their view, and your silence would be taken as affirmation that their accusation that the person only got the job because of their race/sex/sexuality/disability/etc. was correct.

I would not necessarily know whether they had such evidence or not. But I certainly would not rule out them having such evidence as you appear to do. The most likely situation is that such people are sometimes right and sometimes wrong.

I was correct then, and you would stay silent about their accusation that the person only got the job because of their race/sex/sexuality/disability/etc. so giving affirmation to their views.

[Lootman]

I would not necessarily know whether they had such evidence or not. But I certainly would not rule out them having such evidence as you appear to do. The most likely situation is that such people are sometimes right and sometimes wrong.

I was correct then, and you would stay silent about their accusation that the person only got the job because of their race/sex/sexuality/disability/etc. so giving affirmation to their views.

You do not know what I would say or do. It would depend on the specific situation and how much knowledge I had about it, which is surely the only reasonable position to adopt. Unlike you I would not make assumptions.

By the way, for someone who only joined TLF 2 weeks ago, you are posting very aggressively. Most new Lemons take the time to see how this site works before picking fights with regulars.

[Niksen]

It would depend on the specific situation and how much knowledge I had about it, which is surely the only reasonable position to adopt. Unlike you I would not make assumptions.

So if you don't want to assume, would you simply let it slide on the basis that as you didn't know whether it was true or not then the accuser was free to make those comments no matter how unpleasant, or would you ask for evidence to support the accusation that the person only got the job because of their race/sex/sexuality/disability/etc.

By the way, for someone who only joined TLF 2 weeks ago, you are posting very aggressively. Most new Lemons take the time to see how this site works before picking fights with regulars.

Apologies, I didn't realise this place had a hierarchy where certain views were allowed to be expressed by some unchallenged.

[Lootman]

It would depend on the specific situation and how much knowledge I had about it, which is surely the only reasonable position to adopt. Unlike you I would not make assumptions.

So if you don't want to assume, would you simply let it slide on the basis that as you didn't know whether it was true or not then the accuser was free to make those comments no matter how unpleasant, or would you ask for evidence to support the accusation that the person only got the job because of their race/sex/sexuality/disability/etc.

Again, it would depend on the individual situation and what I knew about it. I certainly would not make assumptions nor dismiss any such opinion out of hand if I had no specific evidence. I cannot imagine who would.

By the way, for someone who only joined TLF 2 weeks ago, you are posting very aggressively. Most new Lemons take the time to see how this site works before picking fights with regulars.

Apologies, I didn't realise this place had a hierarchy where certain views were allowed to be expressed by some unchallenged.[/quote]
Apology accepted. You can of course post anything here that complies with the site guidelines. Other new Lemons tend to watch and learn for a while before projecting agendas.

[Niksen]

So if you don't want to assume, would you simply let it slide on the basis that as you didn't know whether it was true or not then the accuser was free to make those comments no matter how unpleasant, or would you ask for evidence to support the accusation that the person only got the job because of their race/sex/sexuality/disability/etc.

Again, it would depend on the individual situation and what I knew about it. I certainly would not make assumptions nor dismiss any such opinion out of hand if I had no specific evidence. I cannot imagine who would.

That's a masterpiece of avoiding answering the question.

By the way, for someone who only joined TLF 2 weeks ago, you are posting very aggressively. Most new Lemons take the time to see how this site works before picking fights with regulars.

Apologies, I didn't realise this place had a hierarchy where certain views were allowed to be expressed by some unchallenged.

Apology accepted. You can of course post anything here that complies with the site guidelines. Other new Lemons tend to watch and learn for a while before projecting agendas.[/quote]

So the site guidelines allow longstanding members to post certain views and those views must not be challenged. Sorry I must have missed that.

[Lootman]

Again, it would depend on the individual situation and what I knew about it. I certainly would not make assumptions nor dismiss any such opinion out of hand if I had no specific evidence. I cannot imagine who would.

That's a masterpiece of avoiding answering the question.

On the contrary, it is the only reasonable answer to a question that invites the reader to speculate about a claim that that reader might lack the information to properly assess. To answer any other way would be to admit to holding a bias on the topic.

[Niksen]

That's a masterpiece of avoiding answering the question.

On the contrary, it is the only reasonable answer to a question that invites the reader to speculate about a claim that that reader might lack the information to properly assess. To answer any other way would be to admit to holding a bias on the topic.

Sorry but as this is a subject on which you hold certain views then as I am new here and you have seniority status then it appears that the board rules do not not permitted to challenge you.

[Lootman]

On the contrary, it is the only reasonable answer to a question that invites the reader to speculate about a claim that that reader might lack the information to properly assess. To answer any other way would be to admit to holding a bias on the topic.

Sorry but as this is a subject on which you hold certain views then as I am new here and you have seniority status then it appears that the board rules do not not permitted to challenge you.

Your question as stated made no sense. It was hypothetical in nature but the correct answer needs to take into account the specifics of the case. If you can rephrase your question in less ambiguous and vague terms then I will attempt to provide the factual answer that you seek.

[Niksen]

Sorry but as this is a subject on which you hold certain views then as I am new here and you have seniority status then it appears that the board rules do not not permitted to challenge you.

Your question as stated made no sense. It was hypothetical in nature but the correct answer needs to take into account the specifics of the case. If you can rephrase your question in less ambiguous and vague terms then I will attempt to provide the factual answer that you seek.

Sorry but as this is a subject on which you hold certain views then as I am new here and you have seniority status then it appears that the board rules do not not permitted to challenge you.

[Lootman]

Your question as stated made no sense. It was hypothetical in nature but the correct answer needs to take into account the specifics of the case. If you can rephrase your question in less ambiguous and vague terms then I will attempt to provide the factual answer that you seek.

Sorry but as this is a subject on which you hold certain views . .

On the contrary, I have an open mind on the cited issue, and was resisting your attempt to make it a black or white thing.

Allegations that someone is a "diversity hire" should be considered on merit and on the facts of the situation. And not on the personal biases of the observer about whether such things should or should not happen.

[Niksen]

On the contrary, I have an open mind on the cited issue, and was resisting your attempt to make it a black or white thing.

Allegations that someone is a "diversity hire" should be considered on merit and on the facts of the situation. And not on the personal biases of the observer about whether such things should or should not happen.

Sorry but as this is a subject on which you hold certain views then as I am new here and you have seniority status then it appears that the board rules do not not permitted to challenge you.

[Lootman]

On the contrary, I have an open mind on the cited issue, and was resisting your attempt to make it a black or white thing.

Allegations that someone is a "diversity hire" should be considered on merit and on the facts of the situation. And not on the personal biases of the observer about whether such things should or should not happen.

Sorry but as this is a subject on which you hold certain views . .

Everyone here has views. And those views can differ. Not a problem. It is part of what makes this site educational. I hope you enjoy your time here and learn as much as you can.

[Niksen]

Sorry but as this is a subject on which you hold certain views . .

Everyone here has views. And those views can differ. Not a problem. It is part of what makes this site educational. I hope you enjoy your time here and learn as much as you can.

Now I know you hold certain views and that your seniority and the board rules protect you from being challenged on those views then I will keep that in mind and avoid commenting on whether those views are rational or acceptable outside of the confines of this board.

However it does seem like it would result in a one sided conversation for you.

[tjh290633]

Moderator Message:
In the immortal words, "This correspondence must now cease".

It has gone on long enough. The topic is now locked. TJH