What is equality to you?

[Robin-H 11]

7 minutes ago, WiseOwl182 said:

Positive discrimination is an oxymoron and should be as illegal as "negative" discrimination.

Positive discrimination is unlawful. 

 

Positive 'action' is not. 

[WiseOwl182 10]

16 minutes ago, Robin-H said:

Positive discrimination is unlawful. 

 

Positive 'action' is not. 

What's the difference?

[Robin-H 11]

12 minutes ago, WiseOwl182 said:

What's the difference?

You're allowed to pick someone because of their race, sexuality etc if all the candidates are otherwise at the same level in terms of qualification and experience etc. That is known as positive action. 

 

You're not allowed to pick someone because of their race, sexuality etc if they are being picked over and above someone with better qualifications and experience just because of their race, sexuality etc. That is 'positive' discrimination. 

[WiseOwl182 10]

1 minute ago, Robin-H said:

You're allowed to pick someone because of their race, sexuality etc if all the candidates are otherwise at the same level in terms of qualification and experience etc. That is known as positive action. 

 

You're not allowed to pick someone because of their race, sexuality etc if they are being picked over and above someone with better qualifications and experience just because of their race, sexuality etc. That is 'positive' discrimination. 

In reality rather than legal terminology, they're both discrimination, just to varying degrees.

[Guest makapaka]

4 minutes ago, WiseOwl182 said:

In reality rather than legal terminology, they're both discrimination, just to varying degrees.

No - one is giving someone an advantage over a more qualified person based on their race / sexuality. 

 

one is giving the equally qualified person the opportunity as their race / sexuality is under represented for various reasons.

 

 

[WiseOwl182 10]

3 minutes ago, makapaka said:

No - one is giving someone an advantage over a more qualified person based on their race / sexuality. 

 

one is giving the equally qualified person the opportunity as their race / sexuality is under represented for various reasons.

 

 

No:- one is giving someone an advantage over a more qualified person based on their race / sexuality. 

 

One is giving someone an advantage over an equally qualified person based on their race / sexuality. 

Edited February 25, 2019 by WiseOwl182

[Top Cats Hat 10]

2 minutes ago, WiseOwl182 said:

In reality rather than legal terminology, they're both discrimination, just to varying degrees.

Not quite.

 

If you have two candidates who score equally in the selection process, one a man and one a woman and the post is in a section which is male/female heavy and the man/woman is appointed to redress the balance NOBODY IS BEING DISCRIMINATED AGAINST.

 

[WiseOwl182 10]

1 minute ago, Top Cats Hat said:

Not quite.

 

If you have two candidates who score equally in the selection process, one a man and one a woman and the post is in a section which is male/female heavy and the man/woman is appointed to redress the balance NOBODY IS BEING DISCRIMINATED AGAINST.

 

Yes they are, the one who isn't given the job is being discriminated against, if not in current legal terminology then at least in actuality. They are not getting the job on the basis of their gender not meeting some arbitrary ratio target.

[Top Cats Hat 10]

7 minutes ago, WiseOwl182 said:

Yes they are, the one who isn't given the job is being discriminated against, if not in current legal terminology then at least in actuality. They are not getting the job on the basis of their gender not meeting some arbitrary ratio target.

They are not getting the job because there is only one job and more than one person has applied for it. 

 

Neither they, nor anyone else not appointed is being discriminated against.

[WiseOwl182 10]

2 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

They are not getting the job because there is only one job and more than one person has applied for it. 

 

Neither they, nor anyone else not appointed is being discriminated against.

Yes they are. If all else is equal, toss a coin or draw straws. Otherwise, if being of one gender means you don't get the job in preference of someone of another gender, then you're being discriminated against.

[Guest makapaka]

1 hour ago, WiseOwl182 said:

Yes they are. If all else is equal, toss a coin or draw straws. Otherwise, if being of one gender means you don't get the job in preference of someone of another gender, then you're being discriminated against.

No mate. 

 

Its levelling up the imbalance where there is nothing else to separate.

 

so - let’s say you have 8 men and 1 woman in a management team that needs 10.

 

9 men and 1 woman apply and all are equally qualified- you employ the woman and increase female representation on the management team from 10% to 20%.

 

whats up with that?

Edited February 25, 2019 by makapaka

[Cyclone 10]

Who said 'optional form'? . Read the post again.  Anyone got Specsaver's number? 

  Such forms are always (by law) optional.

 

Quote

(presumably he had to fill in one of those additional forms that 'Are only for use as a monitoring tool to establish that we are reaching all members of the community & will not be used in the recruitment process in anyway.'

15 hours ago, Baron99 said:

Who said 'optional form'? . Read the post again.  Anyone got Specsaver's number? 

 

And you can't deliberately favour any candidate per se. 

 

And apparently it is unlawful to use positive discrimination as a blunt tool; "While positive action can be used to ensure greater diversity, it should only be applied to distinguish between candidates who were all equally well qualified for a role." 

 

In this case, the white, heterosexual, male, (not that it would really matter to the public if they were being robbed at knife point, they'd just like to see a copper), was the superior candidate but overlooked for a box ticking exercise. 

 

Never mind. As it's Cheshire Police, the compo paid to Mr Furlong won't come out of our council tax, eh? 

 

The Chief Constable, Police Commissioner & council tax payers must be so proud. 

Yes, I read the same report you did.

So what makes you think that it was related to a diversity information form?  It's not mentioned anywhere.  The fact that he's white and male is identifiable without that form, and there's no evidence that his sexuality was questioned or used in the decision.

Edited February 26, 2019 by Cyclone