h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

http://www.nottinghamshire.police.uk/jobs/police_staff/hqrs012_personnel_trainee/

An advert for a personnel trainee with the police. Lousy wages, but hey that's not the point.

"In line with our commitment to increase the diversity of the workforce and reflect the community we serve, the above Traineeships are reserved for people from Black Minority Ethnic origin in accordance with Section 37 of the Race Relations Act 1976."

Racism - pure and simple. This isn't about selecting the best applicant, it's about selecting the right colour. Never mind that 100 black people might apply with a collective IQ in double figures, one of them will get the job. There may be people perfect for the job who are white or Asian or Eskimo, but they are barred from applying.

You should always select the best person for the job, irrespective of colour or gender. To do otherwise just means you are not getting the best person and the standards of the company are going to slide.

Far too often now, efficiency or results don't matter. It's appearance that is everything. I don't recall the specific details, but there was a court case here a number of years ago, a white-anglo-male challenged such a government job listing. The judge threw it out, saying that it is just not possible for him to have been discriminated against, because he WAS white-anglo-male.

"Racism - pure and simple."

Simple
You can say that with no argument to back it up but that doesnt make it so . Now when i call you on your frequent racism I always try to explain HOW or WHY what you say is racist. In the normal terms that people use the word racism ie a detremental act/speech aimed against a person or persons this does not fit that widely used meaning.

Simple
To the untrained eye walking to the papaer shop is a simple activity but to a robot builder or the people involved with rehabilitation for spinal injury patients it's not. That you cant tell the difference between when you cant comprehend the complexities and when something is really simpe is a problem that has come up again and again.





"This isn't about selecting the best applicant, it's about selecting the right colour."

Wrong and right.

Selecting a suitable candidate and one who fits the needs of the people they will be working with, the two can be right at the same time. Im currently providing one day a week cover in a nursery I got the gig because Im a man. They wanted a man because there are no male educational staff in the whole school, that doesnt automatically mean they recruited me as a man regardless of my qualifications.

"Never mind that 100 black people might apply with a collective IQ in double figures, one of them will get the job."

Where did you get this peice of information from? I seriously think you made it up. Im prepared for you to show me different.



"There may be people perfect for the job who are white or Asian or Eskimo, but they are barred from applying."

Yes and no.

Are you even remotely aware whether there are other posts doing the same role open to other ethnicities? Have you bothered check your facts or are you just going on a half cocked BNP style rant...again? A *very* brief search of the site showed me this:
http://www.nottinghamshire.police.uk/jobs/police_staff/hqprs010_assistant_personnel_officer_outreach_-_temporary/



"You should always select the best person for the job, irrespective of colour or gender."

IM *sure* you mean colour AND gender. Unless you want them to flip a coin and say "today we are slecting irrespective of gender if its heads and tails for race"



"To do otherwise just means you are not getting the best person and the standards of the company are going to slide"

What a hypocrite on one thread you argue that women shouldnt be on the front line in the military then you come here and say making clearly defined and openly announced choices of this nature where you can see a clear pay-off in results by selecting people where their ethnicity/gender suits the needs of the people they wil be working face to face with is a wrong.


one love

Sorry Rev Nick simulpost.

I reallythink you should know the deatails before you post incediary stuff like that.

If it is as you say and hey, even you arent sure its the kind of isolated incident where someone has got it wrong and where right wing racists pounce upon the case to denounce all positive action. Never mind if what you remeber isnt accurate people like that wont care and will use it to further divicsive and nasty cause and you dont want that do you?

one love

Ah. The Chief Racist makes an appearance.

This is all about quotas, yeah?

So what happens when somewhere like the Home Office grossly exceeds the quotas for ethnic minorities in their staff? (As they have btw)

Will we see adverts stating "In line with our commitment to increase the diversity of the workforce and reflect the community we serve, the above Traineeships are reserved for people from Caucasian Ethnic origin in accordance with Section 37 of the Race Relations Act 1976."

Will we heck as like.

Women in the military is a red herring. It has been shown that women negatively affect the efficiency of a combat unit. It has been shown that most women cannot meet the fitness & strength levels of most men. Most women are not capable of doing the job of an infantryman. Men & women are different. The forces recognise this difference and play to the strengths of the sexes. Women make better radio operators and air traffic controllers as well as radar operators due to the ability of women to more easily multi-task. The military recognise this and play to the strengths of the sexes, not the weaknesses.

The police exist to uphold the law. Colour doesn't come into it. This is a personnel position. By recruiting to fit ethnicity profiles you are making an admission that your organisation is racist and this cannot or will not be changed. Instead you will perpetuate injustice.

You are the best recruiting sergeant the BNP could ever have Blicky. You absolutely refuse to perceive what is a blatantly unfair employment practice because it suits your agenda. You are a professional victim, constantly crying foul where none exists. You prowl the threads looking to take offence and imagine in your puffed-up ego that people are talking about you.

This is a recruitment policy predicated upon race and is therefore a racist policy.

In the cheif racist now...who died and put me in charge of you?


Is it? Who mentioned quotas? Im guessing that its about the fact that black officers are under-represented in the police and much as I disagree with SoRB about this there does seem to be a correlation between people being more comfotable and happy to feel and affinity with something if they see people similar to them around. The police loses a lot of its black officer recruits a waste in more ways than one. Maybe this is an attempt to affect this situation.



Id wager my dangly bits that in the higher echelons of the home office you will rarely see a black face and its only at the level of cleaners and menial staff where you get an over-representation of black people. id guess that even a positive action to get more white peopole in these posts wouldnt work because the white people who want jobs in the home office have better jobs and the white people who havent got jobs dont want the jobs anyway.


Im not saying all women are capable of being fron line troops, but I think its mens problem if they cant handle seeing claret come oout of a woman just as easily as they see claret come out of man. What is it you are always saying about its not what happens to you its how you deal with it.


"The police exist to uphold the law. Colour doesn't come into it."

As someone who has been beat up by the police for being black I only wish that was true.



"You are the best recruiting sergeant the BNP could ever have Blicky."

I am? What's the pay like maybe I should apply?



"You are a professional victim,"

Well Ive never been paid for it but where do I apply for that post?




"You absolutely refuse to perceive what is a blatantly unfair employment practice because it suits your agenda.

It suits equality by the looks of things so yeah guilty as charged but its not unfair as you can see there are others and Id guess the same job open to white people too. depite your graoundless assertions. Im still waiting for you to prove anything you have said in the first post is anything but a poor attempt a "white people are victims, being done down by pinko liberals for the benfit of black interlopers" rabble rousing rant? As your recruiting sergeant Id like you to do better in the future.




"You prowl the threads looking to take offence and imagine in your puffed-up ego that people are talking about you."

Try dealing with the issue...oh Ive just looked back on other threads and remembered...you cant!

Groundless? It's a link to a job application that clearly shows race discrimination. As a way of a riposte, you find an ad that's open to all? WTF does that prove? "They're not always racist"? That makes it ok does it?

An honest answer from you for once Blicky. If an ad were to be posted saying "Whites only" as blatantly as this one says "Blacks only", would you be concerned?

Chanting heard from the blicky sockpuppet road end.....

Come - on - bli - cky, Come - on - bli - cky!

Actually we're already 3 - 0 up, and it's only half time.

Any decision made upon race alone is, by definition, racist.

If I were to apply for a job only to be told I was the wrong colour, I'd be angry and upset. Anyone would, be they black, white or brown. They go back to their families and recount what has happened, without the background. The families repeat it to friends etc and before you know it hundreds of people are repeating that Company X are only employing black/white/brown people. It was precisely because this was going on that the Race Relations Act came into being - to stop recruitment being based on colour.

If you select employees based upon race, you are discriminating racially. All the big words and fancy terms are just excuses. You can't fight racism by being racist.

There is a popular saying you may have heard of, "you cant fight fire with fire"

People who fight forest fires do though.

My honest answer about the job being advertised to only whites is yes, but it depends on the circumstances. White pensioners who were distrubed by only having black health visitors and the council wanted to provide a service they *needed* Id say fair enough.

The police force have decided they require the services of a black personnel trainee. There are hoops you have to jump through to justify an exemption from the rules, you cant just do it to fill a quota.

If I were to aply for a job and then find they were only short listing women Id be mighty p'eed off but they tend to tell you that in the advert anyway. I can see good reasons for a swimming pool with four male attendants asking if they could advertise for two female attendants because that's what the users wanted but they'd get nowhere saying we want to employ three women and sack one of the blokes. Which is why you see "we particularly welcome applicants who are [fill in the under-represented group of your choice]..." tagged onto job adverts.

Like I say men are currently actively sought for primary teaching posts.


I did attempt to explain this but if you want to be tedious we will go over racist again.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racist
As you can see there are several similar but distinguishable meanings for the same word. So while any discrimination is as you say racist using proactive selection does not have the same intent as what *most* people would call racist actions.

I still say your accusations of "pure and simple" are groundless unless you count a failure to understand that acting proactively can work against wider racism is a ground for crying fowl whenever you see something like this.

And please dont retreat to the "this sort of thing helps the BNP" line. Fact is there are nasty people who will hate and encourage others to hate people they fear and they have been doing it for a long time before positive action was ever thought of.



PS my answers are always honest. You might not agre with them and you obviously dont like them but they're always honest.

Thank you Blicky, for a post missing the usual abuse which just sets me off & gets the vicious circle going again.

As two people living in the real world aware of how things really work, let me put this to you:

If the recruiters in this case wanted to employ a specific type of person, they could have done so without advertising in such a blatantly discriminatory way. They could have just advertised, interviewed and appointed, making sure they got the person they wanted. It's easy and goes on every day. Promoting discriminatory practices (whatever you dress them up as, they're still discriminatory - good reason or no), is guaranteed to alienate those excluded. Now, I happen to know that copies of that ad are currently circulating in police canteens throughout the country and causing a lot of disquiet. Many policemen and women are leaving the force because of the rise in bureaucracy which they feel is stopping them doing their job. Actions like the above may be felt to be laudable, but is it worth the cost? Really worth the cost?

It's stupid, self-defeating and inflammatory. The same result can be achieved without pissing off so many people.

As I've said earlier, those pissed off people talk to others and like Chinese Whispers, the story gains arms and legs. The intention may have been misguidedly good, but the result is overwhemingy counter-productive to race relations.

Hmmmm, lots and lots of the usual stuff that takes some time to decipher the meaning of. By now though, I can pretty much guess the general slant of it: If it's offensive or an impediment to persons of dark skin, it's racism. If it's any other colour tone, then it's "equitable considerations" or some such biased nonsense.

Oh, and the usual cheering squad arrived.

As for the <> bit, I tell you what. It was a news clip from sometime between 1991 and 1995 (known because I read it while living in Nova Scotia). And I believe the case appeared somewhere in Ontario. You, blicky, seem to have unlimited time to google and stuff, try some key words and that time frame for yourself. I simply don't have the time, what with a job, a home, a family and a life of sorts.

SWL's right. It is racist, in a sense.

And Blicky's right. There are sometimes good reasons for discrimination.

And SWL's right. Good reason or no, it was poorly effected.

And Fanny's boring.

Shrug.

TRiG.

*waits patiently ... to see if the preceding uncovers ... *

Hmm.

It complimented Blicky and me.
It criticised Fanny.

I wonder who could have taken offence?

Actually the really interesting question, but unfortunately just as impossible one to answer is, who yikesed?

A little bit of frivolity now and then never hurt anyone, and as I expected anyone with at *least* half a brain to realise, I was laughing as much at myself in post 8. Something we English do rather well at on the whole, whatever colour we happen to be. Something I'm rather proud of as it takes a degree of mental cuteness.

And because of your last silly billy post, SWL.....(and if you listen carefully, I'm mentioned towards the end.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRTWL4k13EQ

Thank you Blicky, for a post missing the usual abuse

"I have been a little under the weather lately but rest assured normal service will be resumed shortly



"which just sets me off & gets the vicious circle going again.

You're right about our parts int he vicious cirlce but if as it seems, you htink its a bad idea to be involved why do it? I did because they did it first is a pathetic excuse when 8 year olds use it and doubly so when adults try to employ it.


"As two people living in the real world aware of how things really work,

I think you giving one of us way too much credit there.



"If the recruiters in this case wanted to employ a specific type of person, they could have done so without advertising in such a blatantly discriminatory way.They could have just advertised, interviewed and appointed, making sure they got the person they wanted.

They could have printed that advert and done that but someone would have blown the whistle and they would have been in hot water for breaking the law. In this instance although you are arguing it is unfair, they were being legally correct and transparent so that if anyone didnt like it the police could atleast say they were being "above board"


"It's easy and goes on every day."

It is illegal and with good reason. It may wee be easy and go on every day much like shoplifting and car theft but you wouldnt want to promote them with you're "Its easy and goes on ever day" slogan would you?



"Promoting discriminatory practices (whatever you dress them up as, they're still discriminatory - good reason or no), is guaranteed to alienate those excluded.

Were you exlcuded? No you didnt want the job and in all likelyhood neither did the person who told you about this. Or do *you* trawl the internet all day desperate to find job adverts to take offence at?

Discrimination is like fighting fire with fire, an unfortunate business people would rather not have to tackle but its better than not fighting the fire at all. Im sure the police force cold find other things to spend money on that diversity training but you know what a lot of coppers bloody well need it to do the job right.


"Now, I happen to know that copies of that ad are currently circulating in police canteens throughout the country and causing a lot of disquiet."

Good.


"Many policemen and women are leaving the force because of the rise in bureaucracy which they feel is stopping them doing their job."

Good! Anyone who joined the force in the last 10 to 15 years and isnt smart enough to put up with it and hang on for the pension isnt smart enough to be doing the job of preventing crime and detecting criminals.

Anyone who joined up in the last 10 years and hadnt cottoned before they joined that there was a lot of paper work to do and more on the way shouldnt be in the police force as they probably arent smart enough to fasten their own tunic up.



"Actions like the above may be felt to be laudable, but is it worth the cost? Really worth the cost?

Even better if there are police officers who are either:

1) unable to grasp why the above is a measured and appropriate response to the lack of black officers

or

2) dead set against any measures to promote equality and better minority representation in the police force

or

3) so stupid they conflate and confuse beuraucracy with affirmitive action,

then Id prefer it if they left the police force sooner than later.




"It's stupid, self-defeating and inflammatory. The same result can be achieved without pissing off so many people.

How, by breaking the law and stil pissing off the same people who are upset about this when some whistle blower tells everyone? If you know a better way do tell.



"As I've said earlier, those pissed off people talk to others and like Chinese Whispers, the story gains arms and legs. The intention may have been misguidedly good, but the result is overwhemingy counter-productive to race relations.

Well I agree that some people will use this to damage race relations. However some will use anything they can and if there's nothing to use they will just make things up anyway. That some people deride a system is no reason to get rid of it if that were the case the Inland Revenue would have been dismanteld years ago.

one love

I have a simple question, blicky ... In your view, has there been a single, well-intentioned and intelligent person (of any gender or biological/geographical/what-ever backgorund) joined a police agency in the UK? It does seem that none have except for raw racist brutes. From your slant, atleast. You see, I will visit your country (assuming you lay any claim to being English, British, what-ever) in the autumn. And wish to know if I should find a way to arrive either well armed with weapons, or loads of money for graft. I am, after all, visibly pale skinned and seem anglo.

What a load of sanctimonious, incoherent, self-deluding twaddle.

You compare employment practices with shoplifting and theft. You may know a lot about the latter, but you demonstrably know nothing about the former.

Race discrimination legislation is fundamentally flawed because, although balanced on paper, it is visibly unbalanced in practice. The quota system and the state-sanctioned racism that is "Positive Action" is an admission that laws have been unsuccessful in guiding race relations and now people must be bludgeoned into fitting a statistical model. Quota systems place the emphasis on skin colour over ability - that is discriminating on grounds of race.

A lot of crap is talked, usually by you, about institutional racism. And yet, within a generation of modern immigration beginning, we have a black, female leader of the House of Lords, a Muslim Admiral, BME judges, Archbishops, chief constables, Lords and civil leaders in every field. This isn't tokenism when it is so widespread. The truth is, British society has been incredibly benevolent and inclusive towards BMEs. The people who cry foul and play the race card are the social inadequates and delinquents that exist in every ethnic grouping who will grasp at any fig leaf that excuses their own shortcomings. Far easier to claim to be a victim than to accept personal responsibility. You yourself admitted as much when you placed the justification on becoming a criminal upon people treating you like "scum".

It is interesting to note that it is the Public Sector that most ruthlessly pursues quotas - the sector that has no quality threshold to meet and no pressure to perform efficiently. Indeed, the most inefficient, incompetent and least cost-effective sector with the lowest staff morale and highest incidence of industrial action is the one that purports to be the flagbearer of equal opportunities.

Yet the private sector, although far from perfect, where casual racism and sexism in recruitment goes on extensively on a nod & a wink basis has the highest levels of staff satisfaction. Look at the FT100 top companies : http://www.bestcompanies.co.uk/survey_list.aspx?Survey=16&Size=29&FE=False

Only one public sector employer in the top 20 despite the public sector providing up to 50% of jobs in some areas. Look at the detail provided in the list - more than 50% of the top ten have horrendously imbalanced workforces in terms of sex. No figures are supplied for race but, given that only one of the top twenty has a published ethnic quota target, the other 19 presumably hire on the "best person for the job" mentality.

Incidentally, I didn't trawl anywhere for the advert. It was a main topic of discussion on the Times, Observer, Five Live and other message boards. No need to go digging at all for such a blatantly racist example of public sector recruiting. You on the other hand, along with your little cheerleader, quite obviously trawl through the journals of people looking to take offence.

In all, nicely put sir.