You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > BBC (again)
May 26 2022 2.27am

BBC (again)

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 143 of 148 < 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 >

 

View Badger11's Profile Badger11 Flag Beckenham 10 May 22 1.54pm Send a Private Message to Badger11 Add Badger11 as a friend

I often came across this corporate group think when I was working. This is a general comment not specific to diversity.

I would be told we had to do something a certain way because it was the law which was actually incorrect. What they meant to say was that our company in order to confirm to regulations had decided on a certain policy which of course is not the same thing.

 


One more point

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View PalazioVecchio's Profile PalazioVecchio Flag south pole 10 May 22 2.47pm Send a Private Message to PalazioVecchio Add PalazioVecchio as a friend

Originally posted by silvertop

the BBC have to do this inclusivity thing as there is secondary legislation tied to the Equality Act that requires it.

.


true, i do recall some presumably-straight white British men on one of their Crime documentaries. Locked up and banging on the door of their cell.

 


7 points from Manchester this season

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View georgenorman's Profile georgenorman Flag 10 May 22 2.52pm Send a Private Message to georgenorman Add georgenorman as a friend

Originally posted by PalazioVecchio

he is a Lefty climate change bore. Like a white Sadiq Khan.

try again.

a BBC white Straight ( non lefty) British man ? any takers ?

Edited by PalazioVecchio (09 May 2022 6.37pm)

Rab C. Nesbitt?

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View PalazioVecchio's Profile PalazioVecchio Flag south pole 10 May 22 4.07pm Send a Private Message to PalazioVecchio Add PalazioVecchio as a friend

Originally posted by georgenorman

Rab C. Nesbitt?

a straight white british man ? on the bbc ? is he a joke Right-winger ? a shoe-in to lampoon the ridiculousness of Tory voters.

alan partridge, alf Garnet , Rab Nesbitt ?

 


7 points from Manchester this season

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Badger11's Profile Badger11 Flag Beckenham 11 May 22 7.39am Send a Private Message to Badger11 Add Badger11 as a friend

Originally posted by georgenorman

Rab C. Nesbitt?

Last on the BBC over 10 years ago.

 


One more point

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View silvertop's Profile silvertop Flag Portishead 11 May 22 11.03am Send a Private Message to silvertop Add silvertop as a friend

Originally posted by TheBigToePunt

Silvertop, are you able to provide any more specific details (which section of which Act, any accompanying guidance etc?).

I have become increasingly concerned about this. My place of work is proudly compelling me to discriminate, very much against my will. Specifically:

1. When I interview candidates, I must form a panel which is diverse in terms of race and gender. I am so dull as to only occupy one of each, so I had to ask a female colleague of Asian heritage to join me on the panel regardless of her personal suitability for the task, and also explain that if she can't make it, I need to find another non-white female because in the eyes of this insane woke legislation, you lot are all the same.

2. They are introducing targets (quotas) regarding the racial composition of the workplace, which they want me to factor in when deciding who to employ. I researched this, and found that generally speaking positive discrimination is illegal under (then EU, perhaps now just UK?) law, because any form of discrimination is illegal. However, there is a clause allowing a place of employment to introduce race as a criterion for employment if that organisation feels that a particular racial group is disadvantaged at that time.

I looked into this further. From what I could gather, firstly, race could only be used as a kind of tie-breaker (i.e two candidates had to be equally appointable before race could be used to separate them). Secondly, the employing company doesn't need to demonstrate to anyone that a particular race is, as a matter of fact, disadvantaged in order to introduce positive discrimination - they just have to believe it is so. Thirdly, even if an employer feels a racial group is disadvantaged there is no compulsion to use positive discrimination, it is a choice an employer can make.

It seems to me that far from positive discrimination being forced upon my employer by the regulations, it is my employer who has actively chosen this path.

The Equality Act 2010 (Public Authorities and Consequential and Supplementary Amendments) Order 2011.

It widened the definition of "public authority" to include the BBC and Ch4 (both publicly owned).

From that enactment, the BBC was subject to the same legislative woke directive as your workplace.

I fully accept that it is in the interpretation where the issue may lie. Thus, even without the fear of losing Charter and the endless flow of complaints which will be determined by the complaints body in line with the Act, the BBC is staffed with sufficient media lovelies to still knock out largely woke crud.

However, we will also get humour that rubs against it and engage e.g., people who are funny rather than just diverse. And it will also permit documentaries that scrutinize and critique policies, supposedly made in the name of the Act that, in their true effect, actively discriminate against 87% of the population. That is, after all, one of the supposed purposes of the Fourth Estate which the BBC still proudly believes it is an important part of.

Thus, on your issue, I am no employment law expert. I would imagine (without looking it up) that the Act applies in full force to all public authorities and to any private body employing over a certain number of staff (50?).

But does the Act REQUIRE all those things you have highlighted? As in all things of this nature, whether it be health and safety or insurance conditions, certainly not. It it is all about risk aversion. The Act sets a minimum standard not some micro-managed dogma.

Nevertheless, employment lawyers and other HR experts have seen the Act, trawled through the case law interpreting it, and come up with a policy in place that is at the far end of the risk spectrum. They must create THE IMAGE of a "safe space" working environment with the thought only of avoiding expensive claims and reputational damage.

Thus, even if the staff are all males and a complainant woman gets turned down for a role, if they can demonstrate to the Tribunal that she is unsuitable AND can show a track record of preferentially interviewing women, they may have a successful defence. They are even more likely to win if they can show a high % of women properly employed and appearing on interview panels.

It is partly about compliance and partly about presentation via computer readable box-tick. It is the world in which we live.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 11 May 22 11.16am Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Remember when the Tories were against this stuff.....and since taking over from New Labour they have done nothing to roll it back.

In fact the 'online safety' bill is coming with their blessing.

This party may call itself conservative but it doesn't represent its base.

All mainstream parties should reflect their bases, otherwise they are disfigurements of our supposed democracy.

Edited by Stirlingsays (11 May 2022 11.16am)

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View W12's Profile W12 11 May 22 11.18am Send a Private Message to W12 Add W12 as a friend

There are plenty of straight white men on the BBC, trouble is they are generally poor role models, flawed, stupid, physically weak, cowardly, feminine stereotypes etc

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View TheBigToePunt's Profile TheBigToePunt Flag 11 May 22 11.46am Send a Private Message to TheBigToePunt Add TheBigToePunt as a friend

Originally posted by silvertop

The Equality Act 2010 (Public Authorities and Consequential and Supplementary Amendments) Order 2011.

It widened the definition of "public authority" to include the BBC and Ch4 (both publicly owned).

From that enactment, the BBC was subject to the same legislative woke directive as your workplace.

I fully accept that it is in the interpretation where the issue may lie. Thus, even without the fear of losing Charter and the endless flow of complaints which will be determined by the complaints body in line with the Act, the BBC is staffed with sufficient media lovelies to still knock out largely woke crud.

However, we will also get humour that rubs against it and engage e.g., people who are funny rather than just diverse. And it will also permit documentaries that scrutinize and critique policies, supposedly made in the name of the Act that, in their true effect, actively discriminate against 87% of the population. That is, after all, one of the supposed purposes of the Fourth Estate which the BBC still proudly believes it is an important part of.

Thus, on your issue, I am no employment law expert. I would imagine (without looking it up) that the Act applies in full force to all public authorities and to any private body employing over a certain number of staff (50?).

But does the Act REQUIRE all those things you have highlighted? As in all things of this nature, whether it be health and safety or insurance conditions, certainly not. It it is all about risk aversion. The Act sets a minimum standard not some micro-managed dogma.

Nevertheless, employment lawyers and other HR experts have seen the Act, trawled through the case law interpreting it, and come up with a policy in place that is at the far end of the risk spectrum. They must create THE IMAGE of a "safe space" working environment with the thought only of avoiding expensive claims and reputational damage.

Thus, even if the staff are all males and a complainant woman gets turned down for a role, if they can demonstrate to the Tribunal that she is unsuitable AND can show a track record of preferentially interviewing women, they may have a successful defence. They are even more likely to win if they can show a high % of women properly employed and appearing on interview panels.

It is partly about compliance and partly about presentation via computer readable box-tick. It is the world in which we live.

Thanks silvertop.

As per my last posts, my own research strongly suggested that it was an active choice on the part of my employer (a Local Council) to pursue race quota targets in employment, and not something the law compelled them to do.

My surprise was not that anyone would engage in such an enterprise, but (firstly) that it was legal, and (secondly) that in order to exercise the legal right to discriminate, an employer apparently only needs to believe/think/feel that a group or groups are disadvantaged. They don't seem to have to evidence it, or convince an independent adjudicator of their case. There is no obvious check and balance exercise required before an employer can exercise the right to discriminate.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Hrolf The Ganger's Profile Hrolf The Ganger Flag 11 May 22 12.10pm Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger Add Hrolf The Ganger as a friend

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Remember when the Tories were against this stuff.....and since taking over from New Labour they have done nothing to roll it back.

In fact the 'online safety' bill is coming with their blessing.

This party may call itself conservative but it doesn't represent its base.

All mainstream parties should reflect their bases, otherwise they are disfigurements of our supposed democracy.

Edited by Stirlingsays (11 May 2022 11.16am)

It is basically saying that we will force the population to accept mass immigration and the integration of immigrants into society, institutions and the work place, and criminalize or vilify any attempt to subvert it.

There is our democracy.

The elites control our lives, and useful idiots and ambitious fools help them do it.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 11 May 22 12.16pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

It is basically saying that we will force the population to accept mass immigration and the integration of immigrants into society, institutions and the work place, and criminalize or vilify any attempt to subvert it.

There is our democracy.

The elites control our lives, and useful idiots and ambitious fools help them do it.

Succinctly put.

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View W12's Profile W12 11 May 22 1.33pm Send a Private Message to W12 Add W12 as a friend

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Remember when the Tories were against this stuff.....and since taking over from New Labour they have done nothing to roll it back.

In fact the 'online safety' bill is coming with their blessing.

This party may call itself conservative but it doesn't represent its base.

All mainstream parties should reflect their bases, otherwise they are disfigurements of our supposed democracy.

Edited by Stirlingsays (11 May 2022 11.16am)

While we are on the subject of legislation here are a few gems that have either been proposed, passed or are in the works as it stands:

1. Covert Human Intelligence (Criminal Conduct) Act - these will legalise government agencies to commit crime with no limitations on what type of crime and is not restricted even to security services

2. Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill - effectively removing the right to protest

3. Online Safety bill - will criminalise "misinformation"

4. Counter State Threats Bill - will criminalise whistleblowers

5. Human Rights Act Reform Bill - will remove individual rights in favour of the "common good"

6. Living with COVID plan - some COVID laws made permanent

7. WHO pandemic treaty - will allow the WHO to set criteria and control of declaration of any new pandemic and centrally control he response to it in terms of mandates, laws etc

All the above include deliberately vague language that is entirely at the discretion of government agencies to interpret.

There is no democracy.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 143 of 148 < 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > BBC (again)