Jump to content

Saints only Premier League club not to sign up to FA diversity code


Recommended Posts

As above, Saints only Prem club not to sign up, citing not enough time given to consider the proposal properly. No doubt the headline is going to generate some idiots slating us, but glad we aren’t just doing token gestures because we already satisfy a lot of the criteria already.

Daily Mail Article

Edited by saintwbu
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would steer away from these kind of quotas if I were the club.  Focus on getting the right person for whatever the position is, and the rest should follow.  If there IS found to be some prejudice somewhere within the club, stamp it out.  Otherwise let the people whose job it is to employ the very best get on with their job.  

Ask yourself this.  If we had similar quotas on the starting 11, would you be happy that Walcott had to be chosen ahead of Amstrong for Sunday's game even though he's arguably second choice?  If it's not appropriate on the pitch, why should it be so in any other department of the club?

Edited by Manuel
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically Saints are saying that they are wah ahead of the game already, the only club to have achieved the existing standard. Now the FA want to move the goal posts and Saints want time to consider how it affects them. The headlines will be otherwise but the fact is (apparently) that Saints are already the best in this field.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am surprised (maybe I shouldn't be) that the aims specify "hires" rather than "interviews". I can totally see how someone with an unusual name might not get an interview because someone is either prejudice or subconciously biased, but you'd like to think that a face to face interview would give an opportunity to overcome that discrimination (supposing of course that the person hiring isn't a massive racist). To enforce that you actually have to HIRE a % of a certain type of person rather suggests the best people for the job won't necessarily get it.

I'd be interested to hear a counter argument to that though, I'm not against positive discrimination, perhaps someone with a bit more understanding could explain how this eventually leads to a better outcome. (Not looking for a response on how the world's gone PC mad or how it's pandering to black history month etc... yawn)

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mrfahaji said:

I am surprised (maybe I shouldn't be) that the aims specify "hires" rather than "interviews". I can totally see how someone with an unusual name might not get an interview because someone is either prejudice or subconciously biased, but you'd like to think that a face to face interview would give an opportunity to overcome that discrimination (supposing of course that the person hiring isn't a massive racist). To enforce that you actually have to HIRE a % of a certain type of person rather suggests the best people for the job won't necessarily get it.

I'd be interested to hear a counter argument to that though, I'm not against positive discrimination, perhaps someone with a bit more understanding could explain how this eventually leads to a better outcome. (Not looking for a response on how the world's gone PC mad or how it's pandering to black history month etc... yawn)

Don’t you think positive discrimination is patronising?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Turkish said:

Don’t you think positive discrimination is patronising?

Depends. But not if it's there to combat negative discrimination, which exists. Like all these things I could put myself in either situation and find fault with it. Would I be annoyed if I went for a job at Southampton FC and didn't get it because while I was the best qualified and performed best at interview, they had to take on someone else who was female or an ethnic minority? Of course I would, might even make me feel a bit racist/sexist! However, if I had a foreign sounding name, and thought I was cut out for jobs (or at least knew I was good enough for an interview) that I kept on being turned down for (before having an interview, say), then I probably wouldn't care about being "patronised" by positive discrimination, I'd want it!

That's why I expressed surprise that these rules specify 'hires' rather than 'interviews' or something similar. As much as I'd like to think discrimination wouldn't be so blatant/stupid, at least an interview gives someone a chance to say "she might be a woman, but she knew much more about the club than I expected" or "I wasn't expecting Mohamed to be such a likeable chap!"

Perhaps - could be about to answer my own question - you need to change the perception amongst people who might apply. If I compare to Oxbridge, for example - they are criticised for the bias towards posh/rich kids, but the issue is less than they reject students from poor backgrounds, but rather those kids assume Oxbridge "isn't for them", so don't apply. This obviously creates a vicious cycle. Oxbridge start taking on more state school pupils, is that patronising? Tokenism? Even if their required grades are slightly lower? Maybe. But maybe they have to do it for a bit so that in future some of those pupils who would have otherwise assumed Oxbridge wasn't for them now look and think "maybe I can go there after all". And then in the long term, you do genuinely get the best.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, mrfahaji said:

Depends. But not if it's there to combat negative discrimination, which exists. Like all these things I could put myself in either situation and find fault with it. Would I be annoyed if I went for a job at Southampton FC and didn't get it because while I was the best qualified and performed best at interview, they had to take on someone else who was female or an ethnic minority? Of course I would, might even make me feel a bit racist/sexist! However, if I had a foreign sounding name, and thought I was cut out for jobs (or at least knew I was good enough for an interview) that I kept on being turned down for (before having an interview, say), then I probably wouldn't care about being "patronised" by positive discrimination, I'd want it!

That's why I expressed surprise that these rules specify 'hires' rather than 'interviews' or something similar. As much as I'd like to think discrimination wouldn't be so blatant/stupid, at least an interview gives someone a chance to say "she might be a woman, but she knew much more about the club than I expected" or "I wasn't expecting Mohamed to be such a likeable chap!"

Perhaps - could be about to answer my own question - you need to change the perception amongst people who might apply. If I compare to Oxbridge, for example - they are criticised for the bias towards posh/rich kids, but the issue is less than they reject students from poor backgrounds, but rather those kids assume Oxbridge "isn't for them", so don't apply. This obviously creates a vicious cycle. Oxbridge start taking on more state school pupils, is that patronising? Tokenism? Even if their required grades are slightly lower? Maybe. But maybe they have to do it for a bit so that in future some of those pupils who would have otherwise assumed Oxbridge wasn't for them now look and think "maybe I can go there after all". And then in the long term, you do genuinely get the best.

As a slight tangent I’ve known and worked with a number of people who have been involved in recruitment for various companies. You’d be surprised at the number of otherwise high calibre candidates who talk themselves out of even getting interviewed with a badly written CV or cover letter. As in, basic grammar and proof reading that people should have learned at school.

 

’I wood love to work for your company’ - Straight in the bin

Email address: bigboy69@hotmail.com - Bin

‘Thompson Airlines is a great company‘ - Bin (it’s Thomson)

Printed on scented/coloured paper - Bin

Little hearts used to dot the ‘i’s because you’re kinda creative and want to stand out - Bin

 

Obviously anyone can make these mistakes but if you don’t spot them and keep getting rejected, it can be massively frustrating. It’s not a big leap of the imagination to go from that to assuming you must be the victim of some form of discrimination.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Obviously anyone can make these mistakes but if you don’t spot them and keep getting rejected, it can be massively frustrating. It’s not a big leap of the imagination to go from that to assuming you must be the victim of some form of discrimination.

Sure, I was thinking even as I was writing it that maybe people imagine that it's discrimination and not a repeated error etc, but my aim/point was to try and take those possibilities out of the equation, because while I'm sure there are plenty of examples of people exaggerating discrimination, I also think it's far too easy for people to CLAIM it's all made up!

Those made me laugh btw, thanks :) I am definitely the type of person who would judge based on spelling/grammar and lament that so many people seem to think it's not important anymore (I have a pet peeve of people writing "with regards" instead of "as regards" or "with regard to", but I am fighting a losing battle with that one I fear...) But of course it doesn't necessarily mean you wouldn't be good at the job...

 

(think I've reached my post limit for the day now, since the site switched to the new host my subscription has been lost)

Edited by mrfahaji
Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly what a trash piece of reporting and anyone that was watching Sky sports news this morning would have seen the reply the club gave to this. No one at Sky criticised Saints this morning after reading out Saints reply because there was no room to criticise. Basically Saints were already well ahead of the game here and had already put things in place to make sure the diversity issue was not something we would ever be held to account over.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mrfahaji said:

Depends. But not if it's there to combat negative discrimination, which exists. Like all these things I could put myself in either situation and find fault with it. Would I be annoyed if I went for a job at Southampton FC and didn't get it because while I was the best qualified and performed best at interview, they had to take on someone else who was female or an ethnic minority? Of course I would, might even make me feel a bit racist/sexist! However, if I had a foreign sounding name, and thought I was cut out for jobs (or at least knew I was good enough for an interview) that I kept on being turned down for (before having an interview, say), then I probably wouldn't care about being "patronised" by positive discrimination, I'd want it!

That's why I expressed surprise that these rules specify 'hires' rather than 'interviews' or something similar. As much as I'd like to think discrimination wouldn't be so blatant/stupid, at least an interview gives someone a chance to say "she might be a woman, but she knew much more about the club than I expected" or "I wasn't expecting Mohamed to be such a likeable chap!"

Perhaps - could be about to answer my own question - you need to change the perception amongst people who might apply. If I compare to Oxbridge, for example - they are criticised for the bias towards posh/rich kids, but the issue is less than they reject students from poor backgrounds, but rather those kids assume Oxbridge "isn't for them", so don't apply. This obviously creates a vicious cycle. Oxbridge start taking on more state school pupils, is that patronising? Tokenism? Even if their required grades are slightly lower? Maybe. But maybe they have to do it for a bit so that in future some of those pupils who would have otherwise assumed Oxbridge wasn't for them now look and think "maybe I can go there after all". And then in the long term, you do genuinely get the best.

Would you be annoyed at the job if you only got it above other candidates because of your skin colour to tick a box in a code.

there an awful lot of talented none white hetrosexual people out there. The fact that people think it’s nessasary to help them By making a percentage of employees tick a diversity box because they’re not capable of getting jobs themselves is embarrassing and patronising to the thousands of talented black, gay, Asian etc people out there. 

Edited by Turkish
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

All this so called 'positive discrimination' and diversity quotas nonsense is a really dangerous road to go down. You don't get rid of discrimination by discriminating against other groups instead. People need to be hired according to how qualified they are to do the job and not because they have a certain skin colour or genitalia or whatever else.

Well done Saints for not signing up to this.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

The best way to hire people, in any industry really, would be to have some online portal where you upload a CV and cover letter and software then blocks the name, gender and email address from the recruitment team. That way it’s physically impossible to discriminate against any prospective candidates as you would have no idea as to the gender or ethnic background of the CV you’re reading. The best CV and cover letters are selected and interview invites are sent out based on that.

 

Obviously everything becomes apparent at the interview stage but if all 10 candidates are white men, that’s life.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A pathetic piece of virtue signalling rubbish but they've been pushing for this hard for years so it's not a surprise that they've managed to crowbar it in during the current climate. The people to feel sorry for are those minorities who are really talented who would have been hired anyway who will now be viewed as a diversity hire to tick a box and their contribution devalued as a result. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

A pathetic piece of virtue signalling rubbish but they've been pushing for this hard for years so it's not a surprise that they've managed to crowbar it in during the current climate. The people to feel sorry for are those minorities who are really talented who would have been hired anyway who will now be viewed as a diversity hire to tick a box and their contribution devalued as a result. 

I can safely say I've never looked at an minority who has a good job and thought you only have this job because of a tick box exercise. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Little Lat Pahars said:

I can safely say I've never looked at an minority who has a good job and thought you only have this job because of a tick box exercise. 

But if you worked in a place where 25% Of employees had to be a minority, would you wonder if some of the less competent Had only got their jobs because of it?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Little Lat Pahars said:

I can safely say I've never looked at an minority who has a good job and thought you only have this job because of a tick box exercise. 

Does your workplace have mandated diversity quotas where a percentage of the workforce are not necessarily in their position because they are the best candidate for the job? If not then you'd have no reason to think a minority has the job because of a box ticking exercise which is entirely my point. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-8886307/Tyrone-Mings-warns-black-players-NOT-sign-clubs-havent-joined-new-diversity-code.html

Aston Villa star Tyrone Mings warns black players will NOT sign for clubs that haven't joined up to FA's new diversity code - with Southampton the only Premier League side not to do so

Mings said: 'I don't know the reasons why Southampton haven't signed up"

Erm, how about reading the club's explanation Tyrone? Just a thought 

Edited by trousers
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, trousers said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-8886307/Tyrone-Mings-warns-black-players-NOT-sign-clubs-havent-joined-new-diversity-code.html

Aston Villa star Tyrone Mings warns black players will NOT sign for clubs that haven't joined up to FA's new diversity code - with Southampton the only Premier League side not to do so

Mings said: 'I don't know the reasons why Southampton haven't signed up"

Erm, how about reading the club's explanation Tyrone? Just a thought 

We only sign black players these days, so this is a load of nonsense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, trousers said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-8886307/Tyrone-Mings-warns-black-players-NOT-sign-clubs-havent-joined-new-diversity-code.html

Aston Villa star Tyrone Mings warns black players will NOT sign for clubs that haven't joined up to FA's new diversity code - with Southampton the only Premier League side not to do so

Mings said: 'I don't know the reasons why Southampton haven't signed up"

Erm, how about reading the club's explanation Tyrone? Just a thought 

Unless I’ve missed a bit of that terrible, ad-infested article, I can’t find a quote where he says anything along the lines of the BIB. Seems like the Mail really want to make a mountain of this molehill. Who’d have thought.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Lighthouse said:

Unless I’ve missed a bit of that terrible, ad-infested article, I can’t find a quote where he says anything along the lines of the BIB. Seems like the Mail really want to make a mountain of this molehill. Who’d have thought.

It really is disgusting. Southampton are the only team who want to step back for a second and discuss the implications of what in reality are seismic changes to how they conduct their business rather than being nodding dogs and just getting it through and the implication is that they are racist in some way.

Bludgeoning through diversity hires and quotas and then criticising those who don't immediately give it wholehearted approval is no way to go about things. All this is going to do is cause resentment and mistrust and will imo lead to further division along racial lines and yet more interminable conversations about the shade of someone's skin and our differences. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

It really is disgusting. Southampton are the only team who want to step back for a second and discuss the implications of what in reality are seismic changes to how they conduct their business rather than being nodding dogs and just getting it through and the implication is that they are racist in some way.

Bludgeoning through diversity hires and quotas and then criticising those who don't immediately give it wholehearted approval is no way to go about things. All this is going to do is cause resentment and mistrust and will imo lead to further division along racial lines and yet more interminable conversations about the shade of someone's skin and our differences. 

Standard practice in these crazy virtue signalling times though isn’t it. You HAVE to do this and if anyone dares to disagree or even question it you are racist scum. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Good on the club and I hope we stand by our decision. 
 

Appointing / not considering a candidate because of their race is racist in itself. So much for the best person for the job. 
 

given that every player we seem to pull from the academy these days is black, I very much doubt there is an issue with racism at the club.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, whelk said:

I hope this ensure all clubs have to tweet Happy Eid or be fined

If we don't proudly fly the trans flag with the club crest on it this year then I'm throwing my rainbow saints scarf in the bin in disgust. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, SKD said:

Good on the club and I hope we stand by our decision. 
 

Appointing / not considering a candidate because of their race is racist in itself. So much for the best person for the job. 
 

given that every player we seem to pull from the academy these days is black, I very much doubt there is an issue with racism at the club.  

Indeed and it's offensive to suggest that the only reason you'd be against a quota system is because you are racist. I'm confident we can prove beyond doubt that SFC is not a racist club and that skin colour is not a barrier to success at our club as you already pointed out, but now we have IQ challenged morons like Mings suggesting there may be a boycott of our club from black players because we won't put our name to his ridiculous initiative. Fuck him. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Springboks rugby team had (not sure now) a black quota system policy and their standard dropped for a while (they are currently rugby world champions). This may have coincided with a general lessening of overall quality that included white players of course. Hard to say. However, people follow sport generally because they want to see the best competing against the best. Maybe this is a poor example, given South Africa's well-known history. I was one of the young demonstrators against the 1981 NZ Tour. But, I believe top quality sport is compromised if the best players aren't involved regardless of what's happening in the wider community. Society needs to change. After that, the changes will be reflected in sport. However, it's not right if somebody who clearly is good enough is not selected on the basis of race or ethnicity. Moh Salah is an obviousl example of how things should work.  He's there on merit, not as a token.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

Does your workplace have mandated diversity quotas where a percentage of the workforce are not necessarily in their position because they are the best candidate for the job? If not then you'd have no reason to think a minority has the job because of a box ticking exercise which is entirely my point. 

But people like you have been crying for decades over white males being discriminated against with companies being forced to hire minorities or women for box ticking exercises, so let's not try to pretend this is a new arguement. Which is exactly my point, it's been going on decades and I've never looked at someone that way.

You seem to get very upset and take over any thread that has any mention of ethnic minorities. Just the other day you was throwing your toys out the pram because based on no evidence you thought be a bunch of white men were sacked for ethnic diversity reasons and let your anger take over so you wouldn't even consider the fact that the ratings had been dropping and they were expensive contractors.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, trousers said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-8886307/Tyrone-Mings-warns-black-players-NOT-sign-clubs-havent-joined-new-diversity-code.html

Aston Villa star Tyrone Mings warns black players will NOT sign for clubs that haven't joined up to FA's new diversity code - with Southampton the only Premier League side not to do so

Mings said: 'I don't know the reasons why Southampton haven't signed up"

Erm, how about reading the club's explanation Tyrone? Just a thought 

I doubt he has even read the FA's new diversity code.  Whilst I applaud the 'black lives matter' campaign he needs to realise that diversity covers that and so much more.  Anyone who hasn't seen the 2020 Diversity and Equality report from the club can find it here - https://www.southamptonfc.com/news/2020-10-26/southampton-football-club-equality-and-diversity-report-2020

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Jeremy said:

The Springboks rugby team had (not sure now) a black quota system policy and their standard dropped for a while (they are currently rugby world champions). This may have coincided with a general lessening of overall quality that included white players of course. Hard to say. However, people follow sport generally because they want to see the best competing against the best. Maybe this is a poor example, given South Africa's well-known history. I was one of the young demonstrators against the 1981 NZ Tour. But, I believe top quality sport is compromised if the best players aren't involved regardless of what's happening in the wider community. Society needs to change. After that, the changes will be reflected in sport. However, it's not right if somebody who clearly is good enough is not selected on the basis of race or ethnicity. Moh Salah is an obviousl example of how things should work.  He's there on merit, not as a token.

Not sure what your point is. In sport generally the best players with the best attitude and application do make the top. There is no need for a quota in the England football team for example, 50% of them are black.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, trousers said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-8886307/Tyrone-Mings-warns-black-players-NOT-sign-clubs-havent-joined-new-diversity-code.html

Aston Villa star Tyrone Mings warns black players will NOT sign for clubs that haven't joined up to FA's new diversity code - with Southampton the only Premier League side not to do so

Mings said: 'I don't know the reasons why Southampton haven't signed up"

Erm, how about reading the club's explanation Tyrone? Just a thought 

I’m pretty sure that if this was any other club than saints though this place would be apoplectic about the racist scum club and their hateful, racist fans not signing up. Our resident virtue signallers would be all over this thread claiming how Depressing it is and how there is still so much to be done to cure racism. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Little Lat Pahars said:

But people like you have been crying for decades over white males being discriminated against with companies being forced to hire minorities or women for box ticking exercises, so let's not try to pretend this is a new arguement. Which is exactly my point, it's been going on decades and I've never looked at someone that way.

You seem to get very upset and take over any thread that has any mention of ethnic minorities. Just the other day you was throwing your toys out the pram because based on no evidence you thought be a bunch of white men were sacked for ethnic diversity reasons and let your anger take over so you wouldn't even consider the fact that the ratings had been dropping and they were expensive contractors.

 

 

"people like me" what an unpleasant comment and please don't pretend to know what position I've advocated for unless I've told you. I don't support discrimination in hiring practices and I would never be "crying about discrimination of white males" largely because I very much dislike the term and I wouldn't be advocating solely for one racial group because I consider that in itself to be racist. The Premier league are literally advocating for a quota system where certain hires will be a box ticking exercise and where positions will be decided not solely on competence but on your racial makeup or gender. 

No idea what you're talking about with the second part of your post. If you'd like to provide a link to whatever you're talking about then I can possibly provide some context because I expect the situation is not how you are characterising it. 

Edited by hypochondriac
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Turkish said:

I’m pretty sure that if this was any other club than saints though this place would be apoplectic about the racist scum club and their hateful, racist fans not signing up. Our resident virtue signallers would be all over this thread claiming how Depressing it is and how there is still so much to be done to cure racism. 

Could you imagine if it were Burnley! 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

"people like me" what an unpleasant comment and please don't pretend to know what position I've advocated for unless I've told you. I don't support discrimination in hiring practices and I would never be "crying about discrimination of white males" largely because I very much dislike the term and I wouldn't be advocating solely for one racial group because I consider that in itself to be racist. 

No idea what you're talking about with the second part of your post. If you'd like to provide a link to whatever you're talking about then I can possibly provide some context because I expect the situation is not how you are characterising it. 

I just meant people who get triggered by ethnic minorities, if i've got that wrong I apologies but your posts and the sheer volume of posts in this thread alone suggests otherwise. Edit to say I got you and Turkish confused in this thread. You hadnt posted that often at the start to be fair to you. Aplogies for that.

I haven't got time to troll back through your many posts but you was all over the MLT and the boys being released from their contract thread. 

Edited by Little Lat Pahars
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Little Lat Pahars said:

I just meant people who get triggered by ethnic minorities, if i've got that wrong I apologies but your posts and the sheer volume of posts in this thread alone suggests otherwise. Edit to say I got you and Turkish confused in this thread. You hadnt posted that often at the start to be fair to you. Aplogies for that.

I haven't got time to troll back through your many posts but you was all over the MLT and the boys being released from their contract thread. 

 Not sure how you’ve got me confused with anyone, before you edit you started going on about Hypos posts on Other threads so you’re obviously bullsh1tting to try and get away from your false accusations.  Nice try pal.

Edited by Turkish
Link to post
Share on other sites

Good to see Tyrone Mings suggesting players won’t sign for clubs who don’t sign up to this code. Presumably they’ll look at us and say ‘yeah i know you’ve got a higher level of diversity than every other club in the league, but i’m going to sign for Everton because they’ve signed up to the code, although they haven’t actually fulfilled any of the criteria it’s the token gesture that counts for me’. Always good to take lessons on morality from players who have a propensity to stamp on people’s head.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Little Lat Pahars said:

I just meant people who get triggered by ethnic minorities, if i've got that wrong I apologies but your posts and the sheer volume of posts in this thread alone suggests otherwise. Edit to say I got you and Turkish confused in this thread. You hadnt posted that often at the start to be fair to you. Aplogies for that.

I haven't got time to troll back through your many posts but you was all over the MLT and the boys being released from their contract thread. 

My interest is in my opposition to diversity quotas and to hiring practices that discriminate based on skin colour and gender. I'd have the same volume of posts and the same vocal opposition if there were a quota system for white English people or any ethnic discrimination because it is an ideology I strongly disagree with. What you can't seem to understand is that it's the principle I disagree with and not the ethnicity of the people involved which is an irrelevance in this matter. 

I don't remember precisely what I said with regards to Soccer Saturday but I expect I was speculating on the fact that other people in broadcasting organisations had been let go in the past and replaced by a more diverse lineup. You are correct that there may be a number of factors involved but if the presenters were replaced (as was speculated at the time) with a more diverse cast of characters then the suspicion would be in the current climate that it was done at least in for political reasons. I really don't care that much though as I don't really watch soccer Saturday anyway and it's certainly not evidence of me having a "problem with minorities." 

Edited by hypochondriac
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a lot of what gets perceived as racism is just people not liking being patronised. People want to just watch sport and other forms of entertainment without the need to be continuously spoon fed political correctness.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

The more that this subject is raised then the longer that differentiation and discrimination will perpetuate. It is reinforcing the concept that people are different from others on account of their skin colour or ethnicity. 

All discrimination is wrong be it negative or positive.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

My interest is in my opposition to diversity quotas and to hiring practices that discriminate based on skin colour and gender.

That is all there is to it really - hard for some to understand though.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Whitey Grandad said:

The more that this subject is raised then the longer that differentiation and discrimination will perpetuate. It is reinforcing the concept that people are different from others on account of their skin colour or ethnicity. 

All discrimination is wrong be it negative or positive.

Spot on. It also suggests that white people need to help minorities to get jobs. Look at us white people! We’re helping these Black people, we’ve put in quotas to make sure they get a fair crack, The savages need us for a leg up! How patronising. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

The more that this subject is raised then the longer that differentiation and discrimination will perpetuate. It is reinforcing the concept that people are different from others on account of their skin colour or ethnicity. 

All discrimination is wrong be it negative or positive.

I’m not a fan of positive discrimination but if discrimination on grounds of race or sex is already happening then maybe it’s a necessary evil?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, aintforever said:

I’m not a fan of positive discrimination but if discrimination on grounds of race or sex is already happening then maybe it’s a necessary evil?

 

I worry that, however well intentioned this may be, it may simply be reinforcing a negative. If you continuously tell people they are the victim of discrimination, it will stick and they will believe it, whether it happens to be true in that case or not. The fact is that most black people will fail in many of their endeavours; the reason being that this is true of everyone. The danger comes when you start implying that this is NOT the case for white people and quotas and diversity schemes only reinforce this. If you employ black people through such a scheme it creates the completely false paradigm of what life must be like for most white people.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

I worry that, however well intentioned this may be, it may simply be reinforcing a negative. If you continuously tell people they are the victim of discrimination, it will stick and they will believe it, whether it happens to be true in that case or not. The fact is that most black people will fail in many of their endeavours; the reason being that this is true of everyone. The danger comes when you start implying that this is NOT the case for white people and quotas and diversity schemes only reinforce this. If you employ black people through such a scheme it creates the completely false paradigm of what life must be like for most white people.

I don’t disagree but if people are being discriminated against and the law isn’t helping them I’m not sure how else you can get change.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are QPR and that racist fucker Les Ferdinand still getting pelters for not taking the knee? I hope some white people are educating Les on racism and the need to take a stance.

Maybe Jamie Redknapp or Martin Tyler could have a word as they always seem very earnest about it all 

Edited by whelk
Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Turkish: Not sure what your point is. In sport generally the best players with the best attitude and application do make the top. There is no need for a quota in the England football team for example, 50% of them are black.

 

Just saying I don't believe in any discrimination but using sport as a way of changing systemic prejudice (racism or sexism) is not necessarily the right way to go. I was a protestor in 1981 because the Springboks were a racist team from a racist society at the time. Basically, we wanted them to  f@#* off and sort ouf theirr country.

Edited by Jeremy
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

View Terms of service (Terms of Use) and Privacy Policy (Privacy Policy) and Forum Guidelines ({Guidelines})