Yellow Bear Posted April 6, 2019 Report Share Posted April 6, 2019 13 minutes ago, grrclark said: The point being if the bullying or prejudice towards an individual is not motivated by race or religion or any other 'ism' then they do not need additional law to protect them from that, so they are not disadvantaged. Again not really for this discussion many use race or religion or any other 'ism' to stifle issues where they should have only normal protection and thus gain advantage. again application of the law. If you can't "loose" someone who is incompetent at their job without great expense and unnecessarily high proof because they use an "ism" it severely disadvantages others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grrclark Posted April 6, 2019 Report Share Posted April 6, 2019 6 hours ago, panoma1 said: You have already conceded that there is a difference in the way different types of abuse, harassment, bullying whatever you want to call it are treated and dealt with....that fact disadvantages some in respect of their rights and the remedy they can secure for any breach of those rights........Perhaps you could explain why that should be? Why do you think if bullying or prejudice towards an individual is not motivated by race or religion" it deserves lesser protection? That is blatant inequality and positive discrimination against other sections of society! £13 million against £300 a week? I think I know who would be the most secure, if both were to leave their jobs! I can't explain why that would be as i don't believe it does advantage or disadvantage someone, kind of like asking me to explain why the earth is flat. However of course it is entirely appropriate that different types of abuse should suffer different consequence. Not withstanding the severity of different offences if my boss is a bully then I am afforded protection by the law, if my boss is racist towards me I am afforded protection by the law, but the boss faces additional censure for bing a racist. That does not put me at any disadvantage compared to my black colleague. The reason why race, religion, sexual orientation or other things (isms) are protected by name in law is because people have been persecuted on the basis of those and for no other reason. You keep referring to other sections of society, of which the clear inference is that you believe that you as a white male are somehow disadvantaged compared to a black person. The truth is that you have exactly the same rights under the law as they do, but the likelihood of you suffering racial abuse is massively diminished in comparison to them so you will likely never need to rely on those rights. Again if you asked the question of that black person would they rather rely on the protection of race laws or would they rather not face the abuse of small minded ignorant ***** i reckon i know what their answer would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grrclark Posted April 6, 2019 Report Share Posted April 6, 2019 6 hours ago, Yellow Bear said: Again not really for this discussion many use race or religion or any other 'ism' to stifle issues where they should have only normal protection and thus gain advantage. again application of the law. If you can't "loose" someone who is incompetent at their job without great expense and unnecessarily high proof because they use an "ism" it severely disadvantages others. I disagree with you too. This relies on the assumption that an employer cant fire a black person or a woman or a gay person because they have additional rights, well i'm afraid that is tabloid sensational nonsense. If someone is incompetent at their job then there is no reason at all why they cannot be let go, regardless of colour, religion, sex, sexuality or whatever else. Of course some may seek to exploit an 'advantage' or leverage by claiming unfair behaviour on the basis of discrimination, but that does not mean that it works. Quite honestly if employers are scared to take legitimate action against incompetence for fear of being labelled racist then either they are or they are incompetent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yellow Bear Posted April 7, 2019 Report Share Posted April 7, 2019 10 hours ago, grrclark said: Of course some may seek to exploit an 'advantage' or leverage by claiming unfair behaviour on the basis of discrimination, but that does not mean that it works. Quite honestly if employers are scared to take legitimate action against incompetence for fear of being labelled racist then either they are or they are incompetent. It is not incompetence it is cost(although this may have decreased over the last 5/6 years). It is often less expensive to continue to pay/promote the "offender" and place them on the "lateral pirouette" than take a case through tribunals and courts for a couple of years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rimfire4969 Posted April 7, 2019 Report Share Posted April 7, 2019 On 06/04/2019 at 08:35, oisin og said: Racist chanting and targeted racial abuse is despicable and should not be tolerated. To suggest that because the person abused is highly paid he should have to put up with it is idiotic, and speaks volumes about the people who suggest it. Agreed. Surely the people who use this vile language at a football match do the same day in day out, it gets passed to future generations, how the hell are we meant to stop it unless the law comes down very hard on them. Yes the guy is rich, but he should not suffer abuse because of the colour of his skin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted April 7, 2019 Author Report Share Posted April 7, 2019 11 hours ago, grrclark said: I can't explain why that would be as i don't believe it does advantage or disadvantage someone, kind of like asking me to explain why the earth is flat. However of course it is entirely appropriate that different types of abuse should suffer different consequence. Not withstanding the severity of different offences if my boss is a bully then I am afforded protection by the law, if my boss is racist towards me I am afforded protection by the law, but the boss faces additional censure for bing a racist. That does not put me at any disadvantage compared to my black colleague. The reason why race, religion, sexual orientation or other things (isms) are protected by name in law is because people have been persecuted on the basis of those and for no other reason. You keep referring to other sections of society, of which the clear inference is that you believe that you as a white male are somehow disadvantaged compared to a black person. The truth is that you have exactly the same rights under the law as they do, but the likelihood of you suffering racial abuse is massively diminished in comparison to them so you will likely never need to rely on those rights. Again if you asked the question of that black person would they rather rely on the protection of race laws or would they rather not face the abuse of small minded ignorant ***** i reckon i know what their answer would be. Firstly I didn't ask the question why you think "why it would be" I asked "why it should be" you cannot explain why different types of abuse are treated differently (some more seriously than others) because people are conditioned to blindly accept it, it's the establishments view of some idealistic type of equality that tries to find equality, by using unequal treatment as a means of achieving it! Now in the real world, I have seen positive discrimination against people who do not fit into the 'ist' catogory, in jobs in the Police, Fire service, local and central government, in fact in numerous situations, where applications are invited from and jobs are given to people from "under represented groups" to "make up numbers" its called tokenism! Where people without an 'ist' are unfairly selected for redundancy, where people with an 'ist' are promoted into jobs they cant do, in preference to a candidate without an ''ist', because the employer is frightened of the possible consequences of not giving the job to someone with and 'ist', or someone with an 'it's' getting away" with things those without an 'ist' would be dismissed for! If you think that's equality I submit you are wrong, when you enter human nature into the equation, all these wrong minded attempts of trying to find 'equality for all' is doing, is driving 'ism' deeper into the sections of society that doesn't possess the advantages of an 'ism' I use 'ism' to cover all groups in those categories, you are talking about racism, I am talking about all categories if 'ism' Society will never find true equality by treating some inequitably! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grrclark Posted April 7, 2019 Report Share Posted April 7, 2019 8 hours ago, Yellow Bear said: It is not incompetence it is cost(although this may have decreased over the last 5/6 years). It is often less expensive to continue to pay/promote the "offender" and place them on the "lateral pirouette" than take a case through tribunals and courts for a couple of years. Certainly never in my experience, if someone is not up to the job then get it's get rid. If you are on such unsafe ground that you worry that a punitive award from a tribunal is going to cost you a fortune then as an employer you have gone badly wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grrclark Posted April 7, 2019 Report Share Posted April 7, 2019 7 hours ago, panoma1 said: Firstly I didn't ask the question why you think "why it would be" I asked "why it should be" you cannot explain why different types of abuse are treated differently (some more seriously than others) because people are conditioned to blindly accept it, it's the establishments view of some idealistic type of equality that tries to find equality, by using unequal treatment as a means of achieving it! Now in the real world, I have seen positive discrimination against people who do not fit into the 'ist' catogory, in jobs in the Police, Fire service, local and central government, in fact in numerous situations, where applications are invited from and jobs are given to people from "under represented groups" to "make up numbers" its called tokenism! Where people without an 'ist' are unfairly selected for redundancy, where people with an 'ist' are promoted into jobs they cant do, in preference to a candidate without an ''ist', because the employer is frightened of the possible consequences of not giving the job to someone with and 'ist', or someone with an 'it's' getting away" with things those without an 'ist' would be dismissed for! If you think that's equality I submit you are wrong, when you enter human nature into the equation, all these wrong minded attempts of trying to find 'equality for all' is doing, is driving 'ism' deeper into the sections of society that doesn't possess the advantages of an 'ism' I use 'ism' to cover all groups in those categories, you are talking about racism, I am talking about all categories if 'ism' Society will never find true equality by treating some inequitably! My last contribution to this conversation as quite frankly it's boring, but you deserve the courtesy of a response. Why should different types of abuse be treated differently? Very simple, because some are of greater severity than others. I agree in some cases it appears to be taken to an extreme and undoubtably there has been rank opportunism by some in trying to gain advantage from being part of a protected minority. As for people like the fire service or police who are recruiting purely on the basis of fulfilling a minority target objective, the problem is not the law that asks them to employ minorities where they can, it is the fault of the employer in hiring on that basis alone. There is no lawful compulsion on an employer to hire or promote someone who is not suitable on the basis of a positive discrimination target, but again i'm not so daft or naive as to not appreciate that has happened. I was talking about racism as a single example yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted April 7, 2019 Author Report Share Posted April 7, 2019 I agree it is getting boring, but I have said what I wanted to say, and I stand by it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mice! Posted April 7, 2019 Report Share Posted April 7, 2019 1 hour ago, grrclark said: Certainly never in my experience, if someone is not up to the job then get it's get rid. If you are on such unsafe ground that you worry that a punitive award from a tribunal is going to cost you a fortune then as an employer you have gone badly wrong. I've been told by supervisors its almost impossible to sack someone just because their useless, I've worked with people who you know shouldn't be allowed set jobs, average when it comes to operating and you have to reset the machines and start again. You can almost guarantee what they have done is wrong but they can't be sacked. I've never understood it 🤔 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted April 7, 2019 Report Share Posted April 7, 2019 On 06/04/2019 at 10:56, panoma1 said: Well perhaps you could enlighten me? I doubt it very much. When you think someone should stop whingeing about racial abuse because of the amount of money they earn, then I seriously doubt anyone could enlighten you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted April 7, 2019 Author Report Share Posted April 7, 2019 (edited) 39 minutes ago, Scully said: I doubt it very much. When you think someone should stop whingeing about racial abuse because of the amount of money they earn, then I seriously doubt anyone could enlighten you. Shooting from the lip again eh! You have, not for the first time, deliberately misrepresented the point.......the point is bullying, abuse and harassment of any kind is awful for everyone in receipt of it, therefore in my opinion no one has more right to better protection from it than anyone else, however some are in a better position be it financial or high profile, to expose and demand protection from it than others.............as much as you'd like it to be, it isn't a race issue....I posted this topic as an equality issue! Perhaps you could try commenting constructively, and contribute to the debate, rather than sitting on the sidelines trolling people by deliberate misrepresenting their postings? Edited April 7, 2019 by panoma1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted April 8, 2019 Report Share Posted April 8, 2019 On 05/04/2019 at 20:04, panoma1 said: Football was a man's game..........things like that happen, always have..........no mileage in whining and getting all precious about it!...........it likely just makes matters worse! Shooting from the lip eh? 😂 You seem to do this on a regular basis, posting something you know will create a reaction and then claiming it is others who have got it wrong by misunderstanding what you have said! I hope you never have to represent anyone in court! 😳 It would seem by the level of criticism you have attracted that there are quite a few who have misunderstood what you said; we must all be misrepresenting you eh? Perhaps you should read your initial post again to understand how that could possibly have happened, or perhaps the quote above. Think about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted April 8, 2019 Author Report Share Posted April 8, 2019 (edited) Yep I've thought about it and I have not changed my opinion!.....including my opinion that you are a troll! Lol! Quoting me selectively and out of context, reinforces that opinion! Oh! And for the record I have successfully represented individuals and groups in all sorts of hearings including court!.....I imagine judging from the level of your input into the debate, any representative skills you posess are directly from the barrack room! 🤡 Edited April 8, 2019 by panoma1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted April 8, 2019 Report Share Posted April 8, 2019 1 hour ago, panoma1 said: Yep I've thought about it and I have not changed my opinion!.....including my opinion that you are a troll! Lol! Quoting me selectively and out of context, reinforces that opinion! Oh! And for the record I have successfully represented individuals and groups in all sorts of hearings including court!.....I imagine judging from the level of your input into the debate, any representative skills you posess are directly from the barrack room! 🤡 All the above simply proves my point that I doubt anyone could enlighten you! You clearly have no idea what constitutes trolling either, and with an archaic attitude such as yours I can only assume those you claim to have represented have been ‘misrepresented’, despite what you claim. I fail to see how me quoting what you actually wrote is out of context; it only proves that you weren’t misrepresented by my claim that you suggest he should just put up with it, but nevermind...’no mileage in whining and getting all precious about it’ eh? 😀 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zapp Posted April 8, 2019 Report Share Posted April 8, 2019 Now that we have reached the inevitable name calling stage, it's time this one was put to bed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts