Comedian on construction industry "blacklist"

Dolph · 15 Oct 2013 at 23:09

elmarko said:
Can't you see the difference between fear that person A will do something legal, protesting/strike action (but not liked by the group in question) & fear that person B will do something illegal, abusing a position of power via racism or working with vulnerable people (also not liked by the group in question) are very different stances?.

The fact you seen to think union membership (potential to do something legal) is in some way comparable to BNP membership or high risk individuals (potential to do something illegal) high-lights a degree of bias of your own.

Did you not earlier advocate that these are things you could find out on employing them and dismiss them if they are breaking the rules? Does this advice only apply to some cases? Either we are judging people by their behaviour or we are not.

I really don't see how your position holds any form of consistency in this thread.

Biohazard · 15 Oct 2013 at 23:10

lol dolph. You in for the lols today or something?

Castiel · 15 Oct 2013 at 23:10

Blacklisted for what?

Biohazard · 15 Oct 2013 at 23:11

Castiel said:
Blacklisted for what?

Being a troll.

Danthus · 15 Oct 2013 at 23:15

Dolph Bingo.

State, check.

Just need some latin now for a full house.

Dolph · 15 Oct 2013 at 23:16

Biohazard said:
lol dolph. You in for the lols today or something?

I am just trying to establish how someone went from blacklisting is completely unacceptable, through prove it is happening, to defending blacklisting but only of specific groups in the space of a few posts.

Xordium · 15 Oct 2013 at 23:18

OldCoals said:
Just need some latin now for a full house.

ROMANES EUNT DOMUS

Biohazard · 15 Oct 2013 at 23:23

Dolph said:
I am just trying to establish how someone went from blacklisting is completely unacceptable, through prove it is happening, to defending blacklisting but only of specific groups in the space of a few posts.

He didn't actually technically say that.

What he said was;

El Marko said:
I don't think a business should have the right to refuse business based on arbitrary factors at all

His mistake was in arguing along your diversion, giving you the advantage, without making much of a song and dance about it.

He didn't actually say completely unacceptable either, you did.

This is inventing the position of your opponents, and you are trying to present your bias argumentative tact and advantage as his admission, when it wasn't there in the first place.

hurfdurf · 16 Oct 2013 at 00:34

Dolph said:
Ah, so after all your hyperbole, it boils down to excluding people is fine if it's other people...

Either it is indefensible in all circumstances, as you posted earlier, or it is acceptable to exclude people based on politics, which is what much of this blacklist amounts to.

Some political views render you unable to do a job, is how it was explained to me.

hurfdurf · 16 Oct 2013 at 00:37

Castiel said:
Blacklisted for what?

There were rumors for a long time that if you ever complained or were in any way not a "team player" (reporting health and safety violations, dodgy/unsatisfactory/under standards work to a client, complaining about lack of pay etc) there was a blacklist that meant you then couldn't get work any where else. The blacklist was leaked recently and been shown to be real, its also been shown the Police were in on the creation of the blacklist as well iirc. It was a way of silencing critics in the construction trade. Some people were left without employment in their profession until they died because of it.