bbc drops itself in the...ya know. (discrimination)

TallPaul1878 said:
If someone has been categorised based on the colour of their skin then it is racial discrimination but is discrimination necessarily a good or bad thing?
Click to expand...

Of course it's a bad thing, but we are not talking about discriminating whites applying, there are 95% of other trainee position out there to be taken.

The question is….would you rather be white knowing you have 95% chances of success or would you rather be in the minority and go for all the roles with 5% of success + this 1 role vs other minority candidates .
 
TallPaul1878 said:
If someone has been categorised based on the colour of their skin then it is racial discrimination but is discrimination necessarily a good or bad thing?
Click to expand...
It's illegal, so it's bad.

Raymond Lin said:
But you know there are OTHER trainee positions which are taken by 95% of white applications? Not applied, but taken by. There may be a good 40% of minorities applicants to those other trainee positions for all you know, but 95% of them are already taken by the white.

So do you get it now?
Click to expand...
Racial discrimination is illegal, whether it's for 1% of your workforce or 100%.
I'm not failing to get anything, I totally understand what you're saying, that's why I'm arguing against it.
 
Raymond Lin said:
It's not illegal to encourage minorities to apply for an interview.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what I just said. This is the Rooney rule. What the BBC is doing is NOT the Rooney rule.

Raymond Lin said:
Of course it's a bad thing, but we are not talking about discriminating whites applying, there are 95% of other trainee position out there to be taken.

The question is….would you rather be white knowing you have 95% chances of success or would you rather be in the minority and go for all the roles with 5% of success + this 1 role vs other minority candidates .
Click to expand...

A white person doesn't have 95% chance of success.
They have [some] chance of success in 95% of roles.
And 0% chance of success in 5% of roles.

Another race person has [some] chance of success in 100% of roles.
 
it wont be long until the bbc are offering roles only to LGBT people only, no straight people may apply.

I can understand a local news/weather person from a minority for a local programme where that minority might make up the majority of viewers.
But I don't believe in going out of your way to fill some made up quota of representation.

same way most tv shows now have to have some LBGT crap going on even if it does nothing to push the story along, they just have to have it

like the new star trek gay lovers crap
 
Raymond Lin said:
It's not illegal to encourage minorities to apply for an interview.
Click to expand...
I've no problem with the BBC wanting to encourage more people from under privileged backgrounds into this role. The problem is the language "non-white". Are people of the travelling community not a minority? Are they not to be included into this scheme due to them having the wrong skin colour?

What if the applicant is Romanian? God knows these people need help as they make up a massively over represented proportion of the prison population. Or do they have the wrong skin colour?

Are Romanians to be lumped in with White British or White European in general?

The language the BBC used is stupid, it most definitely can be offensive to someone, hence people being offended.
 
billysielu said:
That's exactly what I just said. This is the Rooney rule. What the BBC is doing is NOT the Rooney rule.



A white person doesn't have 95% chance of success.
They have [some] chance of success in 95% of roles.
And 0% chance of success in 5% of roles.

Another race person has [some] chance of success in 100% of roles.
Click to expand...

This is a trainee position, you get a bunch of people with little to no experience to apply, you train them and there are jobs in there end and you pick the best one. They want to encourage people in the minorities to apply. It doesn't necessary guarantee them a job in the end.

Note the difference, this is a trainee position for unqualified people to train them to see who will be good and pick the best one in the end.

It is to bring awareness to the minorities that jobs like these, in these industries are open to them, and one may argue creative fields needs people from different background, to bring different perspectives, this is where culture and background or even colour of your skin could help you bring something different to the table. Your background, culture can have something to say. Things like art, or music etc.
 
TallPaul1878 said:
I've no problem with the BBC wanting to encourage more people from under privileged backgrounds into this role. The problem is the language "non-white". Are people of the travelling community not a minority? Are they not to be included into this scheme due to them having the wrong skin colour?

What if the applicant is Romanian? God knows these people need help as they make up a massively over represented proportion of the prison population. Or do they have the wrong skin colour?

Are Romanians to be lumped in with White British or White European in general?

The language the BBC used is stupid, it most definitely can be offensive to someone, hence people being offended.
Click to expand...


** comment removed ** They all use GD as theirs a Safe space so they can listen to their own voices echo round the chamber
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Raymond Lin said:
This is a trainee position, you get a bunch of people with little to no experience to apply, you train them and there are jobs in there end and you pick the best one. They want to encourage people in the minorities to apply. It doesn't necessary guarantee them a job in the end.

Note the difference, this is a trainee position for unqualified people to train them to see who will be good and pick the best one in the end.
Click to expand...
The advert is for a job with the job title Trainee Multi-Media Journalist.
Dunno how you can justify a job not being a job tbh.
 
ianh said:
The BBC's iPlayer says it perfectly "if you are not allowed to do something purely because of the colour of you skin, thats racism" and, no matter how people try and justify it, they are saying "Non-white only" and that is racism, only it's the "good" sort of racism because it only effects white people, so that's OK.

I find the easiest way to decide "is it racist" is to swap the skin colour and see how it reads - "Newsbeat is looking for a trainee multi-media Journalist. This is an @_EDL scheme for people from a white ethnic background only. Know anyone who'd be suitable?" - Hmmmm sound pretty racist to me, only there's is no "@_EDL white people only" scheme, because that would be pretty racist too.

However people can and do think differently and they believe that people, based on the colour of their skin, should given extra help to make sure that they do better than people of a different colour skin and those people see no problem with that at all.

It's the one thing I love about equality (and I genuinely do love the idea) is that EVERYONE gets treated EQUALLY. Yet until everyone is and all the hypocrisy is removed, there can be no equality sadly.
Click to expand...

Huh? Who's suggesting that these schemes are trying to make BAME people do better than white people?

They're supposed to be giving opportunities to BAME students that they might not get the chance to come across for various reasons. The sector in the OP clearly has no problem (or shortage) hiring white people.
 
D.P. said:
****** They all use GD as theirs a Safe space so they can listen to their own voices echo round the chamber
Click to expand...

Translation for the rest of us....

People objecting to actual systemic discrimination being instituted as a result of insidious Marxists theory to address a perceived systemic oppression when no such oppression has necessarily been shown to exist.

PS... you will also find a considerable amount of people who disagree with you would object to your characterisation of them being 'right wing' what with that wing of politics much like the 'left' all too often falling prey of collective nonsense (national socialism for the right.... regular socialism for the left)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I’m reading all these pages of BBC stuff then why is Trump being brought into this discussion, what the hell?
 
I started a similar thread, but it got mysteriously closed. I figured it was one of those subjects we all have to pretend not to notice.

Anyway, I'm off for my interview at the BBC. Wish me luck!

8VMpeyS.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom