Martin McGuinness to meet Britain's queen

Happyman42

K-9 wrote: »

Nobody asked me a question to dodge so no sirree!,

Once again you seem to have comprehension problems, there is a very clear question at the end of the piece you chose to parody.

Happyman42

awec wrote: »

Where's your condemnation?

As I have stated on many of these threads, I don't do condemmnation.
But for the record, I think if this is a simple case of discrimination then it is wrong.
But to suggest it is in any way endemic or on a scale like it was in Brookebouroghs day is also wrong.

awec

Happyman42 wrote: »

As I have stated on many of these threads, I don't do condemmnation.
But for the record, I think if this is a simple case of discrimination then it is wrong.
But to suggest it is in any way endemic or on a scale like it was in Brookebouroghs day is also wrong.

What do you mean "if this is a simple case of discrimination". Another attempt to squirm out of it on your part.

It is discrimination. It's there in black and white in the article. Do not take us for fools, were this the other way around you'd be all over it like a days work.

SocSocPol

Happyman42 wrote: »

As I have stated on many of these threads, I don't do condemmnation.
But for the record, I think if this is a simple case of discrimination then it is wrong.
But to suggest it is in any way endemic or on a scale like it was in Brookebouroghs day is also wrong.

Typical SFIRA comment, you do condemnation quick enough when you are attacking the "brits"!

K-9

Happyman42 wrote: »

Once again you seem to have comprehension problems, there is a very clear question at the end of the piece you chose to parody.

You seem to understand it was parody but don't fully comprehend what parody is. Why the other 3 didn't is irrelevant to it as Murphy was found guilty in the investigation.

Happyman42 wrote: »

As I have stated on many of these threads, I don't do condemmnation.
But for the record, I think if this is a simple case of discrimination then it is wrong.
But to suggest it is in any way endemic or on a scale like it was in Brookebouroghs day is also wrong.

Its parody, often an over exaggeration to make a point, hence the comparison to Brookeborough.

Happyman42

awec wrote: »

What do you mean "if this is a simple case of discrimination". Another attempt to squirm out of it on your part.

It is discrimination. It's there in black and white in the article. Do not take us for fools, were this the other way around you'd be all over it like a days work.

I don't have to squirm out of anything. If it's wrong, then it is wrong.
What it doesn't prove is that it is endemic which is what is being suggested with references to Lord Brookebourogh flying around.
I agree with Lennon, if it improves processes and proceedures around public appointments then that can only be a good thing. Much work still to be done.

Happyman42

K-9 wrote: »

You seem to understand it was parody but don't fully comprehend what parody is. Why the other 3 didn't is irrelevant to it as Murphy was found guilty in the investigation.

Don't say you weren't asked a question then, you were.:rolleyes:

K-9

Happyman42 wrote: »

Don't say you weren't asked a question then, you were.:rolleyes:

I assume he was on about the SF policy question which while I'm not fully au fait with, but I'd suspect there isn't a policy to discriminate against Protestants in it, No would be my guess. As for the other question, the parody answers it. Whoosh!

I'm still laughing at your no condemnation post!

Crooked Jack

K-9 wrote: »

I assume he was on about the SF policy question which while I'm not fully au fait with, but I'd suspect there isn't a policy to discriminate against Protestants in it, No would be my guess. As for the other question, the parody answers it. Whoosh!

I'm still laughing at your no condemnation post!

Why would you assume that when I clearly asked the question "if there was discrimination then why didnt the other applicants claim they were discriminated against as well?"
Your parody, sophisticated though it was, failed entirely in answering this. whoosh.
Nor is the question irrelevant. One out of four people felt discriminated against by the decision. A decision that was audited by the appointments commissioner.
Are we to assume that Mr Murphy only discriminates against a certain denomination of protestantism? How on earth do we know that Mr Murphy even knew the applicant was protestant, i doubt very much if that is something that is contained on an application form.
DRD is appealing this and it will be interesting to see the outcome of that.

fasttalkerchat

This is totally off topic. It was stupid and dangerous to accuse Conor Murphy of sectarianism like this and IMO is probably baseless.
If there was discrimination on the basis that he chose someone he knew that is a different matter. Will be interesting to see how this appeal goes.

awec

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Why would you assume that when I clearly asked the question "if there was discrimination then why didnt the other applicants claim they were discriminated against as well?"
Your parody, sophisticated though it was, failed entirely in answering this. whoosh.
Nor is the question irrelevant. One out of four people felt discriminated against by the decision. A decision that was audited by the appointments commissioner.
Are we to assume that Mr Murphy only discriminates against a certain denomination of protestantism? How on earth do we know that Mr Murphy even knew the applicant was protestant, i doubt very much if that is something that is contained on an application form.
DRD is appealing this and it will be interesting to see the outcome of that.

Are you for real?

I genuinely cannot believe that someone from the north even asks that question.

awec

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

This is totally off topic. It was stupid and dangerous to accuse Conor Murphy of sectarianism like this and IMO is probably baseless.
If there was discrimination on the basis that he chose someone he knew that is a different matter. Will be interesting to see how this appeal goes.

How is it baseless?

It's all there in the article.

Nothing stupid or baseless about it. The usual suspects just don't like it when their little eutopian views on SF are blown out of the water.

Deflect, deflect, deflect. I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning, I have to say.

Happyman42

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

If there was discrimination on the basis that he chose someone he knew that is a different matter. Will be interesting to see how this appeal goes.

I think you might have put your finger on what was really going on here.

K-9

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Why would you assume that when I clearly asked the question "if there was discrimination then why didnt the other applicants claim they were discriminated against as well?"
Your parody, sophisticated though it was, failed entirely in answering this. whoosh.

Because Protestants would have said the same thing about discrimination on housing and other issues in the 50/60's etc. The fact that not all applicants made the complaint is irrelevant. One did and the investigation found a number of issues.

Nor is the question irrelevant. One out of four people felt discriminated against by the decision. A decision that was audited by the appointments commissioner.

The important factor is the decision, not how many took the case, that's just deflection and casting aspersions.

Are we to assume that Mr Murphy only discriminates against a certain denomination of protestantism? How on earth do we know that Mr Murphy even knew the applicant was protestant, i doubt very much if that is something that is contained on an application form.
DRD is appealing this and it will be interesting to see the outcome of that.

Don't you have to clearly state your religion on application forms in the North. Used to when I worked there so if that's the case, that is that point dealt with.

fasttalkerchat

And for the record, If anyone in government actively discriminated against any religion they should be sacked with no pension.

The issue for me is that something like this damages the government so they would need to be sure!

fasttalkerchat

K-9 wrote: »

Don't you have to clearly state your religion on application forms in the North. Used to when I worked there so if that's the case, that is that point dealt with.

You do but that part must be removed and can't be seen by the interviewer.

awec

K-9 wrote: »

Don't you have to clearly state your religion on application forms in the North. Used to when I worked there so if that's the case, that is that point dealt with.

Yes, you fill in an Equal Opportunities form where you clearly state your ethnic origin and your religion.

This is especially true of government jobs.

Conor Murphy will have known the religion of all applicants and to try and claim otherwise really is scraping the barrel in terms of excuses.

SocSocPol

awec wrote: »

Yes, you fill in an Equal Opportunities form where you clearly state your ethnic origin and your religion.

This is especially true of government jobs.

Conor Murphy will have known the religion of all applicants and to try and claim otherwise really is scraping the barrel in terms of excuses.

Nothing new when it comes to SFIRA

K-9

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

You do but that part must be removed and can't be seen by the interviewer.

Ah right, as I'm sure you'll know, that doesn't stop discrimination by itself.

It could well be a jobs for the boys type appointment rather than discrimination, neither looks that good tbh.

fasttalkerchat

K-9 wrote: »

It could well be a jobs for the boys type appointment rather than discrimination, neither looks that good tbh.

Indeed it doesn't but it would be a much less serious offence. There is a big difference between unfair Recruitment & Selection and sectarian discrimination and for that reason I think it was foolish to jump to conclusions.

Crooked Jack

awec wrote: »

Are you for real?

I genuinely cannot believe that someone from the north even asks that question.

Why? were his eyes too close together or something. Grow up.

Crooked Jack

K-9 wrote: »

Because Protestants would have said the same thing about discrimination on housing and other issues in the 50/60's etc. The fact that not all applicants made the complaint is irrelevant. One did and the investigation found a number of issues.



The important factor is the decision, not how many took the case, that's just deflection and casting aspersions.



Don't you have to clearly state your religion on application forms in the North. Used to when I worked there so if that's the case, that is that point dealt with.

There is no comparison between this single alleged incident and decades of open and state backed discrimination.

Im not deflecting, I'm making the very legitimate point that if it was discrimination based on religious grounds then why did the other three applicants not take such cases.

No, you certainly do not have to put your religion on application forms. You can put it on a separate equality document if you wish. This is not part of the application and as far as I'm aware, not seen by the employer.

Nodin

Quinzy wrote: »

I assume he's referencing this: http://www.thejournal.ie/sinn-fein-minister-found-guilty-of-religious-discrimination-495007-Jun2012/

Thats not "sinn fein propaganda".

If yer man fails his appeal he should be penalised.

Crooked Jack

SocSocPol wrote: »

Nothing new when it comes to SFIRA

HA! Somebody who in 2012 is still using the phrase 'SFIRA' complaining about a lack of new ideas. Excellent.

fasttalkerchat

“The minister maintained that he appointed Sean Hogan on merit, and that he did not know whether the 5 recommended candidates were Catholic or Protestant.”
“In reality of the political and religious situation in Northern Ireland, the tribunal finds the minister’s evidence on this point is implausible and lacks credibility”.

Basically they are saying the because he claimed not to have known everyone's religion that he must have been lying. Very weak argument and a stupid decision.

awec

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Why? were his eyes too close together or something. Grow up.

Er. What?

Have you read any of the posts made this morning?

How did he know he was Catholic? Because he ticked the box that said "I am a Roman Catholic" on the Equal Opportunities form. :rolleyes:

Amazing, eh?

How someone from the north doesn't know this is unbeleivable.

Chuck Stone

SocSocPol wrote: »

Nothing new when it comes to SFIRA ... Typical SFIRA comment ... Detective Garda Gerry McCabe ... Jean McConville ... The PIRA are were and always will be nothing other than a criminal gang ... SFIRA apologist when it comes to discussing the victims of IRA violence:

Here, I've collated your 'arguments' for you so that you can copy pasta instead of pretending you have anything other than regurgitated sound-bites to contribute.

You can thank me some other time.

fasttalkerchat

awec wrote: »

Er. What?

Have you read any of the posts made this morning?

How did he know he was Catholic? Because he ticked the box that said "I am a Roman Catholic" on the Equal Opportunities form. :rolleyes:

Amazing, eh?

How someone from the north doesn't know this is unbeleivable.

This isn't seen by the interviewers.

Unless you're saying Conor Murphy opened all the applications and made notes of their religion before the forms were processed?

K-9

Crooked Jack wrote: »

There is no comparison between this single alleged incident and decades of open and state backed discrimination.

Obviously not, to claim that would be stupid, but I was pointing out your logic which I'd say you have acknowledged as flawed, but want to deflect by arguing my over exaggerated comparison is well, over exaggerated. I know it is over exaggerated, you know it is, so why are you making an issue of something we both agree on?

Because your logic is flawed, simple.

Im not deflecting, I'm making the very legitimate point that if it was discrimination based on religious grounds then why did the other three applicants not take such cases.

You'd need to ask them, maybe it is some conspiracy or maybe they knew there already was a complaint so didn't bother.

No, you certainly do not have to put your religion on application forms. You can put it on a separate equality document if you wish. This is not part of the application and as far as I'm aware, not seen by the employer.

Unless the form is put into a sealed envelope and posted, the employer could still find out. Even still, it's pretty pointless as there are other ways to have an educated guess, names, address eg.

awec

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

This isn't seen by the interviewers.

Unless you're saying Conor Murphy opened all the applications and made notes of their religion before the forms were processed?

Those making the decision over who to hire know what religion you are. :pac:

This is scraping the barrel. His excuse of "I didn't know their religion" is laughable. Pathetic, in fact.

The usual suspects are here trying to pick holes in what has been deemed a clear case of discrimination. If the shoe was on the other foot they'd be all over it. Can't say I'm surprised.

Crooked Jack

awec wrote: »

Er. What?

Have you read any of the posts made this morning?

How did he know he was Catholic? Because he ticked the box that said "I am a Roman Catholic" on the Equal Opportunities form. :rolleyes:

Amazing, eh?

How someone from the north doesn't know this is unbeleivable.

I was taking the piss out of your assertion that because you're from the north you have some sort of radar for automatically detecting people's religions.
The Equal Opportunities form is sealed and separate from the application and not seen by the interviewer. Nor is any applicant obliged to fill it out if they dont wish.

fasttalkerchat

awec wrote: »

Those making the decision over who to hire know what religion you are. :pac:

This is scraping the barrel. His excuse of "I didn't know their religion" is laughable. Pathetic, in fact.

The usual suspects are here trying to pick holes in what has been deemed a clear case of discrimination. If the shoe was on the other foot they'd be all over it. Can't say I'm surprised.

You can guess someone's religion by their school and their name but I wouldn't say I know the religion of someone I just met.

For example if you lived in the North I would guess you're a protestant because a catholic would be less likely to be criticising SF. I could very well be wrong and wouldn't particularly care but if I had to guess that's the sort of thing that indicates religion.

awec

Crooked Jack wrote: »

I was taking the piss out of your assertion that because you're from the north you have some sort of radar for automatically detecting people's religions.
The Equal Opportunities form is sealed and separate from the application and not seen by the interviewer. Nor is any applicant obliged to fill it out if they dont wish.

Er, you fill out that form for any government job. And if you are really trying to argue that he didn't know any of their religions then I'm bowing out, because this has got beyond ridiculous. You sir, are grasping at straws.

Crooked Jack

awec wrote: »

Those making the decision over who to hire know what religion you are. :pac:

This is scraping the barrel. His excuse of "I didn't know their religion" is laughable. Pathetic, in fact.

The usual suspects are here trying to pick holes in what has been deemed a clear case of discrimination. If the shoe was on the other foot they'd be all over it. Can't say I'm surprised.

How is not knowing their religion laughable or pathetic? Seems to me in an allegation of religious discrimination it goes to the very core of the issue.

awec

Crooked Jack wrote: »

How is not knowing their religion laughable or pathetic? Seems to me in an allegation of religious discrimination it goes to the very core of the issue.

So basically, what you are saying here is that every case of religious discrimination during employment proceedings ever has been wrong.

Because after all, the envelope is sealed, and nobody knows religion of their candidates. :rolleyes:

Crooked Jack

awec wrote: »

Er, you fill out that form for any government job. And if you are really trying to argue that he didn't know any of their religions then I'm bowing out, because this has got beyond ridiculous. You sir, are grasping at straws.

Well I've provided you with the reasons I dont believe Conor Murphy has a case to answer whereas you have just gone round in circles making winks and nudges about how everyone "knows" your religion, or made incorrect claims about the Equal Opportunities form or rattled off empty statements about "barrel scraping" and "straw grasping."
Oh please dont bow out, your valued insights will be such a loss to the discussion.

Chuck Stone

We could do without replacing one flavour of institutional discrimination with another. If this guy is deemed responsible of favouring someone for his religion (let's be honest here it looks a lot like that) then it should be stamped out.

awec

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Well I've provided you with the reasons I dont believe Conor Murphy has a case to answer whereas you have just gone round in circles making winks and nudges about how everyone "knows" your religion, or made incorrect claims about the Equal Opportunities form or rattled off empty statements about "barrel scraping" and "straw grasping."
Oh please dont bow out, your valued insights will be such a loss to the discussion.

I haven't made any winks or nudges about people knowing my religion.

My points about you being from the north were me pointing out the absolute hilarity of you being totally oblivious to the equal opportunity forms filled in during job applications, especially for government posts. "How do they know he was catholic, were his eyes to close together?" is just quality.

Luckily for the rest of us you managed to google and read up on them a bit to try and undig yourself out of that hole.

I am against all forms of discrimination. I will never deny it happened in the past. The issue here is your refusal (along with other SF types) to condemn what is blatant discrimination. How do you expect people to take you seriously?

Crooked Jack

awec wrote: »

So basically, what you are saying here is that every case of religious discrimination during employment proceedings ever has been wrong.

Because after all, the envelope is sealed, and nobody knows religion of their candidates. :rolleyes:

Please point out where I say that. I would be interested to see at what point this afternoon I had a stroke and started typing lunatic stuff I have no recollection off. What was it you said about grasping at straws....

K-9

Chuck Stone wrote: »

We could do without replacing one flavour of institutional discrimination with another. If this guy is deemed responsible of favouring someone for his religion (let's be honest here it looks a lot like that) then it should be stamped out.

Well it seems he went out of his way to make sure the guy was hired. I suppose it could be argued that he knew the guy, maybe a SF supporter so the odds are he was Catholic. After all politics and religious are pretty synonymous with some exceptions, so it may have been more a political decision, the report funnily enough says there wasn't evidence to prove that.

awec

Crooked Jack wrote: »

Please point out where I say that. I would be interested to see at what point this afternoon I had a stroke and started typing lunatic stuff I have no recollection off. What was it you said about grasping at straws....

But.. the envelopes are sealed! :eek:

Your argument here is that it isnt religious discrimination because the envelopes are sealed.

This would be the case for all job applications. So the cases in the past of discrimination, the envelopes were sealed so they can't possibly be religious discrimination. I imagine some people are owed apologies! :eek:

votecounts

Do you ever wonder can some people read, look at the thread title and tell me what a job on some board has to do with it.If you want to discuss discrimination go on to a relevent thread and if you want to bash SF, go elsewhere ffs. MMG met the Queen, big moment considering the amount of dead irish people she is respnisble for.

fasttalkerchat

awec wrote: »

But.. the envelopes are sealed! :eek:

Your argument here is that it isnt religious discrimination because the envelopes are sealed.

This would be the case for all job applications. So the cases in the past of discrimination, the envelopes were sealed so they can't possibly be religious discrimination. I imagine some people are owed apologies! :eek:

No one said that.

This case is based on Conor Murphy lying that he did not know anyone's religion.
He did not see the document so could not have known for sure, he could have guessed someone's religion.
They jumped to the conclusion that he must have discriminated based on religion. There should be an inquiry into unfair selection but this conclusion was wrong.

Crooked Jack

awec wrote: »

I haven't made any winks or nudges about people knowing my religion.

Not your religion specifically. You have made numerous references to how people in the north just "know" someone's religion. eg "Those making the decision over who to hire know what religion you are. :pac:"

awec wrote: »

My points about you being from the north were me pointing out the absolute hilarity of you being totally oblivious to the equal opportunity forms filled in during job applications, especially for government posts. "How do they know he was catholic, were his eyes to close together?" is just quality.

This comment was taking the piss out of your previous assertions about this mythical ability to detect religion. Apologies if that went over your head, I wont be so subtle with you from now on. Some people just need things spelled out.

awec wrote: »

Luckily for the rest of us you managed to google and read up on them a bit to try and undig yourself out of that hole.

As someone who has filled out more job applications in the last two years than in the entirety of the rest of my life I assure you I am more than familiar with the Equal Opportunities form. You on the other hand seem to have some problem grasping how it works. For the third time let me point out that it is sealed, separate and not seen by the interviewer.

awec wrote: »

I am against all forms of discrimination. I will never deny it happened in the past. The issue here is your refusal (along with other SF types) to condemn what is blatant discrimination. How do you expect people to take you seriously?

Because this is not "blatant discrimination." As someone pointed out earlier the actual findings of the tribunal are pretty flimsy and seem to be based on the fact that Mr Murphy said he didnt know the candidates' religions.
Everyone also seems to be ignoring the fact that this appointment was audited by the appointments commission. Were they in on it too?
Discrimination does need to be stamped out. But if along the way to doing that you blacken the name of an honourable and honest man then the whole endeavour has been a failure.

El Weirdo

I've just read the last 30 odd posts in this thread and I have seen a grand total of 1 mention of Martin McGuinness and 1 mention of Queen Liz.

I think it's safe to assume that this has turned into the clusterfuck that we all knew it would when it first appeared.

Locked.

Join us for the next instalment of this shite, which I presume will be when Tioréasa Ferris gives Prince Harry a blow job.