Leo says the Civil Service is 'very white'

Woodsie1

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

He was born in the Rotunda Hospital.

John_Rambo wrote: »

He was born in Ireland. What was part of Irish history did he miss out on in Blanchardstown compared to your history class?

Oh sorry son of an immigrant who never bothered to learn about the country he was lucky enough to be born in.

Wibbs

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

last time I checked Ireland was a white country and the Irish are ethnically white skinned so even if any section of a company is 100% "white" that should not be seen as a problem.

It seems for some being White is seen as the problem. Like I said earlier none of these types, nor anyone with any sense in their heads, would go to Kinshasa or Accra and think, never mind state; "Y'know what this place really needs is more White people, otherwise it's culturally backward". And certainly no local political leader would. Not since the bad old days and we know how that went. And no way in hell would a White person of any stripe living in those nations have the sheer brass neck to state it.

A while back there was an Irish delegation of some NGO or other that went to the UN and one of their speakers was an African born women living in Ireland lecturing the UN and Ireland about our "multicultural" past. I'll try and dig up the video of same. At one point you can see the "WTF?" on the face of an African woman delegate listening to her. It's beyond taking crazy pills time. You really couldn't make it up.

TheCitizen

Strumms wrote: »

Multicultural and diversity are terms that I’ve no time for, what I do have time for... fairness.

If I’m hiring 6 bus drivers tomorrow and I have 4 African applicants, 4 members of the traveling community applying, 4 Irish females applying, 4 Irish males and 4 mixed LGBT people applying... I don’t care, I’m STILL hiring who I believe are the 6 best most suitable candidates...

My first priority is to the customers, my second to the staff.... I care not one fùck about anybody waving flags, waving an agenda, looking for xyz criteria to be met.. you have the expertise, qualifications, experience, attitude and aptitude to do the job, you’ll get hired, I don’t care about your background, your troubles, your struggles, any of it....

Equal opportunity is that, equal for everyone...I owe myself, my colleagues, staff and customers to hire the best... that’s what I’ll endeavor to do.

Yawn

tayto lover

TheCitizen wrote: »

Yawn

Yawn all you like but his way is fair. The best qualified person should always get the job.

Spon Farmer

tayto lover wrote: »

Yawn all you like but his way is fair. The best qualified person should always get the job.

You will have a right to an opinion on fairness when you start treating all crisps equally.

(I jest of course, as all crisps are ****e if compared to a Tayto);)

FVP3

TheCitizen wrote: »

Yawn

Fantastic argument.

It's interesting that this whole debate has become basically black and non-black.

When Priti Patel attacked the rioters and then defended herself because she wasn't white, this wasn't accepted as she didn't have the same experience as black people. There's a clear obsession with blackness, the assumption that everywhere is like the US.

Here's a guardian article.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jun/12/priti-patel-racism-home-secretary-blac


To be fair, Patel is not the only one to have done this this week. The chancellor and vice chancellor of Oxford University both drew on their own Irish heritage and experiences of anti-Irish prejudice to inform their argument about why black students are wrong to ask for the removal of a statue of Cecil Rhodes from Oriel College. It is not to diminish the pain of anti-Irish prejudice to highlight that using your experience of this to lecture black people is a symptom of structural racism, not part of the solution.

I would say that within the United Kingdom the treatment of Irish people was ( obviously) vastly worse than black people historically -- not least because there were few blacks in the UK - and there was much clearer "structural racism" in Northern Ireland, where you can point to actual laws against the minority community.

In fact actual real life supremacists will march in the next few weeks to bring celebrate this history. The UK left will be silent.

As they are largely silent on Soldier F, a man who killed civil rights protesters a few generations ago. Protests in the UK have been pro Soldier F, with no counter protests.

It's all just inherited from the US, the US now dominates the left wing and right wing discourse.

FVP3

John_Rambo wrote: »

He was born in Ireland. What was part of Irish history did he miss out on in Blanchardstown compared to your history class?

History of the RIC?

FVP3

John_Rambo wrote: »

Is this a joke or are you seriously that ignorant?

Surely you realise someone can arrive in Ireland in their teens, twenties, thirties, forties, fifties etc.. and apply for the civil service and get a job? What makes you think their kids would be the only candidates for public service work? How are you so confused?

They can't, our couldn't until recently unless they were EU/EEA citizens. Maybe that is the discrimination people want to get rid of.

Strumms

Imagine Muhammadu Buhari, President of Nigeria and the head of the Nigerian government coming out with... “no here in Lagos, there are far too many Nigerian people, black people working in the Lagos bus station. Not nearly enough white people given an opportunity, nowhere can I see a paleface.”

That’s what you are up against with Leo, it’s mind boggling, nuts, in what has always been an intelligent, welcoming country to anyone willingly fit to contribute...and even those who don’t contribute.

FVP3

TheCitizen wrote: »

What nonsense is this exactly? Seeking better representation of minorities in working life, making them stakeholders in society leading to a more cohesive society, challenging racism? If you think that's nonsense it says a lot about you.

You may want to look at the US to see how all that is working out. Seeking "better representation of minorities" leads to identitarianism, and hardly race neutral. It solidifies race as a concept. Of course there should be no barriers either. And if the non-Irish do better ( as they do in IT) then so be it.

Why would anyone on the Left be mobilised to oppose the removing of statues of usually rich people that may have made their wealth by nefarious means. Why would that cause a split?

Welcome to Ireland, where nearly all the evil white people were british and already had their statues removed.

The problem is Sean Russell and John Mitchell. If Sinn Fein is considered leftist then the removal of the Sean Russell statue would be problematic for the left, or cause a split. If Fine Gael is right wing then the you are defending a right winger who wants to remove problematic statues.

In reality its just civil war politics.

da_miser

https://imgur.com/QlUoOhT

The woke folk in London, soon to be here in Ireland if the masses dont wise up.
No matter what you do, it wont be good enough for them

DelaneyIn

Wibbs wrote: »

It seems for some being White is seen as the problem. Like I said earlier none of these types, nor anyone with any sense in their heads, would go to Kinshasa or Accra and think, never mind state; "Y'know what this place really needs is more White people, otherwise it's culturally backward". And certainly no local political leader would. Not since the bad old days and we know how that went. And no way in hell would a White person of any stripe living in those nations have the sheer brass neck to state it.

A while back there was an Irish delegation of some NGO or other that went to the UN and one of their speakers was an African born women living in Ireland lecturing the UN and Ireland about our "multicultural" past. I'll try and dig up the video of same. At one point you can see the "WTF?" on the face of an African woman delegate listening to her. It's beyond taking crazy pills time. You really couldn't make it up.

Here is the clip.

Truthvader

FVP3 wrote: »

Fantastic argument.

It's interesting that this whole debate has become basically black and non-black.

When Priti Patel attacked the rioters and then defended herself because she wasn't white, this wasn't accepted as she didn't have the same experience as black people. There's a clear obsession with blackness, the assumption that everywhere is like the US.

Here's a guardian article.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jun/12/priti-patel-racism-home-secretary-blac


To be fair, Patel is not the only one to have done this this week. The chancellor and vice chancellor of Oxford University both drew on their own Irish heritage and experiences of anti-Irish prejudice to inform their argument about why black students are wrong to ask for the removal of a statue of Cecil Rhodes from Oriel College. It is not to diminish the pain of anti-Irish prejudice to highlight that using your experience of this to lecture black people is a symptom of structural racism, not part of the solution.

I would say that within the United Kingdom the treatment of Irish people was ( obviously) vastly worse than black people historically -- not least because there were few blacks in the UK - and there was much clearer "structural racism" in Northern Ireland, where you can point to actual laws against the minority community.

In fact actual real life supremacists will march in the next few weeks to bring celebrate this history. The UK left will be silent.

As they are largely silent on Soldier F, a man who killed civil rights protesters a few generations ago. Protests in the UK have been pro Soldier F, with no counter protests.

It's all just inherited from the US, the US now dominates the left wing and right wing discourse.

Irish people suffered some minor racism but to be fair many were treated so much worse at home that they volutarily emigrated to London and other English cities. Plus when you consider that Gerry Adams and his merry men orchestrated a campaign of murder for 30 years we owe a debt to the English for their equinamity and refusal to succumb to rascism.

FVP3

Truthvader wrote: »

Irish people suffered some minor racism but to be fair many were treated so much worse at home that they volutarily emigrated to London and other English cities. Plus when you consider that Gerry Adams and his merry men orchestrated a campaign of murder for 30 years we owe a debt to the English for their equinamity and refusal to succumb to rascism.

I was talking about all of Irish History and Northern Ireland, not post war immigrants to britain. Clearly.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

DelaneyIn wrote: »

Here is the clip.

Are you sure that’s the one? Where is the WTF reaction?

da_miser

This could also be used when dealing with the woke left and immigration



and look who posted it
https://twitter.com/salomembugua

Strumms

TheCitizen wrote: »

What nonsense is this exactly? Seeking better representation of minorities in working life, making them stakeholders in society leading to a more cohesive society, challenging racism? If you think that's nonsense it says a lot about you.



Why would anyone on the Left be mobilised to oppose the removing of statues of usually rich people that may have made their wealth by nefarious means. Why would that cause a split?

I missed this but I’ll reply in hopefully more enlightened terms than ‘yawn’

Seeking better representation in working life ?

Ok start at the bottom, up-skill, do a course, get a cv, apply for jobs, COMPETE for jobs, get hired, get working, get earning, get contributing.

Same as EVERY Irish person has had to. Competition for jobs, that’s fair... quotas are not. The only thing quotas ensure and enable are that the best most deserving candidates can be overlooked, in favor of people based on their ethnicity.

That’s discrimination. That we live in 2020, in the Republic of Ireland, with a Taoiseach, who has publicly advocated discriminatory practices AGAINST Irish people. That to me, is treasonous, in the extreme.

Strumms

He is a fûcking creep, I’ll be delighted to see him kicked out on his back.

Madeleine Birchfield

What does 'white' even mean in an Irish context? I'm fecking tired of our country importing American ideas and concepts that simply do not and ought not to apply to Ireland.

Tony EH

I wish people would looking to America for their political views.

Madeleine Birchfield

FVP3 wrote: »

Fantastic argument.

It's interesting that this whole debate has become basically black and non-black.

When Priti Patel attacked the rioters and then defended herself because she wasn't white, this wasn't accepted as she didn't have the same experience as black people. There's a clear obsession with blackness, the assumption that everywhere is like the US.

Here's a guardian article.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jun/12/priti-patel-racism-home-secretary-blac


To be fair, Patel is not the only one to have done this this week. The chancellor and vice chancellor of Oxford University both drew on their own Irish heritage and experiences of anti-Irish prejudice to inform their argument about why black students are wrong to ask for the removal of a statue of Cecil Rhodes from Oriel College. It is not to diminish the pain of anti-Irish prejudice to highlight that using your experience of this to lecture black people is a symptom of structural racism, not part of the solution.

I would say that within the United Kingdom the treatment of Irish people was ( obviously) vastly worse than black people historically -- not least because there were few blacks in the UK - and there was much clearer "structural racism" in Northern Ireland, where you can point to actual laws against the minority community.

In fact actual real life supremacists will march in the next few weeks to bring celebrate this history. The UK left will be silent.

As they are largely silent on Soldier F, a man who killed civil rights protesters a few generations ago. Protests in the UK have been pro Soldier F, with no counter protests.

It's all just inherited from the US, the US now dominates the left wing and right wing discourse.

Feck the United States. Toxic country especially in the past 4 years.

Tony EH

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

When did ‘white’ become acceptable as a pejorative? It’s been fomenting for a while and has taken off in the last few weeks. One of my friends (she’s white, her husband is white) is fully on board and is kind of alienating herself from the friend group. Last night on Whatsapp, we were discussing the pulling of supposedly contentious TV shows from Netflix and she said:

“Well, the creators might have wanted it so. Also, you, as a white, straight, cis, privileged person don’t get to decide what upsets minorities.”

All hell broke lose. We are a group of generally left-wing, liberal women and even we were all like “What the hell?”. I can’t quite put my finger on what pissed me off so much. There is so much to unpack in that statement. It’s patronising to minorities, it’s weirdly heterophobic and FUCK the term ‘cis’.

I very much doubt my friend would be okay with somebody telling her husband to shut up because he’s white, straight and western. So it also just comes across a bit phoney.

All that this is is people seeing something online and parroting it, without stopping to think just what it is they are saying and what the ramifications of it are.

There is an idea out there now that if you're white or straight, you are to shut up and not talk about anything. Even if you are broadly in agreement with much of the grievances that people have.

I have to say, I fond this type of aggressive silencing to be very disturbing indeed. And it appears to be repeated by folk that simply don;t know what they are talking about most of the time, but who want to appear "in" on the current zeitgeist.

I fail to understand how telling someone to be silent because of the amount of melanin they have in their skin or what they orgasm to is of any help at all in the pursuit of societal change.

Calhoun

Tony EH wrote: »

All that this is is people seeing something online and parroting it, without stopping to think just what it is they are saying and what the ramifications of it are.

There is an idea out there now that if you're white or straight, you are to shut up and not talk about anything. Even if you are broadly in agreement with much of the grievances that people have.

I have to say, I fond this type of aggressive silencing to be very disturbing indeed. And it appears to be repeated by folk that simply don;t know what they are talking about most of the time, but who want to appear "in" on the current zeitgeist.

I fail to understand how telling someone to be silent because of the amount of melanin they have in their skin or what they orgasm to is of any help at all in the pursuit of societal change.

Funny thing is normally it's the most stupid with not allot up there who parrot this ****. It's not just limited to one political spectrum either, both sides have parrots who do it because it gives them a bit of power as they are like the censors for their own political beliefs and they get a kick of shutting people down.

It actually helps no one and companies that embrace that behavior normally have very poor outlook on the long term. When your customers have no outlet to express displeasure in something and you tell them you dont care because of stuff like skin color they just abandon the product.

cloudatlas

The Harvard Implicit Association Test: (IAT) Race ('Black - White' IAT). This IAT requires the ability to distinguish faces of European and African origin. It indicates that most Americans have an automatic preference for white over black.

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html

It's a good one that kick starts people talking about race but the downside is we don't talk about what causes the bias, the ideas underneath, or if we can see how those ideas are overt and explicit then we don't recognise our ideas as racist.

punisher5112

I've seen many of these loons looking for the referendum to be changed where the Irish people voted for to protect our borders and country.

The country was been abused badly and they want this back.

TomTomTim

punisher5112 wrote: »

I've seen many of these loons looking for the referendum to be changed where the Irish people voted for to protect our borders and country.

The country was been abused badly and they want this back.

Our government funds nearly all these groups that use our own resources to lobby the government for change that only a tiny amount of hard leftists want. It's an absolute farce that we give money to groups that have no respect for the will of the people.

punisher5112

Obviously 1916 and the troubles mean nothing.....

These people are absolutely full of it.

ArchXStanton

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

I think there are plans to bring in another million at least.

In a country of 5 million, we can kiss goodbye to this country as we've known it.

Strumms

How long till one of us are at an interview, we do well, happy with how we perform, on tenterhooks as this is a job that we always wanted, a career potentially for life, great money in a seemingly respectful, cohesive well regarded organization only to receive a phone call..

“ Mr Strumms, how you doing. In relation to your application and interview, we were very happy with how things went and under 2019 regulations on hiring you are hired, however, unfortunately we are at present no longer of the ability to offer you the position due to the current regulations surrounding quotas and therefore must hire another candidate who is meeting the standards and racial demographic and profile “

You as an organization have done nothing but encourage racism, unfairness.

Tony EH

Wibbs wrote: »

Brutal authoritarianism alright, but quite differently to how modern multiculturalism is played out. Those empires were cocksure of themselves and made damned sure that any minorities were only welcome if they kow towed to the majority culture. Anything too "un Roman/Islamic/Chinese" was mercilessly slapped down. "When in Rome" etc.

Well, on the topic of Rome, we have to remember that their republic and imperial existence spanned many, many, years and cannot be limited to any period where we, today, can go "well Rome was like this..."

However, despite saying that, Rome at certain times practised, not really "multiculturalism", but "syncretism", which is not necessarily the same thing. Rome, as an ever changing culture, tended to poach many things from around the world and make it their own. They took on aspects of Carthaginian culture, despite the Punic wars. They were particularly enamoured with the Greeks- until they went to war with them. In fact, Greek was their common language for centuries. The imported people, ideas and values from everywhere they went.

But the overriding aspect about Rome was the idea of "citizenship" and it didn't matter a jot whether you were from sub-Saharan Africa, or Gaul and it also didn't matter whether you worshipped Diana or Yahweh. Once you were a Roman citizen (a concept rather than an physical actuality), you were entitled to all that that would afford you, primarily because it meant you could be taxed.

But yes, despite Rome being a magpie of other nations culture, gods, religions and whatnot. When you became a citizen of Rome, you were "Roman" and emigres were made to understand that. Of course, one didn't have to actually go to Rome to be a Roman citizen and the vast majority of Roman citizens never set foot in Rome. Being colonised by Rome was enough, as a lot of the world found out.

All of the above is very different, conceptually and practically, to the multiculturalism mess that we see today occurring throughout Europe.