The BBC again: ‘No whites need apply’

suicide_circus

suicide_circus wrote: »

Yeah poor whites all over europe are rolling in privileged.

White boys from poorer backgrounds have the worst outcomes in the UK. But are still privileged because of the colour of their skin.

km991148

suicide_circus wrote: »

Yeah poor whites all over europe are rolling in privileged.

You do know that the organisation that the daily mail attacked was also pushing underprivileged white people as well, right? That's the real irony, all this talk about race and it really had little to do with it.

suicide_circus

km991148 wrote: »

You do know that the organisation that the daily mail attacked was also pushing underprivileged white people as well, right? That's the real irony, all this talk about race and it really had little to do with it.

Great. Are they doing so at the expense of other protected characteristics such as race?

km991148

Hhhhh wrote: »

White boys from poorer backgrounds have the worst outcomes in the UK. But are still privileged because of the colour of their skin.

Again, if you are interested in doing the most basic fact checking you would see that the non profit mentioned in the article covers white people from poorer backgrounds in their remit.

It's it the third or fourth time I've posted it out, it's almost line people are willfully ignoring this.

AndrewJRenko

Shield wrote: »

It appears to me that you were inviting discussion on the above and I was simply bringing you down that path of discussion to a possible dilemma, hoping for reasoned discourse.


I never asked you to research anything for me or anyone else. I’ve been nothing but civil to you in inviting you to debate a point that you yourself raised. I don’t understand the snippy tone?

You came up with a hypothetical gotcha question about a scheme that has been working so successfully for employers and employees for a few years now that other employers are catching on to it as a competitive advantage, pretending that you've toppled the house of cards. Sadly for you, the scheme is going from strength to strength, creating productive employment for people who wouldn't have got through traditional recruitment practices. It's a win win, but all the Boards lads can do is snipe from the back, rooted in fear that they might have lost some of their traditional privilege.

km991148

km991148 wrote: »

I find those pathetically transparent attempts to stir the **** (as in the daily mail) pathetic in the extreme.

Haha nice how you edited out the examples of white racism that according to you doesn't exist. I guess people being murdered because of the colour of their skin doesn't interest you if the victims are white.

AndrewJRenko

suicide_circus wrote: »

How abouts you tell women to up their game and peruse careers you think they should

Great, let's do the same with cancer patients and people with mental health conditions. That's some magic bullet solution you've got there.

But deep down, you know it's not going to work, which is why you propose it.

Surely the men can up their game to balance up?

suicide_circus

Ah comrades, such rough and tumble handbag fun. Rest assured, your ideology is in the ascendancy- you're winning. The ghost of MLK is slain.

km991148

km991148 wrote: »

Again, if you are interested in doing the most basic fact checking you would see that the non profit mentioned in the article covers white people from poorer backgrounds in their remit.

It's it the third or fourth time I've posted it out, it's almost line people are willfully ignoring this.

AJR believes these people are still inherently privileged due to their skin colour, when they demostratebly aren't in any way priveledged, which was the point.

km991148

titan18 wrote: »

Tbf whether it's racism or not, white people from poor backgrounds (think of all the old coal mining towns or northern areas) have more in common with minority groups disadvantaged against them they do with white people going to Oxbridge or old money English. Policies like the BBCs one actually disadvantage even more those people as the white roles will go to the usual crowd anyway and they won't be eligible for the minority roles. It's not like the poorer English or Eastern Europeans coming in to work jobs the English don't want are privileged here.

Again. The role that was reported in the DM was open to white people from poor backgrounds. The article was a weak attempt to throw dirt on the BBC, clear as day.

The only other policy that was mentioned was the percentages, but it didn't outline how they would achieve this nor how the white percentage was broken down (because it was the DM, so they won't go out the way to actually research this).

suicide_circus

suicide_circus wrote: »

Ah comrades, such rough and tumble handbag fun. Rest assured, your ideology is in the ascendancy- you're winning. The ghost of MLK is slain.

MLK was just 'afraid of change' or something.

AndrewJRenko

Hhhhh wrote: »

Women can put themselves forward. They tend not to. In fact, in general, people tend not to. Women just more so. Hence their low representation.

And why do you think women tend not to, more so than their male peers?

titan18

km991148 wrote: »

Again, if you are interested in doing the most basic fact checking you would see that the non profit mentioned in the article covers white people from poorer backgrounds in their remit.

It's it the third or fourth time I've posted it out, it's almost line people are willfully ignoring this.

Tbf the BBC diversity and inclusion plan still excludes them. That's just 20% BAME, it has no plans for improving representation of people from poor white background.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

And why do you think women tend not to, more so than their male peers?

Because they don't want to.

km991148

Hhhhh wrote: »

Haha nice how you edited out the examples of white racism that according to you doesn't exist. I guess people being murdered because of the colour of their skin doesn't interest you if the victims are white.

It's not the gotcha you think it is.. I'm not saying people cannot be discriminated against for being white.. but a few cases does not point to a general problem with racism against white people. The thread is about an article that purported to be about excluding whites, which turned out not even to be true.

suicide_circus

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

And why do you think women tend not to, more so than their male peers?

They do and then biology rears its ugly head.

Gradius

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

What's that line again about how any rebalancing feels like an attack on the privileged?

An awful lot of this can simply be explained using the analogy of families. Cut it up how you like.

If your son or daughter was outright denied access to college (a specific opportunity) because your grandfather went to college, so as to offer the place exclusively to the neighbours child, how would you feel about that?

Would you tell your son "don't fret, that denial of opportunity for you isn't an attack, it's just a rebalancing."

You would in your ****e

When the sons of Irish millionaires and billionaires are sacrificing their family opportunities for poor Irish people, I'll have an ear for it.

But you know damn well it will be the poorer people who end up missing out to people not even from their continent. It's all optics, but just below the surface it's the most cynical, disgusting shyt at play.

km991148

titan18 wrote: »

Tbf the BBC diversity and inclusion plan still excludes them. That's just 20% BAME, it has no plans for improving representation of people from poor white background.

Is be interested to know if that's true, line I say the DM article (no surprise) breaks down the 80pc in any way.

Instead they try to (disingenuously) link Creative Access to the diversity quota. But since Creative Access also seems to promote white people from poor backgrounds, then technically they are including them.

km991148

km991148 wrote: »

It's not the gotcha you think it is.. I'm not saying people cannot be discriminated against for being white.. but a few cases does not point to a general problem with racism against white people. The thread is about an article that purported to be about excluding whites, which turned out not even to be true.

You said the concept of racism against white people (later changed to 'in the UK' ) was bollocks. That is demostratebly not true, as shown by the 3 murders you decided to edit out of my earlier post for some bizarre reason. You are now attempting to further shift the goal posts by mentioning a 'general problem' of racism against white people, which isn't what you initially said. We both know that you only care about racism if it's a non-white person on the receiving end. Your comments here clearly show that.

titan18

km991148 wrote: »

Is be interested to know if that's true, line I say the DM article (no surprise) breaks down the 80pc in any way.

Instead they try to (disingenuously) link Creative Access to the diversity quota. But since Creative Access also seems to promote white people from poor backgrounds, then technically they are including them.

Here it is, https://www.bbc.co.uk/diversity/plan

Theres no targets there for poorer white people. The only reference is a small paragraph on socio economic diversity where they say they are ooking at it but when they published it they had no targets (or still do)

km991148

Hhhhh wrote: »

You said the concept of racism against white people (later changed to 'in the UK' ) was bollocks. That is demostratebly not true, as shown by the 3 murders you decided to edit out of my earlier post for some bizarre reason. You are now attempting to further shift the goal posts by mentioning a 'general problem' of racism against white people, which isn't what you initially said. We both know that you only care about racism if it's a non-white person on the receiving end. Your comments here clearly show that.

I seen your links. I'm not denying that people can be discriminated against for being white. I'm talking mainly about the thread subject, which is this rather pathetic daily mail article that implies the BBC is participating in a work around to positive discrimination by promoting ethnic minorities (which I don't see any evidence of - as far as I can tell white people from poor background are included).

I've also stated a few times I have a problem with positive discrimination.. that's what my comments clearly show. Your assumptions may, of course, clearly show something else.

titan18

km991148 wrote: »

Is be interested to know if that's true, line I say the DM article (no surprise) breaks down the 80pc in any way.

Instead they try to (disingenuously) link Creative Access to the diversity quota. But since Creative Access also seems to promote white people from poor backgrounds, then technically they are including them.

Looking at the actual job advert, I think you're wrong. Whilst the general program is open to white people from poorer backgrounds, the BBC position is not.

https://creativeaccess.org.uk/opportunity-details/?/bbc-science-unit-production-management-assistant&id=1938

Says right at the bottom This opportunity is only open to Black, Asian and ethnically diverse candidates.

km991148

titan18 wrote: »

Here it is, https://www.bbc.co.uk/diversity/plan

Theres no targets there for poorer white people. The only reference is a small paragraph on socio economic diversity where they say they are ooking at it but when they published it they had no targets (or still do)

Yeah fair enough, although they do use Creative Access, so I assume poorer white people are in the mix somewhere. But I agree, it appears they could do more.

What about the other media companies? Creative Access only have one BBC role. It's a bit if s joke that the DM are pushing the BBC.. that to me is the real story here. More divisive crap from the DM.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Great, let's do the same with cancer patients and people with mental health conditions. That's some magic bullet solution you've got there.

But deep down, you know it's not going to work, which is why you propose it.

Surely the men can up their game to balance up?

It's hardly a valid comparison. Or are you going to examine the preferences made in funding between men and women's health?

People choose their careers. That's a rather simple and clear point. If there's not enough women in politics, it's because they're not interested in it as a career. The requirements on someone entering politics are rather low... being successful is another matter, but that's down to the individual in question. Perhaps go to some of the industries that women already dominate and encourage them to enter politics?

km991148

titan18 wrote: »

Says right at the bottom This opportunity is only open to Black, Asian and ethnically diverse candidates.

Yeah, I missed that, thanks, I mainly looked at the program itself.

That puts it on a par with the Daily Mails own program then.

km991148

km991148 wrote: »

I seen your links. I'm not denying that people can be discriminated against for being white. I'm talking mainly about the thread subject, which is this rather pathetic daily mail article that implies the BBC is participating in a work around to positive discrimination by promoting ethnic minorities (which I don't see any evidence of - as far as I can tell white people from poor background are included).

I've also stated a few times I have a problem with positive discrimination.. that's what my comments clearly show. Your assumptions may, of course, clearly show something else.

You saw them and edited them out. That's very telling. Whether you even bothered to read them only you can know. Your posts speak for themselves. You called the concept of racism against white people (in the UK) bollocks. That literally is denying that people can be discriminated against for being white. Try and jump around what you said all you want. It's there for everyone to see. The mask slipped, and you are now desperately trying to put it back on, and whilst I wish you the best of luck in that endeavor, I must now go and sleep.

titan18

titan18 wrote: »

Tbf whether it's racism or not, white people from poor backgrounds (think of all the old coal mining towns or northern areas) have more in common with minority groups disadvantaged against them they do with white people going to Oxbridge or old money English. Policies like the BBCs one actually disadvantage even more those people as the white roles will go to the usual crowd anyway and they won't be eligible for the minority roles. It's not like the poorer English or Eastern Europeans coming in to work jobs the English don't want are privileged here.

Hhhhh wrote: »

White boys from poorer backgrounds have the worst outcomes in the UK. But are still privileged because of the colour of their skin.

Black broadcaster Gary Younge did a documentary on poor whites in America. If you're gonna be deemed a trailer trash redneck/hillbilly, relative-****ing inbred long enough, you're gonna become resentful, and do things like vote for Trump.

km991148

Hhhhh wrote: »

You saw them and edited them out. That's very telling. Whether you even bothered to read them only you can know. Your posts speak for themselves. You called the concept of racism against white people (in the UK) bollocks. That literally is denying that people can be discriminated against for being white. Try and jump around what you said all you want. It's there for everyone to see. The mask slipped, and you are now desperately trying to put it back on, and whilst I wish you the best of luck in that endeavor, I must now go and sleep.

Lol, the terminology you use is more telling.. mask slipping etc - it's only a discussion here!

But allow me to clarify my views.. to suggest there is a general problem with racism against white people (and most of this thread) is bollocks.

Can white people be discriminated against, of course.

People from poorer backgrounds (of all race and skin colours) should be given a fairer chance.

Positive discrimination has problems (but I understand why it might be required in some cases, but I still don't necessarily agree with it).

The Daily Mail is a diabolical rag that us completely shameless in its desire to profit fro division and clickbait.


Now, nighty night and rest well.

Lurleen

Lurleen wrote: »

Black broadcaster Gary Younge did a documentary on poor whites in America. If you're gonna be deemed a trailer trash redneck/hillbilly, relative-****ing inbred long enough, you're gonna become resentful, and do things like vote for Trump.

Gary and John Harris are the only two columnists worth reading in the Guardian outside of the sports sections.

John Doe1

EnzoScifo wrote: »

Because I did a thesis on far right internet subcultures.

Ha im guessing this is one of the 82% (!!) of Humanities theses which never get citied by another researcher and which are essentially intellectual masturbation.