I think it’s the shouting in random places that’s putting off potential employers. He should ask the BNP for some work it sounds a hoot no tax and you can download all manner of strange things to the laptop.

Can’t say I’m an expert on the Bill since I’ve only read it today – but from what I’ve read of the Positive Action section, employers won’t be forced to do anything. (I could have missed something or read this wrong – I’d be happy if anyone can point out if I am). I’m not sure how it applies to public sector staff.

If an individual nursery or some sort of governing body for nurseries decided that men were underepresented as nursery nurses/teachers, in the current law they can try to offer incentives for men to apply for positions or offer training to men before women. Men are already encouraged to become primary school teachers like this.

The new Bill proposes that the nursery could then deliberately choose a man provided only that no better qualified or better suited women applied for the job.

I think I’ve got that right.

I think the Harman Equality Bill is an abomination and as a person who runs a business

Ironically it may actually be a useful weapon against the BNP…

But if there is no extant law that ‘ethnics’ and women must be considered over white men, then how do you explain Colin’s inabilty to find a decent job?

Clearly Colin is at a loss to think of any other reason, so I imagine he will continue to look for ways in which his faiure in life is all the fault of uppity ethnics and women.

Of course it’s a lame dodge. You haven’t shown how the Bill effectively already is law (which it isn’t – it’s worth saying again that a Parliamentary Bill is not law), and you haven’t shown that it says the things you say it does. You’ve also glossed over the fact that you said it was passed as law in 2007 and it’s only just received its second reading.

What you’ve actually done is copy and paste an article from an evangelical Christian organisation that consistently lobbies against gay rights – Christian Concern For Our Nation – that (surprise surprise) criticises the Bill. You’ve also linked to the debate around the second reading of the Bill, which includes some people criticising it. All you’ve done is show that some people don’t like the Bill and have criticised it, which happens all the time with every Bill ever.

The Bill still isn’t law, still has to pass through the House of Lords and all the other stages it needs to pass through before it becomes law (here’s the list of stages a Bill has to go through before becoming law).

In the debate, Teresa May does call for clarity in the positive action elements of the Bill to make it clear whether they can be used only in individual cases or as a widespread recruitment policy. She proposes that this is addressed in the Committee stages. Nowhere does anyone say what you did, which is:

“Women and ethnics must be considered above that of white males in Britain to meet with strict equality targets regardless of said applicants lack of suitability or ability for the post.”

Unless you can point to anywhere in the actual Bill that actually says what you say it does, rather than link to places where other people have complained about something else they don’t like about it, I think it’s time for you to admit that a) it is not actually law that ‘ethnics’ and women must be considered over white men, and b) that the Equality Bill doesn’t propose that.

Then you can go on to criticise what you don’t like about what the Bill does say if you want.

Also in some cities, cabbies can rake in quite a lot of money, depends if your willing to work a 72 hour week or not.

Some people just like to whine rather than go out there and do something. If I want the best I have to go out there and work to get the best. If I want to be the best in IT i need to spend my spare time in books and learning code and stuff like that.

If you don’t have acedemic qualifications, you can make a lot of money doing non acedemic stuff. We have polish plumbers and builders, why can’t young men on the dole go out and learn how to do these things? Get the skills. People are wasting lifetimes whining, why not waste 2-3 years earning a pittance and being an understudy to a crafstman?

The average income in the UK is £20,000 a year i think, it can’t be that hard to gain the skills to at least hit that barrier over a lifetime.

This costly Equality Bill passed its Second Reading in the House of Commons on 11th May 2009. The Bill aims to sweep all of the existing law on equality into one Act of Parliament and to eliminate more forms of discrimination than are currently covered. Additional concepts, such as “discrimination by association” and “positive action” are also introduced. The Bill is now due to be considered by a Committee of MPs.

During the debate, Harriet Harman, Minister for both Women and Equality, barely mentioned “religion or belief” in the list of grounds on which people are not allowed to discriminate in the Equality Bill, but instead concentrated upon the gender pay gap and women-only shortlists for MPs. Mrs Theresa May, on behalf of the Conservative Party, asked for the Bill not to be read a second time, one reason being that it allows “…discrimination in recruitment and promotion decisions”. If MPs had succeeded in voting against the Bill being read a second time, it would cease to go through Parliament — at least for this parliamentary session. She also mentioned that businesses are “struggling to stay afloat”, that imposing a compulsory pay audit would be seen as a “bureaucratic nightmare” and that the Bill had been “…muddled by ill-thought-out, unworkable proposals…”.

Conservative MP Philip Davies protested that this is the “…most incredibly misleadingly titled Bill, as one of its central planks is not to enshrine equality in law, but to reintroduce discrimination in the workplace”. He later added that: “…the Government claim in the explanatory notes that the Bill will cost the private sector a one-off sum of £211 million — just what it needs in a recession — and recurring costs of between £11 million and £17 million a year, consisting mainly of additional court and tribunal cases and compensation awards.”

Another Conservative MP, Graham Brady, pointed out that as a result of the “positive action”, “recruitment and promotion” clauses, an employer could choose to employ a white woman in preference to an equally-qualified black man, so that the Bill is actually setting out “…a hierarchy of different, competing equalities”. He added: “This is becoming so complicated that, in seeking to protect some groups quite properly from discrimination, there is a risk of inflicting discrimination on others”.

Liberal Democrat MP Lynne Featherstone called for the partial removal of “religion” as a protected ground, because of the “varied” religious views held by different people in schools on matters such as “abortion, alcohol, homosexuality and sex education”, as well as calling for a narrowing of exemptions for religious employers.

Additionally, Liberal Democrat MP Evan Harris argued that extending the public sector duty to avoid discrimination on grounds of religion is “highly controversial” and runs the risk of “entrenching resentment”. He also argued for the narrowing of exemptions for religion for religious employers. He criticised provisions that allow schools to appoint a teacher who has “Jesus in [his/her] heart” in preference to one who does not and also maligned restrictions on access to faith schools. He admitted that he has interests: his membership of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and his “honorary positions with the British Humanist Association, the Liberal Democrat lesbian, bisexual and transgender campaign, and the National Secular Society.”

Who needs or wants this bill 5cc? And what makes you so sure that globalism (cheap labour) won’t be part of it?

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2008-09/equality.html.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm090511/debtext/90511-0004.htm#0905118000001.

Fair enough. I’m not defending the Bill per se here (not a Labour supporter either), I’m just pointing out that it won’t create the environment Colin claims already exists.

The problem is the Equalities Bill is that it is not required.

Every one has equal protection from the law and those who are discriminated against have paths to challenge that discrimination. Why add a new bureaucratic layer to oversee the process? I think we have enough waste of taxpayer’s money?

And, fining employers who apparently pay women less (now Harman used dodgy statistics to support her case) — but the bill also does not take into account legislation already in the statutes which grant special provisions for mothers with young children etc etc. Flexible working is now a norm and people work when they choose to work. I realise that this is the case where professionals are mostly involved — but that is exactly the group Harman is targeting.

I think this equalities bill is hogwash and is an unnecessary legislation. Also, can Harman practice what she preaches — how many Cabinet ministers are women?

So this is like many other anouncements and legislations that the Government brings in — it does nothing to alleviate problems that the country is facing but simply makes them feel good and the Fabian brethren.

“In effect, the equality bill is already law.”

No it isn’t. That’s just a lame dodge, and the rest is an attempt to try to derail the conversation and distract from what you’ve been asked. Even if the Equality Bill was law (which it isn’t) it doesn’t say what you claim it does.

Talking about ‘globalist lies’ is a just smoke and mirrors distraction. The Equality Bill isn’t about skills shortages.

*****************************

@Shamit

Not a massive fan of positive discrimination myself, chiefly because it gives people like Colin and Hantsboy reason to act all victimised, however much they mistinterpret it.

But – from what I’ve seen of the Equalities Bill, it doesn’t create quotas. It just allows employers to recruit from groups they feel are underrepresented or disadvantaged (but I may get a surprise the more closely I read it). And it doesn’t allow you to hire people based on something other than the value they can add, since you always have to pick the best qualified candidate. The only exemption is if you have two candidates who can offer equal value but you think one is from a disadvantaged group.

And also being progressive means marrying pragmatism to idealism – not a very hard concept actually. And the term is bandied around like that all lefties are progressives — I disagree.

Ever read Bill Clinton’s speech on affirmative action: the motto of the speech was mend it not end it. Have a read. That’s the guy who defined progressive politics even though many on liberal conspiracy would disagree.

By the way could you please define what you mean by progressives?

However, I am open to some sort of affirmative action when it comes to providing opportunities to economically deprived citizens (irrespective of their class, colour, creed and/or religion). However, I am not keen on creating quotas in employment or politics but may be in education and training so that those coming from less fortunate positions (economically) have the option to develop into well rounded individuals and have the opportunity to compete with others.

I think the Harman Equality Bill is an abomination and as a person who runs a business — I can vouch that most people who are responsible for the bottomline tend to hire people based on the value they can add rather than the nature of skin colour or their reproductive organs.

However, as a society, I believe we need to protect equal rights and women should be protected against employers such as ALAN (the idiot) Sugar who thinks it is appropriate to ask when they are going to have babies.
*************************************
Colin – unchecked immigration is a problem and anyone who denies that is completely off their rockers. Many British Asians would agree with that statement.

However, as I have said before, immigration should be based upon one’s ability to add value to our country economically (directly or indirectly) and definitely not based on race.

I am also against granting amnesty to those who are illegal immigrants because there are lot of people who work hard and follow the rules and gain residency and citizenship in this country. Granting illegals amnesty is a loony left concept which I completely disagree.

I am also against granting anyone permanent residency just because they have happened to stay in this country over 5 years or whatever the case may be. It should be decided on a case by case basis and I would like to adopt the permanent residency laws like Singapore where every five years they review if the person still deserves to be a PR.

And no. There isn’t a skills shortage. That is yet another globalist lie to justify the insidious agenda which [PP] will now rush to deflate as being another silly urban legend.

http://tinyurl.com/mhsh4a

Pointing out that something you’ve said is law isn’t actually law isn’t hair splitting. There’s a rather big difference between ‘is’ and ‘isn’t’. Ravi has asked you to respond to the point that positive discrimination in employment recruitment is actually currently illegal. Your reply completely ignores this fact and carries on as if it wasn’t the case. It is.

And looking through the Bill (which may or may not become law), shows the bit about positive action (that may or may not be dropped or amended if the Bill becomes law – you’re looking for section 153) casts more doubt on what you claimed, from the first look.

You said:

“Jacqui Smith passed the positive discrimination law in 2007. [No she didn't. A Bill was introduced this year that isn't actually law and might never become law] No matter how well qualified I am – PhD, DSc etc.. I will not be chosen for employment in a large company because I am both White and male. [The Bill doesn't say that, see below]. That makes me a ‘leper’ under present UK employment law. [It's not present UK law] There is no way around it. [There are several. the main one being that it's not law].”

The actual Bill makes provisions for employers who decide a particular group (including white males, funnily enough) is underrepresented in their company or faces disadvantages. These employers are allowed to then recruit people from that disadvantaged group but only if they are equally or better qualified than people from outside the group.

Here’s the exact example of something that wouldn’t be allowed taken from the Bill’s Explanatory notes:

“An employer offers a job to a woman on the basis that women are under-represented in the company’s workforce when there was a male candidate who was more qualified. This would be unlawful direct discrimination.”

So that bit you said about ‘no matter how well qualified I am..’? Yes it does. If this Bill in its present form becomes law, and if you apply for a job in a company that has decided that another group is underrepresented, and if you’re up against another candidate from that group, and if you’re better qualified than that person, then the company must, by law, employ you.

That’s less harsh that what you’ve said is already law, and it isn’t even the law yet. It might not even become law.

You need to be careful of anything you read about equality law from the BNP.

However, I’m quite sure that your question has far more to do with manufacturing a parallel between the BNP’s choice to ‘discriminate’ on it’s membership entry requirements than it does with the question you raised.

Am I right, or am I right Ravi?