Corbynomics: A Dystopia

westernpromise

@ Moby:

Is diversity ever a bad thing?

Moby

CLAPTON wrote: »

your training has been totally wasted on you as you are in total denial about the reality of Rotherham, Alyesbury Oxford, Channel 4 program etc etc.

Seriously Clapton what do you know about these events? Surely you are not asserting that your views are valid simply from what you've seen on the media? You've never said you work in a profession involved with such issues. I frankly doubt that you do considering your views. Nothing more arrogant than someone who spouts forth based on what they see on TV or reads in the Mail!

Moby

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Here's some more stupid people for you to defend Moby.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2259176/shocking-video-shows-wild-mob-of-30-brutal-schoolkids-attacking-two-cops/

What on earth!.....why would I want to defend these people....what are you on about?

TrickyTree83

Moby wrote: »

Seriously Clapton what do you know about these events? Surely you are not asserting that your views are valid simply from what you've seen on the media? You've never said you work in a profession involved with such issues. I frankly doubt that you do considering your views. Nothing more arrogant than someone who spouts forth based on what they see on TV or reads in the Mail!

One of my sisters used to think as you do.

She worked at the Job Centre, charities, the NHS and used to trot out the same rhetoric about understanding and compassion, a true bleeding heart "liberal".

She's stopped doing it now. She's completely u-turned. She now claims that those who she previously thought of as deserving compassion and empathy are manipulating our law and culture after more than 10 years in these types of jobs.

I have no proof that what she says is true about these people, it's anecdotal. It was just a comparison I can draw between someone who used to work in public service, as you do, who also went on training, as you claim to have done. She used to support Jeremy Corbyn, now to my utter utter surprise she now despises him and the movement behind him, and what they really stand for when their actions speak louder than words.

Moby

westernpromise wrote: »

@ Moby:

Is diversity ever a bad thing?

Generally accepted definition:-
Equality and Diversity is the current term used for 'Equal Opportunities'. It is the legal obligation to protect against discrimination. Discrimination can be against a person's sex, gender, disability, sexual orientation, religion, belief, race or age.

So is it a bad thing to protect against discrimination....No!
If you, your partner, your child etc was being discriminated against would you see it as political correctness gone mad or would you be unhappy and want the law to protect them?

TrickyTree83

Moby wrote: »

Generally accepted definition:-
Equality and Diversity is the current term used for 'Equal Opportunities'. It is the legal obligation to protect against discrimination. Discrimination can be against a person's sex, gender, disability, sexual orientation, religion, belief, race or age.

So is it a bad thing to protect against discrimination....No!
If you, your partner, your child etc was being discriminated against would you see it as political correctness gone mad or would you be unhappy and want the law to protect them?

You're absolutely right about discrimination.

So why is it OK for Sidique Khan to discriminate against people who agree with egalitarianism and call them Uncle-Tom's. Or to say there's too many white people in TfL regardless of their ability to do the job? Or for Dianne Abbott to say that white people like to divide and rule? Or that West-Indian mothers would go to the wall for their kids, implying that other mothers, including non-white mothers would not?

Discrimination cuts both ways, there should be neither positive nor negative discrimination. If there's an institutionalised problem then it should be dealt with using disciplinary procedures or prosecution under the law. Swinging the pendulum in the other direction is not an acceptable solution, in the public or private sector.

Moby

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

One of my sisters used to think as you do.

She worked at the Job Centre, charities, the NHS and used to trot out the same rhetoric about understanding and compassion, a true bleeding heart "liberal".

She's stopped doing it now. She's completely u-turned. She now claims that those who she previously thought of as deserving compassion and empathy are manipulating our law and culture after more than 10 years in these types of jobs.

I have no proof that what she says is true about these people, it's anecdotal. It was just a comparison I can draw between someone who used to work in public service, as you do, who also went on training, as you claim to have done. She used to support Jeremy Corbyn, now to my utter utter surprise she now despises him and the movement behind him, and what they really stand for when their actions speak louder than words.

What on earth are you on about.....The training I talk about etc is part of the expectation of being in the Civil Service. It is legally required. It has nothing to do with Jeremy bloody Corbyn or being a 'bleeding heart liberal' as you so eloquently put it. It is about standards of practice, expectations etc when working with service users from all over the world, different value systems etc. You start with Diversity training and then branch out into different areas depending on your specialism/work area: crime, mental health, child protection, adoption, family courts, the elderly etc...Each of these areas has separate guidelines and expectations depending on what legislation applies to that group. There is then an overarching Govmt policy in relation to countering Extremism which we also have to do training for....the 'Prevent strategy' which attempts to co-ordinate different agencies....police, prisons, probation etc in countering radicalisation. It's based on the belief that you gain more by actively engaging and inclusivity than lets say the French approach at present. By the way there is general agreement between the main political parties that this approach works best....some differences over specifics however.

Moby

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

You're absolutely right about discrimination.

So why is it OK for Sidique Khan to discriminate against people who agree with egalitarianism and call them Uncle-Tom's. Or to say there's too many white people in TfL regardless of their ability to do the job? Or for Dianne Abbott to say that white people like to divide and rule? Or that West-Indian mothers would go to the wall for their kids, implying that other mothers, including non-white mothers would not?

Where have I defended what these people say? These are incidences of discrimination. By the way I can't stand Diane Abbot...so far be it for me to defend her....she is a bigot....but that does not change the principle!

Discrimination cuts both ways, there should be neither positive nor negative discrimination. If there's an institutionalised problem then it should be dealt with using disciplinary procedures or prosecution under the law. Swinging the pendulum in the other direction is not an acceptable solution, in the public or private sector.

Ideally I'd agree.....but as I have pointed out time and time again...we are not there are we! so positive discrimination was used as a means of redressing an imbalance. It is suspect and can be said to be patronising but the point is in the context of what is happening it is a red herring......the point is how genuine are you about dealing with discrimination and what do you in your daily life do to challenge it!

TrickyTree83

Moby wrote: »

What on earth are you on about.....The training I talk about etc is part of the expectation of being in the Civil Service. It is legally required. It has nothing to do with Jeremy bloody Corbyn or being a 'bleeding heart liberal' as you so eloquently put it. It is about standards of practice, expectations etc when working with service users from all over the world, different value systems etc. You start with Diversity training and then branch out into different areas depending on your specialism/work area: crime, mental health, child protection, adoption, family courts, the elderly etc...Each of these areas has separate guidelines and expectations depending on what legislation applies to that group. There is then an overarching Govmt policy in relation to countering Extremism which we also have to do training for....the 'Prevent strategy' which attempts to co-ordinate different agencies....police, prisons, probation etc in countering radicalisation. It's based on the belief that you gain more by actively engaging and inclusivity than lets say the French approach at present. By the way there is general agreement between the main political parties that this approach works best....some differences over specifics however.

Sure, I know, I do speak to her as I said. I didn't say these programmes had anything to do with Jeremy Corbyn, just that she used to be a supporter of his. I think you got confused and didn't read what I posted correctly?

What she's told me is that some (not all!) manipulate this system, we allow them to do so. Rather than just simply treating everyone equally. So she left the public sector. The "service users" (so I was once told we need to refer to them as) were abusive, rude and manipulative and she just had to tolerate it because of who they were.

westernpromise

Moby wrote: »

Generally accepted definition:-
Equality and Diversity is the current term used for 'Equal Opportunities'. It is the legal obligation to protect against discrimination. Discrimination can be against a person's sex, gender, disability, sexual orientation, religion, belief, race or age.

So is it a bad thing to protect against discrimination....No!
If you, your partner, your child etc was being discriminated against would you see it as political correctness gone mad or would you be unhappy and want the law to protect them?

So it's never bad?

All consequences are beneficial? Nobody loses by it, ever?