The Guardian is next

[NIK]

Hmm - I guess People of Colour Lives Matter somehow isn't quite as snappy. Is "Coloured" used on its own considered racist? I think it might be.

Top and bottom of it no fucker really has a clue what is and isn't pc. They make it up as they go along and it changes from one year to the next.  I reckon some people must be making a handsome living out of it. 

[winkywanky]

I think the truth of it is that the term People of Colour has come about purely to denote anyone who isn't White. In the 'old days' you'd have said Non-White but that's a literally a negative with the prefix 'non'.

I think it's a way of drawing everyone who isn't White, under one 'umbrella' so to speak. But what it does do of course, is to almost create an impression of 'it's the Whites against everyone else'.

I think that's unfortunate.

But I guess if you're feeling downtrodden it's what you do, and strength in numbers might seem appealing, like a kind of unified fight or struggle.

[Ali Katt]

More to the point black and white aren't colours.

[winkywanky]

More to the point black and white aren't colours.

Now you're just being awkward Ali  .

But looking at your avatar, perhaps that's a sign of some inner struggle within you   

[NIK]

Top and bottom of it no fucker really has a clue what is and isn't pc. They make it up as they go along and it changes from one year to the next.  I reckon some people must be making a handsome living out of it. 

You only have to look at how the terminology for people with 'leaning difficulties' has 'evolved.'

Backward, retarded, remedial, slow learners, special needs all used legitimately in the past and now forbidden. Yes, even 'special needs' has recently gone the way of the rest and now 'learning difficulties' is the sanctioned term. I wonder what will be next?

Mongols of course are 'Down's Syndrome, whilst fuck knows what happened to 'spastic'. If you used that term now it would provoke outrage , yet once was a completely legitimate term as shown by the Spastic's Society who used to have charity boxes all over the place.
'Spazz' and 'mong' were always naughty words tho! 

[AnthG]

But I guess if you're feeling downtrodden it's what you do, and strength in numbers might seem appealing, like a kind of unified fight or struggle.

I remember reading once, and this is a true fact, not a belief put forward as such. But the most discriminated and oppressed people in the western world are white working-class straight men.

They are the bottom of the social status rung. Everyone has more rights than them.

If white working-class straight men all got together to challenge or protest that fact. Nobody would let them, nobody would conclude they're fighting for their basic rights. They'd all say those white supremacist misogynist homophobes are wanting to put down everyone else and keep themselves on top. And that is how discriminated against that group is.

[AnthG]

You only have to look at how the terminology for people with 'leaning difficulties' has 'evolved.'

I was thinking who were you challenging there, and then did a "what the" moment when I seen you were challenging your own post?

[Beamer]

Top and bottom of it no fucker really has a clue what is and isn't pc. They make it up as they go along and it changes from one year to the next.  I reckon some people must be making a handsome living out of it. 

Such a shame that you make yourself look so hopelessly out of touch with reality with so many of your comments.

[winkywanky]

I remember reading once, and this is a true fact, not a belief put forward as such. But the most discriminated and oppressed people in the western world are white working-class straight men.

They are the bottom of the social status rung. Everyone has more rights than them.

If white working-class straight men all got together to challenge or protest that fact. Nobody would let them, nobody would conclude they're fighting for their basic rights. They'd all say those white supremacist misogynist homophobes are wanting to put down everyone else and keep themselves on top. And that is how discriminated against that group is.

I wouldn't agree with that at all. Mind you, I don't feel privileged as a white man either, I came from a very working class background, hunble beginnings and both my parents worked hard to make a life for themselves and their family.

I don't feel particularly downtrodden, and why would you say 'we' are discriminated against and repressed? Do you mean because by and large 'we' just get on with it, while some other groups complain vociferously about this and that?

[NIK]

I remember reading once, and this is a true fact, not a belief put forward as such. But the most discriminated and oppressed people in the western world are white working-class straight men.

They are the bottom of the social status rung. Everyone has more rights than them.

If white working-class straight men all got together to challenge or protest that fact. Nobody would let them, nobody would conclude they're fighting for their basic rights. They'd all say those white supremacist misogynist homophobes are wanting to put down everyone else and keep themselves on top. And that is how discriminated against that group is.

You are spot on, but no one will agree.
When I said as such recently our 'woke warriors' shot me down in flames.

BAME people keep complaining they don't get any rights then five minutes later I read that all football clubs are going to be obliged to interview at least one black candidate for any managerial posts and ITV are looking specifically for a black presenter for Good Morning. Rather than not getting a fair chance special treatment is rife.

A couple of years ago BBC Radio Sheffield ran a comp for a new presenter. One of the old blokes who regularly calls the football phone in said in all serious he was going to enter. A white bloke in his seventies! 
I knew from the start that it would go to either a woman or an ethnic and they would be under 30. Men, or specifically white men, need not bother trying. And any men over 30 could fuck right off.

My prediction, which wasn't difficult to make, was as accurate as a bullseye. Young, Somali woman won with another young woman, whom they also took on, coming second.

They may as well have said 'old white male bastards' need not bother entering. 

[NIK]

Such a shame that you make yourself look so hopelessly out of touch with reality with so many of your comments.

So you tell me, what will be the latest pc term to be and which will be    ?

[Doc Holliday]

You only have to look at how the terminology for people with 'leaning difficulties' has 'evolved.'

Backward, retarded, remedial, slow learners, special needs all used legitimately in the past and now forbidden. Yes, even 'special needs' has recently gone the way of the rest and now 'learning difficulties' is the sanctioned term. I wonder what will be next?

That's just not correct. Special Needs (as in educational special needs) covers people with either learning difficulties or a physical disability (or both) External Link/Members Only

If you can't see how any of those terms are an improvement over 'retarded' or 'mongol' then I suggest you may have learning difficulties. 

[NIK]

I wouldn't agree with that at all. Mind you, I don't feel privileged as a white man either, I came from a very working class background, hunble beginnings and both my parents worked hard to make a life for themselves and their family.

I don't feel particularly downtrodden, and why would you say 'we' are discriminated against and repressed? Do you mean because by and large 'we' just get on with it, while some other groups complain vociferously about this and that?

I am sick of hearing the disgusting, racist term 'white privilege.' They will not bring about racial harmony by keep using it.

[winkywanky]

You only have to look at how the terminology for people with 'leaning difficulties' has 'evolved.'

Backward, retarded, remedial, slow learners, special needs all used legitimately in the past and now forbidden. Yes, even 'special needs' has recently gone the way of the rest and now 'learning difficulties' is the sanctioned term. I wonder what will be next?

Mongols of course are 'Down's Syndrome, whilst fuck knows what happened to 'spastic'. If you used that term now it would provoke outrage , yet once was a completely legitimate term as shown by the Spastic's Society who used to have charity boxes all over the place.
'Spazz' and 'mong' were always naughty words tho! 

Whether or not you bullied kids at school Nik (I'm not suggesting you did), when I was at school kids got called Pakis, spastics, spazzoes, mongs and various other names. Unfortunately it's what kids do. And no it has nothing to do with parents necessarily, it has to do with looking different. I got called four-eyes until I was about 12. Kids say and do things to look 'big' in front of their mates and they'll go for an easy or minority target, safety in numbers, cowardice.

I do get fed up with the many who say kids are in some way 'pure' until tney get corrupted by adults, that's bollocks, unfortunately it comes naturally to a lot of kids, it is to a large degree literally human nature. The adults are there (hopefully) to stop them doing this shit, unless perhaps they never grew out of it themselves  . I would also mention here, that yes, we did have the archetypal gorilla PE/Rugby Teacher, who delighted in calling underperforming kids spastics, and he would take the piss out of any pupils with Welsh names because they'd always beat the shit out of England in the 70s (mind you he did recognise they were bloody good). There was a gormless 'innocence' about him and by and large we all laughed around this, despite him being a hard bastid it wasn't meant nastily. Nevertheless, he would certainly have upset some sensitive kids.

The thing is with previously-used names like Mongol, Spastic or whatever, they are short names which kids can easily use to label or bully others. That's a sad fact. So if you change the name to Downs' Syndrome or Cerebral Palsy then it becomes too much of a mouthful for kids to go spouting it off in the playground. Sadly, I think those kids will simply find another way to bully or upset other kids, at the end of the day it's not about names, it's about attitudes and having some empathy for other kids. For many kids, that needs to be taught.

When I was about 14 we had an immigrant kid whose family had come from Ceylon, joining our school. That first winter he pretty well passed out on the rugby field, from sheer cold. After taking the piss, even the rugby teacher looked out for him. He was shit at rugby but became bloody good at cross-country running. And that was good because continually running keeps you warm  . So he ended up doing that for 2hrs in games every Friday afternoon, triple-period  .

I'll also say, the kid was very clever and popular, and in my ignorance I and one or two other kids would playfully say he 'smelt of curry' (he actually did, unsurprisingly). He got called 'Paki' by some of the ignorant twats in the school, and we would defend him (and he'd help us out with our Maths homework  ). But one day I was mortified to find him crying because of the curry jibes, because we were meant o be his mates, and that hurt  . From that day on we never, ever said it again, not only that, he brought some of his mum's cooking in for us to sample, from his Tupperware box at breaktime    .

Lasi heard he was training to be a Doctor, I hope he made it. Lovely lovely guy.

[NIK]

That's just not correct. Special Needs (as in educational special needs) covers people with either learning difficulties or a physical disability (or both) External Link/Members Only

If you can't see how any of those terms are an improvement over 'retarded' or 'mongol' then I suggest you may have learning difficulties. 

You are out of touch, matey. 'Special needs', although still in general use, was discouraged by the educational opinion makers some time ago. The reason cited was we all have special needs, including people who are super intelligent and find socialising with their peers difficult. They have special needs in effect the other way, and it was thought they were being neglected because of the focus on the less able. (Similar thing happened with girls and boys. Concentrate on girls who were being neglected, and lo and behold they have for years averagely way out performed boys. So they now have to concentrate on boys once again  )

Similarly G&T, as in gifted and talented, is now verboten. I forget why or what has replaced it. Maybe it was because people were getting it confused with gin and tonic. 

The general public and the lazy, lying media, are so out of touch with so many terms. Another example is the CRB check (criminal records) which is still commonly referred to, has been DBS (Data Barring Service) for many many years now. When did you ever hear the correct term rather than CRB?

Then there is the media / public's favouritist term of them all -  'paedophile', which is routinely used incorrectly.

Mind you, 'racist' and 'white privilege' are fast catching it up. 

[AnthG]

'we' are discriminated against and repressed? Do you mean because by and large 'we' just get on with it, while some other groups complain vociferously about this and that?

How about the Equality Act covers rights, or better put, positive discrimination rights, for every single other group than white working class men?

If a company hires a working-class man over any other group member they can be taken straight to an employment tribunal and risk many tens of thousands of damages for it if they cannot prove that white working class man was by far the best person who applied for the job.

But if a company hires any other group over a white working-class man, tough, no rights whatsoever. Even if that working class man was easily the best person for the job.

Secondly, companies do recruitment drives. They don't want white working class men working for them, they want women, or BAMES. As it looks good for their image.

Imagine if any company ever said, we don't want BAME or women working for us as it looks good for our image if we just had white men. There'd be outrage. But the other way around, tough, accept it.

[NIK]

That's just not correct. Special Needs (as in educational special needs) covers people with either learning difficulties or a physical disability (or both) External Link/Members Only

If you can't see how any of those terms are an improvement over 'retarded' or 'mongol' then I suggest you may have learning difficulties. 

Furthermore, nowhere did I say these terms weren't an improvement. As so often on here 'liberals' are reading their own prejudices into objective observations.

What I would contend however is that the development and changing of terminology is ultimately endless.

[AnthG]

BAME people keep complaining they don't get any rights then five minutes later I read that all football clubs are going to be obliged to interview at least one black candidate for any managerial posts and ITV are looking specifically for a black presenter for Good Morning. Rather than not getting a fair chance special treatment is rife.

I was watching Anne Marie Waters live stream yesterday and she pointed out a job advert posted this week. The Daily Mirror newspaper are looking for a new Editor. The one requirement sought.

Not you must have so many years qualifications, or experience in this field, or know how to handle high stress jobs with absolute cut off deadlines. Nope none of that. You must be a BAME person.

Imagine if ever, the Mirror put out an advert saying, we're looking for a new editor. By the way, only white working class men will be considered for this role. There would be even more riots if so. But the other way around. Just accept it, or you're racist.

[winkywanky]

How about the Equality Act covers rights, or better put, positive discrimination rights, for every single other group than white working class men?

If a company hires a working-class man over any other group member they can be taken straight to an employment tribunal and risk many tens of thousands of damages for it if they cannot prove that white working class man was by far the best person who applied for the job.

But if a company hires any other group over a white working-class man, tough, no rights whatsoever. Even if that working class man was easily the best person for the job.

Secondly, companies do recruitment drives. They don't want white working class men working for them, they want women, or BAMES. As it looks good for their image.

Imagine if any company ever said, we don't want BAME or women working for us as it looks good for our image if we just had white men. There'd be outrage. But the other way around, tough, accept it.

I'd like to see proof of how Equality legislation discriminates against Whites? 

Of course all companies should hire manpower (sorry, personpower  ) regardless of race, how they employ people with regard to that Law is a matter for them as individual companies.

Personally I think the 'target' thing is a bit stupid, but of course that's all come about because some companies and individuals were clearly discriminating over previous years. I suspect genuine discrimination is not nearly as widespread as is made out by some quarters, and if for example a company only has 3% black employees then that's in line with the natural average per head of population. Of course in somewhere like London that would be very different, but I can quite imagine in an area where the local Black population is 1%, if a Black guy goes for a job and a white guy gets it, there's a high likelihood that he'll feel hard done by. And he may even consider seeking legal advice. But of course statistically it means nothing.

[daviemac]

You only have to look at how the terminology for people with 'leaning difficulties' has 'evolved.'

Backward, retarded, remedial, slow learners, special needs all used legitimately in the past and now forbidden. Yes, even 'special needs' has recently gone the way of the rest and now 'learning difficulties' is the sanctioned term. I wonder what will be next?

Mongols of course are 'Down's Syndrome, whilst fuck knows what happened to 'spastic'. If you used that term now it would provoke outrage , yet once was a completely legitimate term as shown by the Spastic's Society who used to have charity boxes all over the place.
'Spazz' and 'mong' were always naughty words tho! 

Times change, society evolves, as more is learned about things like Downs Syndrome and others like 'special needs' the more the terminology will change to become more acceptable. Unless of course you are advocating the use of derogatory terms for the less fortunate in society.

'Global development delay' is a 'catch all' term used not only for those who have learning difficulties and therefore special educational needs, but also include things like difficulties with fine and gross motor skills.

[winkywanky]

I was watching Anne Marie Waters live stream yesterday and she pointed out a job advert posted this week. The Daily Mirror newspaper are looking for a new Editor. The one requirement sought.

Not you must have so many years qualifications, or experience in this field, or know how to handle high stress jobs with absolute cut off deadlines. Nope none of that. You must be a BAME person.

Imagine if ever, the Mirror put out an advert saying, we're looking for a new editor. By the way, only white working class men will be considered for this role. There would be even more riots if so. But the other way around. Just accept it, or you're racist.

Is this for an Editor of BAME affairs on the paper?

IMO that would be totally justifiable, although I'm not quite sure what would happen if a White applicant were to open up a Test Case on this?

[AnthG]

I'd like to see proof of how Equality legislation discriminates against Whites? 

Its not a protected group.

The protected groups are; Sex (meaning women, not men)
Race; (meaning everyone who are non-whites)
Sexual orientation (meany anything other than straight, or if they think you are anything other than straight)
Religion (Meaning anything other than Christianity, and I remember the cases where the Christian people infamously lost under this)
Disability (meaning you have a disability, or your perceived to have one)

Every protected group is everyone other than white working-class men is covered. the Equality Act is Labours baby. They brought it in to give rights to everyone else but white working class men. You quite literally have no legal rights as a working class man under the equality act. Every other group has rights.

[NIK]

Whether or not you bullied kids at school Nik (I'm not suggesting you did), when I was at school kids got called Pakis, spastics, spazzoes, mongs and various other names. Unfortunately it's what kids do. And no it has nothing to do with parents necessarily, it has to do with looking different. I got called four-eyes until I was about 12. Kids say and do things to look 'big' in front of their mates and they'll go for an easy or minority target, safety in numbers, cowardice.

I do get fed up with the many who say kids are in some way 'pure' until tney get corrupted by adults, that's bollocks, unfortunately it comes naturally to a lot of kids, it is to a large degree literally human nature. The adults are there (hopefully) to stop them doing this shit, unless perhaps they never grew out of it themselves  . I would also mention here, that yes, we did have the archetypal gorilla PE/Rugby Teacher, who delighted in calling underperforming kids spastics, and he would take the piss out of any pupils with Welsh names because they'd always beat the shit out of England in the 70s (mind you he did recognise they were bloody good). There was a gormless 'innocence' about him and by and large we all laughed around this, despite him being a hard bastid it wasn't meant nastily. Nevertheless, he would certainly have upset some sensitive kids.

The thing is with previously-used names like Mongol, Spastic or whatever, they are short names which kids can easily use to label or bully others. That's a sad fact. So if you change the name to Downs' Syndrome or Cerebral Palsy then it becomes too much of a mouthful for kids to go spouting it off in the playground. Sadly, I think those kids will simply find another way to bully or upset other kids, at the end of the day it's not about names, it's about attitudes and having some empathy for other kids. For many kids, that needs to be taught.

When I was about 14 we had an immigrant kid whose family had come from Ceylon, joining our school. That first winter he pretty well passed out on the rugby field, from sheer cold. After taking the piss, even the rugby teacher looked out for him. He was shit at rugby but became bloody good at cross-country running. And that was good because continually running keeps you warm  . So he ended up doing that for 2hrs in games every Friday afternoon, triple-period  .

I'll also say, the kid was very clever and popular, and in my ignorance I and one or two other kids would playfully say he 'smelt of curry' (he actually did, unsurprisingly). He got called 'Paki' by some of the ignorant twats in the school, and we would defend him (and he'd help us out with our Maths homework  ). But one day I was mortified to find him crying because of the curry jibes, because we were meant o be his mates, and that hurt  . From that day on we never, ever said it again, not only that, he brought some of his mum's cooking in for us to sample, from his Tupperware box at breaktime    .

Lasi heard he was training to be a Doctor, I hope he made it. Lovely lovely guy.

There were no black kids at all at my school. One Asian in the year above and a couple in the year below.

There was a funny incident on the school bus home once involving these.
One of the swotty lads in my class was called Peter Redhead. One day on the bus home my best mate, Martin was shouting at him down the bus with terms such as, 'Hey, turquoise arse or Black toe!'
On hearing the latter, one of the Asian lads who were sitting before us and behind Redhead turned round and said to Martin, 'Yes white youth?'
Martin was thoroughly embarrassed and just retorted, 'I'm not talking to thee.' Which to be fair, he wasn't. He stopped shouting though. 

I reckon that's why in later years M became a raving liberal. 

[winkywanky]

Its not a protected group.

The protected groups are; Sex (meaning women, not men)
Race; (meaning everyone who are non-whites)
Sexual orientation (meany anything other than straight, or if they think you are anything other than straight)
Religion (Meaning anything other than Christianity, and I remember the cases where the Christian people infamously lost under this)
Disability (meaning you have a disability, or your perceived to have one)

Every protected group is everyone other than white working-class men is covered. the Equality Act is Labours baby. They brought it in to give rights to everyone else but white working class men.

It's one thing to cite a 'protected group' in that legislation, where there's clearly been discrimination previously, it's quite another to confer privilege or preference on them. So what I would like you to do is point out where that's the case.

Or is this merely the way you perceive it?

[Doc Holliday]

You are out of touch, matey

Nope

'Special needs', although still in general use, was discouraged by the educational opinion makers some time ago.

Yes, even 'special needs' has recently gone the way of the rest and now 'learning difficulties' is the sanctioned term.

So which one is it? Can you show me evidence of either statement?

[winkywanky]

There were no black kids at all at my school. One Asian in the year above and a couple in the year below.

There was a funny incident on the school bus home once involving these.
One of the swotty lads in my class was called Peter Redhead. One day on the bus home my best mate, Martin was shouting at him down the bus with terms such as, 'Hey, turquoise arse or Black toe!'
On hearing the latter, one of the Asian lads who were sitting before us and behind Redhead turned round and said to Martin, 'Yes white youth?'
Martin was thoroughly embarrassed and just retorted, 'I'm not talking to thee.' Which to be fair, he wasn't. He stopped shouting though. 

I reckon that's why in later years M became a raving liberal. 

I wonder whether Mr. Redhead is a current member of UKP? 

[David1970]

Its not a protected group.

The protected groups are; Sex (meaning women, not men)
Race; (meaning everyone who are non-whites)
Sexual orientation (meany anything other than straight, or if they think you are anything other than straight)
Religion (Meaning anything other than Christianity, and I remember the cases where the Christian people infamously lost under this)
Disability (meaning you have a disability, or your perceived to have one)

Is that not just a list of people who have been and are still being discriminated against?

[AnthG]

Is that not just a list of people who have been and are still being discriminated against?

Historically yes. But not now. And now the pendulum has swung so far to the left all these companies are blatantly advertising for "black only applicants please" or "women only applicants please" and white people / men have no rights whatsoever about this. As they are not a protected group. Which was my point initially. We have now become the group it's completely ok legally and socially to be discriminated against. And nobody cares one jot about it. In the 70s and 80s people used to fight for black/womens rights. Nobody, ever will fight for white men's rights. We're screwed. Big style.

[winkywanky]

What I have seen previously on some job ads is something along the lines of 'special consideration shall be given to such and such group'.

That's positive discrimnation weighted against the White community, I would agree. But presumably this is where there's a specific reason, or perhaps a company feels it needs to encourage more BAME to apply, because they have few.

[winkywanky]

How far you go down that road is a matter for debate, at some point whatever group you're aiming at has to get off its arse and be proactive and apply, be an 'early adopter', or perhaps more from the desired group need to be suitably qualified.

It's not always about discrimination, something we hear very frequently now is 'I don't feel I can apply, no-one there looks like me'. Well it's chicken and egg, something's gotta give!  You can only lead a horse to water, etc.

There is a danger that perhaps large companies or corporations lean too far to simply get their numbers up, for the corporate approval to be achieved. You can end up with less-qualified (either in actual qualifications or experience) getting the job.

[AnthG]

What I have seen previously on some job ads is something along the lines of 'special consideration shall be given to such and such group'.

That's positive discrimnation weighted against the White community, I would agree. But presumably this is where there's a specific reason, or perhaps a company feels it needs to encourage more BAME to apply, because they have few.

The Fortune 500 companies have very few working-class men working for them. But I have never seen an advert saying special consideration will be made for them. Why not? As the whole notion is silly, as these companies want the best and brightest.

[MilleMiglia]

I'm guessing that the situation is a lot worse in the US. I've never heard anyone complaining about AA hires here.

[NIK]

Nope

So which one is it? Can you show me evidence of either statement?

Not without going into personal stuff, but take my word for it, it changed maybe 10 years ago.
Yes, it is still routinely used, even in education, and as I say the general public take ages to catch up on changing terminology if ever at all.

There is a large office block in my town which appeared around 1963 and had its first name change (or actually acronym change) in 1969, despite at least three more acronym changes since, with corresponding sign changes, it is still routinely referred to by its original acronym. Similarly, a small fuel station which has been a Spar shop (complete with signs) for maybe 20 years is still referred to by the name of its previous independent owner.
The there is my CRB/DBS example.

Maybe this is why many people still think they are using 'coloured' as a polite term?
Maybe they need an electric shock every time they say it? 

[winkywanky]

The Fortune 500 companies have very few working-class men working for them. But I have never seen an advert saying special consideration will be made for them. Why not? As the whole notion is silly, as these companies want the best and brightest.

This is something I have mused on before.

I can't cite specific examples but over the years it seems to me that BAME (particularly the Black community) have been so vociferous about being 'left out' (sometimes justifiably IMO, sometimes not) that new measures/legislation have been brought in which also assist worse-off Whites. In other words, often some 'inequality' or other is seen as a 'Black issue' when it's actually nothing of the sort, it's a social inequality issue that transcends race.

Actually a current example: Marcus Rashford has been vocal recently about the provision of free school meals. This has undoubtedly been from the Black perspective, but of course is an issue for all kids from underprivileged backgrounds.

Of course BAME commentators will say well a disproportionate amount of Black kids are from poorer backgrounds, therefore it's discrimination on Race grounds. Clearly that's bollocks, nevertheless the reasons for that being the case are complicated, and it certainly ISN'T all to do with racism. That doesn't get spoken about enough.

[Doc Holliday]

Yes, it is still routinely used, even in education, and as I say the general public take ages to catch up on changing terminology if ever at all.

What do you mean 'even in education'? Special needs is an educational term. Always has been and still is.

Special Needs (as in educational special needs)

A special needs school (or Special School) is a school catering for students who have special educational needs due to learning difficulties, physical disabilities or behavioural problems. This may also involve children who have complex needs due to a physical disability or medical condition. (SEND)

This is a blanket term as above. Not all those receiving special needs education have learning difficulties so to suggest that 'learning difficulties' has replaced the term 'special needs' is just not correct.

What is objectionable and highly inaccurate, is the use of the slang term he's 'special needs' often banded about to describe anyone who has a disability of any kind.

The correct description would be he/she has a disability which requires SEN or he/she has learning difficulties and requires SEN. This would cover difficulties from mild dyslexia to cerebral palsy.

Not without going into personal stuff, but take my word for it, it changed maybe 10 years ago.

I'm struggling with that  I will instead take the 'personal' word of my Sister who teaches in a Special School

[David1970]

Historically yes. But not now. And now the pendulum has swung so far to the left all these companies are blatantly advertising for "black only applicants please" or "women only applicants please" and white people / men have no rights whatsoever about this. As they are not a protected group. Which was my point initially. We have now become the group it's completely ok legally and socially to be discriminated against. And nobody cares one jot about it. In the 70s and 80s people used to fight for black/womens rights. Nobody, ever will fight for white men's rights. We're screwed. Big style.

If they are doing that it is illegal to discriminate on the grounds of gender, race, religion, sexuality and age, you should report them to reverent bodies.

Pity it’s not illegal to discriminate because of what school you went to.

[winkywanky]

I'm struggling with that  I will instead take the 'personal' word of my Sister who teaches in a Special School

Perhaps Nik knows your sis, Doc? 

[winkywanky]

If they are doing that it is illegal to discriminate on the grounds of gender, race, religion, sexuality and age, you should report them to reverent bodies.

.

I don't think the Church would be too interested somehow 

[Doc Holliday]

Historically yes. But not now. And now the pendulum has swung so far to the left all these companies are blatantly advertising for "black only applicants please" or "women only applicants please" and white people / men have no rights whatsoever about this.

Examples?

[David1970]

What I have seen previously on some job ads is something along the lines of 'special consideration shall be given to such and such group'.

That's positive discrimnation weighted against the White community, I would agree. But presumably this is where there's a specific reason, or perhaps a company feels it needs to encourage more BAME to apply, because they have few.

No such thing as positive discrimination, all discrimination is negative.

[winkywanky]

No such thing as positive discrimination, all discrimination is negative.

That's basically true.

Although if applied to try to address what might be seen as a basic underlying and more general discrimination, that's how it would be justified.

[David1970]

That's basically true.

Although if applied to try to address what might be seen as a basic underlying and more general discrimination, that's how it would be justified.

There has been historical and current discrimination, the best way to rectify it is to have a fair recruitment policy and monitor the results. So called positive discrimination means the pendulum swings they other way, causing discrimination.
I am a WASP, non-disabled, straight male but I realise the people are still discriminate if they are not.
One thing peculiar to this country is the discrimination against people who did not attend private school, swept under the carpet.

[AnthG]

Examples?

One of the most infamous cases.

External Link/Members Only

[GreyDave]

This is something I have mused on before.

I can't cite specific examples but over the years it seems to me that BAME (particularly the Black community) have been so vociferous about being 'left out' (sometimes justifiably IMO, sometimes not) that new measures/legislation have been brought in which also assist worse-off Whites. In other words, often some 'inequality' or other is seen as a 'Black issue' when it's actually nothing of the sort, it's a social inequality issue that transcends race.

Actually a current example: Marcus Rashford has been vocal recently about the provision of free school meals. This has undoubtedly been from the Black perspective, but of course is an issue for all kids from underprivileged backgrounds.

Of course BAME commentators will say well a disproportionate amount of Black kids are from poorer backgrounds, therefore it's discrimination on Race grounds. Clearly that's bollocks, nevertheless the reasons for that being the case are complicated, and it certainly ISN'T all to do with racism. That doesn't get spoken about enough.

Well put 
Many Average white blokes have felt put on and left out for years and branded when ever they make a noise. dont forget many fathers and grandfarthers were conscripted in to service in 2 ww which is a sort of slavery no matter what the rights and wrongs of it thats what it was . the point of Forbes top companies is correct BUT they do some times pick up a guy like a local to me Nick Leason Barings Bank when they want a fall guy we are starting to see this in the Unit Trust World right now too

[mh]

The Fortune 500 companies have very few working-class men working for them.

Setting aside that the "Fortune 500" is a list of US corporations, what's your source for this assertion? If you meant FTSE 250 or FTSE 100, same question.

Looking at any company large enough to feature in the top 100, 250 or 500 companies in a country, I would suggest that "working class men" would be represented pretty well in them. Do you think they are all banks and stockbrokers? Even those specific types of organisation don't employ solely traders and clerks...
 

[Doc Holliday]

One of the most infamous cases.

External Link/Members Only

Thanks for that, but I meant in relation to 'blatantly advertising' You cannot specify ethnicity or gender in an advert for employment. That does not mean you cannot be selective on that basis during the process either covertly or overtly ... although if it is the latter especially you leave yourself open to accusations of discrimination as the BBC did here .. although they appear to have hid behind a 'training' loophole?

There is an exception and you can advertise positively for disability if the intention is to create more jobs for disabled people.

[winkywanky]

There has been historical and current discrimination, the best way to rectify it is to have a fair recruitment policy and monitor the results. So called positive discrimination means the pendulum swings they other way, causing discrimination.
I am a WASP, non-disabled, straight male but I realise the people are still discriminate if they are not.
One thing peculiar to this country is the discrimination against people who did not attend private school, swept under the carpet.

I'm very much of the opinion that everyone should be granted exactly the same life opportunities regardless of race. There will of course always be rich and poor, and you (literally) cannot legislate for that. All you can do is give familes and people good opportunities to get on if they're so inclined. Giving things away or making things easier for one group over another is never good IMO, it's actually pernicious.

Having said that there are some employers where it's in everyone's interest to have a good racial mix for the benefit of everyone, for 'racial harmony', and so that racial justice can be 'seen to be done'. Where there ought to be proper representation.

I would say the Police and the Army should make efforts to recruit to a level where there is proper, proportional representation. That means encouragement to recruit from specific groups. The hard bit is in offering the right level of encouragement, while actually getting someone in who really, actually wants to do the job, but perhaps hadn't considered it as an option because of their race. Striking that balance is very hard.

Similarly the BBC and ideally other national broadcasting organisations. Those are just off the top of my head.

Thing is, if you simply say 'OK you're very free to join, why not apply' and leave it at that, nothing will change, or at least change will be very slow. I think in some cases 'positive discrimination' can be desirable in a controlled manner.

What must also be recognised though is that slavishly 'chasing targets' is never good, and if people aren't applying, let's be honest about why, even if the truth hurts.

[Pedalwall]

I think there is a lot of misinformation in some of these posts – some deliberate; some otherwise.

There are not protected group but, rather, groups that have protected characteristics ie, people who suffer worse outcomes in health, criminal justice, social care as a result of gender, race, disability, age, pregnancy etc than the majority group. It doesn’t mean they get special treatment or preferential treatment but, rather, that actions should be put in place to ensure that they don’t suffer disadvantage due to those characteristics. For example, protects pregnant women being sacked by an employer simply because they are pregnant.

Positive discrimination in this country is illegal and so if some of the things claimed on here are happening there would be a redress in law. You can, however, take positive action but that is very different. For example, you may look at your workforce and decide that it doesn’t reflect your local population and want to address that. You can’t simply employ someone who fits the bill but you can advertise in places they are likely to see the advert, ensure that your work practices don’t indirectly discriminate etc. There are a few areas where positive discrimination can be applied are some areas of sex discrimination. For example, if you have a hostel for women who have been victims of domestic abuse you can state that this post is reserved to women only.

Finally, things have moved too far the other way. In the 1980s Roger Hood conducted a survey of sentencing at magistrates’ courts. After allowing for variables around age, charge etc he found that black defendants received longer prison sentences than their white counterparts. I hope that we’d agree that isn’t acceptable. When David Lammy conducted his review of the justice system at the request of Teresa May a couple of years ago he found that little had changed – people from BAME were still receiving longer sentences when other factors were accounted for. Hardly doing better!

[Pedalwall]

If you can't see how any of those terms are an improvement over 'retarded' or 'mongol' then I suggest you may have learning difficulties. 

 Nice one Doc!

[Doc Holliday]

IMO it appears the law is open to such wide interpretation?

Employing people with protected characteristics

You can choose a candidate who has a protected characteristic over one who does not if they’re both suitable for the job and you think that people with that characteristic:

•are underrepresented in the workforce, profession or industry
•suffer a disadvantage connected to that characteristic (for example people from a certain ethnic group are not often given jobs in your sector)

You can only do this if you’re trying to address the under-representation or disadvantage for that particular characteristic. You must make decisions on a case by case basis and not because of a certain policy.

You cannot choose a candidate who is not as suitable for the job just because they have a protected characteristic.

Favouring disabled candidates

When a disabled person and a non-disabled person both meet the job requirements, you can treat the disabled person more favourably.

These are the protected characteristics

•age
•gender reassignment
•being married or in a civil partnership
•being pregnant or on maternity leave
•disability
•race including colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin
•religion or belief
•sex
•sexual orientation

External Link/Members Only