ForumGarden

High Threshold;1462184 wrote: I'm going to take a stab at putting some light onto this dilemma without any facts, figures or statistics. Just guessing.

Criminals are the minority of any community, not the majority. But if police brutality or any other social injustice is committed, then the community it affects the most will (and should) react in proportion to its affect.

If a white criminal is apprehended, it is most often regarded by the white community as a crime of greed, (for example) and the brutality he/she might receive from the police is thought of as “isolated.

If a black criminal is apprehended, it is often regarded by the black community as a crime of “necessity ¦.. allow me to play with words and superlatives just for the sake of the discussion. The black community sees police brutality, in this case, as just another example of indirect, racist sentiment.

Now you can say it's simply a matter of playing the racist card to their advantage - but they do have a point. I don't think they have a point.

The question should solely be.. ' Did the police officer over-react'

That question would be asked had he shot a white man, black man, Mexican or even Swedish.

What Is being assumed Is that the officer fired because the youth was black. Yet, does anyone know that for sure? Or could It be he believed the youth to be armed and felt he was In danger?

The town has Immediately reacted without waiting for the outcome of any official Inquiry as rioters did In London when Duggan was shot by police.

Oscar Namechange;1462169 wrote: No doubt I'll get some flack for this but... If the pro gun lobby In America vote that the population has the right to bear arms, then this Is the ultimate outcome.
I don't think you understand what the problem is concerning why Americans have that right. Nobody has voted in living memory for this right, many have campaigned for a change, but due to a Constitution brought down from the mountains by Moses, they believe it can never ever ever be changed.



Whites killed by US police stand at 8.7 % and before you think that's low, In 2013 black or black American population was standing at 13.2 %. By the law of averages, cops will shoot black people just as much as they are likely to shoot whites.


So why are the percentages shot to death not the same as the ethnic make up of the population ?

Bruv;1462187 wrote:



So why are the percentages shot to death not the same as the ethnic make up of the population ? Then look further..

Apply population of American blacks with Incarcerated.



African Americans constitute nearly 1 million of the total 2.3 million incarcerated population, a

Statistics of incarcerated African-American males - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You do the maths

Oscar Namechange;1462188 wrote: Then look further..

Apply population of American blacks with Incarcerated.



African Americans constitute nearly 1 million of the total 2.3 million incarcerated population, a

Statistics of incarcerated African-American males - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You do the maths


You should do well in politics. When asked to clarify one point you prevaricate on another.

Whites are 63 % Blacks 13%

I am asking YOU ......why the difference in relation to police shootings and jail population ?

According to this.....

The FBI report shows that 18 percent of African-Americans killed during those seven years were under the age of 21. Whites killed that were under the age of 21 came out to 8.7 percent.

http://rt.com/usa/180648-police-shootin ... -american/

All I'm asking and the point I'm making Is this... out of that 8.7 % of white under 21's killed by police, how many of those towns were on fire and rioting??

None so blind as those that will not see......comes to mind

Oscar Namechange;1462186 wrote: I don't think they have a point.


This is going well.



Oscar Namechange;1462186 wrote: The question should solely be.. ' Did the police officer over-react'




Yes. Disproportionately colour-sensitive too. This is the point you don't think exists.



Oscar Namechange;1462186 wrote: The town has Immediately reacted without waiting for the outcome of any official Inquiry ¦


An official Inquiry (by American standards) comes too often in the “Proof of WMD category and its questionable credibility is linked (once again) to the point you don't think exists.

Your basis for this discussion is that there is no racism regarding the American police and the community. I don't see how you can nurture such a conviction considering every thing we already know about contemporary, American history.

Oscar Namechange;1462190 wrote: All I'm asking and the point I'm making Is this... out of that 8.7 % of white under 21's killed by police, how many of those towns were on fire and rioting??


I've already answered this question. Did you miss it?

Bruv;1462189 wrote: You should do well in politics. When asked to clarify one point you prevaricate on another.

Whites are 63 % Blacks 13%

I am asking YOU ......why the difference in relation to police shootings and jail population ?


Actually I missed this post.

It goes back to my post where I said the only question should be ' did the officer over-react'?

There's two ways of looking at this..

1) Given the prison population of blacks per % of black population, do US Police Officers have a preconceived Idea when In a confrontation with a black youth, that he will be violent and over-react?

2) Or... Does the black community In the USA believe, preconceived or not, given the stats for the amount of blacks Incarcerated that US police officers are racist and are disproportionately shooting and arresting black Americans?

So It's all about the question of ' did the officer over-react'?

Only when they have established that can anyone go down the root of why he over-reacted and If Indeed It was because the youth was black.

Until then, you are discussing assumption.

Oscar Namechange;1462197 wrote:

So It's all about the question of ' did the officer over-react'?




Brown was unarmed

He was shot several times.

The "arresting" officer had no prior knowledge to the alleged robbery, to which much the police seem to be riding on

He was stopped for " jay walking"

Was there an over reaction by the police?

IMO. Yes without doubt

Oscar Namechange;1462197 wrote:

So It's all about the question of ' did the officer over-react'?

Only when they have established that can anyone go down the root of why he over-reacted and If Indeed It was because the youth was black.

Until then, you are discussing assumption.


I honestly think the term "over reaction" is itself “discussing assumption. Not merely because it is still being debated whether his reaction was in excess, but because the question is still in motion whether or not he consciously over-stepped his authority. That's not the same thing. One is misjudgement of duty, the other is dereliction of duty.

High Threshold;1462200 wrote: I honestly think the term "over reaction" is itself “discussing assumption. Not merely because it is still being debated whether his reaction was in excess, but because the question is still in motion whether or not he consciously over-stepped his authority. That's not the same thing. One is misjudgement of duty, the other is dereliction of duty. Let's go back to the OP and the original link.

St. Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar said the shooting occurred after an officer encountered two people — one of whom was Brown — on the street near an apartment complex Saturday afternoon in Ferguson, a predominantly black suburb a few miles north of downtown St. Louis.

Belmar said one of the men pushed the officer back into his squad car and a struggle began. Belmar said at least one shot was fired from the officer's gun inside the police car. Ferguson Police Chief Tom Jackson said authorities were still sorting out what happened inside the police car. It was not clear if Brown was the man who struggled with the officer.



The struggle spilled out into the street, where Brown was shot multiple times

If that's true and the report that Brown pushed the officer back Into the car and reached for the gun, then It may well be an over-reaction to some but Brown was found to ne unarmed after the event. In that moment In time during the struggle, the officer may well not have known that and feared the worst.... and that Is understandable given the gun culture of the USA and not certainly because the officer was racist.

Remember Lenny Henry's punchline "Is it cos Im black"?

Maybe it was a barbed joke, like many of the best jokes, funny only in that it has a lot of truth in it.

Nationally, according to the U.S. Census, Blacks are incarcerated five times more than Whites are, and Hispanics are nearly twice as likely to be incarcerated as Whites.

Social science research has time and again come to the robust conclusion that exposure to the criminal justice system has profound and intergenerational negative effects on communities that experience disproportionate incarceration rates

Under Occupation: The Shortest Distance Between Palestine and Ferguson – Well-Camouflaged Institutional Apartheid | Global Research



Ferguson is a majority Black, segregated community, run almost entirely by white people. Almost all of its political representatives, and all but 3 of it’s 53 person police force, are white.

Snowfire;1462207 wrote: Under Occupation: The Shortest Distance Between Palestine and Ferguson – Well-Camouflaged Institutional Apartheid | Global Research


We also have almost segregated parts of the UK so It's not just America that has communities of that nature. It's a natural progression where people wish to live among like. Our ethnic communities are also policed In the main by white police officers so we can't point fingers there.

The point I am trying to make Is that regardless of whether the area Is predominantly black or not, there Is a fear Instilled In police officers due to gun culture In the USA.

The police have absolutely no Idea In a split second whether someone pushing them back Into a car or charging at them Is about to pull a weapon.

Survey – the leading source of international public information about firearms – the U.S. has the best-armed civilian population in the world, with an estimated 270 million total guns. That’s an average of 89 firearms for every 100 residents

How Many People Own Guns in America? And Is Gun Ownership Actually Declining? | TheBlaze.com

So what I'm saying Is, the culture has been created and those police officers have to work with that culture. With that culture, officers are going to get scared, they are going to over-react, they are going to make mistakes but It doesn't go hand In hand with being just plain racist.

Oscar Namechange;1462208 wrote: We also have almost segregated parts of the UK so It's not just America that has communities of that nature. It's a natural progression where people wish to live among like. Our ethnic communities are also policed In the main by white police officers so we can't point fingers there.

The point I am trying to make Is that regardless of whether the area Is predominantly black or not, there Is a fear Instilled In police officers due to gun culture In the USA.

The police have absolutely no Idea In a split second whether someone pushing them back Into a car or charging at them Is about to pull a weapon.

Survey the leading source of international public information about firearms the U.S. has the best-armed civilian population in the world, with an estimated 270 million total guns. Thats an average of 89 firearms for every 100 residents

How Many People Own Guns in America? And Is Gun Ownership Actually Declining? | TheBlaze.com

So what I'm saying Is, the culture has been created and those police officers have to work with that culture. With that culture, officers are going to get scared, they are going to over-react, they are going to make mistakes but It doesn't go hand In hand with being just plain racist.


I see it more as a militarisation of police in the US rather than them living in a fear of the gun culture that has always existed

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014 ... -ferguson/

I'm sorry, but everyone seems to be viewing the statistics based on an idealist viewpoint which says that out of a town containing 50% Blacks & 50% Whites, then crimes committed should also be 50% Black & 50% White, thus resulting in 50% Black & 50% White arrests.

Anyone who is ANYWHERE near streetwise knows that this is not the case.

I was talking to my mate, Ebe (a Ugandan refugee) the other day about this very subject & his answer is that more Blacks turn to crime than Whites because "No-one will give them a job because they're black". His reason for believing this is that when he goes shopping at Tesco he asks the person at the till if they can give his son a job. The thing is that his son isn't interested in finding a job. He's quite happy to say playing games on his computer all day every day, yet Ebe is convinced that the reason they won't give him a job is because he's Black.

The point is, that whatever the reason, even he agrees that far more Blacks turn to crime than Whites do. It is more likely that an experienced streetwise officer is going to suspect a Black youth more than a White one.

Watch the CCTVs. See what colour most of the drug dealers, pimps, car thieves & muggers caught on camera are. Even in a 50 / 50 Balck / White neighbourhood the answer should be 50 / 50, yet this is not the case.

Racism is one thing. Realism in another.

Good points Fourpart,

Before I go off for the night, ask yourselves all this...

How many cases are there In America where during a confrontation with police, a suspect over-reacted, got scared, jumped the gun ( no pun Intended ) or even accidently shot and killed a police officer.?

How many of those times did It Involve a black suspect shooting dead a white cop ?

Were their towns on fire? Were there riots? Were there shouts of racism ?

Hmmmm

"We are all equal, but some are more equal than others" (to paraphrase George Orwell).

FourPart;1462210 wrote: I'm sorry, but everyone seems to be viewing the statistics based on an idealist viewpoint which says that out of a town containing 50% Blacks & 50% Whites, then crimes committed should also be 50% Black & 50% White, thus resulting in 50% Black & 50% White arrests.

Anyone who is ANYWHERE near streetwise knows that this is not the case.

I was talking to my mate, Ebe (a Ugandan refugee) the other day about this very subject & his answer is that more Blacks turn to crime than Whites because "No-one will give them a job because they're black". His reason for believing this is that when he goes shopping at Tesco he asks the person at the till if they can give his son a job. The thing is that his son isn't interested in finding a job. He's quite happy to say playing games on his computer all day every day, yet Ebe is convinced that the reason they won't give him a job is because he's Black.

The point is, that whatever the reason, even he agrees that far more Blacks turn to crime than Whites do. It is more likely that an experienced streetwise officer is going to suspect a Black youth more than a White one.

Watch the CCTVs. See what colour most of the drug dealers, pimps, car thieves & muggers caught on camera are. Even in a 50 / 50 Balck / White neighbourhood the answer should be 50 / 50, yet this is not the case.

Racism is one thing. Realism in another.


How do you think it makes a black youth feel to be "assumed" to be a drug dealer, car thief, mugger just because you dont fit the "norm" of being a white middle class achiever. How do you think it makes them feel after the 6th, 7th, 8th time of being pulled over cos they ride a smart car, pulled aside cos someone up the road got their iphone taken, just because they are black. Police are going to be influenced by their prejudices and it happens all the time.

Racism cant be tossed aside because its difficult or painful to deal with. Its about people lives and their rightful entitlement to the same rightful entitlements that the rest of us mostly receive

Snowfire;1462220 wrote: How do you think it makes a black youth feel to be "assumed" to be a drug dealer, car thief, mugger just because you dont fit the "norm" of being a white middle class achiever. How do you think it makes them feel after the 6th, 7th, 8th time of being pulled over cos they ride a smart car, pulled aside cos someone up the road got their iphone taken, just because they are black. Police are going to be influenced by their prejudices and it happens all the time.

Racism cant be tossed aside because its difficult or painful to deal with. Its about people lives and their rightful entitlement to the same rightful entitlements that the rest of us mostly receive
Is it any different to assume, then, that all Police Officers are Gun Toting millitants with an agenda to kill all the Blacks, because this is what's happening. Yet one side of the coin seems to be acceptable. The other is considered racist. Prejudism plays both ways, but on the whole it is earned.

There is a standing joke that the best way to get a seat on the Underground is to wear a Burkha & a Backpack. How do you think it feels to be suspected as a potential suicide bomber just because no-one can see your face or what you have in your Backpack. The public have a real & justified fear.

FourPart;1462224 wrote: There is a standing joke that the best way to get a seat on the Underground is to wear a Burkha & a Backpack. How do you think it feels to be suspected as a potential suicide bomber just because no-one can see your face or what you have in your Backpack. The public have a real & justified fear.


Really ? Is that how you think/react to women in burkahs or a black/middle eastern person with a back pack ? You think its justified ?

The public's fears have been manipulated

As has been demonstrated before, just because they're wearing a Burkha doesn't mean they're female.

Are the extremist security activities taken at airports worldwide just a matter of being manipulated, or is there a real threat? I think I know what all the friends & relations of those that perished in the Twin Towers might think.

Are the Muslims that are openly preaching racial hatred & recruiting suicide bombers just manipulation, or is there a real threat?

Although I concede that the vast majority of Muslims are peace loving, there is a growing minority that use the cover of the rest of their culture to spread their culture of murder & destruction. The public fear is a perfectly understandable association of appearances with potential activities.

Oscar Namechange;1462214 wrote: Good points Fourpart,

Before I go off for the night, ask yourselves all this...

How many cases are there In America where during a confrontation with police, a suspect over-reacted, got scared, jumped the gun ( no pun Intended ) or even accidently shot and killed a police officer.?

How many of those times did It Involve a black suspect shooting dead a white cop ?

Were their towns on fire? Were there riots? Were there shouts of racism ?



Hmmmm






You seem to be leaving out the major ingredient in the stew yet you fully expect it to taste the same. When the government favours blacks (and discriminates against whites) then you can ask your question again and we'll see.

Anyway, I'm also going to bed now but before I do here's a question for you: If the new DNA tests estimate that upwards towards 50% of Death Row (and already executed) inmates of American prisons have been falsely accused ....... and as we all know the vast majority of the incarcerated are black ..... then what do you think the colour-ratio of innocently executed citizens in the U.S. might be? Think about it now, because I'm going to test you later on the effects that might have on the black and white communities.

Statistically speaking, those on Death Row have a longer life expectancy than those on the streets.

FourPart;1462230 wrote: Statistically speaking, those on Death Row have a longer life expectancy than those on the streets.


Whether that statistic is right or wrong, it doesnt really address the question

This time I shall give the link.......How justice system impacts our communities

It seems we are all experts, we all have opinions about things we have no 'lived in' experience of.

Fourpart was discussing disabled access recently, the able bodied can only presume to know the problems. Similarly with the colour of skin and its long term affects on populations is a tricky thing to imagine as a WASP, looking in.

The closest simile to me might be a fatty who continually has his or her weight mentioned so puts up a 'happy fatty' front to protect themselves. Or there is the short man syndrome, we all know one, him with the massive ego, they call it the Napoleon complex.

If you have the imagination or empathy to relate to the cheerful fat guy, or the short aggressive one, then it shouldn't take a huge leap to relate to a black population who go through life never too sure if the next person you meet is friendly or passive racist.

Factor in white privilege and you are almost there.

Many people do have reservations when interacting with different races, that is blacks on white and white on black, at this time in our history we are not easy with each other. It is getting better, but it is a long way from being total equality.......inside the brain.......despite years and years and reams and reams of legislation.

I know that Bush said that no war could really be won by force, but by the Hearts & Minds of the defeated (or something like that) - although I can't help feeling that Bush must have got it from somewhere else - it's not exactly something he could have come up with himself.

Anyway, whoever said it, it's nonetheless true. You may force legislation upon someone, but you can never make someone believe in it. You can enforce Positive Discrimination, but even that is discrimination in itself which only serves to increase resentment further. One step forward - two steps back.

FourPart;1462239 wrote: You can enforce Positive Discrimination, but even that is discrimination in itself which only serves to increase resentment further. One step forward - two steps back.


People like your good self who think "One step forward - two steps back" will pass away........ and hopefully the 'resentment' will pass with you.

The resentment comes from being told what you HAVE to think, not what you would otherwise come to think on your own.

The latest......to me anyway.



"Well, then Michael takes off and gets to be about 35 feet away. And, Darren’s first protocol is to pursue. So, he stands up and yells, “Freeze! Michael and his friend turn around. And Michael taunts him¦ And then all the sudden he just started bumrushing him. He just started coming at him full speed. And, so he just started shooting. And, he just kept coming. And, so he really thinks he was on something.


And the Blackman rant......

FourPart;1462239 wrote: I know that Bush said that no war could really be won by force, but by the Hearts & Minds of the defeated (or something like that) - although I can't help feeling that Bush must have got it from somewhere else - it's not exactly something he could have come up with himself.

Anyway, whoever said it, it's nonetheless true. You may force legislation upon someone, but you can never make someone believe in it. You can enforce Positive Discrimination, but even that is discrimination in itself which only serves to increase resentment further. One step forward - two steps back.


Enforcing positive discrimination is not the answer and I'm not sure where it has been intimated. Equality, surely, is what is being suggested. I've never understood the resentment to equality

Bruv;1462245 wrote: And the Blackman rant......


Respect Bro'. That was a reasoned statement from the heart.

He's the type that would make a GOOD politician.

FourPart;1462230 wrote: Statistically speaking, those on Death Row have a longer life expectancy than those on the streets.


:wah::wah::wah:



Snowfire;1462233 wrote: Whether that statistic is right or wrong, it doesnt really address the question


But we'll have to concede that it was a very clever response.

FourPart;1462243 wrote: The resentment comes from being told what you HAVE to think, not what you would otherwise come to think on your own.


That's a rather cryptically, short-sighted statement. Are you speaking of your peers or of your government? If your circle of mates say that all blacks are niggas then you may never realize that you and one of your black co-workers have more in common than anyone else you know. All your government can do is to integrate the community (so to speak). The rest is up to you.

As it happens, apart from the other members of the choir (who, regrettably, are 100% white), I would go as far as to say that the majority of my friends are black & Asian. I have no problems integrating. However, this doesn't stop me from seeing further into the overall situation.

I may be perfectly happy to integrate, but I resent being told that I HAVE to integrate.

I resent being told that Blacks turn to crime because no- one will give them a job while I'm looking for work & no-one will give me a job, when I'm White.

I resent companies being allowed to specify in their advertisements for Employment Vacancies that they give preference to those of minority Ethnic Groups.

I resent someone else getting a job I've applied for where I am better qualified & better experienced, just because the company I'm applying to has to fill their Ethnic Quota.

If you're unemployed the opportunities ARE there to get trained up is you ASK for them, which is how I come to be on a decent Sage Accounts training course. However, I don't know of one Black or Asian who is on the course or who has even asked about enrolling. Of course, there may be some on the course who are there at other times than I am - I just haven't seen any.

However, there are also plenty of other companies where you don't stand much chance of getting a job if you're White.

Yes, there is discrimination, but most of the discrimination I've seen is Pro Black & Anti White. That is not Public Media Manipulation, it's Personal Experience. Is it any wonder there is unrest?

I have downloaded a PDF version of the Equality Act 2010, I shall give you some relevent exerts to show how very wrong your assertions are.

Section 158 of the Equality Act 2010 builds on existing legislation on positive action and

extends it to include other “protected characteristics such as age and disability. It allows,

but does not require, “any action to be taken to support those with a protected characteristic,

as long as it is a “proportionate means. Such actions might include training to enable

individuals to gain employment, or health services to address their needs. However, it does

not permit “anything that is prohibited by or under an enactment other than this Act –

therefore, positive discrimination, such as quotas, continues to be illegal.
Section 159 permits (but does not require) an employer to take a

protected characteristic into consideration when deciding whom to recruit or promote, where

people having the protected characteristic are at a disadvantage or are under-represented –

this positive action can be taken only where the candidates are “as qualified as each other.


The Equality Act 2010

Or there are these Guidance Notes online

That is heavy going but if you Google "equality act 2010 quotas" it provides pdf guidance notes without the waffle.

FourPart;1462274 wrote: I may be perfectly happy to integrate, but I resent being told that I HAVE to integrate.


I honestly think you are being just a bit too extreme. I am sure no one is telling you that you HAVE to integrate. What you are being told is that you MAY NO LONGER practice inter-communal segregation.

FourPart;1462274 wrote: I resent being told that Blacks turn to crime because no- one will give them a job while I'm looking for work & no-one will give me a job, when I'm White.


The backdrop to turning to crime is probably the same for both the black and white population. The fact (is it a fact?) that there is a higher percentage of blacks who are disadvantaged (for a great number of reasons) simply puts them at a higher risk.

FourPart;1462274 wrote: I resent companies being allowed to specify in their advertisements for Employment Vacancies that they give preference to those of minority Ethnic Groups.


I certainly do understand your complaint on that point and it is infuriating to me too that companies are allowed to offer job placement on that basis. NOTE: While not allowed in Sweden (on a racial level) it is fairly common with regards to women seeking employment: “We welcome women applicants means ¦.. men need not apply! But just try putting a small advert stating “We welcome male applicants and the roof will collapse from the weight of protest.

FourPart;1462274 wrote: I resent someone else getting a job I've applied for where I am better qualified & better experienced, just because the company I'm applying to has to fill their Ethnic Quota.


Absolutely disgusting.

FourPart;1462274 wrote: If you're unemployed the opportunities ARE there to get trained up is you ASK for them, which is how I come to be on a decent Sage Accounts training course. However, I don't know of one Black or Asian who is on the course or who has even asked about enrolling. Of course, there may be some on the course who are there at other times than I am - I just haven't seen any.


It does seem dodgy, doesn't it.

FourPart;1462274 wrote: However, there are also plenty of other companies where you don't stand much chance of getting a job if you're White.


Again, in Sweden it's the women who are favoured, and in fact there are a whole lot of specific professions (some, once considered masculine duties) where you won't find a single man today. Sorry for the digression: just letting you know that I understand your dilemma.

FourPart;1462274 wrote: Yes, there is discrimination, but most of the discrimination I've seen is Pro Black & Anti White. That is not Public Media Manipulation, it's Personal Experience. Is it any wonder there is unrest?


And this “unrest is manifested just how exactly?

You've described all of the reasons why “white people might be dissatisfied with government measures to re-balance (is that a word?) racial inequality but you haven't really put forward any rectifying suggestions. I'm not saying that's your responsibility, but for peace of mind it would be a good idea to give it some thought.

I would refer you to the UK Equality Act, the notion that there are quotas specified is wrong, and it is illegal to do so.

Bruv;1462292 wrote: I would refer you to the UK Equality Act, the notion that there are quotas specified is wrong, and it is illegal to do so.


That's the official take but in reality, it's not always the case.

BBC News - Flat adverts that may be breaking the law



Job seeker's shock as Exeter council advertise museum job for ethnic minorities only | Exeter Express and Echo

Fourpart raises a valid point in that much goes unseen.

yet we still get idiots that argue or police should be armed like they are in amrica

gmc;1462302 wrote: yet we still get idiots that argue or police should be armed like they are in amrica
I think Rik Mayall made the point very well in his series "The New Statesman". Totally outrageous tongue in cheek, of course, but some very salient truths behind it.

Peter Lake;1462294 wrote: That's the official take but in reality, it's not always the case.

Fourpart raises a valid point in that much goes unseen.


It's not the Official Take........it's the Law.

Bring it up with your local representative, or phone ole Nick, he is always up for a photo opportunity.

The job in Exeter is basically a 7 month training course.

Training course or not, it's still discrimination. Then they started arguing the toss between Positive Action & Positive Discrimination, claiming that they're not the same thing. Personally I don't see any difference except in the spelling.

Bruv;1462305 wrote: It's not the Official Take........it's the Law.

Bring it up with your local representative, or phone ole Nick, he is always up for a photo opportunity.

The job in Exeter is basically a 7 month training course.
Why so defensive? I'm simply pointing out regardless of official or law, the law is regually flouted and breached.

The case in Exeter is a prime example of exactly which Fourpart highlighted. I endorse his statement that it's far more common than some believe as any breach is solely dependent on the public highlighting the issue while many go unchallenged.

FourPart;1462310 wrote: Training course or not, it's still discrimination. Then they started arguing the toss between Positive Action & Positive Discrimination, claiming that they're not the same thing. Personally I don't see any difference except in the spelling.
Extracts from the Act



Positive discrimination is recruiting or promoting a person solely because they have a

relevant protected characteristic. Setting quotas to recruit or promote a particular

number or proportion of people with protected characteristics is also positive

discrimination. Positive discrimination is unlawful in Great Britain. However, it is

important to note that it is not unlawful for an employer to treat a disabled person more

favourably in comparison to a non-disabled person..............

Positive action and positive discrimination, although they are often confused or used

synonymously, do not mean the same thing.

“Positive discrimination in employment normally indicates actions that seek to redress historical inequalities through a reverse principle of discrimination in favour of a disadvantaged group.Under existing employment legislation, as noted above, this is almost always unlawful,

........................................Positive action (or affirmative action) is laws and policies that attempt to promote equal opportunity by taking into account gender, race, disability or other equality strands in order to positively improve outcomes for these groups. The focus of positive action might be to redress systemic, historical or institutional discrimination or to promote diversity in business and public sector organisations.

Peter Lake;1462313 wrote: Why so defensive? I'm simply pointing out regardless of official or law, the law is regually flouted and breached.

The case in Exeter is a prime example of exactly which Fourpart highlighted. I endorse his statement that it's far more common than some believe as any breach is solely dependent on the public highlighting the issue while many go unchallenged.


Why accuse me of being defensive?

The hand written notes for accomodation are illegal, complain either in the shop/premises exhibiting them, rather than amass a collection of photos to show how hard done by the indigenous population are.

There are NO quotas, there is a level of positive action for the reasons given in the act, the Essex 'job' is such an example.

Despite having read the Act, it still looks to me like different names for the same thing & the description still comes across as different words to mean the same thing.

"The door is painted red" or "The paint is red, and it has been used to paint the door".

FourPart;1462330 wrote: Despite having read the Act, it still looks to me like different names for the same thing & the description still comes across as different words to mean the same thing.

"The door is painted red" or "The paint is red, and it has been used to paint the door".


Let me research on your behalf....



Section 158 of the Equality Act 2010 builds on existing legislation on positive action and

extends it to include other “protected characteristics such as age and disability. It allows, but does not require, “any action to be taken to support those with a protected characteristic, as long as it is a “proportionate means. Such actions might include training to enable

individuals to gain employment, or health services to address their needs. However, it does not permit “anything that is prohibited by or under an enactment other than this Act –therefore, positive discrimination, such as quotas, continues to be illegal.


The Act covers Pay,Race,Sex,Religion ,Sex Orientation, Age, Disability......so any of those "Inequalities" are covered

Section 159 permits (but does not require) an employer to take a

protected characteristic into consideration when deciding whom to recruit or promote, where people having the protected characteristic are at a disadvantage or are under-represented – this positive action can be taken only where the candidates are “as qualified as each other.


That to me means that The Law doesn't demand black recruitment, or black quotas, and so when a blackman gets the job "But I was more qualified" it is either sour grapes on behalf of the failed candidate, a breach of the Act, or you were 'over qualified' for the job ?

Or possibly a victim of PC was on the selection committee.........But whatever I can't see it being the black race's fault, only our relationship with them......and theirs with us ?

Another Fatal shooting of a young man by police, this time Utah