Originally Posted by Qtx (Post 36129121)

We could argue he won on a limited self-depreciation act which after the obvious shock factor jokes is done, there isn't much else left.

He doesn't have to be excluded from society or working if he is not a comedian. If my dream was to be a bikini clad model and influencer, people would right tell me where to poke it as I don't have the body for that. No matter how much I tell them its my dream.

Its a nice story that he became successful but not many people really want to listen to a speak and spell tell jokes slowly.

If I lost the use of my legs tomorrow, I wouldn't insist on being a football player and expect some team to put me on their team virtue signal some quota. We don't do it. Tv and film does.

---------- Post added at 22:04 ---------- Previous post was at 21:58 ----------



You may not but many companies do. I know for certain that two companies I have worked for with a large amount of employees do so.

I'm not sure if its still the case but there was some tax relief of help towards wages for companies that employed disabled people.

I know of someone training to be a firefighter and despite not doing well on some of the training, is going to get one of the places based on the fact she is female. Something she was told by someone higher up and it was related to females being under-represented in the field.

Originally Posted by Maggy (Post 36129127)

Lost Voice Guy won because he was and is funny.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36129113)

But we weren't discussing whether this should be compulsory or not, it was you that insinuated that it was "the law" that meant that this was compulsory.

It's almost as if you're trying to swerve the fact that you misinterpreted what the Equality Act says about the subject.

People's language can be improved over time. When I was a child, the N word was in common usage. After years of societal disapproval and subsequent legislation, I have not heard anyone use the word in a derogatory sense since 1986.

As children grow up, they don't get to hear the word and its usage falls into disuse.

Last time a racially abusive word was used in my company, I found young people looking confused as they'd never heard the term before and had to actually ask what it meant.

---------- Post added at 20:20 ---------- Previous post was at 20:03 ----------



Because, despite their difficulties communicating due to disability, right thinking people would rather give disabled people a chance to participate in their chosen field as opposed to excluding them from society.

Lost voice guy has indirectly helped the disabled on many levels and was chosen to be the winner of Britain's Got Talent on merit alone.

Would you prefer that he remained on benefits living an unfruitful life?

Don't forget that nobody is immune from disability, in fact most of us will become disabled at some point in our lives and nobody is forcing you to watch any comedian that you don't enjoy.

Originally Posted by Qtx (Post 36129121)

We could argue he won on a limited self-depreciation act which after the obvious shock factor jokes is done, there isn't much else left.

He doesn't have to be excluded from society or working if he is not a comedian. If my dream was to be a bikini clad model and influencer, people would right tell me where to poke it as I don't have the body for that. No matter how much I tell them its my dream.

Its a nice story that he became successful but not many people really want to listen to a speak and spell tell jokes slowly.

If I lost the use of my legs tomorrow, I wouldn't insist on being a football player and expect some team to put me on their team virtue signal some quota. We don't do it. Tv and film does.

---------- Post added at 22:04 ---------- Previous post was at 21:58 ----------



You may not but many companies do. I know for certain that two companies I have worked for with a large amount of employees do so.

I'm not sure if its still the case but there was some tax relief of help towards wages for companies that employed disabled people.

I know of someone training to be a firefighter and despite not doing well on some of the training, is going to get one of the places based on the fact she is female. Something she was told by someone higher up and it was related to females being under-represented in the field.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36129113)

But we weren't discussing whether this should be compulsory or not, it was you that insinuated that it was "the law" that meant that this was compulsory.

It's almost as if you're trying to swerve the fact that you misinterpreted what the Equality Act says about the subject.

People's language can be improved over time. When I was a child, the N word was in common usage. After years of societal disapproval and subsequent legislation, I have not heard anyone use the word in a derogatory sense since 1986.

As children grow up, they don't get to hear the word and its usage falls into disuse.

Last time a racially abusive word was used in my company, I found young people looking confused as they'd never heard the term before and had to actually ask

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36129164)

"Positive Action", not discrimination, and only where the candidates are of equal merit and it is a proportionate way of addressing the under-representation or disadvantage…

Positive Action does not allow an employer to appoint a less suitable candidate just because that candidate has a protected characteristic that is under-represented or disadvantaged (that would be discrimination).

Originally Posted by Qtx (Post 36129137)

I'm not saying he wasn't. My point there was what made him funny was the jokes about his disability and he probably used the best ones of the limited supply he can have on those.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36129189)

Indeed, so anyone afraid of losing out on a job to someone less capable from a protected group can sleep more easily.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36129189)

What i'm concerned about is the fact that you were saying that disabled comedians shouldn't be on TV and derogatorily referred to his communication tool as a child's device.

Originally Posted by peanut (Post 36129192)

Well the less time Rosie Jones spends on TV the better. Can't stand the woman.... Is that bad of me?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36129209)

The TV industry should concern itself with programmes and actors or presenters who can command big audiences. Whether or not they have disabilities, surely, is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36129199)

WRONG!!

Sorry, Richard, you are simply not getting it. Generally, person spscifications have 'essential requirements' and 'desirable requiremsnts' but decisions are made on the essential requirements. The change you want in the law would oblige employers to take on an applicant from a minority group who was still a less suitable candidate, because this law wouldn't allow for the best appointment.

The law should be left as it is. It already serves its purpose.

Originally Posted by peanut (Post 36129192)

Well the less time Rosie Jones spends on TV the better. Can't stand the woman.... Is that bad of me?

Originally Posted by Qtx (Post 36129205)

Why are you concerned? Its an opinion and free speech lets me give my opinion within the boundaries of what say this site allows.

You have actually misconstrued what I said. I have not said disabled people should not be on TV. My suggestion is that it is stupid for someone to have a prominent speaking role job when they can't speak or its very hard for people to understand them. It is better for someone like that to have a role on tv where they talk less.

You seem to be think its ok for a disabled person to joke but if someone on a forum makes a joke about a speak and spell its derogatory? I feel concerned that are discriminating against me due to my able-bodied'ness...

---------- Post added at 19:41 ---------- Previous post was at 19:38 ----------



Apparently she is not well liked by people outside of TV too.

But, is it because you can't understand her making it hard to watch/listen to her (which would kind of prove one of my points) or because you just don't like her?

Some of the stuff she has done off the telly is despicable

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36129209)

The TV industry should concern itself with programmes and actors or presenters who can command big audiences. Whether or not they have disabilities, surely, is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36129282)

If you can't stand her as a person or don't care for her as a comedian, that's not wrong. If your dislike of her is in any way related to her disability, then that would be discriminatory..