Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36040824)

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36040838)

You sound as if you feel you’re being discriminated against - not much fun, is it? ;)

btw, the latest stats show people from BAME backgrounds make up 15.3% of BBC staff - since nearly 85% of are white, your statement is probably not based on actuality...

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36040843)

So you’ve moved from “never seen that happen”

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...&postcount=625

To:

Oh yah, it’s a method of balancing decades of discrimination, oh yah

Originally Posted by downquark1 (Post 36040845)

admittedly that number must have shifted a bit by now.

stop presenting equality AS bias.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36040846)

Bear in mind that the BBC's biggest staffing areas have traditionally been in London (40% BAME) and Manchester (16-17%) BAME as well.

Originally Posted by downquark1 (Post 36040845)

admittedly that number must have shifted a bit by now.

stop presenting equality AS bias.

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36040842)

Trust me if i wen't for a job at the beeb they'd throw me out no matter what my colour /alphabet status was on the day,i'm just not pc friendly :)

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36040839)

The same kind of targets i was assured didn’t exist in the corporate world by persons on here, until I showed that they did.......suddenly that line of discussion went quiet.

Originally Posted by downquark1 (Post 36040851)

Well make up your mind, should be the BBC represent, the UK, the world, or London? Exactly what do you call fair?

Most of these problems don't get solved because the problem isn't even properly defined.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36040857)

Make up my mind on what?

My point is the BBC's current staffing seems somewhat in line with the national average of BAME and if anything you would think it might be a bit higher because the local pool they're recruiting from is disproportionately BAME relative to the national population.

I am not declaring anything there. Just find it an interesting thing to consider.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36040832)

If you were to complain you've been treated unfairly in relation to your co-workers, say you get 5 days fewer holidays than everyone else, and said 'I deserve as much as holiday as anyone else' and all your boss kept saying is 'EVERYONE deserves the same' then you'll get pretty pissed off.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36040846)

Those aren't contradictory though.

There is a difference between hiring someone because they're BAME and setting up a recruitment system that's designed to increase the number of BAME candidates that go to interview and therefore get employed.

That's where blind CVs have been shown to work, at least for opening positions early on in someone's career, because more women and BAME candidates get through to the interview stage in that system. (There is a question of if this is effective for more senior roles later on).

Hugh was responding to your claim that someone is directly hired because they're from a minority demographic. I.E That someone less capable is hired because of it. However in the system Hugh describes that isn't what happens, instead, a more diverse group of candidates get considered and the power of numbers means over enough interviews the percentage of BAME/female candidates that get employed goes up.

---------- Post added at 10:09 ---------- Previous post was at 10:07 ----------



Bear in mind that the BBC's biggest staffing areas have traditionally been in London (40% BAME) and Manchester (16-17%) BAME as well. In fact with all the talk of representation in media there is the London-effect in play as well. Growing up in London gives a nice step-up for anyone looking to go into the arts or journalism.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36040852)

No one said targets didn’t exist - they said people weren’t hired because of them; they are there to provide opportunities to balance things out, but if anyone can’t meet the requirements for the job, they shouldn’t get hired.

Nice attempt at twisting words - not like you... ;)

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36040815)

Targets are one of the methods of balancing decades of (sometimes subconscious) discriminatory hiring, and motivate companies to review policies that can support equality of opportunities, introducing practices such as "blind CVs", balanced interview panels, & outreach programmes.

Unfortunately, old ways of doing things don’t fix themselves, and a target is an ambition, not a measure companies will go under from not meeting.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36040844)

No way is the Farage-loving Brexit Broadcasting Corporation left wing biased. But that's another debate. ;)

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36040871)

Since when did the BBC adore Farage? They treat him with contempt!

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36040829)

The BBC was brought into play legitimately, Seph, due to their response to the BLM issue.

However, we should not allow racists to water down the fact that this movement gained popular support due to US police violence against black people.

This is not about statues, attacks on the white population or the sensibilities of the flakes, and it’s certainly not about violent protest and damage to property. It’s about the continuing violent repression towards blacks in the US, which operates in plain sight. I have no time for the U.K. version, which has the overthrow of capitalism as one of its objectives - nothing to do with addressing discrimination against black people at all.

Originally Posted by downquark1 (Post 36040894)

Originally Posted by Grauniad

“The original image may have been of St Michael slaying Satan, but the figure has no horns or tail and is clearly a black man. It is a shocking depiction, and it is even more shocking that that image could be presented to ambassadors representing this country abroad,” he said.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36040895)

No tail except the green, scaly one to match his green, scaly wings. Honestly this is just absurd. There are people running round looking for things to be offended about.

Originally Posted by downquark1 (Post 36040894)