Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
js77

Supporters of BLM....just listen....

Recommended Posts

58 minutes ago, Gunt said:

Trying to make the kind of comparison you made above is downplaying it because it's quite clearly incomparable. Dismissing all mention of it- regardless of context- as braindead or racist is even worse.

You bring up "grooming gangs" I point to the wider issue of paedophilia as a whole.

It's only "incomparable" because you don't like the comparison. 

I decided to read a bit more of your posts and as I thought its just utter garbage.

 

You posted:

"And just what inequality are they supposed to be tackling? In Britain by far the most disadvantaged group is young, white men. The highest earners in Britain are from Sikh and Hindu backgrounds, followed by those from East Asian backgrounds. Non-white people literally get given special access to jobs, grants and various other benefits that white people can't access simply because of the colour of their skin. "

----------

Absolute load of rubbish. Every study and all stats point to the fact that white males are hugely over represented in pretty much every area involving power and influence. 

"Less than 5 per cent of the most senior jobs are held by people from ethnic minorities, according to a study.

The figures have hardly changed in the past three years despite public commitments from government, the public sector and business to make corporate leadership more diverse.

Ethnic minorities were virtually absent in the leadership of key areas such as healthcare, education and criminal justice. The report said that 1,046 of the country’s 1,097 most powerful roles were filled by white people, or 95 per cent, even though the country was 87 per cent white at the last census in 2011. "

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/whites-dominate-most-powerful-jobs-ptwdb0wll

Yet you sit there and play the victim "poor me, I'm disadvantaged" 

That's the difference between the likes of me and you. I will succeed regardless of any discrimination or any hurdles put in my way. 

While the likes of you bemoan your lack of opportunity due to "skin colour". Even though all the evidence shows things are  stacked in the favour of people of your ethnicity!

That kind of victimhood sickens me if I'm honest. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, MickeyE said:

You bring up "grooming gangs" I point to the wider issue of paedophilia as a whole.

It's only "incomparable" because you don't like the comparison. 

I decided to read a bit more of your posts and as I thought its just utter garbage.

 

You posted:

"And just what inequality are they supposed to be tackling? In Britain by far the most disadvantaged group is young, white men. The highest earners in Britain are from Sikh and Hindu backgrounds, followed by those from East Asian backgrounds. Non-white people literally get given special access to jobs, grants and various other benefits that white people can't access simply because of the colour of their skin. "

----------

Absolute load of rubbish. Every study and all stats point to the fact that white males are hugely over represented in pretty much every area involving power and influence. 

"Less than 5 per cent of the most senior jobs are held by people from ethnic minorities, according to a study.

The figures have hardly changed in the past three years despite public commitments from government, the public sector and business to make corporate leadership more diverse.

Ethnic minorities were virtually absent in the leadership of key areas such as healthcare, education and criminal justice. The report said that 1,046 of the country’s 1,097 most powerful roles were filled by white people, or 95 per cent, even though the country was 87 per cent white at the last census in 2011. "

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/whites-dominate-most-powerful-jobs-ptwdb0wll

Yet you sit there and play the victim "poor me, I'm disadvantaged" 

That's the difference between the likes of me and you. I will succeed regardless of any discrimination or any hurdles put in my way. 

While the likes of you bemoan your lack of opportunity due to "skin colour". Even though all the evidence shows things are  stacked in the favour of people of your ethnicity!

That kind of victimhood sickens me if I'm honest. 

Firstly, the "wider issue of paedophila" is totally irrelevant to the point being made about hypocrisy and bandwagons. Secondly, it's incomparable, for the list of reasons already provided. You can keep trying to pretend that apples are oranges and that the the media, government and general public must just be ignoring it for no apparent reason, but it doesn't make it any less stupid.
It's almost as if you can't make the simple distinction between something very bad happening, and something very bad happening but the reaction (or lack thereof) to it being completely different.

Dear oh dear! You see the mistake you've made there is to confuse equality of outcome with equality of opportunity. If you honestly think they're one and the same then add communist to your list of character flaws.

Stating facts isn't victimhood. More projection there on your part.

There are, thankfully, a lot of differences between me and you but you being successful isn't one of them lol. I hope you're more successful in life than you've been on here trying to formulate a coherent argument.

Race grifters and rape gang apologists sicken me if I'm honest.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gunt said:

Firstly, the "wider issue of paedophila" is totally irrelevant to the point being made about hypocrisy and bandwagons. Secondly, it's incomparable, for the list of reasons already provided. You can keep trying to pretend that apples are oranges and that the the media, government and general public must just be ignoring it for no apparent reason, but it doesn't make it any less stupid.
It's almost as if you can't make the simple distinction between something very bad happening, and something very bad happening but the reaction (or lack thereof) to it being completely different.

Dear oh dear! You see the mistake you've made there is to confuse equality of outcome with equality of opportunity. If you honestly think they're one and the same then add communist to your list of character flaws.

Stating facts isn't victimhood. More projection there on your part.

There are, thankfully, a lot of differences between me and you but you being successful isn't one of them lol. I hope you're more successful in life than you've been on here trying to formulate a coherent argument.

Race grifters and rape gang apologists sicken me if I'm honest.

 

So you're vehemently anti BLM (which is fair enough), but then coincidently you also bang on about "grooming gangs" .

To top it off you then play the victim card about being a poor "disadvantaged" white man.

I hate to break it you mate but you are the "race grifter" 

The only white people that claim the system is against them due to skin colour even though all empirical data shows the reverse, are low achievers. 

Newsflash!

You're not an under achiever because you're white. You're an under achiever because you're of low ability and have a victim mentality. 

NEXT! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MickeyE said:

You bring up "grooming gangs" I point to the wider issue of paedophilia as a whole.

It's only "incomparable" because you don't like the comparison. 

I decided to read a bit more of your posts and as I thought its just utter garbage.

 

You posted:

"And just what inequality are they supposed to be tackling? In Britain by far the most disadvantaged group is young, white men. The highest earners in Britain are from Sikh and Hindu backgrounds, followed by those from East Asian backgrounds. Non-white people literally get given special access to jobs, grants and various other benefits that white people can't access simply because of the colour of their skin. "

----------

Absolute load of rubbish. Every study and all stats point to the fact that white males are hugely over represented in pretty much every area involving power and influence. 

"Less than 5 per cent of the most senior jobs are held by people from ethnic minorities, according to a study.

The figures have hardly changed in the past three years despite public commitments from government, the public sector and business to make corporate leadership more diverse.

Ethnic minorities were virtually absent in the leadership of key areas such as healthcare, education and criminal justice. The report said that 1,046 of the country’s 1,097 most powerful roles were filled by white people, or 95 per cent, even though the country was 87 per cent white at the last census in 2011. "

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/whites-dominate-most-powerful-jobs-ptwdb0wll

Yet you sit there and play the victim "poor me, I'm disadvantaged" 

That's the difference between the likes of me and you. I will succeed regardless of any discrimination or any hurdles put in my way. 

While the likes of you bemoan your lack of opportunity due to "skin colour". Even though all the evidence shows things are  stacked in the favour of people of your ethnicity!

That kind of victimhood sickens me if I'm honest. 

Diversity is about bringing down capitalism, it isnt about creating more efficient workforces.

Once you start recruiting anything except the best person for the job your are doomed to failure.

We hear all the time that diverse companies work better yet there is zero evidence that this is the case.

Imagine two companies that are doing the same job, one a mix of ethnicities and another comprised of all Japanese people.

Which is likley to be the most productive?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, MickeyE said:

So you're vehemently anti BLM (which is fair enough), but then coincidently you also bang on about "grooming gangs" .

To top it off you then play the victim card about being a poor "disadvantaged" white man.

I hate to break it you mate but you are the "race grifter" 

The only white people that claim the system is against them due to skin colour even though all empirical data shows the reverse, are low achievers. 

Newsflash!

You're not an under achiever because you're white. You're an under achiever because you're of low ability and have a victim mentality. 

NEXT! 

This is painful. You've either got problems reading or problems comprehending. The double quotes around grooming gangs is a nice touch as well, like they're just part of some big conspiracy :D

It may well be fun setting up all these strawmen to triumphantly smash them down, but there's not much point to it. The old adage re: playing chess with a pigeon springs to mind...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Substandard said:

Diversity is about bringing down capitalism, it isnt about creating more efficient workforces.

Once you start recruiting anything except the best person for the job your are doomed to failure.

We hear all the time that diverse companies work better yet there is zero evidence that this is the case.

Imagine two companies that are doing the same job, one a mix of ethnicities and another comprised of all Japanese people.

Which is likley to be the most productive?

"Diversity" wasn't planned to bring about the collapse of capitalism or wipe out the white race or any of the other spurious nonsense you hear bandied around.

It's simply a by product of wealthy countries trying to fill gaps in their labour markets and exploit cheap labour. There was no master plan behind it.

To answer your question, the most successful companies in the world are multi national and as such multi ethnic.

9 hours ago, Gunt said:

This is painful. You've either got problems reading or problems comprehending. The double quotes around grooming gangs is a nice touch as well, like they're just part of some big conspiracy :D

It may well be fun setting up all these strawmen to triumphantly smash them down, but there's not much point to it. The old adage re: playing chess with a pigeon springs to mind...

The quote marks were to denote I was quoting you! Lol

Straw men?

Are you vehemently anti BLM - tick

Have you been banging on about "grooming gangs" - tick 

Are you playing the victim claiming white males are the "by far the most disadvantaged" in Britain - tick

I suggest you look up the definition of "strawman" 

Serious question. If all the empirical data shows that white (males in particular) are over represented in all areas of power and influence, how do you come to the conclusion that they're actually the most disadvantaged group? 

Here's some more evidence that you're talking utter sh1te. 

"A study by experts based at the Centre for Social Investigation at Nuffield College, University of Oxford, found applicants from minority ethnic backgrounds had to send 80% more applications to get a positive response from an employer than a white person of British origin."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/17/minority-ethnic-britons-face-shocking-job-discrimination

 

I would never employ the likes of you. Not because you're white )as I currently have two white English employees) but because you're obviously a whiny pussy with an entitlement/victim complex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MickeyE said:

The quote marks were to denote I was quoting you! Lol

Straw men?

Are you vehemently anti BLM - tick

Have you been banging on about "grooming gangs" - tick 

Are you playing the victim claiming white males are the "by far the most disadvantaged" in Britain - tick

I suggest you look up the definition of "strawman" 

Serious question. If all the empirical data shows that white (males in particular) are over represented in all areas of power and influence, how do you come to the conclusion that they're actually the most disadvantaged group? 

Here's some more evidence that you're talking utter sh1te. 

"A study by experts based at the Centre for Social Investigation at Nuffield College, University of Oxford, found applicants from minority ethnic backgrounds had to send 80% more applications to get a positive response from an employer than a white person of British origin."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/17/minority-ethnic-britons-face-shocking-job-discrimination

 

I would never employ the likes of you. Not because you're white )as I currently have two white English employees) but because you're obviously a whiny pussy with an entitlement/victim complex.

Grooming gangs is a pretty universally accepted, understood term, it's not my personal thoughts or opinion. I suggest you read up on correct usage of double quotes.

Lol no "all the empirical evidence" (your opinion, thus the double quotes, see?) doesn't show that at all. It actually shows the complete opposite. It also shows that increased ethnic diversity leads to lack of cohesion and trust at all levels. But it's obvious that there's absolutely no point in giving someone like you the peer-reviewed science because you're not interested in fact and will just continue to do what you've already done; skip past 99% of it, deliberately ignore all context and at best, maybe fixate on one particular sentence (context ignored) that you think you can rebut with a newspaper article.
You'll then continue to flesh out this fictional bigoted victim character you've created based on your own projected character flaws and prejudices, put some more words in his mouth and carry on taking him down.

Your very personal, emotional reaction to all of this and your desperation to downplay grooming gangs is bizarre. Some of the language you use is a bit third-person as well. Are you on here roleplaying as a sunburned white English bloke? 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MickeyE said:

"Diversity" wasn't planned to bring about the collapse of capitalism or wipe out the white race or any of the other spurious nonsense you hear bandied around.

It's simply a by product of wealthy countries trying to fill gaps in their labour markets and exploit cheap labour. There was no master plan behind it.

To answer your question, the most successful companies in the world are multi national and as such multi ethnic.

The quote marks were to denote I was quoting you! Lol

Straw men?

Are you vehemently anti BLM - tick

Have you been banging on about "grooming gangs" - tick 

Are you playing the victim claiming white males are the "by far the most disadvantaged" in Britain - tick

I suggest you look up the definition of "strawman" 

Serious question. If all the empirical data shows that white (males in particular) are over represented in all areas of power and influence, how do you come to the conclusion that they're actually the most disadvantaged group? 

Here's some more evidence that you're talking utter sh1te. 

"A study by experts based at the Centre for Social Investigation at Nuffield College, University of Oxford, found applicants from minority ethnic backgrounds had to send 80% more applications to get a positive response from an employer than a white person of British origin."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/17/minority-ethnic-britons-face-shocking-job-discrimination

 

I would never employ the likes of you. Not because you're white )as I currently have two white English employees) but because you're obviously a whiny pussy with an entitlement/victim complex.

hahahaha  do you think companies can pay BAME people less than white people??????

There are strict guidelines on paying people equally

You will be telling me there is a gender pay gap next

 

And can you provide a list of the most successful companies and their ethnicity quotas please.

 

Are white males over represented in China or Japan and other non majority white countries?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Gunt said:

Grooming gangs is a pretty universally accepted, understood term, it's not my personal thoughts or opinion. I suggest you read up on correct usage of double quotes.

Lol no "all the empirical evidence" (your opinion, thus the double quotes, see?) doesn't show that at all. It actually shows the complete opposite. It also shows that increased ethnic diversity leads to lack of cohesion and trust at all levels. But it's obvious that there's absolutely no point in giving someone like you the peer-reviewed science because you're not interested in fact and will just continue to do what you've already done; skip past 99% of it, deliberately ignore all context and at best, maybe fixate on one particular sentence (context ignored) that you think you can rebut with a newspaper article.
You'll then continue to flesh out this fictional bigoted victim character you've created based on your own projected character flaws and prejudices, put some more words in his mouth and carry on taking him down.

Your very personal, emotional reaction to all of this and your desperation to downplay grooming gangs is bizarre. Some of the language you use is a bit third-person as well. Are you on here roleplaying as a sunburned white English bloke? 

 

 

 

From the Oxford dictionary:

"a pair of marks (‘  ’) or ( “ ” ) placed around a word, sentence, etc. to show that it is what somebody said or wrote"

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/quotation-marks#:~:text=Put direct speech in quotation,quotation marks inside single ones.

"Grooming gangs" is what you wrote. Hence why I put it within quote marks. Lol

 

The source of the data I presented was a department within Oxford University, it was reported in a "newspaper article" (I'm quoting you again here!) It was not an opinion piece. (Google the meaning)

I said "grooming gangs" deserve a bullet behind the ear. How do you equate that to me "downplaying" them? 

you're not exactly the sharpest knife in the draw are you mate!

And can you give an example of where I'm apparently using language that is "a bit third person" ? 

NEXT!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Substandard said:

hahahaha  do you think companies can pay BAME people less than white people??????

There are strict guidelines on paying people equally

You will be telling me there is a gender pay gap next

 

And can you provide a list of the most successful companies and their ethnicity quotas please.

 

Are white males over represented in China or Japan and other non majority white countries?

You're looking at things from a very naive perspective. Many of the jobs unskilled immigrants do are minimum wage jobs that the home grown population dont generally want to do. Like fruit picking, toilet cleaning, overnight security staff.

They may be advertised at the same wage for everyone but unskilled immigrants are in a lot of cases the only people that have any appetite to do them.

And at the other end of the scale in high paying profession like doctors/surgeons etc. It saves the taxpayer fortunes in education/training costs , importing them in already fully qualified.

Yes the empirical data suggests there apparently is a gender pay gap.

I can't provide you with a "list of the most successful companies and their ethnicity quotas"

You'll have to look up that one up yourself. But I will guarantee you that the vast majority of the richest companies in the world have multi ethnic work forces.

And I'm prepared to put my money on that. If you fancy a bet? 

Yes I would imagine that white employees in both Japan and China are over represented in terms of high earning jobs.

Not to do with racism or discrimination. But I'll let you see if you can work out the reason for that...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MickeyE said:

You're looking at things from a very naive perspective. Many of the jobs unskilled immigrants do are minimum wage jobs that the home grown population dont generally want to do. Like fruit picking, toilet cleaning, overnight security staff.

They may be advertised at the same wage for everyone but unskilled immigrants are in a lot of cases the only people that have any appetite to do them.

And at the other end of the scale in high paying profession like doctors/surgeons etc. It saves the taxpayer fortunes in education/training costs , importing them in already fully qualified.

Yes the empirical data suggests there apparently is a gender pay gap.

I can't provide you with a "list of the most successful companies and their ethnicity quotas"

You'll have to look up that one up yourself. But I will guarantee you that the vast majority of the richest companies in the world have multi ethnic work forces.

And I'm prepared to put my money on that. If you fancy a bet? 

Yes I would imagine that white employees in both Japan and China are over represented in terms of high earning jobs.

Not to do with racism or discrimination. But I'll let you see if you can work out the reason for that...

 

You are aware of why the gap exists aren't you?

Its not because women get paid less than men because they are women...

 

no one is talking about high earing jobs in Japan apart from you, nice Strawman attempt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Substandard said:

You are aware of why the gap exists aren't you?

Its not because women get paid less than men because they are women...

 

no one is talking about high earing jobs in Japan apart from you, nice Strawman attempt

You do understand that when "pay gaps" are discussed. It refers to people in like for like positions. I.e women doing the same job as men with the same qualifications etc but on ave get paid less. 

 

What were you referring to then when you asked me:

"Are white males over represented in China or Japan and other non majority white countries?"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MickeyE said:

From the Oxford dictionary:

"a pair of marks (‘  ’) or ( “ ” ) placed around a word, sentence, etc. to show that it is what somebody said or wrote"

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/quotation-marks#:~:text=Put direct speech in quotation,quotation marks inside single ones.

"Grooming gangs" is what you wrote. Hence why I put it within quote marks. Lol

 

The source of the data I presented was a department within Oxford University, it was reported in a "newspaper article" (I'm quoting you again here!) It was not an opinion piece. (Google the meaning)

I said "grooming gangs" deserve a bullet behind the ear. How do you equate that to me "downplaying" them? 

you're not exactly the sharpest knife in the draw are you mate!

And can you give an example of where I'm apparently using language that is "a bit third person" ? 

NEXT!

You can read a dictionary but once again the context is lost on you. There still has to be some point/relevance in making it clear that the words were said by someone else. The term grooming gangs is a universally accepted term. It doesn't matter who said it unless you're disputing its legitimacy or meaning. If we'd been talking about Ferraris or Spain or Anthony Joshua you wouldn't be writing "Ferraris" or "Spain" or "Anthony Joshua" as if they're my original words or abstract concepts lol. I've also talked about BLM but you don't keep repeating it as "BLM".

Yeah you did say that, but it means absolutely nothing when you're still pretending that the grooming gangs scandal is comparable to paedophilia in general, when it quite clearly isn't, for the long list of reasons I already gave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Gunt said:

You can read a dictionary but once again the context is lost on you. There still has to be some point/relevance in making it clear that the words were said by someone else. The term grooming gangs is a universally accepted term. It doesn't matter who said it unless you're disputing its legitimacy or meaning. If we'd been talking about Ferraris or Spain or Anthony Joshua you wouldn't be writing "Ferraris" or "Spain" or "Anthony Joshua" as if they're my original words or abstract concepts lol. I've also talked about BLM but you don't keep repeating it as "BLM".

Yeah you did say that, but it means absolutely nothing when you're still pretending that the grooming gangs scandal is comparable to paedophilia in general, when it quite clearly isn't, for the long list of reasons I already gave.

Let me simplify this further for you.

Quote marks can be used in two instances, firstly, to show you're quoting something someone has said or written.

Secondly) to express your doubt in the existence of what's within the quote marks. 

Comprende so far?

The fact that I agreed there was a link between Asians and grooming gangs and said they deserved a bullet in the head, should suggest to anyone of reasonable intelligence that I'm not doubting their existence. (no?)

Do you agree that "grooming" is an offence within the broader spectrum of sex crimes against children? 

If so, how can it be "irrelevant" to compare this area with other crimes that fall into the same broader parameter of sex crimes against children? 

Its only "irrelevant" because you just want to focus on "grooming gangs" because it fits your agenda. 

No example of when I use "language" that is "a bit third person" ????

Lol 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, MickeyE said:

Let me simplify this further for you.

Quote marks can be used in two instances, firstly, to show you're quoting something someone has said or written.

Secondly) to express your doubt in the existence of what's within the quote marks. 

Comprende so far?

The fact that I agreed there was a link between Asians and grooming gangs and said they deserved a bullet in the head, should suggest to anyone of reasonable intelligence that I'm not doubting their existence. (no?)

Do you agree that "grooming" is an offence within the broader spectrum of sex crimes against children? 

If so, how can it be "irrelevant" to compare this area with other crimes that fall into the same broader parameter of sex crimes against children? 

Its only "irrelevant" because you just want to focus on "grooming gangs" because it fits your agenda. 

No example of when I use "language" that is "a bit third person" ????

Lol 

Can you clarify which of your two defiitions you are using for each word in inverted commas please?

 

and do you also do this when talking?

tenor.gif?itemid=4390079

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Substandard said:

Can you clarify which of your two defiitions you are using for each word in inverted commas please?

 

and do you also do this when talking?

tenor.gif?itemid=4390079

Nah I'd rather leave it to the imagination.

Yes I do do that when talking. At least a few times per sentence. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MickeyE said:

You do understand that when "pay gaps" are discussed. It refers to people in like for like positions. I.e women doing the same job as men with the same qualifications etc but on ave get paid less. 

 

What were you referring to then when you asked me:

"Are white males over represented in China or Japan and other non majority white countries?"

 

yep, the first one doesnt happen, there are employment laws to ensure thats the case

 

Second one is straight forward enough, in countries where white people are not the majority they dont have an over representation of white people in jobs full stop.

I read one BLM supporter claiming that there were not enough black people in TV adverts, well thats certainly changed, almost every single TV advert is a mixed race couple these days, certainly not representative of the UK population.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Substandard said:

yep, the first one doesnt happen, there are employment laws to ensure thats the case

 

Second one is straight forward enough, in countries where white people are not the majority they dont have an over representation of white people in jobs full stop.

I read one BLM supporter claiming that there were not enough black people in TV adverts, well thats certainly changed, almost every single TV advert is a mixed race couple these days, certainly not representative of the UK population.

There are tons of discrimination laws covering a multitude of areas. Doesn't stop it happening though. 

 

"When additional controls for occupation, industry, location, year, company and job title are factored in, the pay gap in the U.K. becomes 5.5%, revealing the adjusted pay gap. The study found similar differences between the unadjusted and adjusted pay gaps in each country analysed.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.recruitment-international.co.uk/blog/2016/03/uk-women-earn-5-dot-5-percent-less-than-men-according-to-glassdoor.amp

"Adjusted" means like for like BTW and it's only companies with 250+ employees that even have to report their gender pay gap.

So considering the vast majority of people work for much smaller companies, most of it likely goes unreported.

Anyways discrimination is just a fact of life unfortunately, and whilst I applaud anyone that makes a stand against it, you can't spend your life moping around feeling sorry for yourself like the likes of "gunt" and co.(albeit imaginary in his case!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, MickeyE said:

There are tons of discrimination laws covering a multitude of areas. Doesn't stop it happening though. 

 

"When additional controls for occupation, industry, location, year, company and job title are factored in, the pay gap in the U.K. becomes 5.5%, revealing the adjusted pay gap. The study found similar differences between the unadjusted and adjusted pay gaps in each country analysed.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.recruitment-international.co.uk/blog/2016/03/uk-women-earn-5-dot-5-percent-less-than-men-according-to-glassdoor.amp

"Adjusted" means like for like BTW and it's only companies with 250+ employees that even have to report their gender pay gap.

So considering the vast majority of people work for much smaller companies, most of it likely goes unreported.

Anyways discrimination is just a fact of life unfortunately, and whilst I applaud anyone that makes a stand against it, you can't spend your life moping around feeling sorry for yourself like the likes of "gunt" and co.(albeit imaginary in his case!)

then its down to each invididual with a grievance to go to a tribunal and win by default.

Its like saying their is systematic racism and then being totally unable to point to any actual laws that are discriminatory

 

As for the gender pay gap its there for a multitude of reasons, its not because its men and women

Jordan explains it much better than me from 3 mins onwards

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Substandard said:

then its down to each invididual with a grievance to go to a tribunal and win by default.

Its like saying their is systematic racism and then being totally unable to point to any actual laws that are discriminatory

 

As for the gender pay gap its there for a multitude of reasons, its not because its men and women

Jordan explains it much better than me from 3 mins onwards

 

I watched from 3min to about 6 mins. Couldn't watch any more as I felt brain cells depleting with every additional second.

Although he did actually say that he did believe gender "prejudice"(quoting!) was one of the factors behind the pay gap.

But what hes saying about women being generally more agreeable than men and this is one factor the pay gap exists,  is akin to saying "women are generally shorter than men, that's why they get paid less, it's not because they are women"

It's complete rubbish. People doing the same job, with same experience/qualifications etc  in terms of fairness should get paid the same, regardless. 

Unfortunately life is not fair. Anyways have a good evening. Going round in circles a bit now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, MickeyE said:

I watched from 3min to about 6 mins. Couldn't watch any more as I felt brain cells depleting with every additional second.

Although he did actually say that he did believe gender "prejudice"(quoting!) was one of the factors behind the pay gap.

But what hes saying about women being generally more agreeable than men and this is one factor the pay gap exists,  is akin to saying "women are generally shorter than men, that's why they get paid less, it's not because they are women"

It's complete rubbish. People doing the same job, with same experience/qualifications etc  in terms of fairness should get paid the same, regardless. 

Unfortunately life is not fair. Anyways have a good evening. Going round in circles a bit now. 

they do, and anyone who has an example of where it isnt happening have an open and shut case for discrimination, the law says so.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Substandard said:

they do, and anyone who has an example of where it isnt happening have an open and shut case for discrimination, the law says so.

 

Yeh there's tons of laws and legislation re discrimination in the workplace and beyond. 

But if you think that means it's been completely eradicated you've probably lived quite a sheltered life.

Ask your "mate" "gunt" if you doubt it still exists! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MickeyE said:

Let me simplify this further for you.

Quote marks can be used in two instances, firstly, to show you're quoting something someone has said or written.

Secondly) to express your doubt in the existence of what's within the quote marks. 

Comprende so far?

The fact that I agreed there was a link between Asians and grooming gangs and said they deserved a bullet in the head, should suggest to anyone of reasonable intelligence that I'm not doubting their existence. (no?)

Do you agree that "grooming" is an offence within the broader spectrum of sex crimes against children? 

If so, how can it be "irrelevant" to compare this area with other crimes that fall into the same broader parameter of sex crimes against children? 

Its only "irrelevant" because you just want to focus on "grooming gangs" because it fits your agenda. 

No example of when I use "language" that is "a bit third person" ????

Lol 

Jesus Christ pal are you for real? You're now repeating what I've already said back to me as if you're somehow schooling me lol.
I'll try to simplify it with a specific example: why do you feel it necessary to repeatedly use double quotes when it comes to the term grooming gangs, but not BLM? If you weren't trying to express doubt then what other point is there to quoting me on that specifically, but not BLM?

Btw, don't tar all Asians with the same brush:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/sikh-group-calls-for-politicians-and-media-to-stop-using-term-asian-to-describe-rotherham-grooming-gang-sex-abusers-a6901166.html

Ffs he's at it again with "grooming" :D Just say grooming mate, it's fine. The context or meaning doesn't change just because I said it. I didn't make it up. It's not just my opinion. We all know what it means. No need to quote me.

GBH and murder can both be categorised as violent crime, but they're otherwise incomparable. If a bloke grabs hold of some random girl's tits (or "tits", as you might say) he's committed a sex crime. If a bloke rapes a girl, he's committed a sex crime, but they're otherwise incomparable.
I've already explained, with bullet points, why your comparison is nonsense, no point repeating it. As for why it's irrelevant to this thread, grooming gangs are racially motivated, paedophilia isn't. Given that this is a thread about an organisation whose supporters claim to be motivated by a desire to challenge racial injustice, it's therefore a great example of their hypocrisy and dishonesty. They wilfully ignore far greater, far worse racial injustice on their own doorstep when it suits their agenda, yet be outraged and protesting for months over the murder of one man thousands of miles away.
Grooming gangs (aka "grooming gangs") was also one of a few examples I gave, but it was you who decided to fixate on it so you could then start crying racism (yawn).

You've got to be trolling me with "irrelevant" and "language" now lol

You never actually answered the question about whether or not that's really you in your profile photo, which makes it seem even more dodgy...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×