|
|
Post by jh1980 on Oct 11, 2007 13:22:14 GMT -1
So how have BEM groups in this case been denied opportunities? 'cause they sure as hell don't seem to have a problem with taxi-ing anywhere else!  That's my issue here - I don't see why they should be offered extra help. It's hardly like they're trying to go to Oxbridge and the old boys' brigade are doing their damnedest to keep them out, is it? You take the test, and you either pass it or fail. If there's a high failure rate, then either they're not good enough - fine, maintain status quo - or the examiners are discriminating - fine, find new examiners and make examples of the existing ones in court. Alternatively, it could just be that they want something else. Is it so hard to imagine that, in London, with such a high cost of living, they want to aspire to bigger and better-paid things? Why is it so bloody necessary to have the statistics match the population perfectly?  At the Luton & Dunstable hospital, I've noticed there tends to be more female black bed-nurses than there are white male - should we give white men more opportunities to pass those courses, or should we just accept that maybe they want to do other things? Being a London cabbie is a bit different from minicab drivers in other towns. Basically. Maybe. Maybe. Maybe. |
|
|
|
Post by HURLOCK on Oct 11, 2007 13:45:48 GMT -1
Well Oswald Not really, don't see why normal folk should suffer at the hands of people like Ken! If people really want to emigrate over this, more fool them! So your telling me that it's ok for people to leave this country having been through our education system, corporate training and the likes to simply take the skills elsewhere! YOU are the people who consider it "belittling" - there's no such intention, you're paranoid! you're ill! Not at all, people are fed up of these stupid schemes, which are just there to generate votes. Lets be honest, this is what this is about! Of course it's positive to offer opportunities to people who've not had the opportunity before! Not if it disadvantages the current workforce! But on a lighter note, as with Brown - keep up the good work Ken! You've managed to upset another group of workers - in turn increasing Boris's popularity! |
|
|
|
Post by jh1980 on Oct 11, 2007 13:54:50 GMT -1
If I'm Oswald...  You already conceded this point to Neko And are you saying people of colour "aren't normal"   If they want to pick up their ball and walk off the pitch - as it were - that's their decision. To stop them would be Stalinist!  People, or You? These "schemes" are designed to help the disadvantaged. It doesn't disadvantage them! If they're good enough they'll still get through, only the least able of the "establishment" candidates (if you will) are going to be affected negatively by this. Well there's the rub... now, if I suggested an overthrow of democracy was expedient.......... no, no I'll behave myself... |
|
|
|
Post by HURLOCK on Oct 11, 2007 14:02:34 GMT -1
If I'm Oswald... Indeed You already conceded this point to Neko And are you saying people of colour "aren't normal" Don't put words in my mouth, and for you to infer that means you think it! As for the rest we all know how Ken works, I'll say it again in retrospect I hope he come out with more looney plans that will make him increasing unpopular with the working classes in turn sealing his own demise! Pave the way for Boris! |
|
|
|
Post by jh1980 on Oct 11, 2007 14:08:24 GMT -1
|
|
|
|
Post by HURLOCK on Oct 11, 2007 14:15:57 GMT -1
Unless you meant Oswald Boateng, designer of funky suits. Does that make you Paul Smith?!  You know exactly who I mean! ;D Nonsense, one "infers" from evidence in what people say. Typical socialist, losing an argument. So makes assumptions to bolster his rhetoric! I wouldn't speak too soon, Boris might well choke on a wishbone during one of his troughing sessions, or bend down to do up his velcro in front of a bus! Here's hoping anyway...  Be honest, it's not looking good for Ken, mans a fool. Still pretend to like him as you did Tony. I admire your loyalty even if it is miss founded |
|
|
|
Post by jh1980 on Oct 11, 2007 14:25:28 GMT -1
You know exactly who I mean! ;D Well if you mean Mosley I can only conclude you must be Adolf  Wrong again Hurls! Try "typical intellectual observes correct usage of the English language" *tongue sticks mightily to cheek* Not very, but there we go. He's better than any Tory put up against him now or in the the past - but he's not as charismatic as the toffee-nosed twat from Henley. I'm not joking, I wish Boris was dead, but I suppose were he to actually die I'd feel a little remorse for that thought... just not much! I didn't really like Tony but seeing as no-one else on here would defend him I felt I had to. After all the last thing anyone needs is letting the Tories back through the back door... mein capitain! |
|
|
|
Post by HURLOCK on Oct 11, 2007 14:32:45 GMT -1
Oswald I'm never wrong, therefore you'll never be right! Conceited yes - but thats me! |
|
|
|
Post by Neko Bazu on Oct 11, 2007 14:35:45 GMT -1
After all the last thing anyone needs is letting the Tories back through the back door... mein capitain! Brown's a Tory in red clothing anyway; he certainly likes their policies! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by jh1980 on Oct 11, 2007 14:36:21 GMT -1
Oswald I'm never wrong, therefore you'll never be right! Conceited yes - but thats me! "vote Labour, sleep Tory" was a good line though! ;D I see... you know, I'm used to people on the Political Right giving reasoned, though incorrect arguments... hence I'm surprised to see a top insurance executive and rentier like yourself resort to cheap and idle boasts...! |
|
|
|
Post by jh1980 on Oct 11, 2007 14:37:57 GMT -1
Brown's a Tory in red clothing anyway; he certainly likes their policies! ;D So what's your problem with him then?! |
|
|
|
Post by HURLOCK on Oct 11, 2007 14:45:15 GMT -1
"vote Labour, sleep Tory" was a good line though! ;D [/quote] Well I know you do this, holidays a la middle class. And wanting an Alpha! quote author=jh1980 board=graphicsboard thread=1192039944 post=1192116981] [/quote] I see... you know, I'm used to people on the Political Right giving reasoned, though incorrect arguments... hence I'm surprised to see a top insurance executive and rentier like yourself resort to cheap and idle boasts...! [/quote] Now you are being concieted, if you think I accept your ill founded argument to have any foundations you are mistaken. But I like you Jules, it's interesting to hear your views. I thought you'd have moved on from student mode by now! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by jh1980 on Oct 11, 2007 14:57:55 GMT -1
"vote Labour, sleep Tory" was a good line though! ;D Well I know you do this, holidays a la middle class. And wanting an Alpha! No, he said that when he was still theoretically on the left, but married a Tory woman! I like to travel, not sit under a sun-bed Not really that bothered about Alfas lol... I see... you know, I'm used to people on the Political Right giving reasoned, though incorrect arguments... hence I'm surprised to see a top insurance executive and rentier like yourself resort to cheap and idle boasts...! Now you are being concieted, if you think I accept your ill founded argument to have any foundations you are mistaken. But I like you Jules, it's interesting to hear your views. I thought you'd have moved on from student mode by now! ;D Ah, c'mon now Hurls, just cos you're losing it doesn't mean you can lose your grip on the language again! I wasn't referring to my arguments... just saying that I'm surprised you aren't doing better, referring to the OECD, the IMF and the World Bank and other economic grounds for your hardline policies lol...! To say that an "ill-founded argument" lacks "any foundations" is tautologous, just in case you were confused as to where the major error was. Glad to hear it fella! If you didn't I'd be in trouble! Hmmm, interesting characterisation... but as I've always said, my view stem from my personal view of what social justice entails... and there is only one realistic vehicle for promoting social justice - the Labour Party. At base, it's that simple, same as it's simple to understand the promotion of one's self-interest! Anyway fella, laters!  |
|
|
|
Post by miz on Oct 11, 2007 17:01:38 GMT -1
I keep wondering if Mizen is a member of the BNP cos that's where he belongs. Zzzzz. Sure mate. I'm asking why skin colour should matter. Explain to me how you get the idea that I belong to the BNP? I don't believe people should be given advantages because of their ethnicity. If that makes me a member of the BNP (how, i don't know) then fucking sue me. |
|
|
|
Post by GeoFox on Oct 11, 2007 17:27:09 GMT -1
"Yet only approximately 5 per cent of London's taxi drivers are from Black, Asian, or Minority Ethnic communities, and 1.6 per cent are women." If the reason for this statistics is difficulty completing the training, I don't see that its too bad a scheme to be honest. If 95% of London's taxi drivers are 'white male,' theres clearly a reason behind it and apathy won't solve the issue. fuck off. Why should it matter what colour skin they have? If they can't complete the training then take a different career path. Simple as. White people will have to pay shit loads for the training but ethnic miniorities get grants? Using his argument, white people should get grants for opening up curry houses as they are unrepresented in that profession. Yeah because that was really necessary wasn't it? It shouldn't, but you seem to be making out that it does. You don't seem to mention that this scheme also targets women. Would you argue with the notion that women may need support with childcare etc while doing the training because of a basic biological function and social norms where women are childbearers and do the bulk of looking after children? Its not a different argument with BEMs. The standards will be the same at the end point, the scheme will just provide support with language and such. Its not a big issue, its about removing barriers to employment which frankly 'white' people are unlikely to face in the same manner if they wanted to own a curry house - thats a choice issue. White males don't experience them in the same way in the taxi trade either. Not everything can be reduced down to survival of the fittest. I reckon you would be one of the first people to complain that BEMs 'take our jobs' when the simple fact is they are more willing to do the jobs better and at a lower price than other british people who are unwilling to. Your making a mountain out of a molehill, and its not a big voting issue in my opinion. Its simply a way to remove barriers to employment, though possibly more broader training could be an alternative. |
|
|
|
Post by miz on Oct 11, 2007 19:43:49 GMT -1
fuck off. Why should it matter what colour skin they have? If they can't complete the training then take a different career path. Simple as. White people will have to pay shit loads for the training but ethnic miniorities get grants? Using his argument, white people should get grants for opening up curry houses as they are unrepresented in that profession. Yeah because that was really necessary wasn't it? It shouldn't, but you seem to be making out that it does. You don't seem to mention that this scheme also targets women. Would you argue with the notion that women may need support with childcare etc while doing the training because of a basic biological function and social norms where women are childbearers and do the bulk of looking after children? Its not a different argument with BEMs. The standards will be the same at the end point, the scheme will just provide support with language and such. Its not a big issue, its about removing barriers to employment which frankly 'white' people are unlikely to face in the same manner if they wanted to own a curry house - thats a choice issue. White males don't experience them in the same way in the taxi trade either. Not everything can be reduced down to survival of the fittest. I reckon you would be one of the first people to complain that BEMs 'take our jobs' when the simple fact is they are more willing to do the jobs better and at a lower price than other british people who are unwilling to. Your making a mountain out of a molehill, and its not a big voting issue in my opinion. Its simply a way to remove barriers to employment, though possibly more broader training could be an alternative. You've just rambled on and talked a load of pointless rubbish and that post bored me to death. All I am saying is that everyone should get the opportunity to recieve these grants regardless of skin colour or where they are from. If not then no grants should be given. How would you feel if it was the other way round? I suspect there would be people being accused of racism, protests through the streets of London etc etc Women shouldn't get the grants as we have enough women on the road as it is |
|
|
|
Post by GeoFox on Oct 11, 2007 19:53:20 GMT -1
Yeah because that was really necessary wasn't it? It shouldn't, but you seem to be making out that it does. You don't seem to mention that this scheme also targets women. Would you argue with the notion that women may need support with childcare etc while doing the training because of a basic biological function and social norms where women are childbearers and do the bulk of looking after children? Its not a different argument with BEMs. The standards will be the same at the end point, the scheme will just provide support with language and such. Its not a big issue, its about removing barriers to employment which frankly 'white' people are unlikely to face in the same manner if they wanted to own a curry house - thats a choice issue. White males don't experience them in the same way in the taxi trade either. Not everything can be reduced down to survival of the fittest. I reckon you would be one of the first people to complain that BEMs 'take our jobs' when the simple fact is they are more willing to do the jobs better and at a lower price than other british people who are unwilling to. Your making a mountain out of a molehill, and its not a big voting issue in my opinion. Its simply a way to remove barriers to employment, though possibly more broader training could be an alternative. You've just rambled on and talked a load of pointless rubbish and that post bored me to death. All I am saying is that everyone should get the opportunity to recieve these grants regardless of skin colour or where they are from. If not then no grants should be given. How would you feel if it was the other way round? I suspect there would be people being accused of racism, protests through the streets of London etc etc Women shouldn't get the grants as we have enough women on the road as it is Well you raised the bloody topic, you must want discussion over it. You haven't responded to the points I made. They aren't general grants, they are for specific purposes. There is an argument for broadening these things out but I suspect you don't even think that there is an issue needing resolving in the first place, so your solution would be to accept the status quo. This is negative politics, for me it should be about doing things positive to tackle injustices and improve people's lives for the better. |
|
|
|
Post by Argyle_Smurf on Oct 11, 2007 20:59:54 GMT -1
*wades in*
It is wrong, assuming that the advantages are only given to women and BEM's. Picking apart the article:
Implies that that will be the case.
Why? Childcare provision, I will grudgingly concede, but literacy and numeracy skills need to be learned elsewhere, not specifically in cabbie training. Poor numeracy or poor english makes for a poor cabbie.
Why the fuck does it matter? The best candidate for the job, regardless of colour, gender, ethnicity, religion, shoe-size, hair colour, sexual preferences or favourite sodding actor!!!
|
|
At the Luton & Dunstable hospital, I've noticed there tends to be more female black bed-nurses than there are white male - should we give white men more opportunities to pass those courses, or should we just accept that maybe they want to do other things?
