Andyregs

You’re dumbing down the issue to the point it’s meaningless. Are you on about equality of opportunity or equality of outcome? The point is to avoid inequality. To get rid of inherent discrimination and stereotyping. And if someone is better qualified for the job, it is illegal to give the job to someone else based on their ethnicity etc. I will retract a previous statement, the equality act was brought in just before Cameron came into power, to bring together all previous equality legislation into one act. However it still makes positive discrimination illegal.

Majority of what I said stands though, probably even more so with such restrictions.

They arent the same thing. One is illegal. The exception for positive action is in the equality act. The government at that time were he tories. I’ve been told that this is a left thing, so I’m presuming the tortes are lefty now to certain posters here.

In previous years we have relied on loans to fill glaring gaps in the squad. Managers who seemed oblivious to not having certain positions covered and relying on loans to plug the gap. This year it feels like we have a full squad with backup and we haven’t touched the loan market yet. It’s a positive position to be in.

To add, there is a difference between positive action and positive discrimination. Making sure certain groups are not discriminated against as opposed to actively discriminating against a group, which is illegal.

There are no laws stopping you discussing things. And there are things that can be done that isn’t positive discrimination.

Yes, In the U.K. at least.

That’s good, because it’s illegal.

How dare they promote diversity to a diverse country. Are you offended that they show the Paralympics despite the athletes not being as fast or strong as able bodied athletes? Should women’s sport Not be featured? Or should there be a bit of representation. Black British talent might not be for you, and songs of praise isn’t for me, but I’m not going to be offended by it. So politically they may lean right... ...but no, they are actually biased against the right. Obviously having conservative political editors or being owned by conservative supporting billionaires is irrelevant

I’ll add, that FUA was responding to a post about political news.

What would you consider left wing that wasn’t political?

Ah yes as well as those well known lefty conservatives Laura keunsberg and nick robinson, we have those Marxist billionaire media moguls. How far right have you drifted when you think billionaires oligarchs like Rupert murdoch and Lord Rothermere are lefties? Don’t worry, I don’t expect a straight answer before you move on to next nonsensical talking point.

Well, we are talking political reporting, but you seem to want to include cbb’s and the cleaners in directing what is reported. What exactly do think a political editor does? And why would a lefty biased organisation employ conservatives as political editors the for the last 15 years? Kind of self defeating. Then again, you probably believe all the mainstream media are biased lefties too.

If it was just us doing it then I’d hazard a guess that Maynard would have signed for us.

As said before, that’s the bbc with well know Marxist Laura Kuennsberg as political editor, and previously the Loony lefty conservative member nick robinson. If Laura kuenssberg led reproting is biased against the right, then then where does that leave you?