I'm intrigued by your call for positive discrimination in the job market, re sexuality and gender. Perhaps you could expand your thoughts on how you would judge the merits of a one legged Nigerian lesbian with a limited grasp of the English language, to be a better fit in the workplace, rather than say, an overly flamboyant Anglo Saxon transvestite chappie in the John Inman stylee. Extra points awarded for post op rather than simply a Friday night Freda?
And at the second interview, would pictures of the candidate on all fours wearing a gimp mask, and being enthusiastically rogered by large strap on wearing female, possibly trump the NVQ qualifications of a more "normal" applicant?
In this bold new world are there any lines in the sand? Would peadophilia or necrophobia simply be considered as an expression of a persons sexuality, and not in anyway an impediment to a full and fruitful career at Codhead PLC?
You'll never see full equality while fuckwits like this are able to breed.
I'm intrigued by your call for positive discrimination in the job market, re sexuality and gender. Perhaps you could expand your thoughts on how you would judge the merits of a one legged Nigerian lesbian with a limited grasp of the English language, to be a better fit in the workplace, rather than say, an overly flamboyant Anglo Saxon transvestite chappie in the John Inman stylee. Extra points awarded for post op rather than simply a Friday night Freda?
And at the second interview, would pictures of the candidate on all fours wearing a gimp mask, and being enthusiastically rogered by large strap on wearing female, possibly trump the NVQ qualifications of a more "normal" applicant?
In this bold new world are there any lines in the sand? Would peadophilia or necrophobia simply be considered as an expression of a persons sexuality, and not in anyway an impediment to a full and fruitful career at Codhead PLC?
You'll never see full equality while fuckwits like this are able to breed.
Tarquin Fuego wrote: I love Jamie and have done since he was 10 years old.
The Reason wrote:Hi Andy
The Rugby Football League are in the process of reviewing the video that you are referring to. We do not condone behaviour of this nature and have contacted the player’s employer, Hull F.C., who have confirmed that they are dealing with the incident under their club rules.
How do they know 1) That the complaint was from a white person 2) That race was the reason they didn't want them seated near them.
They were asked to leave when one of them whipped out their cell phone and started recording. Would you have accepted someone sticking a camera in your face and recording you?
It's like Oprah Winfrey's recent call that she was racially discriminated against because a Swiss sales assistant didn't think she could afford to buy their stupidly expensive handbags. But the fact is that very few people are that rich to be able to waste so much money on crap. Part of the woman's job would have been to not let poor people handle $35,000 hand bags.
So the woman wrongly thought Winfrey couldn't afford to waste that much money. She was clearly wrong. Winfrey could have easily and bitchily pointed that out, but instead she chose to go on TV to whine about it. It MIGHT have been racism, but it could have had nothing to do with race.
cod'ead wrote:Meanwhile across the pond, it looks like some things have hardly changed at all in the South
How do they know 1) That the complaint was from a white person 2) That race was the reason they didn't want them seated near them.
They were asked to leave when one of them whipped out their cell phone and started recording. Would you have accepted someone sticking a camera in your face and recording you?
It's like Oprah Winfrey's recent call that she was racially discriminated against because a Swiss sales assistant didn't think she could afford to buy their stupidly expensive handbags. But the fact is that very few people are that rich to be able to waste so much money on crap. Part of the woman's job would have been to not let poor people handle $35,000 hand bags.
So the woman wrongly thought Winfrey couldn't afford to waste that much money. She was clearly wrong. Winfrey could have easily and bitchily pointed that out, but instead she chose to go on TV to whine about it. It MIGHT have been racism, but it could have had nothing to do with race.
Post subject: Re: 50 years ago today - how far have we come?
Posted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 9:49 am
Sheldon
Club Owner
Joined: Mar 26 2006 Posts: 22320 Location: York
Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:How do they know 1) That the complaint was from a white person 2) That race was the reason they didn't want them seated near them.
They were asked to leave when one of them whipped out their cell phone and started recording. Would you have accepted someone sticking a camera in your face and recording you?
It's like Oprah Winfrey's recent call that she was racially discriminated against because a Swiss sales assistant didn't think she could afford to buy their stupidly expensive handbags. But the fact is that very few people are that rich to be able to waste so much money on crap. Part of the woman's job would have been to not let poor people handle $35,000 hand bags.
So the woman wrongly thought Winfrey couldn't afford to waste that much money. She was clearly wrong. Winfrey could have easily and bitchily pointed that out, but instead she chose to go on TV to whine about it. It MIGHT have been racism, but it could have had nothing to do with race.
It's said in the report.
Tarquin Fuego wrote: I love Jamie and have done since he was 10 years old.
The Reason wrote:Hi Andy
The Rugby Football League are in the process of reviewing the video that you are referring to. We do not condone behaviour of this nature and have contacted the player’s employer, Hull F.C., who have confirmed that they are dealing with the incident under their club rules.
Post subject: Re: 50 years ago today - how far have we come?
Posted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 9:58 am
El Barbudo
In The Arms of 13 Angels
Joined: Feb 26 2002 Posts: 14522 Location: Online
Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:...Would you have accepted someone sticking a camera in your face and recording you? ...
It says that someone started videoing it, that is not necessarily the same as your assertion about "sticking a camera in your face". You have assumed aggression by the videoing person but the report does not mention or imply it.
Freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice. Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality.
Post subject: Re: 50 years ago today - how far have we come?
Posted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 10:00 am
El Barbudo
In The Arms of 13 Angels
Joined: Feb 26 2002 Posts: 14522 Location: Online
Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote: ...So the woman wrongly thought Winfrey couldn't afford to waste that much money. She was clearly wrong. Winfrey could have easily and bitchily pointed that out ...
Are you sure she didn't?
Freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice. Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality.
Post subject: Re: 50 years ago today - how far have we come?
Posted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 10:15 am
Ferocious Aardvark
International Chairman
Joined: Feb 17 2002 Posts: 28357 Location: MACS0647-JD
Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:... It's like Oprah Winfrey's recent call that she was racially discriminated against because a Swiss sales assistant didn't think she could afford to buy their stupidly expensive handbags. But the fact is that very few people are that rich to be able to waste so much money on crap. Part of the woman's job would have been to not let poor people handle $35,000 hand bags.
So the woman wrongly thought Winfrey couldn't afford to waste that much money. She was clearly wrong. Winfrey could have easily and bitchily pointed that out, but instead she chose to go on TV to whine about it. It MIGHT have been racism, but it could have had nothing to do with race.
Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:... It's like Oprah Winfrey's recent call that she was racially discriminated against because a Swiss sales assistant didn't think she could afford to buy their stupidly expensive handbags. But the fact is that very few people are that rich to be able to waste so much money on crap. Part of the woman's job would have been to not let poor people handle $35,000 hand bags.
So the woman wrongly thought Winfrey couldn't afford to waste that much money. She was clearly wrong. Winfrey could have easily and bitchily pointed that out, but instead she chose to go on TV to whine about it. It MIGHT have been racism, but it could have had nothing to do with race.
I was just writing from seeing a clip of Winfrey. Winfrey claimed that as an example of clear racism, to me it COULD have been racism, but could have just as easily have been a misunderstanding.
The shop assistant has a completely different version of events.
No one apart from those two know what happened. The shop assistant is probably going to deny doing anything wrong, even if she did. But Winfrey could have easily complained to a manager about the store assistant and chose not to.
Did Winfrey cause this storm on purpose, to campaign about racism, or was her comment an unguarded comment to a journo that happened to be followed up by media around the world? I haven't followed this story, but I knew of Winfrey's interview and I later saw a Sky reporter interviewing a male assistant at the store who was explaining that she didn't work there any more.
I was just writing from seeing a clip of Winfrey. Winfrey claimed that as an example of clear racism, to me it COULD have been racism, but could have just as easily have been a misunderstanding.
The shop assistant has a completely different version of events.
No one apart from those two know what happened. The shop assistant is probably going to deny doing anything wrong, even if she did. But Winfrey could have easily complained to a manager about the store assistant and chose not to.
Did Winfrey cause this storm on purpose, to campaign about racism, or was her comment an unguarded comment to a journo that happened to be followed up by media around the world? I haven't followed this story, but I knew of Winfrey's interview and I later saw a Sky reporter interviewing a male assistant at the store who was explaining that she didn't work there any more.
Post subject: Re: 50 years ago today - how far have we come?
Posted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 11:03 am
Peckerwood
Club Owner
Joined: Mar 31 2004 Posts: 5558
Dead Man Walking wrote:What did you tell this customer who complained to you ?
Fortunately I was not the one who received the complaint, but if I did I no doubt wouldn't have a job on the grounds of being disrespectful to customers...
Post subject: Re: 50 years ago today - how far have we come?
Posted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 11:05 am
Ferocious Aardvark
International Chairman
Joined: Feb 17 2002 Posts: 28357 Location: MACS0647-JD
Whatever the true facts of what happened, Winfrey has jumped to a totally unwarranted conclusion, that the only reason anyone would think she wouldn't be interested in a £30K handbag must be coz she's black innit.
If I worked in such a shop, to me the worse thing would be to get the 30K bag to show someone, they examine it and really like it, but are then humiliated when asking the price since it is way out of their league, as it would be for 99% of the population.
Why couldn't the conversation go "Can i see that bag?" I don't think you could afford it" "Yes, I could, actually" "Really? Well, if you're sure. I didn't want to embarrass you."
I might continue:
" Honestly you're the first person I ever met who is so crassly dumb and insensitive as to even consider trashing such an unconscionable amount of good money on a piece of pretentious crap just because they can. "
Last edited by Ferocious Aardvark on stardate Jun 26, 3013 11:27 am, edited 48,562,867,458,300,023 times in total
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 193 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
