Lancasterclaret wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 27, 2022 4:43 pm

I wonder who he used to be before he got his new username?

Grumps

Is this the mating season

This thread has just descended into abuse and supercilious bile, which kind of negates any of the points being made.

ClaretPete001 wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 27, 2022 4:55 pm

This thread has just descended into abuse and supercilious bile, which kind of negates any of the points being made.

There wasn't any being made anyway

Once the people who think that its tough being white and middle aged get going, its completely worthless as anything just as "wow, I'll avoid that lad in future" guide

ClaretPete001 wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 27, 2022 4:55 pm

This thread has just descended into abuse and supercilious bile, which kind of negates any of the points being made.

If you look at some of the characters posting does that surprise you!

Ironic or what?

evensteadiereddie wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 27, 2022 5:11 pm

Ironic or what?

Beat me to that one

He might have a point but now was not the right time to make it . Brilliant footballer and pretty decent commentator on the game

Brilliant footballer, quite skilled in playing the now out-dated, ex pro telling it how it is shtick.
Punditry has moved on and because he couldn't or wouldn't change, there is no role for him.
Still, he's had thirty years of milking that particular cash cow so he can't complain.
His indirect reference to box ticking, if that's what it was, is pretty embarrassing.
A sad and bitter end to a once entertaining career.

Elizabeth wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 27, 2022 7:10 pm

He might have a point but now was not the right time to make it . Brilliant footballer and pretty decent commentator on the game

When would have been?

I think he’d have been happy to keep signing a contract for ever without making a murmur about it.

Steve1956 wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 26, 2022 10:13 am

He's whinging.....he's a Whinging knob....Sky retired him...Lawrenson.....enjoy your retirement you Whinging Preston bellend..

Hey Steve, living in Scotland has made you bitter and twisted (or is it twitter and beasted).

Preston bellend! Love it.

Devils_Advocate wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 26, 2022 12:04 pm

Did you not consider that the reason that the demographic that tend to lose their jobs the most in TV Sport is the demographic that until very recently has completely dominated TV Sport roles. Its hardly rocket science that if 90% of the jobs are occupied by white males that 90% of the job losses will be those same white males.

It makes me laugh about people talking about pundits and presenters getting jobs based on the colour of their skin or their gender when 20 years ago unless you were something special you pretty much had to be a white male to get the job in the first place.

Good points as usual Mr DA. But we have an issue here I think and that is if most jobs were allotted in the past to white males (and they obviously were) is it now right to be, it appears sometimes, actively biased against said white males? Equality is correct and I totally agree with it but it should be just that, equality. Replacing one form of bias with another achieves nothing and kind of smacks of revenge against those who have done nothing wrong.

Please note I am just posing a thought here, not in any way having a dig.

houseboy wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 27, 2022 10:53 pm

Good points as usual Mr DA. But we have an issue here I think and that is if most jobs were allotted in the past to white males (and they obviously were) is it now right to be, it appears sometimes, actively biased against said white males? Equality is correct and I totally agree with it but it should be just that, equality. Replacing one form of bias with another achieves nothing and kind of smacks of revenge against those who have done nothing wrong.

Please note I am just posing a thought here, not in any way having a dig.

There's absolutely no evidence that people are not getting jobs because they are white men and it seems that the sheer fact that now women and non white people are getting their fair share of the jobs is enough for some to assume this is the case is evidence to me that the prejudice and bias still sits on the side of white males.

I think a lot of people don't understand what is meant when company's talk about targeting a more diverse workforce. People misinterpret this as giving people jobs just because of their sex or race when what this really is targeted at is removing the prejudices and barriers that both discourage certain groups from aspiring for these roles and make it more difficult for those groups of people to be successful at getting those roles when they do apply.

In summary its aim is to encourage a wider range of people to go for jobs and to ensure people are judged on their perceived ability and not their race, gender, age or other characteristics of that ilk.

Because historically the profession has been so dominated by white males if company's like the BBC are successful in attracting a more diverse set of people to go for jobs then there will be a natural shift more towards non white and female people making up a larger percentage of the roles but that is not because there is a bias against white men but because the previous bias is naturally being corrected

One of the biggest issues is that fat washed up white guys have the most to say on racism and equality!

Usually Daily Mail readers and never left their home town.

Devils_Advocate wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 27, 2022 11:28 pm

There's absolutely no evidence that people are not getting jobs because they are white men and it seems that the sheer fact that now women and non white people are getting their fair share of the jobs is enough for some to assume this is the case is evidence to me that the prejudice and bias still sits on the side of white males.

I think a lot of people don't understand what is meant when company's talk about targeting a more diverse workforce. People misinterpret this as giving people jobs just because of their sex or race when what this really is targeted at is removing the prejudices and barriers that both discourage certain groups from aspiring for these roles and make it more difficult for those groups of people to be successful at getting those roles when they do apply.

In summary its aim is to encourage a wider range of people to go for jobs and to ensure people are judged on their perceived ability and not their race, gender, age or other characteristics of that ilk.

Because historically the profession has been so dominated by white males if company's like the BBC are successful in attracting a more diverse set of people to go for jobs then there will be a natural shift more towards non white and female people making up a larger percentage of the roles but that is not because there is a bias against white men but because the previous bias is naturally being corrected

The BBC target is that 20% of their workforce should be non-white. This is above the national average and so can't be done by natural correction, unless of course the non-white people are indeed more talented at BBC jobs than white people. But making that claim would open a whole new can of worms!

Devils_Advocate wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 27, 2022 11:28 pm

There's absolutely no evidence that people are not getting jobs because they are white men and it seems that the sheer fact that now women and non white people are getting their fair share of the jobs is enough for some to assume this is the case is evidence to me that the prejudice and bias still sits on the side of white males.

I think a lot of people don't understand what is meant when company's talk about targeting a more diverse workforce. People misinterpret this as giving people jobs just because of their sex or race when what this really is targeted at is removing the prejudices and barriers that both discourage certain groups from aspiring for these roles and make it more difficult for those groups of people to be successful at getting those roles when they do apply.

In summary its aim is to encourage a wider range of people to go for jobs and to ensure people are judged on their perceived ability and not their race, gender, age or other characteristics of that ilk.

Because historically the profession has been so dominated by white males if company's like the BBC are successful in attracting a more diverse set of people to go for jobs then there will be a natural shift more towards non white and female people making up a larger percentage of the roles but that is not because there is a bias against white men but because the previous bias is naturally being corrected

You make a lot of sense but I would disagree somewhat with no evidence of bias against white males. Yes more women and non-whites are getting more jobs and there is nothing wrong in that but what we are talking about here is trends. There are programmes where there is no representation of white males at all and I’m not simply talking about Loose Women here. I have watched various programmes where guests and/or contestants figure no white males at all (forgetting jobs for a moment). I have watched said programmes and commented to my wife about the absence of a single white male.
To be honest it makes no difference to me at my age which way the world goes (and indeed I have four daughters so why should I complain) but I have a basic inherent tendency toward equality that means ANY form of bias I find wrong, whether it is supposed to be righting wrongs or not.
Incidentally where I work around 80% of managers are women, which again kind of flies in the face of ‘no evidence’ I believe. But then again I could be wrong.

helmclaret wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 27, 2022 11:33 pm

One of the biggest issues is that fat washed up white guys have the most to say on racism and equality!

Usually Daily Mail readers and never left their home town.

You seem to post a lot on the topic.

Devils_Advocate wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 27, 2022 11:28 pm

There's absolutely no evidence that people are not getting jobs because they are white men and it seems that the sheer fact that now women and non white people are getting their fair share of the jobs is enough for some to assume this is the case is evidence to me that the prejudice and bias still sits on the side of white males.

I’m evidentially a case in point. I was overlooked for a job to replace my boss a month ago. I’m an older white male and the person who got the job, a peer of mine, is an African American female. It was positive bias to her benefit. We were peers, though I had the more direct experience, the manager,ent relationships, and to cover off any personal bias or subjectivity on my part, my annual review ratings were habitually the highest. Neither were there interviews, she was simply awarded it and is now my new boss

It exists. I’m ok with it…. There are literally folk like me who individually take the hit as reparation for the wrongs of history to date.

Similarly, I’m working on an industry show to take place in December in Europe. Our SVP is female. For her keynote we will have three customers on stage with her. Today, we discussed which customers they might be…. Not so much as to the quality of the case study, it was literally quota-based, a white male, a white female, and an African male

It’s how we look at things, and I’m ok with it - it’s the only way we can accelerate ourselves out of the bias we’re trying to escape from

I haven't read all the posts on this thread but I get a sense that some of you, along with Lawrenson I guess, think that the BBC are doing what they are doing to show how diverse and inclusive they are. And indeed if you look at those who are front of camera in whatever discipline/field they are used in it does appear that there are significantly more women and people from the BAME community than hitherto. Some will have a problem with this, others (myself included) not so much.

However I do feel that this is a bit of a smokescreen by the Beeb as I suspect that those in the most senior backroom positions are probably still old white males. You only need look at the Chairman and Director General. Both are old upper/middle class white males. They are both Conservative members and would be widely regarded as pillars of society and firm members of the establishment.

So, don't believe everything you see on TV!!!

Quicknick wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 28, 2022 2:37 am

You seem to post a lot on the topic.

Because I am personally affected by it - that ok with you?

helmclaret wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 28, 2022 2:05 pm

Because I am personally affected by it - that ok with you?

Sure, but you pointed out other people do. That's all.