Bolton Wanderers Forum The-Wanderer.co.uk

Completely, completely, completely wrong. Positive discrimination is discrimination nonetheless and does more harm than good.

Every time you give a job to one person over another you discriminate.

Prufrock wrote:Every time you give a job to one person over another you discriminate.

You know full well what I mean, don't be a tosser.

bobo the clown wrote:

Prufrock wrote:Every time you give a job to one person over another you discriminate.

You know full well what I mean, don't be a tosser.

The point you're making is interviewing somebody because they're black is the same as not giving somebody the job because they're black.

I don't think it is, and if you're going to be convincing, you're going to have to do better than "discrimination is discrimination". Because it isn't.

Bullshit.

Interviewing someone BECAUSE they are black, or any other distinction, means you are condescending to them. That can only be done by people who underlying feel they have a superiority.

It also means anyone selected has the taint of forced selection and undermines their achievement. It's wrong, it solves nothing and creates resentment. Nor does it stop with a diverse slate, next are quotas. Like night follows day.

When you fail to achieve what your career aspirations are you need to know that's because your site not because others were squeezed in above you for false reasons.

Plenty of organisations (including some private-sector) already have policies that they interview any disabled candidate who meets the specified criteria for the job. Disabled groups don't complain that they feel condescended to, or pandered to, because now they get jobs, and before they didn't. Not because they weren't good enough, or because "the best person got the job", but because they never had the chance.

It's intellectually imperfect, but it works. Unlike the ideologically pure yet patent nonsense of "let the best person get the job" despite the best person quite clearly not getting the job.

I make the same point I make every time this comes up, and I'll use women in boardrooms because they are clearer numbers for it. You cannot believe both of the following two things at once:

-When it comes to who becomes CEO, the best person gets the job on merit; and

-Women are as capable of being brilliant CEOs as men.

Either you believe men are inherently better at running a business than women, in which case you're an idiot; or, guess what "the best person" doesn't get the job. Over large numbers, institutions have biases. Even better than quotas, mandatory interviews (interviews FFS!) challenge those indirect, unconscious, inbuilt biases whilst making sure people not in the particular protected group don't get penalised.

If you're a white ex-pro and you don't get a management job, it's not because they interviewed a black guy. You've got enough info to "know that's because you're shite".

I don't need to be told about HR policies by you. Nor informed about what reactions arise from ill founded ones.

It's shite and should be consigned to the waste bin of failed liberalism. Even the Yanks are realising this doesn't work. People should get jobs because they deserve them and for no other reason.

No-one disputes that they *should*.

But they don't. If they did, there'd be more women CEOs. But there aren't.

Your naive idealism is touching, though.

Prufrock wrote:No-one disputes that they *should*.

But they don't. If they did, there'd be more women CEOs. But there aren't.

Your naive idealism is touching, though.

how long have you been in the real world?

I'm all in favour of encouraging black players to complete their coaching badges and taking a more active role in football after their playing careers have finished but this positive discrimination is bullshit.

There will be very few chairmen or football fans who would not have a black manager if they thought he would be successful. Most people don't give a crap about the colour of their skin or what country they born in. I can think of a small number of BME footballers who have become managers in recent years - Jimmy Floyd Hasselbaink, Keith Curle, Chris Powell, Chris Hughton, Chris Ramsey, Paul Ince, Ruud Gullit, Jean Tigana and John Barnes. These managers are not out of a job or managing Premiership teams because they are black, it's because they are crap at their job. If they had done well as a manager they would be at a top team.

Just wait until Sol Campbell has been interviewed for half a dozen managers positions and not got any. He will be spouting about the racism in football again.

Prufrock wrote:No-one disputes that they *should*.

But they don't. If they did, there'd be more women CEOs. But there aren't.

Your naive idealism is touching, though.

I'll happily consider your formula that determines "best person". In fact, I'd probably steal it, call it mine and sell it widely.

Given that the set of people interviewing for the job is finite, and the number of people doing the interviewing is finite, the best person always gets the job, in the eyes of the people whose job it is to give and who actually set the criteria of best person.

Did Drogba get a top job at Chelsea because of his skin colour, or because he was very good at football, like Ya Ya Toure, like Pele, ChungYong Lee, Ricky Gardner etc,etc,etc. Same rules apply whatever the job. Nobody gets a job from sympathy. If they're good enough, not to give em the job makes no sort of sense at any level. Ask Barack Hussein Obama II.

What's the average age of a football manager in England?

Work out the average decade in which they were last playing

Work out the percentage of black players playing in England at that time, then work it back to the percentage of black managers in England now.. Is it dis-proportionate?

I can't be arsed working it out, as I'm not overly arsed.. But I do feel it's a generational thing

As I mentioned a couple of weeks ago. John Barnes was on the wireless commenting on how the only reason that he is no longer in football as a manager is because he's black. This actually works against the Rooney Rule by dint of him being an absolutely unmitigated fecking disaster at it.

Why would any club choose a black manager over a better white manager? Why would any club choose a white manager over a better black manager?

Nobody consciously does it. Well, maybe Dave Whelan aside, nobody consciously does it. That's the point of these things. Each person thinks they're picking "the best person for the job" but the numbers show they simply can't be. So there must be something systemic

And yes John Barnes and Park Ince keep piping up helps nobody.

I'm hoping they're the Miranada Hart and Sarah Milican before Roisin Conarty comes along.

Who would you have as manager

John Terry or Rio Ferdinand
Rob Hall or Zach Clough
Bolasie or Seamus Coleman
Raheem Sterling or Jordan Hendersen
Neil Lennon or John Barnes

Vertigo wrote:Why would any club choose a black manager over a better white manager? Why would any club choose a white manager over a better black manager?

Exactly. Had I spunked a shitload of cash, ala Eddie Davies, into a football club and needed a manager that could possibly get us out of it then the last thing I'd be looking at is the colour of his or her skin. It's as ridiculous as judging Lennon on as to which side of the sectarian divide he sits (if either)!

If this is the way to solve stuff then I demand that at least one of the following should be interviewed, provided they have whatever certificate is relevant:

LGBT
Women
Disabled
Gingers
Young person under the age of 24
Older person over the age of 64

Whilst we're at it we should apply this to the FL, the FA, UEFA, FIFA and the non-league.

Apologies if I've missed out a minority group.