It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The BBC is blatantly "Race Baiting" on its site.

page: 2
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 09:10 AM
link   
a reply to:Revolution9

BBC should stand for the "Belligerent Bigot Corporation" considering its far more synonymous with there methods and measures.

Most of the public can see the Tory worshiping, austerity preaching, racist fools for what they are!

Truth is the BBC exists to spread gooberment lies, thus furthering "There" agenda and breed discontent amungst our people.

edit on 12-3-2017 by DrumsRfun because: SNIPPED INSULT




posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 11:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: Revolution9


There should be roughly 1:1 male/female ratio in UK boardrooms and somewhere near 14% of 'people of colour.' Obviously skin and gender aren't the final word and other factors will mean there should never be exactly 50% female or exactly 14% coloured people in boardrooms.

Does Allen want a meritocracy in boardrooms or not?



Since the vast majority of women in work take significant amounts of time off to have and raise children, thus not being available for work, why should it be 50% ?

If you are an average male, you are expected to put in the extra hours at the drop of a hat because Sharon's kid has had a runny nose at nursery or Tracy's twins need a story before bed time.
You get to work the weekends so that they can have some "quality time" and all that rot.

So why would it be fair to promote them equally?

Sure, give women equality of opportunity, but the outcome should depend upon individual effort.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 11:45 AM
link   
the funny thing is creating a thread on ATS of all places to point out 'race baiting'. thats like an oxymoron.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 12:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Konduit
a reply to: UKTruth

You should be hired based on your qualifications, not because of your gender or skin color. That in itself is inherently sexist and racist.


Not just that.
To make it to the boardroom, you generally need to have spent many years gaining expertise and experience. The percentage of the population of a specific immigrant group, for example non white immigrants, has grown over time in line with immigration flows. Should we be kicking out 60yr old white board members because there has been a growth in the number of 18-35yr year old non white immigrants brought about by an influx over the last 30 years and children growing up? I think not.
The argument for quota's based on population is complete nonsense spouted by people who don't know what they are talking about.
As for women, the equation is simple. On average they have less experience and skill to operate at the boardroom level because a high percentage take time out of their careers to have children, often during crucial years.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 03:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: Kandinsky
There should be roughly 1:1 male/female ratio in UK boardrooms and somewhere near 14% of 'people of colour.' Obviously skin and gender aren't the final word and other factors will mean there should never be exactly 50% female or exactly 14% coloured people in boardrooms.

Wait a sec ... do you believe what I just read ... or is that counter-rhetoric?


Tell me what you think I meant and I'll explain what I actually meant



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 03:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kandinsky

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: Kandinsky
There should be roughly 1:1 male/female ratio in UK boardrooms and somewhere near 14% of 'people of colour.' Obviously skin and gender aren't the final word and other factors will mean there should never be exactly 50% female or exactly 14% coloured people in boardrooms.

Wait a sec ... do you believe what I just read ... or is that counter-rhetoric?


Tell me what you think I meant and I'll explain what I actually meant

What I think you said is that any and every job can be filled, by anyone, regardless of gender or race. That if there was a vacancy, and your company was at 12% 'people of color' that you are certain you could find a fill for that vacancy and the company wouldn't suffer for it ... and the same applies regardless of gender. Is that right?



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Snarl

Mostly


The stats show a bias in the system of selecting people for high-up positions. It can't be solved by imposing gender and race percentages that reflect population demographics.

*Ideally* they would, but we live in the real world and not some abstract ideal.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 05:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kandinsky
The stats show a bias in the system of selecting people for high-up positions.

That's what threw me, because the word boardroom was used in the comment I originally replied to, and a board seat is about as high as one goes in a company.

I've never seen such ratios pan out ... especially with females. I've never been able to put a finger on 'the why' of it, but my experience tells me what I thought I saw was nowhere in the realms of reality ... where either race or gender is the qualifier. And this isn't about white-bias either. I've been all over and there are certain things done better by Asians and certain things by Latinos or Indians or Africans ... or women. Boardrooms where I would be the odd man out.

It just is what it is ... and I thought your were going somewhere else.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 06:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: Snarl

Mostly


The stats show a bias in the system of selecting people for high-up positions. It can't be solved by imposing gender and race percentages that reflect population demographics.

*Ideally* they would, but we live in the real world and not some abstract ideal.


I'd like to see the stats of boardroom make up vs the population split by gender/race etc but ALSO time in the job, age, experience. If I take the age of a person, as an example, 95% of people 60 or over in England are white, whereas from 18-60 yrs of age, 85% of people in England are white.

Interestingly an article at Forbes does actually show that BAME (Black, Asian, Minority, Ethnic) representation in boardrooms of the FTSE 150 was 5% in 2015, the same as the population mix of 60 and above.

www.forbes.com...

Obviously it is a bit more complex than that, as some over 60's are retired and age is only one dimension, but if you just take 55-65yr old's the population is still 93% white. Throw in the time in the country and experience and the 5% BAME representation still looks about right.

This is why simple quota's never makes sense, even in an ideal sense.

Source of age stats is census 2011.

edit on 12/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 07:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: Revolution9

Shock horror, you are blaming the BBC for reporting something controversial that the chairman of a leading organisation said, even though it also included the fact he was joking?

Would you rather have your news spoon fed to you with only what you want to hear?

A lot of childish people on here who can't seem to make their minds up what they want.

Childish adults run this country.

I though it was going to be a genuine cry against racism, watch it develop into another poor white man thread. The most racist kind.

I got an eye full in that other thread about poor 'white men' in Africa.


Right, where you laughed at white people fleeing Zimbabwe and cheered taking farms from people based only on their skin color.

Ironic given those beliefs that you have the nerve to call any else a racist.



posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 07:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

"Laughed and cheered" at whites getting 'runoff'.

lol, what a racist.

But... to be sure... US out of everywhere, Yankee go home!



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 08:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Revolution9

Where exactly did I say how dare you speak? Sheesh, lighten up with the victim attitude.



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 08:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to:Revolution9

BBC should stand for the "Belligerent Bigot Corporation" considering its far more synonymous with there methods and measures.

Most of the public can see the Tory worshiping, austerity preaching, racist fools for what they are!

Truth is the BBC exists to spread gooberment lies, thus furthering "There" agenda and breed discontent amungst our people.


The BBC is known for being left wing in its reporting if anything, but of course you like everyone will see what you want to see - just like the OP seems to see themselves as a victim. At least you don't find as many spelling mistakes on the BBC site.



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 09:27 AM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted

Aye right very left wing these days. LoL

The BBC are bastards and report what our gooberment overlords want them to report.

I take it your an avid licence fee fully paid up member and quite high up in the spelling police?



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 10:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: uncommitted

Aye right very left wing these days. LoL

The BBC are bastards and report what our gooberment overlords want them to report.

I take it your an avid licence fee fully paid up member and quite high up in the spelling police?


I don't think it's that left wing, in fact as a rule it reports anything and everything. It was perhaps more leaning towards Palestine than Israel in the past than it is now - it seems to have become slightly more even handed but only slightly. It's never been massively pro the government of the day regardless of the government of the day, the exception probably being Blair's first years in office.

Am I an 'avid licence fee fully paid up member'? I don't understand the use of the word 'avid' in that question, I guess you are trying (badly) to make some point or another. The term 'gooberment' is just sh!te, I'm happy to point it out, and it would be 'furthering "Their" agenda', not "There" agenda. Same with the use of the word 'there' in your first paragraph.

Am I a member of the spelling police? No, but if people want to think they come across as smart, it helps if they can actually articulate themselves before going on to get on a soap box - does that help?



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted

Cant see how pointing out the obvious can be interpreted as coming across as smart, but heh whatever floats your BBC boat really.


As to soap boxes, that's there department, shame it's all the wrong sort of people they have preaching austerity from them and other gooberment sponsored twaddle.

The BBC report what they are told to report, nothing more, nothing less.

They also have been known to employ and facilitate pedophiles such as Sir Jimmy Savile never mind the other numerous sex scandals they have been linked to.

I'm not trying badly to do anything, that would be people who support such organisations or refuse to see the bastards for what they are.
edit on 13-3-2017 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

That's alright, a lot of other people on ATS also talk bollox and expect people to treat is as fact, why shouldn't you have the same opportunity?



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

That's a very good post


I also think a hard-to-quantify factor is 'birds of a feather flock together' leading the recruitment and promotion process. It undercuts the meritocratic ideals of fair employment by having interview panels favouring people like them. Used to be called the 'old boys network' and it makes sense that people want to work with people they know or can identify with. Back then, it was class status that happened to coincide with being white so a smart white working class contender would have the same chance as a smart 'person of colour.'

Your age-related stats can be applied to this supposition. We'd see those of the over 50s generation hiring whites in numbers that reflect their social milieu. To test it, we'd have to look at the racial differences in who gets hired in younger employer demographics. For sake of argument, people in their 20s are far more used to different cultures and colours and their 'birds of a feather' would not be *as* defined by skin colour as the over 50s.

I don't have the time or inclination right now to look. I wonder what the dynamics of directors are like in, say, Seoul, Madrid or Sao Paolo?



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 05:17 AM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted

Well you are perfectly at liberty to take your "bollox" someplace else if you don't like what a lot of people say round these here parts, don't let the door hit you on the arse on the way out.
x



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 06:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: uncommitted

Well you are perfectly at liberty to take your "bollox" someplace else if you don't like what a lot of people say round these here parts, don't let the door hit you on the arse on the way out.
x







Nah, I enjoy telling them when they are making unsubstantiated claims - it's funny when instead of trying to substantiate them they just throw out accusations.







 
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join