"English Spoken"

downfader

Been a bit of debate down here with the Cabbies after a load of complaints over drivers last year. It seems customers have had communication issues where foreign drivers have not spoken very good English. A fundemental fail of a) the cabbie to be able to do what he or she is supposed to be able to do, and b) the local council licensing board for allowing people to go unvetted in this respect.

So a load of Cabbies got together here in Southampton and made some St Georges with "English Spoken" on it (some of them UK citizens all their lives, and with some from abroad but with a good grasp of it having been here a long time)

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/4887499 ... _stickers/

Cant see a problem with "English Spoken" stickers myself, but the council says its racist, and says they will actively pursue any driver seen with one. They also mentioned this on the BBC South Today program last night.

Ollieda

The report says the stickers say "English speaking driver" which I can see no problem with that and it would be stupid for the council to say that is racist. However in the picture it does look like the sticker says "English driver". Whilst I wouldn't find this racist I can see how some people might consider it to be if it were separating English as opposed to non English drivers.

shouldbeinbed

as long as they actively pursue other national flags displayed on vehicles or women driver signs etc no problem. if they're only actively pursuing one element of society based on language or culture then what does that make them?

idiocy by committee I bet.

downfader

Ollieda wrote:

The report says the stickers say "English speaking driver" which I can see no problem with that and it would be stupid for the council to say that is racist. However in the picture it does look like the sticker says "English driver". Whilst I wouldn't find this racist I can see how some people might consider it to be if it were separating English as opposed to non English drivers.

The sticker in the pic is an exception. Been trying to find out if last nights South Today is on the iPlayer as it showed the "English Spoken" and "English Speaking driver" on a few cabs.

passout

Does the sticker really mean 'White British Driver', if so it's racist. Are all English speaing drivers adopting this - including Asian drivers for example?

Crapaud

It might be an urban myth, but I've heard of a taxi up here that had a driver who didn't speak a scrap of English. Luckily he had a mate who did, but couldn't drive.

Solution: The English speaking mate sat in the cab and translated.

downfader

Crapaud wrote:

It might be an urban myth, but I've heard of a taxi up here that had a driver who didn't speak a scrap of English. Luckily he had a mate who did, but couldn't drive.

Solution: The English speaking mate sat in the cab and translated.

Regardless of whether its based in fact its now so widespread a story I even hear it down here from time to time.

iainf72

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/soci ... 002032436/

Southampton councillor, Roy Hobbs, said: "For many people arriving in Southampton, the taxi driver is the first experience of speaking to a genuine British moron.

Anonymous

Que ?

downfader

iainf72 wrote:

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/cab-drivers-install-signs-confirming-they-speak-racist-201002032436/

Southampton councillor, Roy Hobbs, said: "For many people arriving in Southampton, the taxi driver is the first experience of speaking to a genuine British moron.

If only the Mash had caught the story about the cabbie last week who had sex with a drunk teen in the back of his cab.

VinceEager

i think the local authorities in this case need to distinguish between direct and indirect racism.

direct racism, where the purpose of the act is driven by racial prejudice has no reasonable justification. the extent to which authorities should act against it depends on where you stand vis a vis freedom of though / speech.

indirect racism, where the purpose of the act is other, but racial distinction is an effect of this can in some circumstances be justified. the excercise is then one of balancing the desirability of the original purpose with the desirability of racial equality.


one example which highlights the difference is this:

the police have a recruitment policy which excludes women. this might be seen as directly, gender prejudicial.

the police have a recruitment policy which excludes people under 5'10 (tallness being deemed an important feature of effective policing). more women are likely to be under 5'10 than men and so women are indirectly prejudiced.

in the latter scenario you need to balance the desirability of having effective policing (accepting for the sake of the example that tallness is important) with having equal opportunities for women in policing.

in the english speaking taxis example, it seems like indirect racism, in that the purpose is to promote fluency in english, rather than english nationality. because foreigners are less likely to speak english, they are then indirectly effected by such advertising.

the question is then whether you belive that the principle that there should be no distinction drawn on grounds of race, directly or otherwise, is more important than the freedom for taxi drivers to advertise that they speak english (and customers chose on this basis too).

markwalker

VinceEager wrote:

i think the local authorities in this case need to distinguish between direct and indirect racism.

direct racism, where the purpose of the act is driven by racial prejudice has no reasonable justification. the extent to which authorities should act against it depends on where you stand vis a vis freedom of though / speech.

indirect racism, where the purpose of the act is other, but racial distinction is an effect of this can in some circumstances be justified. the excercise is then one of balancing the desirability of the original purpose with the desirability of racial equality.


one example which highlights the difference is this:

the police have a recruitment policy which excludes women. this might be seen as directly, gender prejudicial.

the police have a recruitment policy which excludes people under 5'10 (tallness being deemed an important feature of effective policing). more women are likely to be under 5'10 than men and so women are indirectly prejudiced.

in the latter scenario you need to balance the desirability of having effective policing (accepting for the sake of the example that tallness is important) with having equal opportunities for women in policing.

in the english speaking taxis example, it seems like indirect racism, in that the purpose is to promote fluency in english, rather than english nationality. because foreigners are less likely to speak english, they are then indirectly effected by such advertising.

the question is then whether you belive that the principle that there should be no distinction drawn on grounds of race, directly or otherwise, is more important than the freedom for taxi drivers to advertise that they speak english (and customers chose on this basis too).

i think this is the clearest thing ever to grace the pages of this forum.

+ 1

Ollieda

Personally i don't see this as racism, but it's a moot point.

A sign saying "English Speaking Driver" isn't really going to drive non-English speakers out of the taxi business nor is it suggesting that they shouldn't be there. Although I don't know, I would assume they allow any taxi driver who can speak a good level of English to have a sticker, be it their first language or not.....only allowing those who are English/British nationals to have it would be clearly racist.

Job adverts requiring that a sufficient level of a English be spoken by the applicant when the job needs the applicant to be able to converse with customers is not considered racist so why is it that in a job where a sufficient level of English is needed it would be considered racist for English speakers to advertise that they can speak the language?

Realistically though how much difference is it going to make to which taxi you get? A large amount of towns and cities use rank systems whereby the first taxi in the cue gets the first customer and so on. If a customer came across a taxi rank and the second taxi had a sticker but the first didn't and he refused to get the first then they would have to wait for that taxi to get a customer and leave before getting into the one with the sticker (assuming that the other taxi would stick to the rank system).

pneumatic

I once got into a taxi in Shanghai with Mrs Pneumatic. I spoke no Chinese but had carefully looked out the map and marked my destination on it (the main railway station)

I showed it to the cabbie (smart suit and white gloves!) and he looked very alarmed. I did an impersonation of a steam train, but that didn't help, either. Eventually, he got out, went into our hotel and came back with the receptionist and we got it sorted.

Turned out he couldn't read maps!!

teagar

Who's going to hop into a cab, only to see that they don't speak english, and then hop out?

Or who is going to hail down a cab, only to see that they don't have the badge and let them carry on?

To me it smacks of bigotry, mascarading as something more legitimate.

As for Vince, I don't think you have it right. That MarkWalker agrees should be taken as a worrying sign, given his history on issues like this.

Positive discrimination is necessary to counter-act inherrent, structural and cultural racism. People are in denial to suggest that that kind of racism doesn't exist. As for the example given for policing, because of gender, racial, and all other discrimiation, the police must take these into account.

It's all very well arguing that no-one's race or gender or whatever should be considered, which is very fine in principle, but the case of France, (where the law refuses on principle to allow anyone make those very distinctions, whether in employment or whatever), shows us that simply doesn't work. Just because the law doesn't recognise gender or ethnic background, doesn't mean people don't. They do, even if they're not necessarily one of the 1 million who voted BNP.

cee

I have heard some of the most horrible racism using the lack of english of cabbies as the excuse.

usually not the London cab can pick up on the street type, but especially in the private hire type cabs.

My feeling is that this is just racism wrapped up in an excuse.....

hopper1

What's wrong with having one of these stickers in your window?
What's wrong with choosing an English speaking taxi driver?
How the fcuk can you pass a driving test without being able to speak some English!?

If I call my insurer, chances are that I'll get put through to a call centre in Asia, but I can insist on an English speaking operator, and be transferred back to the UK. So, why can't Cabbies advertise themselves as English speaking, and be chosen for work accordingly?
The UK pussyfoots around too much.

The other day there was a story on my local news caused by a recruitment consultant placing an advert in the Job Centre. Among the list of requirements was 'Must be reliable'. The ad was rejected. When questioned about it the Job Centre stated that the word 'reliable' discriminated against the 'unreliable', so was not allowed! Figure that one out. :shock:

teagar

hopper1 wrote:

What's wrong with having one of these stickers in your window?

That's just been explained above.

If I call my insurer, chances are that I'll get put through to a call centre in Asia, but I can insist on an English speaking operator, and be transferred back to the UK. So, why can't Cabbies advertise themselves as English speaking, and be chosen for work accordingly?
The UK pussyfoots around too much.

. My experience is that the Asian call centres can speak very good English - otherwise it'd be difficult for that call centre to service UK calls. That's a perfect illustration that the 'speaks English' term is actually a euphamism for "Not foreign" or "native" which is exactly the point.

The other day there was a story on my local news caused by a recruitment consultant placing an advert in the Job Centre. Among the list of requirements was 'Must be reliable'. The ad was rejected. When questioned about it the Job Centre stated that the word 'reliable' discriminated against the 'unreliable', so was not allowed! Figure that one out. :shock:

That's an entirely seperate issue and clearly stupid. That's got very little to do with the OP.

hopper1

teagar wrote:

That's just been explained above.

.

Obviously not well enough!

teagar wrote:

My experience is that the Asian call centres can speak very good English - otherwise it'd be difficult for that call centre to service UK calls. That's a perfect illustration that the 'speaks English' term is actually a euphamism for "Not foreign", or even " White-British", which is exactly the point.

.
I have come across a few Asian's who were very difficult to understand. If the problem didn't exist, then companies would not offer the option!
I work all over the world, with many different nationals... It is sometimes difficult to understand the best of them.

teagar wrote:

The other day there was a story on my local news caused by a recruitment consultant placing an advert in the Job Centre. Among the list of requirements was 'Must be reliable'. The ad was rejected. When questioned about it the Job Centre stated that the word 'reliable' discriminated against the 'unreliable', so was not allowed! Figure that one out. :shock:
That's an entirely seperate issue and clearly stupid. That's got very little to do with the OP.

Stupid, yes, but still an example of the way people in the UK deal poorly with discrimination.

teagar

hopper1 wrote:

I have come across a few Asian's who were very difficult to understand. If the problem didn't exist, then companies would not offer the option!

You sure it's not just a bit of latent racism or xenophobia?

I work all over the world, with many different nationals... It is sometimes difficult to understand the best of them.

Are you as similarly patronising with them as you were with me when I typo'd English without an capitalised e because I'm not British? Or was that little piece of patronising xenophobia just for me?

As for the UK being "poor" with discrimination, I've read that according to various different indicators, the UK is performing particularly well compared to its cosmopolitan contemporaries with regard to racist and discriminatory behaviour.

VinceEager

teagar wrote:

As for Vince, I don't think you have it right.

what exactly do you think i didn't get right?

teagar

VinceEager wrote:

teagar wrote:

As for Vince, I don't think you have it right.

what exactly do you think i didn't get right?

Pretty much exactly what I said in the rest of the post?

markwalker

teagar wrote:

Who's going to hop into a cab, only to see that they don't speak english, and then hop out?

Or who is going to hail down a cab, only to see that they don't have the badge and let them carry on?

To me it smacks of bigotry, mascarading as something more legitimate.

As for Vince, I don't think you have it right. That MarkWalker agrees should be taken as a worrying sign, given his history on issues like this.

Positive discrimination is necessary to counter-act inherrent, structural and cultural racism. People are in denial to suggest that that kind of racism doesn't exist. As for the example given for policing, because of gender, racial, and all other discrimiation, the police must take these into account.

It's all very well arguing that no-one's race or gender or whatever should be considered, which is very fine in principle, but the case of France, (where the law refuses on principle to allow anyone make those very distinctions, whether in employment or whatever), shows us that simply doesn't work. Just because the law doesn't recognise gender or ethnic background, doesn't mean people don't. They do, even if they're not necessarily one of the 1 million who voted BNP.

jesus you never stop being a pc appologist do you

teagar

markwalker wrote:

jesus you never stop being a pc appologist do you

What's your point?

VinceEager

teagar wrote:

VinceEager wrote:

teagar wrote:

As for Vince, I don't think you have it right.

what exactly do you think i didn't get right?

Pretty much exactly what I said in the rest of the post?

i've read your post a few times and i dont see how it relates to what i said...

do you think i am wrong to draw a theoretical distinction between direct and indirect racism?

do you think i am wrong to suggest that censure for direct racism and the right to freedom of thought /expression exist in tension?

do you think i'm wrong to say that indirect racism may be justified in some cirumstances on utilitarian grounds?

....what exactly, if you are going to engage with my argument, do you think i got wrong?

Aggieboy

teagar wrote:

Who's going to hop into a cab, only to see that they don't speak english, and then hop out?

Or who is going to hail down a cab, only to see that they don't have the badge and let them carry on?

To me it smacks of bigotry, mascarading as something more legitimate.

As for Vince, I don't think you have it right. That MarkWalker agrees should be taken as a worrying sign, given his history on issues like this.

Positive discrimination is necessary to counter-act inherrent, structural and cultural racism. People are in denial to suggest that that kind of racism doesn't exist. As for the example given for policing, because of gender, racial, and all other discrimiation, the police must take these into account.

It's all very well arguing that no-one's race or gender or whatever should be considered, which is very fine in principle, but the case of France, (where the law refuses on principle to allow anyone make those very distinctions, whether in employment or whatever), shows us that simply doesn't work. Just because the law doesn't recognise gender or ethnic background, doesn't mean people don't. They do, even if they're not necessarily one of the 1 million who voted BNP.

Actually, I would. Why shouldn't you expext them to speak good enough English for their job? In order to gain a Taxi License you are tested on routes and the Highway Code, which means your English is good enough to understand and answer these questions. If I got in a taxi, as these customers have done, and the driver couldn't understand my instructions, I would question whether they are actually the person authorised to drive the taxi.

markwalker

teagar wrote:

markwalker wrote:

jesus you never stop being a pc appologist do you

What's your point?

Im doing a job advert this afternoon and im going to advertise must have fluent English language skills. The role is a customer facing one and if you think thats racist you can duck my sick.

I intend to dismiss all applications that are in pidgeon English or from Africans. is that racist or am i being a bigot? No is the simple answer.
I want my customers to have a positive communication experience with my company end of.

Is it racist to advertise a feature such as speaks English? no, its a statement of fact. Wether you think people cant make a decision to chose one taxi over another on the basis that one advertises speaking english is irrelevant. People do and if there werent an issue it wouldnt be being done would it?

Now crawl off to your hessian duvet eat some carrots and MTFU

teagar

Vince.

As I see it, the Direct/ Indirect distinction you make is misleading. There's a reasonable amount of negative discrimination which is implied and assumed in various discourses, which is what my understanding of what 'indirect' racism is.

There doesn't need to be a 'purpose' to racism as such. The issue is not the purpose, but the existence of it.


Indirect racism is not, what is usually termed 'positive' discrimination. I got slightly confused with the distinction you made there! Re-reading what you put, if you swap indirect racism for 'positive' discrimination, then it mkes more sense...

the question is then whether you belive that the principle that there should be no distinction drawn on grounds of race, directly or otherwise, is more important than the freedom for taxi drivers to advertise that they speak english (and customers chose on this basis too).

What I was saying here, was that while in theory and abstraction that's all well and good, but in practice, you must be aware of the inherrent, latent racism, and counter-act it. Hence the example of France, which in its laws acts out the idea that no distinction shuld be drawn universally, and as a result, has much stronger racial tensions and issues than the UK

teagar

Aggieboy wrote:

Actually, I would. Why shouldn't you expext them to speak good enough English for their job? In order to gain a Taxi License you are tested on routes and the Highway Code, which means your English is good enough to understand and answer these questions. If I got in a taxi, as these customers have done, and the driver couldn't understand my instructions, I would question whether they are actually the person authorised to drive the taxi.

If you agree you must have the necesary English to pass the test, and the said cabbie has a legitimate license, doesn't that make the badge redundant?

In which case, that suggests there must be another reason why some cabbies feel it necessary to use such a badge.

markwalker

Teagar youre like that character from Viz hippy / modern parents its brilliant!

Aggieboy

teagar wrote:

Aggieboy wrote:

Actually, I would. Why shouldn't you expext them to speak good enough English for their job? In order to gain a Taxi License you are tested on routes and the Highway Code, which means your English is good enough to understand and answer these questions. If I got in a taxi, as these customers have done, and the driver couldn't understand my instructions, I would question whether they are actually the person authorised to drive the taxi.

If you agree you must have the necesary English to pass the test, and the said cabbie has a legitimate license, doesn't that make the badge redundant?

In which case, that suggests there must be another reason why some cabbies feel it necessary to use such a badge.

That's my point though. If they had sufficient English to pass the tests, but the person I'm conversing with couldn't understand simple instructions, I'm going to question whether that is the person who took the test or should be holding the license.