"English Spoken"

bails87

markwalker wrote:

I intend to dismiss all applications that are from Africans. is that racist or am i being a bigot?

Yes, yes it is, incredibly so!

Edited for politeness, you know what us lefties are like, never want to offend anyone.

teagar

markwalker wrote:

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

Pathetic low life abuse aside, I think you answered your own question wrongly. I thought I'd highlight where you made your mistake. What company do you work for?

teagar

Aggieboy wrote:

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.

In that case, why not support stricter licensing, rather than a 'badge' that can easily be used as a form of bigoted discrimination?

markwalker

Im going to ignore applications from Africans in favour of Europeans. so what its not a difficult role to fill i dont need to look outside of that group. In fact im certain theres a law that requires me to do that. Id rather look after my own first.

teagar

markwalker wrote:

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

Coming from anyone else, i'd take not.

From you, it's a compliment.


You've got me wrong anyway. I'm ravey davey gravey according to all my friends.

Anyway, where do you work?

VinceEager

teagar wrote:

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

indirect racism is not the same as positive discrimination....

positive discrimination is where you discriminate in order to redress existing inequalities:

so for example, a university admission system may be biased in favour of students from poor homes (so deliberatly discriminating against students from wealthy homes) in order to redress a balance of poor / wealthy students currently favouring wealthy students. it's discrimination, but for a 'positve' effect, namely equality.

indirect racial discrimination is where a person is discriminated against on any given grounds, but where such grounds are inevitably linked to their race. the purpose of the discrimination is unrelated to race, but the effect is inevitably so.

if you do not recognise the difference and accept that in certain circumstances indirect discrimination can be justified on utilitarian grounds you bind yourself to an extreem position that results in real, practical difficulties.

consider the example of a job advertised for a hill walking guide. one of the requirments is that you are able to walk for long periods in difficult terrain. this requirment necessarily puts disabled people with no legs at a disadvantage....the purpose of the discrimination is not to exclude disabled people, but the effect inevitably is.
would you really wish for an employer to be forced to employ a person in a wheelchair to guide hill walkers across mountains etc purely on the basis of a principle that people should not be discriminated against?

i don't doubt the existence of inherent, latent racism, and indeed this should be combatted, but not by adopting an absolute and incredibly inflexible position that any form of decision that puts certain classes of people at a disadvantage is wrong.

it may well be that what i have called direct racism (something that is purposefully racist) often hides behind indirect racism, but this isn't a convincing argument not to recognise the existence of possible justifications for indirect racism.

furthermore, your extreem position is likely to inflame racial tensions by putting issues of race into contexts where they never existed in the first place.

teagar

Vince - to save space I won't quote!

We're pretty much in agreement - i just didn't read what you wrote well enough (and was thrown by the MarkWalker second, which, as you can see, is no good thing).

Only issue I would draw from what you put would be to say the disablied walker analogy is not a good one for race. Yes, a wheelchair person can't go up a medieval bell tower with only stairs. I can't think of an equivalant for race?

DaSy

In a customer facing role such as a taxi driver working in England, surely fluent English is a basic requirement. To require this doesn't discriminate on race, as speaking English fluently is a skill anyone can learn regardless of nationality.

My wife speaks fluent German and Spanish, and has worked in companies where this was a requirement, she is British, but still got the job as she had the required skill.

These drivers may be pointing out something that should be addressed by the licensing agency, but by highlighting this issue the best way they could may mean that the correct people start to see the shortfall and address it.

Mark Walker - your statements are blatantly racist, I'm far from a pc type, but that is just blatant discrimination in it's most basic form. You employ the person most suited to the job on required skills and suitability, race should not be a deciding factor.

VinceEager

teagar wrote:

Vince - to save space I won't quote!

We're pretty much in agreement - i just didn't read what you wrote well enough (and was thrown by the MarkWalker second, which, as you can see, is no good thing).

Only issue I would draw from what you put would be to say the disablied walker analogy is not a good one for race. Yes, a wheelchair person can't go up a medieval bell tower with only stairs. I can't think of an equivalant for race?

yes, that is the weakness in the argument, and there are perhaps few circumstances which could justify indirect racial discrimination - the only point i originally made was that in theory the distinction should be recognised.

markwalker

DaSy wrote:

In a customer facing role such as a taxi driver working in England, surely fluent English is a basic requirement. To require this doesn't discriminate on race, as speaking English fluently is a skill anyone can learn regardless of nationality.

My wife speaks fluent German and Spanish, and has worked in companies where this was a requirement, she is British, but still got the job as she had the required skill.

These drivers may be pointing out something that should be addressed by the licensing agency, but by highlighting this issue the best way they could may mean that the correct people start to see the shortfall and address it.

Mark Walker - your statements are blatantly racist, I'm far from a pc type, but that is just blatant discrimination in it's most basic form. You employ the person most suited to the job on required skills and suitability, race should not be a deciding factor.

race isnt a factor fluent spoken English is and its not racist to support EU applicants ahead of those from other parts of the world. it is in fact a legal requirement.

markwalker

teagar wrote:

Vince - to save space I won't quote!

We're pretty much in agreement - i just didn't read what you wrote well enough (and was thrown by the MarkWalker second, which, as you can see, is no good thing).

Only issue I would draw from what you put would be to say the disablied walker analogy is not a good one for race. Yes, a wheelchair person can't go up a medieval bell tower with only stairs. I can't think of an equivalant for race?

Thats your problem Teagar you jump in without thinking and it diminishes your argument and any moral high ground you think you have.

downfader

VinceEager wrote:

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?

Well I read your post and understood it, it made sense and was relevant imo to the discussion. I agree with you about indirect racism - the cabbies probably dont mean any harm but yes it will encourage a discrimination here (based hopefully on communication)

I've worked with a lot of immigrants. They're hard working, polite and I've never had trouble understanding them whether from the Philipines, India or Poland. However I have had problems with call centers understanding the operator (perhaps down to the line as well as the thick accent which is less likely to take on local memes you find when speaking person to person)

I'll say this again, I think the local Council has contributed to the situation by not addressing complaints and issues around communication. The sad thing now is the typical right wing plonker down here is now taking onboard and using it to make a pointless point.

passout

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).

Well put.

It's basically having a go at immigrants in my opinion. Anyway Taxi Drivers don't need much English - they just need to know place names and take directions. Unless you really want to have a converstion about 'what's wrong with this country' of course.

That said I wonder if this stupid idea really warrants council action.

teagar

markwalker wrote:

teagar wrote:

Vince - to save space I won't quote!

We're pretty much in agreement - i just didn't read what you wrote well enough (and was thrown by the MarkWalker second, which, as you can see, is no good thing).

Only issue I would draw from what you put would be to say the disablied walker analogy is not a good one for race. Yes, a wheelchair person can't go up a medieval bell tower with only stairs. I can't think of an equivalant for race?

Thats your problem Teagar you jump in without thinking and it diminishes your argument and any moral high ground you think you have.

I corrected myself. What else d'ya want me to do?

At least I don't throw pathetic insults. Anyway, I seriously want to know who employs you.

teagar

downfader wrote:

Well I read your post and understood it, it made sense and was relevant imo to the discussion. I agree with you about indirect racism - the cabbies probably dont mean any harm but yes it will encourage a discrimination here (based hopefully on communication)

I've worked with a lot of immigrants. They're hard working, polite and I've never had trouble understanding them whether from the Philipines, India or Poland. However I have had problems with call centers understanding the operator (perhaps down to the line as well as the thick accent which is less likely to take on local memes you find when speaking person to person)

I'll say this again, I think the local Council has contributed to the situation by not addressing complaints and issues around communication. The sad thing now is the typical right wing plonker down here is now taking onboard and using it to make a pointless point.

Isn't that the argument against the badges? That this is exactly what will happen? The issue here is that the cabbie licensing is not strict enough on the fluency of English, not the badge!

markwalker

teagar wrote:

markwalker wrote:

teagar wrote:

Vince - to save space I won't quote!

We're pretty much in agreement - i just didn't read what you wrote well enough (and was thrown by the MarkWalker second, which, as you can see, is no good thing).

Only issue I would draw from what you put would be to say the disablied walker analogy is not a good one for race. Yes, a wheelchair person can't go up a medieval bell tower with only stairs. I can't think of an equivalant for race?

Thats your problem Teagar you jump in without thinking and it diminishes your argument and any moral high ground you think you have.

I corrected myself. What else d'ya want me to do?

At least I don't throw pathetic insults. Anyway, I seriously want to know who employs you.

I employ me.

are you going to tell??? oooh please dont teagar pretty pretty please

VinceEager

passout wrote:

Anyway Taxi Drivers don't need much English - they just need to know place names and take directions. Unless you really want to have a converstion about 'what's wrong with this country' of course.

haha - you can imagine the agument....."a basic part of being an effective cab driver is being able to converse in a racist manner with your customer....if you cant speak english you can say racist things ergo you can't be an effective can driver...."

PBo

hopper1 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:

I'm not saying i don't believe that you saw this in your local news, Hopper, but I'm sure that the real story will not be this at all.......

PBo

markwalker wrote:

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.

I intend to dismiss all applications that are in pidgeon English or from Africans.

mark - totally agree with your right to weed out those whose english is not suffiicient to carry out the role.

pidgin (not pidgeon, btw - just fyi not trying to win an argument by being a grammar nazi ) english probably is a fair indicator. However, the blanket statement "africans" is not. e.g some africans may have been educated in this country and speak very good english. this kind of statement is essentially racist. pidgin english is a valid discriminator, their continent of origin is not! Where you including white south africans/ zimbabweans in this? Or only the black africans :roll:

Im going to ignore applications from Africans in favour of Europeans. so what its not a difficult role to fill i dont need to look outside of that group. In fact im certain theres a law that requires me to do that. .

If the role is easy to fill, then employment law almost certainly will prevent you employing an African anyway as I'm sure an EU national can fill the role. But is a thick spanish/french/italian accent inherently easier to understand than an African? Why not ignore them at the first cut on principal too. - but then, that's not the racist basis of your original argument is it?

Id rather look after my own first

and that is a whole debate in itself! Who are your own? Family? English? British? pure white/north europeans? All europeans, including those olive skinned mediteranian types? What about Slavs?

Ever see that programme where some Lord Whitey of Albionshire was DNA tested and was only a small % pure anglo saxon?

btw - surely there is some equivalent to Godwins law wrt the use of the phrase PC?

markwalker

Pbo

Its not discrimination based on colour but ability to to do the job.

I never mentioned colour those racist overtones have been added to try and demonstrate racism which isnt there. Youre right of course EU nationals have equal right to apply for this role and their applications are encouraged and welcome. The myriad of other applications are neither required or welcome

Thanks for spotting my typos

passout

Why aren't they 'welcome'?

markwalker

passout wrote:

Why aren't they 'welcome'?

The applications arent welcome because they generate more work and cost to deal with effectivley. Time and money that could be spent on some other part of the business or even cycling.

cee

I believe there is some confusion over the support of applications of EU nationals over non-eu nationals.

It is not really a legal issue....more of an immigration issue.

So.
Non-EU national still in their country of origin vs Eu national still in their country of origin...
The non-eu national would not be given a work visa in the UK unless you can prove that you have exhausted all of Europe for the job. in this regard...markwalker is correct.

However....if that non-eu national is already in the UK and has entitlement to work....then they must be given equal consideration alongside any other applicants who also have entitlement to work.....

You cannot discount those appliations on the basis of the country of origin.

ta.
c

lae

^ Yep. So with that in mind, markwalker, are you going to change your recruitment policies?

~~~

What really makes my blood boil is when people say 'You're in our country, so speak our language!' It's racism and you can't deny it, and if you do try to deny it, you're stupid (not to put too fine a point on it). If a native english speaker happens to know of someone who prefers to speak chinese, then so what, it doesn't affect their lives in any way, so why do they care? If they are a UK national people can hardly say 'this is OUR country', as in, its not the country of the immigrants. If those people cared about communication then they'd make an effort to speak the language of the immigrants; instead it seems painfully obvious that anyone who supports this kind of message is just trying to make it intentionally difficult for immigrant societies and traditional british societies to mix. If people don't want immigrant societies to separate themselves in the way that they unfortunately tend to do, then those people should try to make it as easy as they can for the immigrants to integrate in the first place, rather than alienating them. The wording of it is just disgusting, too. If someone wanted to set up free english help groups for immigrants, that's great - you could say something like 'We're all in our country together, so lets try to help each other communicate.' But there's a real interplay between 'you' and 'us/our' - the aggressiveness is basically just saying to those people 'We aren't going to do anything to help you, because you're new and different, and you have to play by our rules even though we're probably in a much better situation than you'.

Like I've said before, the moral collapse in this country in the last couple of years has seriously made me think about emigrating when I graduate. Maybe now the recession is receding and the UK is starting to prosper again, we'll start going forwards instead of backwards.

cee

frinkmakesyouthink wrote:

What really makes my blood boil is when people say 'You're in our country, so speak our language!'

me too.

of course the irony is that there are plenty of british folks who live all over the world and still expect the worl to speak english...

take spain for example...how many brits work there for summers or longer...and how many of them have what you would call any kind of grasp on the local language?

markwalker

frinkmakesyouthink wrote:

^ Yep. So with that in mind, markwalker, are you going to change your recruitment policies?

our rules even though we're probably in a much better situation than you'.

Like I've said before, the moral collapse in this country in the last couple of years has seriously made me think about emigrating when I graduate. Maybe now the recession is receding and the UK is starting to prosper again, we'll start going forwards instead of backwards.

no im not changing my policies and the purility and naievity of your view is not acceptable just because you still havent graduated and got broader experience.

And as a matter of fact learning the language of your host country is key if you want to integrate.

teagar

markwalker wrote:

frinkmakesyouthink wrote:

^ Yep. So with that in mind, markwalker, are you going to change your recruitment policies?

our rules even though we're probably in a much better situation than you'.

Like I've said before, the moral collapse in this country in the last couple of years has seriously made me think about emigrating when I graduate. Maybe now the recession is receding and the UK is starting to prosper again, we'll start going forwards instead of backwards.

no im not changing my policies and the purility and naievity of your view is not acceptable just because you still havent graduated and got broader experience.

And as a matter of fact learning the language of your host country is key if you want to integrate.

From experience, it wouldn't be an issue if it wasn't for bigotted people like you. It's not "host" anyway. Immigrants are not guests. They live there. It's their home. They, rightly, since they are human beings, have the same rights as you.

markwalker

cee wrote:

frinkmakesyouthink wrote:

What really makes my blood boil is when people say 'You're in our country, so speak our language!'

me too.

of course the irony is that there are plenty of british folks who live all over the world and still expect the worl to speak english...

take spain for example...how many brits work there for summers or longer...and how many of them have what you would call any kind of grasp on the local language?

My mistake, we should spend millions accomodating those who cant be arsed to make an effort. yes we should translate the housing and job benifit information, never mind the operations lets spend the money on translating for people whove lived here for 30 years and who know they can immerse themselves in communities supported protected and positivley discriminated for.

Oh silly me we do already, no need to learn English theyll change what they do for us.

cee

markwalker

my point was that this is exactly the attitude of many brits who live abroad, but yet can't speak the language of the country. they expect every spanish person to in spain to speak english.

markwalker

cee wrote:

markwalker

my point was that this is exactly the attitude of many brits who live abroad, but yet can't speak the language of the country. they expect every spanish person to in spain to speak english.

Yes i got that point and the irony ofit is not lost either,

My mistake, I was addressing the comment re the outrage caused when some people ask for immigrants to this country to lean the language.