Click to get your own widget

Friday, August 28, 2009


Via the Taxpayer's Alliance article on all the non-jobs comes this piece of taxpayer funded negatively productive nonsense
you will lead on the development and implementation of the Corporate Equality and Diversity strategy and associated action plans.

As the leader of a newly established team, you will motivate and inspire all employees and stakeholders about equality and diversity. Your communication skills will enable you to build credibility and raise the profile of equality and diversity
further on the advert confirms that
In line with the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 this post is politically restricted. We are committed to equality and fairness at work - applications are encouraged from all diverse communities.

To put it another way NO WHITES NEED APPLY.

How fortunate we have an Equality & Human Rights Commission to bring this rogue employer to heel, after all if they are going to jump on a small voluntary group like the BNP for not accepting membership dues from certain ethnicites, without any evidence whatsoever that they want to join think how much harder they will jump on an organisation with such power (ie governing) who hand out jobs on a racial basis.

After all they are commited to equal rights for all.

Or am I being naive?

UPSATE Fred on how special treatment for diverse people "it often injures the people it is supposed to help; that it succeeds in antagonizing whites without benefiting blacks; that it has become more of an ideological battleground than a practical program; and, finally, that it is a fraud, serving principally to benefit groups that grow fat from racial programs"

Labels: ,

Neil, on this you are not being naive, but a little misguided. "Politically Restricted" certainly does have a "Big Brother" connotation to its name if you don't know what it really means. This is especially true for a post like "Head Of Diversity/Equality". However, "Politically Restricted" means nothing of the sort to which you state. For a fuller explanation go to
In my last post, I forgot to state that I'm with the Taxpayer's Alliance on this. It's a ridiculous waste of money. Maybe the Derbyshire Fire Service should keep one eye whether or not there is discrimination, but surely Derbyshire Fire Service is not THAT large an organisation? I'm sure they already have a Personnel/HR department that should monitor this, already.

I also not that the Taxpayer's Alliance didn't pick up the same nuances as you.
You are right that by the definition given there of "politically restricted" it is simply not councillors or activists of political parties, being designed to ensure political neutrality.

I suggest that it is not being used that way & that the writer of the ad either doesn't know or doesn't care about the legal nicities since ensuring the employee comes from a "diverse" ethnicity is hardly a step towards guaranteeing they will be, by UK standards, politically neutral, rather the opposite.
I used to work in the Public Sector, and I can assure you that job advertisement wordings are considered very carefully. Also note that job level/band that the (pointless) job is in, then compare it to the "lge" link I gave. It matches a "Politically Restricted" post.
Also in your reply above, you've used a euphemism, "Politically Neutral", and conflated it with a very precise and specific term, "Politically Restricted".
This is my 3rd post on this thread: Could you please publish my second.
If it was considered carefully then it follows that the misuse of the term "politically restricted" along with refernce to the Act, was deliberate.

As you pointed out, it means not available to councillors & party activists, but is thus being misused to give the impression that the "no whites" rule is authorised by that Act & definitiion. That means the EHRC & indeed police should be even more interested, but I doubt they will.

Thank you for that. "Politically neutral" was not intended as a euphemism but to indicate a balanced or average political position (at least within the British population). I have only received these 2 posts from you but you may resend the other.
The "missing" post was me agreeing with the Taxpayers' Alliance that this is a total Non-Job; the duties of this non-job should be handled by an existing Personnel/HR dept. The Derbyshire Fire Service is not THAT large an organisation to warrant such a position. In fact, I think there are very few, if any, organisations that warrant such a position.

You say "Politically Restricted" is misused to purposely code for "Non-Whites only". I say it has been used correctly and precisely. It does not say "Non-Whites only" to me, but, it appears, that it does for you. I suggest that they are looking for someone already in a Local Gov position, who would understand the term "Politically Restricted".
Think of it as a shibboleth. Public bodies are not the only one to use shibboleths in their adverts: It helps with the initial long-listing. I should point out that I also used to work in an Executive Search company, although that was until 12 years ago, and I can assure you that this "Shibboleth" practice is quite common.

In this particualr case, if you don't know what "Politically Restricted" means, you will probably not apply, and if you do apply and show ignorance of "Politically Restricted", you will not make the long-list. This is quite deliberate and saves trawling through hundreds of rubbish CVs and Application Forms, but not for the reasons you suggested. Neither did the Taxpayers' Alliance suggest "Non-Whites only". Do you think they would let that slide if they though that was the case?
The important part of this is that the job is a No Whites sort of job for which only "diverse" people are invited.

I'm sure you are right that the use of the term is perfectly legal. However the effect of placing it just before the ethnics only bit certainly gives the impression that this is justified by the Act. That could be unintentional but as you say these ads are worded with care.
There is no "Ethnics Only" bit. I am suggesting that this is not just legal, but a precise wording to weed out potential applicants who do not already work in a local government-type position. I can read this advert with the eyes of someone who has worked in Executive Search, albeit not for Public Bodies, and I see exactly what their thinking is and it's not "No Non-Whites". The fact that you (and probably others) think it does mean that suggests that you would not be an ideal candidate for this position. Neither would I. That doesn't matter. This makes the wording quite good as you would not apply. I will repeat that I agree with the Taxpayers' Alliance that this job should not exist in the first place, but that was not the thrust of your article. Your article suggests that there's a racist policy being applied to this filling of this position. In actuality, this may or may not be the case. You nor I could know, even if we suspect. However, I can only repeat that in this case, you cannot determine that from this advert. This pay grade and this seniority of position in local government is "Politically Restricted" and that is a good thing. I do think that there should be a better name for "Politically Restricted", but it's there for better or worse, and used as a shibboleth.
"applications are encouraged from all diverse communities"

I don't see how that can mean anything other than that they are not welcome from whites. Whether you know that active party supporters cannot get the job is irrelevent (actually I suspect virtually all diversities with "experience of working with senior stakeholders" & public speaking skills & degrees in a relevent subject applying will be about as politically uncommitted as Barak Obama).
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

British Blogs.