O/T. The Government's handling of Covid

[Andy_Faber]

Agree with most of what you say, but on children returning to schools, its got to happen, much worse for the children to miss more education and roam the streets not socially distancing and the risk to teachers? Got to be lower than medics, retail staff, transport staff et al who have worked through the pandemic without significantly higher death rates.

I accept there may be some particularly vulnerable teachers who will need special measures, but vulnerable staff in other employment such as retail and transport who meet hundreds if not thousands of different people everyday from different locations are back at work and seem to be coping, so managing far less pupils who are known and who come from the same place each day should be simple and in fact it is because other countries have done it.

However, doubt this government will be able to manage it!

If the government want to know how to do it, well there are plenty of countries who managed it in May, so go and see how Denmark (as one example) are doing it!

Not particularly pro- or anti- govt, I've been checking out the BBC website, pretty informative and looks at stuff from a lot of angles. Sorry if y'all already check this out https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51768274

[ramAnag]

Not particularly pro- or anti- govt, I've been checking out the BBC website, pretty informative and looks at stuff from a lot of angles. Sorry if y'all already check this out https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51768274

Wow...AF has something positive to say about the BBC shocker.

[Andy_Faber]

Wow...AF has something positive to say about the BBC shocker.

I'm pretty even-handed about stuff rA, BBC produce some real quality as I've said in the past, I'm just disappointed at their obsession with diversity as you know. The issue I raised about the BBC 'Doughnutting' BAME faces into every possible feature has now become endemic, and hasn't gone unnoticed by my friends 'the silent majority', broadly non-racist folk who are just ****ed off with the practise which is actually in breach of the BBC's charter

[ramAnag]

I'm pretty even-handed about stuff rA, BBC produce some real quality as I've said in the past, I'm just disappointed at their obsession with diversity as you know. The issue I raised about the BBC 'Doughnutting' BAME faces into every possible feature has now become endemic, and hasn't gone unnoticed by my friends 'the silent majority', broadly non-racist folk who are just ****ed off with the practise which is actually in breach of the BBC's charter

I know you are...there again there have been times when you’ve run he who shall not be mentioned close in terms of condemnation of the dear old BEEB.

[swaledale]

I'm pretty even-handed about stuff rA, BBC produce some real quality as I've said in the past, I'm just disappointed at their obsession with diversity as you know. The issue I raised about the BBC 'Doughnutting' BAME faces into every possible feature has now become endemic, and hasn't gone unnoticed by my friends 'the silent majority', broadly non-racist folk who are just ****ed off with the practise which is actually in breach of the BBC's charter

I find it strange that you get worked up about this! Firstly I've not noticed this, so some examples of what to me seems a very sweeping assertion would be helpful. Secondly how can one be "broadly non racist"? You are either are or your not! Of course there are varying degrees, but generally if BAME TV presenters or people on the screen pisses you off, I'd say that points in one direction.

Not sure why you think its an issue, I'm more concerned about how good a presenter is at what they do, not bothered whether they are BAME or not, but maybe I don't see it as an issue? Shouldn't all media try to reflect the mix of the society they are operating in?

I have noticed more obviously disabled presenters and that I applaud, the more representative of actual society we see on the media the better.

[MadAmster]

I find it strange that you get worked up about this! Firstly I've not noticed this, so some examples of what to me seems a very sweeping assertion would be helpful. Secondly how can one be "broadly non racist"? You are either are or your not! Of course there are varying degrees, but generally if BAME TV presenters or people on the screen pisses you off, I'd say that points in one direction.

Not sure why you think its an issue, I'm more concerned about how good a presenter is at what they do, not bothered whether they are BAME or not, but maybe I don't see it as an issue? Shouldn't all media try to reflect the mix of the society they are operating in?

I have noticed more obviously disabled presenters and that I applaud, the more representative of actual society we see on the media the better.

Prior to going into teaching, I was a senior IT Manager. I had run quite a few recruitment drives. Advertised vacancies to replace staff who had left. Read thousands of application letters and their accompanying CVs. I invited the best candidates, on paper, for an interview. I then chose the best candidate(s) to fill the vacancy(ies). I didn't give a rat's ass if they were male, female, Caucasian, BAME or whatever. I was purely interested in a) their suitability to perform the job to the levels I and the company required and b) whether they fit into the team. To help with that, part of the interview was conducted with members of the team present and taking an active part.

As a result we ended up with a broad spread of characters, introvert, extrovert, thinkers, doers............ and a spread of gender, colour etc.

If I'd ended up with a department of black, lesbian, catholic invalids I would be happy in the knowledge that I had hired the best available candidate at the time of hiring. I know for a fact that my gaffer wanted me to hire the best available. That was my job and that was what I did. I am actually amazed that others don't do the same.

After retiring from teaching I did 2 days a week for 2 years working at a friend's IT recruitment company vetting application letters, CVs, doing first interviews and running the best candidates past the client before deciding who would be invited for interview. Again, I was only interested in how good they were for the job in hand. The final decision was the client's but I gave them the best of the applicants to choose from. That approach saw us (a small company of 5 people) take some clients off large national and multinational agencies. We had the personal touch and the clients were happy with what we sent them. To cut down on staff, the larger companies vetted CVs by passing the CVs through software looking for keywords. Their agents had no IT background and couldn't understand the CVs if they tried. We were all IT professionals and we knew if someone was trying to pull the wool over our eyes. One time I had a CV that looked perfect for the job. I then studied it and the applicant was claiming to have used some products but could show no evidence of where he had learned how to use/code it. I invited him for a "1st interview". For 20 minutes he had the idea it was going well and I was "buying" his very well rehearsed backstory. I then asked a few hard but fair questions regarding where he'd had, for instance, the training for CICS and a couple of technical questions. He was stymied. If I'd sent him to the client, I am 99% certain they would have hired him and that would have damaged our reputation.

Why hire 2nd or 3rd best just because they fit a certain demographic? Best for the job has always been my mantra.

[swaledale]

Prior to going into teaching, I was a senior IT Manager. I had run quite a few recruitment drives. Advertised vacancies to replace staff who had left. Read thousands of application letters and their accompanying CVs. I invited the best candidates, on paper, for an interview. I then chose the best candidate(s) to fill the vacancy(ies). I didn't give a rat's ass if they were male, female, Caucasian, BAME or whatever. I was purely interested in a) their suitability to perform the job to the levels I and the company required and b) whether they fit into the team. To help with that, part of the interview was conducted with members of the team present and taking an active part.

As a result we ended up with a broad spread of characters, introvert, extrovert, thinkers, doers............ and a spread of gender, colour etc.

If I'd ended up with a department of black, lesbian, catholic invalids I would be happy in the knowledge that I had hired the best available candidate at the time of hiring. I know for a fact that my gaffer wanted me to hire the best available. That was my job and that was what I did. I am actually amazed that others don't do the same.

After retiring from teaching I did 2 days a week for 2 years working at a friend's IT recruitment company vetting application letters, CVs, doing first interviews and running the best candidates past the client before deciding who would be invited for interview. Again, I was only interested in how good they were for the job in hand. The final decision was the client's but I gave them the best of the applicants to choose from. That approach saw us (a small company of 5 people) take some clients off large national and multinational agencies. We had the personal touch and the clients were happy with what we sent them. To cut down on staff, the larger companies vetted CVs by passing the CVs through software looking for keywords. Their agents had no IT background and couldn't understand the CVs if they tried. We were all IT professionals and we knew if someone was trying to pull the wool over our eyes. One time I had a CV that looked perfect for the job. I then studied it and the applicant was claiming to have used some products but could show no evidence of where he had learned how to use/code it. I invited him for a "1st interview". For 20 minutes he had the idea it was going well and I was "buying" his very well rehearsed backstory. I then asked a few hard but fair questions regarding where he'd had, for instance, the training for CICS and a couple of technical questions. He was stymied. If I'd sent him to the client, I am 99% certain they would have hired him and that would have damaged our reputation.

Why hire 2nd or 3rd best just because they fit a certain demographic? Best for the job has always been my mantra.

It should be and having done years in assisting companies recruit, develop and retain staff it is supposed to be the aim, however easier said than done sometimes. There is a tendency for people to want to recruit employees who fit their own subconscious perception of what the ideal employee looks and behaves like. So if your interview panel or Board is composed of middle aged white males, that tends in most cases to be what they recruit as senior staff who then continue the process.