NHS trusts discriminate against white job applicants by manipulating interview shortlists in favour of black and ethnic minority candidates. The Telegraph has the story.
NHS England documents encourage the use of the Rooney Rule – an American football policy that makes it mandatory for ethnic minorities to be shortlisted for interviews if they apply.
Other so-called inclusive recruitment practices range from making managers justify hiring white British nationals to using race as a “tie-breaker”.
An NHS hospital in Liverpool admitted it had previously used “positive discrimination” to shortlist applicants from minority backgrounds.
The disclosure is the latest in a growing row over ‘racist’ hiring policies being pursued by public sector services following a decision by West Yorkshire Police to temporarily block applications from white Britons.
It is likely to cast a spotlight on organisations that attempt to give minorities priority during the interview process, particularly by focusing on how candidates are shortlisted.
A Tory source described the NHS as seeking to “discriminate against applicants based on their race”.
Grant Shapps, the former Tory Cabinet minister, said the “tick-box” exercise was “entrenching racial quotas”.
He said: “This kind of tick-box policy is patronising, divisive, and fundamentally wrong. Jobs should be awarded on merit, not skin colour.
“We should be building a colour-blind society, not entrenching racial quotas under the banner of ‘diversity’.”
Practices to promote diverse shortlists stem from the 2010 Equality Act, which made it legal to take “positive action” to support the recruitment of ethnic minorities.
The act, drawn up by Baroness Harman, the then Labour minister, has been seized upon by HR professionals who want to diversify their workforces.
Positive discrimination – where a minority candidate is explicitly favoured over a white candidate who is better qualified – is illegal in the UK.
Supporters of the Rooney Rule and similar measures argue they do not amount to discrimination because the interview process is the same for everyone on the shortlist.
Neil O’Brien, a Tory MP and former health minister, said public services had been infected by “race-based hiring policies” that mean “people are chosen based on the colour of their skin”.
He said: “The people who put these policies in place lump together every non-white group as if they are all the same, and will favour someone from a privileged background better than someone who has overcome all kinds of obstacles, as long as they have the right skin colour.”
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
There can never be anything positive about discrimination. What is the point in having an Equality Act if it doesn’t protect white people? It is as nonsensical as it is moronic.
Scott gets ‘Comment of the Day’;
”When the native sons and daughters of Britain are cast aside in their own land, it is not “progress”, it is betrayal.
Racial quotas are not justice, they are replacement policies wrapped in the language of virtue.
Merit is sacrificed, identity is criminalised, and the British worker is told to sit down, shut up and apologise.
This isn’t equality, it’s engineered submission by the cowards who serve globalist rot.
We were never meant to beg for permission to exist, we were born to lead, build, and protect.
Stand tall, Britain.
Your ancestors forged an empire.
Now forge your resistance.” Scott Lewis.
Thanks for this post Mogs.
There is no such thing as equality. Not equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity, not equality of anything.
Equality is a concept used for social engineering, for control, for manipulation.
My understanding of equality is that there has been no discrimination taken place. But not only that, if a job or course has only one set of entry criteria for all, irrespective of an individual’s personal characteristics, and that is standard that a candidate must meet at the point of application, then you can’t really say fairer than that with regards to ‘equal opportunities’, in my opinion.
DEI and equality/meritocracy cannot co-exist. You adhere to one at the expense of the other. What you’re seeing in the UK is a load of organisations focusing on DEI ( inequality, discrimination ), the better candidates being passed over because merit is being kicked to the kerb. If criteria was ‘one size fits all’ then nobody can possibly complain they’ve been hard done by or treat unfairly because it’s a level playing field, and so to me, that’s equality.
The meaning of words has been so corrupted that we have lost our ability to think straight. (As Orwell warned, this is a deliberate strategy of socialists.)
We all discriminate all the time. The moment you are selecting people for a job you are, by definition, discriminating. By intelligence, achievements, by race, gender, by beauty (of you’re looking for a model), by athletic ability (if you’re looking for an athlete).
Where is the merit in being born with a higher intelligence? But would you deny a medical school recruiting the brightest?
The mistake is to think discrimination is bad. Discrimination isn’t just good. It’s essential.
Only the mediocre fear discrimination.
Not sure what happened there, so I’ll start again…just so there’s no confusion over definitions;
”treating a person or particular group of people differently, especially in a worse way from the way in which you treat other people, because of their race, gender sexuality etc..” Cambridge Dictionary
How can employers be discriminating against people when selecting for a job if there is a set criteria which is ‘essential’ for all to meet in order to even be considered for the post?
For instance, airlines have a set requirement when it comes to minimum height of cabin crew applicants, and they also require cabin crew who are able-bodied. The rationale for these is obvious. But would somebody with a disability be entitled to sue for discrimination because they accuse the airline of ‘ableism’, or a shorter than average person sue because they didn’t meet the min height requirement? Of course not, because these were set out in the job description as ‘essential entry requirements’, therefore cannot be said to be discriminatory.
The fire service requires candidates to have 20:20 vision without glasses/contact lenses, also to pass a fitness test. Would somebody who wears glasses or is obese be able to sue the fire brigade for discrimination because they didn’t fulfill these basic but essential criteria set out on the job application? Course not, because it’s not discrimination. There is rationale behind these requirements. It’s highly unlikely that anybody who does not meet the basic, essential criteria for a position would even waste their time applying in the first place.
A university having minimum exam results set out as part of their entry onto a higher education course is not by definition discriminating against students who have just fallen short of these grades. So no, discrimination is never good. You either fulfill the entry requirements for a job/course or you don’t. No leniency or ‘work-arounds’ should be shown to anybody, then there can be no whinging about alleged unfairness/discrimination.
You literally could not pay me enough to work in the NHS.
I’ll stick my neck out and bet that white woketards, who loathe themselves and others who look like them, are the same people that think whites cannot be the victims of racism ( we are the ‘perpetual oppressors’ ), and are the same people who think a man can be a woman just because he says he’s one. I honestly don’t think you can buy into just one aspect of the woke mind virus, I think you have to be all in. DEI is supposed to be divisive and it’s having the desired effect. Sinister AF.
Quite right.
Almost as if it is a tool from the toolbox of divide et impera.
As a people the destruction of dei is essential if we are to survive .
DEI dellenda est.
An obsession with DEI ensures standards are seriously slipping;
”Greater Manchester Police has been criticised for a diversity drive that a whistleblower has said encourages those with no GCSEs and little English to apply.
A former police recruiter from one of Britain’s biggest police forces has said its ‘Positive Action Team’ was told to go out in public to recruit people, regardless of language ability or qualifications.
They told TalkTV: ‘It didn’t matter if they couldn’t speak English or had never sat an exam – it was all about getting ticks in boxes.
‘If you got 40 names in a day, the bosses would say, “Great!”‘
The team, they added – which had around five or six full-time staff – ‘would focus on heavily Muslim communities across Manchester’.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14605611/One-Britains-biggest-police-forces-blasted-diversity-drive-encouraged-people-no-GCSEs-little-English-apply.html
”It’s rife in the whole culture.
This is standard for many job listings these days. This one was from Reed for a job as an attendant at a driving test centre.”
https://x.com/NRPeterElliot/status/1911747083880497296
Following the previous article ‘Rayner must not cave in…..’ I find this Racial discrimination, for that is exactly what it is, seriously offensive.
Really seriously offensive.
It’s total nonsense. “They” twist the English language and they will confuse and destroy “us” if we fail to call them out.
Discrimination is a verb and is neither positive nor negative. It describes the act of choosing one thing over another.
It’s as nonsensical as saying “positive walking”, or “positive typing”, or “positive killing” (yes, killing can sometimes achieve positive ends, like a nice steak).
One discriminates to achieve an end (the end which will be seen as either positive or negative in nature).
Hitler discriminated to achieve what most regard as a negative end (having first tried and failed to convince other nations to take those he didn’t like he decided instead to arrange their gassing).
My employer discriminated to achieve a positive end (choosing to employ me after considering others so she could better make and save money).
You discriminate to avoid having to speak to a woketard (by looking to the left or looking to the right).
The fools and charlatans behind the phrase “positive discrimination” have given little to no thought to the end they are trying to achieve (apart from trying to look virtuous).
Are the article’s writer and DS commenters live in England? Are they not triggered by the misleading present tense of the headline? If a £ was offered for every white porter, nurse and doctor they can find in London teaching hospitals, they might score a tenner.
This is the biggest Trust in London and this is their staff: https://www.guysandstthomas.nhs.uk/our-consultants
I think most are in the UK, yes.
They are so brazen about it as if what they’re doing is a common sense approach that should surprise no one. Seems very otherworldly to me. In the world of ordinary discourse you can generally appreciate an interlocutors point of view even if you don’t share it. This is beyond that. There has never been a shortage of black and Indian NHS workers. They’ve been recruited West Indian nurses since the 1950s and they’ve always recruited doctors from wherever. All the Filipino nurses. It is absurd there is no under-representation within the NHS. Most of the medical students these days are female.
The implicit social contract is broken.
Why pay taxes that benefit principally those who nev4 pay, or whose ancestors did not create this nation?
In my opinion a wholesale tax strike is the only way to respond. How to a achieve that is somewhat more difficult…
A wholesale refusal to do what the government asks, is the answer. Sustained and determined resistance to every aspect of the state.
By everybody who opposes this shit.
It is interesting to ponder, if the state goes down, what would actually bind people? It might just be a desperate struggle for day to day life within a local environment. But in terms of nationality how would we even begin to form cohesive groups given the preponderance of brain-washed saps?
I don’t think there would be many problems in forming cohesive groups. I am on the edge of at least 5. who have been ready since end 2020. Ther is a place for what used to be called anarchy – groups who exercise personal reponsibility and actions that benefit the majority
In the west of Scotland many years ago a similar ‘anti Roman Catholic’ recruitment was common.
Application forms asking for the name of Secondary Schools were monitored and if the applicant entered St Patrick’s for example, the application form was binned. So school names were eliminated.
Then titles, Mr, Miss, Ms etc were eliminated, then first names too, so only initials and surnames were accepted. Recruiters got round this by asking for a photograph to be attached.
We are being replaced and subjugated to fulfil the Kalergi plan.