Longrider

I’ll be heading back to the UK tomorrow. In the meantime, some more poppies – this time contre-jour.

I note that Ian_QT, guest writing over at the Kitchen, has written a piece about the spiteful and vindictive white paper being put about by the vicious Harriet Harmon. He cites Leg-Iron who worries (not without cause) about the manner in which the major parties are driving voters into the arms of the BNP.

Both express the general belief that in the real world, the proposed legislation will probably not make a great deal of practical difference; it is the political fall-out that comes from the perceptions that they dwell on. That is not what I want to discuss.

Competence Management

Having a background in competence management, I am inclined to concur with both of them. Despite the wealth of legislation, I have watched as companies recruit and promote unsuitable candidates based upon what local managers perceived was the required competence set – usually, this amounted to the selected candidate being a good egg who was capable in their current role. I watched in despair on one occasion as one unsuitable candidate after another was selected and then failed while a more suitable candidate was waiting to take on the role all along – me, as it turns out.

When I was finally given the opportunity, I proved that I was right and they were wrong. Being a good signaller is not, of itself, suitable and sufficient qualification for being a good signalling manager. There are other skills involved. As I had come from outside the industry and had proven people and administrative management skills, I was an ideal candidate. As I said, when they finally got around to me – by then, no one else would take it on – I excelled in the role because I was the most suitable candidate.

Since then, I’ve taken a keen interest in the way that large organisations recruit and select and, frankly, too frequently, they pay lip service to all those “equality” laws as there is always a way to get around them. And, all too often, the managers themselves have little idea about competence management – i.e. a competent organisation starts with competent recruitment, selection and promotion, which means that the people doing it need to have competence in this area. All too often, they do not.

The Proposals

The proposed legislation is, as I understand it, designed to give employers the right to discriminate against white males in the event of all else being equal. I have problems with this – not least, what has already been stated; it is likely that the recruitment process may be flawed. Besides, a run-off between the candidates will decide one over the other in a decent competence management process – if the recruitment panel are any good at their jobs…

Secondly, any discrimination, other than the criterion of competence, is still discrimination and is therefore immoral. I also object to the idea of visiting the sins of the fathers on the sons. This generation of white males did not create the perceived inequality that Harman proposes to solve with this silly, ill-conceived proposal. Discriminating against them, therefore, is no better than any other form of discrimination – it is still discrimination and as Ian_QT and Leg-Iron point out, that group will turn to those who will appear to set this wrong right.

I had this discussion a year or so back with Neil Harding (can’t find the relevant conversation) and failed to make headway at the time because Harding like other New Labour apologists and the feeble-minded politically correct, either could not or would not see beyond their idea of what constitutes equality; that we are all equal. This is the problem with Harman.

Let’s get one thing straight; there is no such thing as equality. We are not born equal and in life, our paths are not equal. That’s life. It’s tough. Get used to the idea. We play the hand with which we are dealt. That said, an efficient and competent competence management system should provide an equal opportunity for all candidates to prove their mettle. That is all that the candidate should reasonably expect.

It is also worth bearing in mind that some industries will always have unequal numbers of one particular gender or ethnic group – nursing, for example, will doubtless always have a preponderance of females, and there will likely as not be more men than women opting to be firefighters and train drivers. In some parts of the country these roles are dominated by white men – in others; by Asians or blacks. Again, that’s life, get used to it.

Competence and competence alone is the only yardstick that should be used. Anything else diminishes both the organisation and the candidates. However, despite my pessimistic tone, I am noticing that things are slowly improving. The rail industry in particular has come a long way in the past decade and a half – oh, that my other industry (driving instruction) was half so advanced.

And Finally…

I noticed that PDF has commented on this. He has spectacularly missed the point, something his commenters were quick to establish. Why is it, that when a white man points out that legislation designed to discriminate against white men is bad because it is both pragmatically and morally wrong, some idiot comes up with the perceived victim-hood strawman argument?

————————————————————————————

Update:

I notice that in PDF’s comments Sunny has made a staggeringly stupid comment – it really is worth further exposure:

Its a stupid piece also because in certain cases, like primary school teachers, it will be used to help white males get into positions.

What the fucking fuckitty fuck? Is he jesting or is he serious? Difficult to be absolutely certain of course, but if it is serious, it demonstrates the absolute moral bankruptcy of the socialist mindset. One of the best primary school teachers I had – no, the best – was a white male. He was what you would call a gentleman of the old school. A jolly good egg all round.

The idea put forward here, that white males should not be primary school teachers, is part of the corrosive anti-male (in particular, white male) attitude that is seeping into our culture.

I’m still too busy to blog properly, so another photograph.

Via JuliaM, we get this story in the Telegraph:

Homeowners could have to pay a specialist to regularly examine their garden trees, under proposals for a new safety standard which could lead to thousands being felled.

The British standard for tree safety inspection would require tree-owners to conduct an annual “walk-by” inspection and get them checked by a “trained person” every three years.

A more rigorous and expensive “expert inspection” would then need to be carried out by a qualified arboriculturist every five years.

The British Standards Institution (BSI), which usually oversees building and engineering regulations, is behind the drive to make all trees which grow near public access areas subject to inspection. The plans are currently under public consultation.

I commented on Julia’s blog, but thought I’d expand a little here. Not least, because I have some experience in health and safety management. Just as an aside, H&S management and risk assessment is not in the least bit difficult as I will now illustrate.

Firstly, just what is the risk? Well, helpfully, the article tells us:

On average six people a year are killed by falling trees, compared with 647 deaths from tripping down stairs, making the probability of a fatal accident less than one in two million.

Actually, given a population of around 60 million, it is probably less that that suggested by the Telegraph; more like around one in ten million. Now, take away all those trees on private land that is not accessible to the public and it reduces further. Okay, yes, I am aware of the common law duty of care not to injure trespassers, but the risk is already so low as to be negligible, that I am discounting it. Then take away all those trees that are publicly accessible but not on private land (who will take responsibility for them, I wonder?) and the risk is, frankly, miniscule.

The Health and Safety at Work etc., Act (1974) places a requirement on the employer to reduce risk to as low as is reasonably practicable. Although the act does not give a definition, legal precedent does. In essence, if the time, cost and effort outweighs the reduction in risk, then that risk is as low as is reasonably practicable. Given a risk as low as this, then it is already as low as is reasonably practicable. The cost, time and effort proposed is disproportionate and will have negligible effect on the risk. It is, therefore, nothing more than a glorified job creation exercise at the expense of landowners. Typical quango thinking – who cares? Someone else is paying.

Now, I could be generous here and suggest that the BSI is applying the hierarchy of risk – i.e. eliminate the risk where possible. However, that is intended for the work environment where a change in working practice or use of machinery can eliminate exposure to risk. It clearly does not apply here, unless we cut down all the trees in the country.

So, we are back to the job creation scheme…

I note from the article that there is a case upon which this stupid idea hinges:

In 2006 Gary Poll, a motorcyclist, collided with a fallen branch on a road in Somerset and made a claim against the landowners. The judge ruled that if arboriculturists had been called in, the accident could have been averted.

So, the landowner was negligent and loss occurred. The injured party sued. This tells me that English common law worked exactly as it is supposed to. What we have here is the law working as intended yet a quango wants to impose regulation and inspection to solve a problem that does not need solving because, frankly, it does not exist.

Something tells me that these people were right all along:

Blogging has been light this past few days. I’m in France and dial-up is sufficiently painful to keep web browsing to a minimum. Not to mention all that grass cutting I’ve been doing.

Once I’ve got the satellite link up and working, I can browse properly. In the meantime, I managed to get a little photography in.

Via Ian, posting over at the Devil’s Kitchen, This:

Referenda and Democracy

The EU has now accumulated significant (bad) experiences with referenda. It was very delicately yet effectively communicated by the Romanian social-democrat MEPs: “The referendum in Ireland has demonstrated that direct democracy (by way of referendum) cannot ensure the progress of the European process. The security, liberty and prosperity of hundreds of millions of European citizens ask for complex leadership actions, which cannot be appreciated by heterogeneous populations, from the point of view of the information level and the education one. European integration is a process that must be conducted politically by the elected representatives of the European citizens.”

Translated into plain English: “The proles cannot be relied upon to give the right answer as they are too stupid”.

There you go, that’s what the Eurocrats think of us. Nice to be put into our place, isn’t it?

…you thought the Tories are any better than Labour, this little gem comes along:

Householders will be encouraged to compete to be ‘greener than the Joneses’ under Conservative plans to tell people what their neighbours spend on energy.

Give me a fucking break, please… What I spend on energy is my fucking business and no one else’s – it is private.

But, no, not according to the new – even more Labour than Labour – Tories:

Telling people how much their neighbours spend on gas and electricity is designed to encourage them to keep their costs down and reduce their consumption of fossil fuels.

There is a word for this and that word is “bullying”. It is not up to the state to get involved in such matters. I use my own sense of fiscal competence to keep my spending down – i.e. I like to keep as much of my hard earned cash as I can. Therefore, I avoid wasting it as much as I possibly can. None of this is any of the state’s business and it is sure as hell none of my neighbours’ business.

David Cameron, the Conservative leader, announced the initiative as part of his plans to wean the British public off their dependence on the fossil fuels that drive climate change.

Fuck me sideways. Tony Blair, meet the equally delusional and control freakish Tony Blair mark two.

While I have no problem with reducing our dependency on fossil fuels – that makes perfect sense – Cameron’s stupid and totalitarian solution:

As part of his green energy policy he said competition between neighbours needs to be kick-started to ensure each tries to be the greenest consumer in their streets.

is an outrageous invasion of privacy. I will not, under any circumstances whatsoever, take part in any competition to be the “greenest” consumer in my street. Ever.

I’ve had it with this fucking country – the sooner I leave the better. Voting Tory at the next election will simply be giving us more of the same, given that Cameron has swallowed the green agenda whole.

Luke Akehurst.

Maybe instead of Labour fielding a candidate in Haltemprice & Howden we should find a Martin Bell type candidate - preferably a recently retired senior police officer, or a survivor or relative of a victim of a terrorist attack, to run under the following 5 word candidate description: “Independent - for detaining terrorism suspects”.

It is difficult to find words that adequately describe just how offensive this nasty little man is. Looking at his picture, he appears inoffensive, but so did the people who were employed to guard the concentration camps and the gulags. They too, fell for the sickening authoritarian propaganda of the parties to which they subscribed.

There is no liberty/security trade off to be made here. We are living in peace time with a slight threat of attack from jihadists – nothing like the sustained and competent campaign waged by the IRA and yet we are being bombarded with scaremongering propaganda from a New Labour lie machine that wants to steal our freedoms and keep us caged in “safety”. They use expressions like being free to live without fear of terrorism. That, frankly, is a pipe dream. A pipe dream concocted of disingenuous nonsense. We live and then we die. Some of us die sooner than others and some of us will die as a consequence of terrorist attacks. It’s a risk we take in a free, civilised society. The alternative is totalitarian control by the state and that is unthinkable.

So, no trade off. Once you do that, those who would undermine the principles of our liberal democracy have won. They can pack up their explosive body belts and go home; job done and not an explosion to be seen; a bloodless victory, courtesy of the cowardly Gordon Brown and his deluded and dangerous foot soldiers.

Luke demonstrates not only a staggering ignorance of human history, but also unbelievable stupidity:

I find his absurd invocation of Magna Carta too hilariously pompous to be “vile”.

An irony bypass here. And…

Boundaries of the state… blah … ancient liberties … blah… Magna Carta … blah … more than the Whigs … blah …

One of the principles of civil liberties is freedom of speech – freedom Luke is indulging in with his evil little diatribe. The others are freedom of association, freedom of religion, privacy, property ownership, the right to due process and habeas corpus. Magna Carta, to those who understand history gave us habeas corpus; a basic right not to be imprisoned without the evidence being judged by a jury of our peers in a fair trial – a principle Luke Akehurst’s equally monstrous overlords have eroded (not to mention the others I’ve listed). How would Luke like to be locked up for 42 days, unable to have access to the evidence against him, unaware even of the case being brought, being deemed guilty on nothing more than suspicion? He wouldn’t, of course. But, then, this is not for the Luke Akehursts of this world, this repugnant little piece of hard-man posturing is intended firmly for brown people; demonstrating that Luke and his masters are not just nasty, they are nasty racists, too.

Two generations ago my grandfather faced the U Boats as he sailed on the convoys that helped to keep these islands free from people like Luke Akehurst; people who think that the state should be able to lock people up without charge, without trial, are deemed guilty on no more than suspicion.

You can always tell a debate is on shaky ground when the protagomists start calling their opponents Nazis/Fascists, swearing, or invoking Mandela or Gandhi (plus in this case Magna Carta).

That is because Luke Akehurst, by his own arguments demonstrates that he is a fascist. And in this case, Magna Carta is relevant.

As people line up to rip him a new arsehole, Akehurst tries to dig his way out and succeeds only in digging himself in deeper – his argument is morally bankrupt and he is being rightly vilified for it.

He then tried to suggest that it is the threat of dirty bombs that justifies his stance. That this is utter, utter bollocks was torn to shreds by Benjamin Gray in the comments:

The “complex” terrorist plots are precisely the ones that do not need internment, as their very complexity means that the police will already have sufficient evidence to press charges by the time they arrest people.

Quite so – and let us not forget the ricin plot where there was no plot and no ricin.

Ignorant, stupid, dangerous and evil, this obnoxious little creep has been dubbed a patronising muppet by Rachel and a revolting vulture by Jackart. Both are too kind, I think.

My grandfather’s ship was torpedoed. Although he survived, his health was damaged and he died in his early fifties. If he was alive today, he would look at the smug, self-righteous Akehurst and recognise the jackbooted bullies he helped defend this country from and wonder just what went wrong. What was his sacrifice for?

Sometimes, you read something that is so dreadful, so mind-bogglingly repugnant that it takes your breath away – Luke Akehurst takes the Neil Harding award for totalitarian fuckwittery to new extremes.

Others have seen fit to rip this piece of trash a new arsehole and are worth reading:

The Devil’s Kitchen, A Nation of Shopkeepers, Raedwald, The Morning Star, Rachel, Tim Worstall, Tom Paine

—————————————————————————-

Update: Via the Exile, I see that Bob Marshall-Andrews has thrown his lot in with Davis.

Gordon Brown faced a fresh challenge to his authority last night after a leading Labour rebel promised to campaign for David Davis in the renegade Tory’s forthcoming by-election.

Bob Marshall-Andrews yesterday defied the Prime Minister to sack him, adding that he hoped other Labour MPs would join the former shadow home secretary’s one-man crusade for civil liberties.

‘They can’t muzzle the whole of the party, and it seems to me foolish in the extreme in the present climate to start describing civil liberties as a stunt,’ he told The Observer. ‘I have had emails asking, “Why does it take a Tory to say this”?’

What strange times we live in. Although, I’ve always regarded Marshall-Andrews as one of the good guys. Davis is right on this, Marshall-Andrews is right, John Major is right, the Labour rebels are right. Gordon Brown, craven coward that he is, and his snivelling army of weak minded apologists are wrong, criminally wrong and are traitors, betrayers of the British people. Perhaps we should lock them up for 42 days in the tower? After all, it’s good enough for brown people, why not them? I’m sure they will cope readily enough with the loss of livelihood, home, partner, reputation (if they have one). It would all be in the name of safety after all and one has to have the right to be safe, what?