Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

UK politics - Hamsterwheel

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

UK politics - Hamsterwheel

Old 10th Dec 2017, 20:58
  #13281 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,945
Therein lies the problem, the ministers comments were entirely specific, those on the ding ding bus have tried the 'scatter gun' approach towards it's outrage.

Post #13503 clears it up nicely.
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2017, 04:24
  #13282 (permalink)  
Thought police antagonist
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 943
When attempting to present a coherent argument in defence of a fallacy, factual content is generally the least of those involved concerns.

For anybody more concerned with presenting factual content to negate the fallacies, then it's prudent to be able to offer substantive evidence.

Disability Discrimination Still Blocking Employee Career Progression - CMI

This is where it becomes difficult if not impossible for some, unless you've studied statistics at Degree level, because the maths involved do, as the report says, become technical.

https://evanodell.com/blog/2017/12/0...-productivity/

Below, taken verbatim from the above report. Clarity as to the word....no.....can be obtained by referring to any dictionary.


" By assuming that disabled workers are inherently less productive than non-disabled workers, with no evidence to suggest this to be the case, Hammond provides cover for employers who don’t hire disabled applicants based on the erroneous belief that they will be less productive. Economic productivity, at least on a national level, is not about the characteristics of a country’s workers, but the opportunities they have in their work to make the best use of their skills and talents."

What's that word again ?.....ah yes, diversity.

Last edited by Krystal n chips; 11th Dec 2017 at 06:38.
Krystal n chips is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2017, 06:37
  #13283 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,945
Trouble is in post #13503 you do provides the evidence hence the very clear flaw in your rather confusing argument.
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2017, 07:09
  #13284 (permalink)  
Thought police antagonist
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 943
Originally Posted by Seldomfitforpurpose View Post
Trouble is in post #13503 you do provides the evidence hence the very clear flaw in your rather confusing argument.
There has been no confusion, or flaw, in my reasoned arguments to support the capacity of disabled people to be productive within society and work, both being inextricably linked or to the fact they cannot be held responsible for the lack of UK productivity

The link I provided was pragmatic in that it offered both the advantages and perceived disadvantages regarding employment of the disabled.

As the link is now seemingly the only recourse you have when attempting to justify Hammonds ill judged and derogatory comment, please read this, taken from the same link.


"By having a look at all these points we can easily know that hiring a good person no matter what the disability will always be beneficial. Losing a potential worker just because of some problems won’t be a good idea. Believing in various prejudices and disbelieving the ability of a person is a wrong way of doing things. No matter what, one should never judge a book by its cover"
Krystal n chips is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2017, 08:46
  #13285 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,945
From the same article you provided a link to

Sometimes the speed of working with the disabled person is comparatively low than the people with no disability. As their handicap restricts their movement which results in the slow pace of work. What a normal person can do faster, the disabled one take comparatively more time than that. So, of course, it hinders the important chores of the organization. That is why people think twice before hiring a disabled person.


Not really much else needs saying, that very simple statement highlights the point the minister was making when he said

Anger at Chancellor's disability employment comments - BBC News

Speaking to the Treasury Committee, Philip Hammond said the UK should be "extremely proud of high levels of participation by disabled people".

But he said that may have had an impact on the UK's overall productivity.


Your own article states categorically that in some circumstances hiring disabled workers can have a direct and definable reaction on out put so I am still uncertain as to why you are still digging a hole over this one?
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2017, 13:57
  #13286 (permalink)  
Thought police antagonist
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 943
Originally Posted by Seldomfitforpurpose View Post
From the same article you provided a link to

Sometimes the speed of working with the disabled person is comparatively low than the people with no disability. As their handicap restricts their movement which results in the slow pace of work. What a normal person can do faster, the disabled one take comparatively more time than that. So, of course, it hinders the important chores of the organization. That is why people think twice before hiring a disabled person.


Not really much else needs saying, that very simple statement highlights the point the minister was making when he said

Anger at Chancellor's disability employment comments - BBC News

Speaking to the Treasury Committee, Philip Hammond said the UK should be "extremely proud of high levels of participation by disabled people".

But he said that may have had an impact on the UK's overall productivity.


Your own article states categorically that in some circumstances hiring disabled workers can have a direct and definable reaction on out put so I am still uncertain as to why you are still digging a hole over this one?
Whenever you are confronted with counter arguments, one of your ploys is to engage in attrition in the hope, that, any respondent will simply give up. Anther is to state people are "digging a hole " which they invariably aren't.

Let's start with hole digging....your own.

Using the incorrect initials ( DD ) of the politician concerned was a spectacular own goal, in fact you scored three times here. Even Arsene Wenger couldn't talk his way out of that one if Arsenal had done the same.

Then you attempted to offer an example of a disabled gentleman whom you had personally witnessed being, allegedly non productive with his till change over times, yet your daughter always ostensibly managed hers in 2-3 mins.
When it was pointed out, that, there are numerous variable used when till times are calculated, and that there may well be several other factors involved, this was quietly ignored.

After which, you resorted to attempting to combining ethos and pathos, only to negate both by yourself when continuing to support Hammond.

Your suggestion to cease the debate, a loose term I suggest as any form of debate has yet to materialise from you to exemplify and support Hammonds statement as to how the disabled ( and other marginal groups) are responsible for the UK's lack of productivity by actively working and participating within organisations.

This is because there isn't a shred of evidence so, other than manufacturing some, it's difficult to produce any.

But then came along two other contributors who offered you moral support, so you resumed attempting to defend his statements because the subliminal issue here is that you don't take kindly to adverse and factual criticism on topics that arise here on JB and from me in particular.

The quote you have chosen from my link contains one word and more than once....comparatively.

Which means, that, disabled people are making a positive contribution to productivity and not a negative one.

Have you read the two links in my previous posts at all ?. Probably not, and certainly not the second given the complexity of the maths involved and the summary that followed.

However, it's the first one that bears closer scrutiny and the ramifications for disabled people to gain employment in the first place.

As the journalist in this link explains, the remark by Hammond will go a long way towards influencing people as to why disabled people should not be employed and therein lies the nub of the damage his remark will induce.

Philip Hammond, disabled people aren?t responsible for the UK?s productivity problem | The Independent

That, and it's "truly remarkable" that such a small percentile of the UK workforce can allegedly be responsible for the lack of growth and productivity within the UK economy.
Krystal n chips is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2017, 14:05
  #13287 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: On the beach with a cerveza.
Posts: 1,135
Originally Posted by Seldomfitforpurpose View Post
From the same article you provided a link to

Sometimes the speed of working with the disabled person is comparatively low than the people with no disability. As their handicap restricts their movement which results in the slow pace of work. What a normal person can do faster, the disabled one take comparatively more time than that. So, of course, it hinders the important chores of the organization. That is why people think twice before hiring a disabled person.


Not really much else needs saying, that very simple statement highlights the point the minister was making when he said

Anger at Chancellor's disability employment comments - BBC News

Speaking to the Treasury Committee, Philip Hammond said the UK should be "extremely proud of high levels of participation by disabled people".

But he said that may have had an impact on the UK's overall productivity.


Your own article states categorically that in some circumstances hiring disabled workers can have a direct and definable reaction on out put so I am still uncertain as to why you are still digging a hole over this one?
I can only think its trolling
Jet II is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2017, 14:31
  #13288 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,945
Originally Posted by Krystal n chips View Post
The quote you have chosen from my link contains one word and more than once....comparatively.

Which means, that, disabled people are making a positive contribution to productivity and not a negative one.
From your very own previously posted link

Sometimes the speed of working with the disabled person is comparatively low than the people with no disability. As their handicap restricts their movement which results in the slow pace of work. What a normal person can do faster, the disabled one take comparatively more time than that. So, of course, it hinders the important chores of the organization. That is why people think twice before hiring a disabled person.

No on else on this thread seems to be struggling with this, well apart from you chap. Maybe you need to draw the easily reached conclusion from that
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2017, 15:36
  #13289 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hampshire
Age: 72
Posts: 784
If you want to say "Be done with the disabled", say so.
Stop mincing around with a single instance of a man who takes longer than others to settle in for work at his till. (How do you know he doesn't arrive a few minutes early for his shift?)
And, how about the organisation that hires a mix of able and disabled personnel but some of the non-disabled are just plain thick, idle or skivers, who shall we blame for the poor productivity? By the way, most bankers, industrialist etc seem unable to define "productivity" precisely. A much favoured measure is GDP, based on sales. So, put up your prices by 5% and increase productivity by 5%! How simple is that!
I didn't read the link to which you refer but I can see some horrible holes in the part you quoted. "Disabled persons' handicaps restricts their movement which results in the slow pace of work". What complete and utter tosh! This logic says the blind or profoundly deaf, for example, have a slower pace of work as their handicaps restrict their movement. I have seen examples of both categories working in factories and their dexterity often exceeds that of the non-disabled.
KelvinD is online now  
Old 11th Dec 2017, 15:44
  #13290 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,945
If you can spot a single example of where either I or the minister in question have advocated 'Be done with the disabled' then do feel free to post it on here.

I suspect though there will be tumbleweeds across my screen as I await that response
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2017, 16:50
  #13291 (permalink)  
Thought police antagonist
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 943
" No on else on this thread seems to be struggling with this, well apart from you chap. Maybe you need to draw the easily reached conclusion from that

I think it's fair to say any rational thinking person will have formed their own easily reached conclusion as to whom is struggling and who isn't with regard to your supportive stance towards Hammond's discriminatory comment.

You also offer another insight when riled or unable / unwilling to respond to posters who have negated your viewpoints.

The use of the word "chap"...thus far, two "chaps" within your replies.

I use it in the sardonic sense.

Last edited by Krystal n chips; 11th Dec 2017 at 17:11.
Krystal n chips is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2017, 17:07
  #13292 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: On the beach with a cerveza.
Posts: 1,135
Originally Posted by KelvinD View Post
I have seen examples of both categories working in factories and their dexterity often exceeds that of the non-disabled.
If disabled people normally had higher productivity that non-disabled then there wouldnt be an issue about trying to get them into the workplace - the market would already have taken care of the problem.
Jet II is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2017, 17:18
  #13293 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,945
Originally Posted by Jet II View Post
If disabled people normally had higher productivity that non-disabled then there wouldnt be an issue about trying to get them into the workplace - the market would already have taken care of the problem.
That’s precisely why this daft argument is so comical. There are reams of employments laws in place and being added to and improved on as we continually move forward precisely because in the main employers have never actively wanted the disabled in the workplace because of the adverse affect they will have in ‘work’.

If that were not the case we would need no laws safeguarding the rights of the disabled, the fact that there are stacks of laws in place should tell even the most stubborn person the actuality of it all.
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2017, 20:32
  #13294 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: SAM. u.k.
Age: 76
Posts: 261
You also offer another insight when riled or unable / unwilling to respond to posters who have negated your viewpoints.

The use of the word "chap"...thus far, two "chaps" within your replies.
Bitey bite bite
denachtenmai is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2017, 22:09
  #13295 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hampshire
Age: 72
Posts: 784
Sfp: Similarly, if you can spot where I actually said you have advocated doing away with the disabled, point me to it. I have implied you are all but saying it, putting up such a strong defence of Hammond's ill judged remarks and your various comments deriding the disabled.
Tip for you: Take your computer inside the house. That will avoid the tumbleweed spoiling your viewing.
Jet: In yet another example of your ability to answer an argument that hasn't been made, you answer my point with "If disabled people normally had higher productivity that non-disabled" (should that not be "than"?). Where exactly did I make that pronouncement?
KelvinD is online now  
Old 12th Dec 2017, 06:16
  #13296 (permalink)  
Thought police antagonist
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 943
Originally Posted by Seldomfitforpurpose View Post
That’s precisely why this daft argument is so comical. There are reams of employments laws in place and being added to and improved on as we continually move forward precisely because in the main employers have never actively wanted the disabled in the workplace because of the adverse affect they will have in ‘work’.

If that were not the case we would need no laws safeguarding the rights of the disabled, the fact that there are stacks of laws in place should tell even the most stubborn person the actuality of it all.
I'm sure those who are disabled and who suffer prejudice and discrimination roll around convulsed with laughter every time they encounter these in their lives and on a daily basis, such is the " comical" value these contain.

The excellent series "Employable me " offers a glimpse as to the barriers faced by the disabled. As it's on the BBC however, then we all know how, allegedly, the BBC is so left wing luvvie biased ( JB fact, so irrefutable ) few will have watched the programme.

BBC Two - Employable Me

Do, please, watch last nights episode and the lady called Kerrie. Her determination cannot be faulted and on that basis alone, not forgetting how she has had to adapt her life to being visually impaired, she would make an excellent employee. Had a great sense of humour as well.

Interesting to learn however, that it was the able bodied at her previous employers who were complaining about her breaks in relation to theirs.

Maybe she should apply for a job at a certain RAF base, one where 2.5hrs a day is planned in for....breaks, where, when they felt like it, the Gov't civilians could simply disappear during their working day without their absence even being questioned or rather, when it was, simply ignored by "management". Some even managed a 2 hr lunch break on a daily basis. Or the RAF disappearing to the gym, and please, don't cite the fitness test as being the reason, it's hardly demanding and any reasonably active person could pass it with ease.

Now that's able bodied productivity honed to a fine art for you.

And then there's the legislation, which, because it exists, is all that is seemingly required.

This lady however, and she's a solicitor so clearly her views can be dismissed as "faux" outrage, offers a decidedly unedifying perspective with regard to society and ingrained prejudices, prejudices that will be further reinforced by the context of Hammonds comment, a comment that is lauded it seems.

https://www.leighday.co.uk/Blog/Nove...le-in-the-work

Last edited by Krystal n chips; 12th Dec 2017 at 07:34.
Krystal n chips is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2017, 06:20
  #13297 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 3,104
disabled people are making a positive contribution to productivity and not a negative one
How are you defining "productivity" in this particular instance?
megan is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2017, 06:33
  #13298 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,945
Originally Posted by KelvinD View Post
Sfp: Similarly, if you can spot where I actually said you have advocated doing away with the disabled, point me to it. I have implied you are all but saying it, putting up such a strong defence of Hammond's ill judged remarks and your various comments deriding the disabled.
Tip for you: Take your computer inside the house. That will avoid the tumbleweed spoiling your viewing.
So Neither I nor the minister in question said it
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2017, 07:03
  #13299 (permalink)  
Thought police antagonist
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 943
Originally Posted by megan View Post
How are you defining "productivity" in this particular instance?
By virtue of being gainfully employed within an organisation thus making a positive contribution, rather than being simply discarded due to a disability.

Do, please, if you can access BBC iPlayer on the link I provided, watch the programme I referred to and then you will see how employment for the disabled is symbiotic and can only ever be viewed as a positive benefit to an organisation and themselves. Likewise the link from the solicitors blog.
Krystal n chips is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2017, 08:34
  #13300 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,945
Originally Posted by Krystal n chips View Post

The excellent series "Employable me " offers a glimpse as to the barriers faced by the disabled.
Quite why you feel the need to continually prove my point then try to argue against your own freely provided evidence is confusing but at the same time extremely amusing.

You provided a rather conclusive link at #13505 confirming the point the minister made then at #13539 Jet offers you some interesting food for thought which you now confirm to be the case with the above missive.

There is a definite and undeniable reason why successive governments have had to resort to legislation to enforce business to employ physically and mentally challenged employees but it would appear you are incapable of joining the dots as to why that is.

The question to maybe ask yourself is do you honestly think that without all the current legislation would business's up and down the country be employing physically and mentally challenged employees in the numbers they currently are and if not why not?

Last edited by Seldomfitforpurpose; 12th Dec 2017 at 10:49.
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.