Disgrace of Positive Discrimination.

It seems to me that positive discrimination the like that popped up regarding Laura Pidcock on Question Time is a very destructive force. How come you ask?

Well, I believe in getting a job on merit. I don't believe that people should get a job based on who they know, or what golf club they belong to. By the same token I don't believe a person should get a job based solely on Gender or Race.

It always should be the best person for the job, irrespective of race, creed, colour, disability or gender.

I've seen time and time again even as a white, able, male it's not what you know, but who you know that gets people into jobs. There is discrimination in all areas of life unfortunately.

When I worked in I.T. I had to work twice as hard to get into the higher profile jobs I did get into. Many were by referrals and word-of mouth from previous colleagues, because without that the selection process was biased. Mainly because if people looked at my CV, yes they could see I'd worked on projects at some of the bluest of blue-chip corporations and banks (and I mean Goldmann-Sachs, HSBC, Commerzbank, that sort of thing), but I failed their selection criteria by not being University educated or in interview by speaking with a Northern Accent.

So I do know discrimination.

All the same, I wouldn't want a job just because a company had a shortage or Northern-Accented, non-university educated, lower-class white males. I would find the fact I'd been chosen not for my ability to do the job, but for what I was offensive and demeaning. I want people to employ me because I'm good at my job, not because they had to.

Obviously I'm not in their shoes, but I do wonder why people do take such jobs and crow about positive discrimination being a big step forward. I mean, Laura Pidcock wasn't a shining example of the best of the bunch on Thursday night, that's for sure.

The suffragettes and feminists worked hard for female equality, not for them to be discriminated against in any form, negative and positive. How would they look at women being put into positions just because they are female? Isn't that just the same as a patronising pat on the head? I would like someone to explain the difference.

The same goes for thye black minority, are they discrediting the legacy of equal rights activists by insisting on positive discrimination? I hear a lot about Black or B.A.M.E-only groups. How would the likes of Dr Martin Luther King like that, after fighting for EQUAL rights for everyone?

On both counts activists should look really closely and understand what positive discrimination as actually doing. The end does not justify the means and dicrimination of any type is counterproductive and divisive.

Of course now there are so many self-assesed minorities, the chickens are coming home to roost. I'm talking about the row bubbling away in the Labour party about all-female shortlists being open to transgender candidates (especially males that identify as female but have not fully transitioned). Sorry, but in my mind equality is equality: without fear or favour. But that's why I hate positive discrimination of any kind.

Of course the biggest can of worms that remains to be opened is Sport. Just how will the authorities square the issue of trans women or men joining in sport?

Maybe the Labour row is a good thing and it shows up how stupid the idea of shortlists and positive discrimination is. I doubt it, but I live in hope...