Divided by Law

C is for the "C" word

2009-03-10T12:24:00.008Z

Divided by Law is in dire straights. With so much to give the legal world it could be all over. DbL is dying: currently swinging on a proverbial rope...

When starting out there was no intention of following the law path to sold souls and cold contract drafting for corporate machines. No intention at all. It was academia for academias sake. But then a light appeared! "law can actually help people": family law opens up to mediation, ADR, saving people from domestic violence; discrimination and employment law liberates people and opens up a multiculture of social justice; immigration law, human rights law. Law can save lives, maybe its worth getting on this law path. So thats what happened.

Get a training contract? No way, not with Halliwells, DLA, not with linklaters, not with any of those huge international monsters. Is that law? When people think of solicitors they think of these places - they haven't heard of Hackney community law centre or Rotherham legal advice centre. "But you haven't got any experience" they said, "and you look like a school child, our clients would laugh their way out of the office". When really you carry a glut of work experience in all kinds of things: McDonalds, cold store factories, glass factories, post offices, universities, newspapers, secretaries, receptionists, data entry, aluminium loading, bar working. All of it, but no law. The LPC covered that? Eloquantly paid for by working on a production line with a plethora of industry workers [whispering in your ear for employment law advice; which was duly given].

If you cant get a training contract get a paralegal job. No? If you cant get a paralegal job get some legal admin work? Still no? If you cant get legal admin stuff get some vaguely law related monkey work? OK - 5xGCSEs A-C will get you a data entry job for legal claims. Success? - no: a-levels, degree, lpc and the 2 years office work experience cancel out the 5xGCSE A-C and bar your access. You would have committed a year to them but they didnt believe you. "Where do you see yourself in 5 years time?", "firing you for age discrimination", "that's ok i was going to offer the job to my nephew anyway". Nepotism.

One way or another you have to get on the right ladder. The law ladder... think DbL, you can do this... Volunteer? But daddy wont pay your rent for you. You cant even afford to take a week out to volunteer for a charity. Your on the poverty line and have tied your own noose around it ready to jump.

Now you have forgotten the law, forgotten everything you learnt (except how to moan, obviously): you work so hard you can't stay up to date with it... How many hours a week do the WT Regs say you should do?... cant remember, look it up when you get home... Think DbL... blawgs might help? nope - no-ones reading yours mate. Sell your body to pay the rent and volunteer at the CAB by day? Forget about everything - your time is up:

Social mobility? You're having a laugh. First in the bloodline to go to university, first in your village to get a post grad qualification. Lauded for it - inflated ego. God complex: further to fall - tumbling down. Credit crunches, lose the job, cant pay the rent, leave the city, sleep on your parents sofa, ask for your paper round back: the ultimate regression, blame the recession. The most intelligent bartender in an English town - where having a brain makes you inferior and the degenerated society you came from doesnt accept you anymore. Back to trashy nightclubs on 2for1 fridays. Northern spirit. 15 year olds drinking stella at the working mens club stare you out.

It turns out you did sell your soul after all - you were going to save these people, to save the world: now they're not worth saving and you cant save yourself. Your spirit is broken and the last thing to go is the pride.

This is the lost generation.

B is for Blears' Britain

2009-02-26T12:32:00.009Z

See here. And here. And find a transcript here.

Or dont bother if you prefer to apply heavy pinches of salt onto your political debate. Instead you could read this blog which has been commenting on vaguely similar things for the past couple of months...

Hazel Blears' talk has been branded as "outspoken" and "radical" by various media types. The basic issues are: Cutting down on political correctness; Promoting democratic based "equality"; Majority rule = majority control; Extremism being removed from the definition of "minority"; Creating a definitive "dividing line" between good and bad minorities; Clarity; And redefining extremism.

It's very hard to distinuish the Opposition-style manifesto rhetoric from the equality realities from the do-able measures. For instance: political correctness is causing the lines of justice to be blurred. True enough; but we all knew that anyway. And opinion of such things is subjective.

She is right though: The save the underdog approach of much liberal left thinking should indeed have its limits - but then in most educated lib-left circles it already does. We should be even more aware of the sensationalists: The people who prefer to point the finger rather than suggest an alternative. People who blindly criticise the exception provisions in HR legislation without thinking through the realities.

Overall I think what she says if good, although much of it is clearly rhetoric. She refers to Lenin's "useful idiots" (bear in mind that this works both ways). Avoidance of polar debate. Realisation of a spectrum. Avoiding an 'all for one or all for the other' attitude. A "plea for enhanced literacy" on discourse over political Islam. "Moral clarity". etc etc...

Political rhetoric it certainly is but it does carry a much needed message for the assumers and labelers who are bringing multiculture to its knees. We all knew it, now we just need our leaders in-the-know to start daring to say so.

From a political perspecive the talk was released at the same time as this. Highlighting much of the irrelevance of labours action for equality from an economic perspective. So as for Blears' Britain I'm not so sure, equality will develop according to the majority and the majority is more likely to be affected by a crunched credit system than a politician - however reasonable.

A is for ADR

2009-02-25T15:16:00.007Z

As mentioned previously it has fast become clear that I'm unable to keep up with the current affairs commentary style of blawg so I have decided to steal a nice idea from Barmaid – BVC and all that. Which, in fairness is a pretty standard blogging thing anyway so I wont feel the guilt but will thank her all the same.

My A is for and Apathetic Apologist-Advocates: Ace in the Art of Ardent Augmentation.

And with that stream of Arbitrary Alliteration out of the way I’ll venture to explain. I overheard two males on the tube the other day debating the Arab-Israeli conflict. Although I’m now quite tired of the debate in general this was a fascinating example of powerful Argumentation. The point being that neither side in such a debate is absolutely correct and neither is absolutely wrong so the debate hinges around small victories and clever use of debating skills. Neither male knew that much. The Argument fast became about winning and losing; and no longer sought to calify, justify or expose viewpoints. Fact became irrelevant and were challenged with no saving evidence. Now lost in an academic debate, which the two were not prepared for, the point of the argument became hazy. The parameters had not been defined and soon the only thing each party knew they were fighting for was a specific side. The original purpose was lost. Now one party had to defend the Zionists, while the other pleaded for the Palestinians. And so a pride war emerged, a dangerous pride war over an issue that a history of diplomats have not even been able to resolve. Never had such an incendiary matter been placed between these two young gents. Voices were raised, emotions stretched: neither seemed bothered about the political issues any more. There own social politics were taking hold of their reasonable arguments turning them into sensational assertions of right and wrong. Pride was at stake. Intellectual pride: not only of their convictions but of a whole divided humanity leaving humility totally forgotten.

Soon things became clear. They had set out seeking a resolution. Now they found that to compromise would be to admit weakness; and inevitably lose. Therefore no resolution could be reached. This was an Argument, not a debate, but could it ever have been Amicable? If both parties Altruistically followed a few simple rules they would have solved their personal Arab-Israeli crisis.

I’m fortunate enough to be well informed on ADR, but I have no experience in it and would be fearful of trying to resolve a dispute which is brought down to this level. Am I equipped for angry, proud, vehement, semantic arguing, truth twisting, fact challenging, perspective ignoring debaters? Maybe. A true Altruist-Advocate realizes that dispute resolution has absolutely nothing to do with right and wrong, pride is irrelevant. You’re victory is in resolution, you’re pride is in saving everyone’s face not just your own. To turn a horrific battle on its head with reasoned logic or even Aggressive Argumentation may seem like a success – but to win over the stubborn opposor with fair compromise is where the real victory lies. But this all falls down to a painful cliché: that it is easier said than done.

zeitgeist

2009-02-24T15:25:00.009Z

I cant possibly keep up with the glut of “current affairs commentary” blawgs but there have been so many stories swilling around the media today relevant to divided by law that it would be a shame not to make some representations...

First all-black cast of Eastenders? Branded as a momentous step in mainstream television. Make of it what you will: The issues that will apparently be discussed may be very interesting for some kind of contextualisation but in the reasons behind such stunts is probably not as attractive. Perhaps the first cast which is truly reflective of Poplar/ All Saints Estate multiculture might be a little less celebrated.

The implosion of Royal Mail? More on the employment side here. The postal service is losing out because its no longer the best form of communication. Think of the jobs that will be lost when people realise its becoming obsolete!... privatisation may actually be the best way for the economy to realise the relevance of a dying form of communication however harsh it might seem in the mid-short term. Everyone’s looking at what we can do to save it – rather than why it needs to be saved (or rather why it needs to be allowed to slip away over the next 20 years or so).

Does University Challenge really test intelligence? Well done the Sun. You’ve established that an academically acclaimed individual is not a swot on pop-culture. Ironically anyone who doesn’t read the Sun with a pinch of salt is probably not in a good position to judge intelligence. But still what an arbitrary question to be posed by the BBC. They forget that there is a massive difference between intelligence and knowledge. I detect a bit of jealousy, or this new uneducated class snobbery (university of life etc). Everyone knows redbrick’s have no place on UC, not everyone cares.

Culture of aparteid? Another damning indictment. The list in this article is pretty revealing. The police seems to be a bit of an anomaly for racism. Probably because it’s hierarchy and slang culture are rather similar to the army. It says something about the racist minority who seek to become police officers too. It’s a pity that Scotland Yard are so ardently defensive. The cost of their pride in an exposure is easily outweighed by the benefits of proper and thorough inquiry: How old is this story going to get?

Summer of rage? I cant get “28 days later” out of my head now. I’ll start hoarding tinned food and keeping a hatchet by my bed then... or invest in a remote Scottish house…

equal but unequal

2009-02-17T11:27:00.009Z

I thought I'd create a little example to help explain the perspectives of this blog: To explain why it is not at all adverse to discrimination legislation but constructively critical of it; for the benefit of the greater motives of equality and genuine diversity:

Discrimination law helps define how we are all different but asserts that we should be treated equally (or given equal opportunities).

On a semantic level there are pedantic issues: i.e. the dichotomy is clear:
Equal = alike.
Different = unequal.

In general the law uses the words: less favourable treatment on grounds of the persons [difference].

Sometimes there is a confusion between what the law is for:

On the one hand: If people are less favourably treated they might look for a difference to then structure their claim around - they then seek out a white/ male/ able bodied/ british etc comparator.

Or, on the other hand: A person may spot a difference (due to the overt attempts to define said differences) and then constantly keep their eyes open for the potential of less favourable treatment. i.e. "because I am black/ female/ homosexual maybe people will treat me less favourably so I should probably be on the eye out for discrimination".

Which came first: the treatment or the difference?

Not that either of these perspectives is wrong: It is just evidence of the fact that equality is framed by the legislation: which is forced to provide certainty through rules. This solution is the best we have but, evidently, is by no means perfect: For instance an English speaking Welshman cannot claim against an employer who insists on a Welsh speaking candidate - whilst an English person can (on grounds of nationality).

On the surface this seems bad: but only with regard to the fact that we look at such claims through the eyes of the victim. An alternative might be to see equality from an employers level: the sort of thing that the Equality and Human Rights Commission is there to deal with. This takes the focus away from a "compensation culture" of constructed individual inequalites towards a broader approach of society-wide inequality. However the EHRC is only really active in areas where the individual doesn't have standing to claim in the first place (e.g. adverts for employment etc).

The relationship between the individual and the population as a whole could be crucial to the future of equality and diversity (outside of the law at least). The whole system is more complicated than right or wrong, equal or unequal: it is based on the common mindset which seeks to get 'one over' on others whilst being fearful of someone getting 'one over' them: i.e. behaving contrary to an integrational society which the law may or may not be trying to achieve.

Altermodern: drawing together the divisions?

2009-02-16T16:19:00.006Z

The [highly ambiguous] cultural movements of the past century have all made attempts to define the culture of the Now. The ambiguity comes in the sense that the definition is based on broad similarities occurring in the many cultural, literary, artistic and fashionable trends of the time. Modernism literally became the definition of the time – where connoisseurs of various practices tried to shake of traditionalism to assert the Now – an enlightened, modern approach emerged from socio-technological advance. Then followed postmodernism, a more specific movement, once again trying to define the state of the Now by shaking of modernist traditions: it attempted to guide the emergence of culture away from what was modernism – the new modernism. This came of course in a time of political unrest: a cold war influenced emergence of commercial values which were summed up in references to the state of society and the personal conflictions that prevailed. But it was also a revolution of current trend over defined structure of modernity.

Divided by Law suggests that postmodernism was the assertion of individuality: When difference was defined and “worlds apart” were created. I am suggesting that its power took over society and was celebrated in art, culture and politics. At the same time that literature and art took an introspective look at the individual so too did the law. And a deluge of anti-discrimination legislation (whilst necessary) was created on a bedrock of celebrated difference and freedom. This introverted existentialism provided a new look at morals and idealism and provided a new structure for the definition of Now.

I have no intention of suggesting what altermodernism is aside from pointing out that it must be a new suggestion of what is Now: a new attempt to define things as they have become [bear in mind that in most contexts attempts at such definitions are little more than hollow constructions]. The term, coined by Nicolas Bourriaud, is the theme of a current exhibition at the Tate Britain. The exhibition, whilst clearly a commercial stunt, in fact portrays some very positive themes for society as it is now seen through the ideas of a handful of artists. At points there is reference to how the once clear racial partitions in society have become so blurred that definitions are even harder to impose: thus these divisions are slipping into irrelevance and people are starting to think their traditions, whilst important, should do not hold back their future and they are free to allow clashes in culture, nationality or race to shape their present existence as if they were a natural part of it.

I must comment that this was purely my opinion and the movement is too fresh and, in fairness, abiguous to really suggest that these elements are solid aspects of it. One problem for me is that by defining a “movement” so early we will be led to falsely create things as part of that movement rather than letting them form part of it naturally (as they have been doing up to this point). And ironically the label of a particular concept threatens to be the cause of its downfall – but for the time being we can be pleased that there is an inkling of new enlightenments emerging in the artworld defining what Now is and pushing us in the direction of a less divided world.

the devolving minorities

2009-02-11T14:10:00.010Z

"I want to be the minority, I don't need your authority, down with the moral majority, because I want to be the minority". Another joined-up hypocrisy of pop-culture where everyone, in a bid to become unique, ends up being exactly the same.

But on this occasion I’m talking about the crescendo of Welsh voice against being part of Great Britain: although actually this isn’t the case at all. I’ve been reading a number of articles about how Welsh individuals are feeling repressed by the concept of Britain; how their language, cultures and traditions are not allowed to flourish due to being part of “British rule”. They want to devolve – but they’ve got their concepts mixed up: the truth is that they want to devolve from England not Britain.

And that is my little point for the day: that Wales is Britain, so is Scotland: they just want an identity free from England, that’s all. The unfortunate thing is that the question of England's devolvement, from the British Parliament, never comes up. So when all parts of Great Britain/ the UK fight for their individual autonomy their discourse is directed at England, not Britain. Britain only exists for the English and are now almost synonomous. I read a study that suggested that equal opportunities forms are frequently used to express that one is not British but Welsh, or Scottish, or Northern Irish. As if Britain is more tainted than anything else.

But why such contempt? What I gather from a article written (in perfect English) by a Welsh inhibitant (sic) is that this person was “forced” to learn in English and was therefore denied her “mother tongue”. Far be it for me to suggest that it would be insensitive and illogical for Welsh schools to apply a blanket language which is familiar to only 20% of Welsh people. Of this 20% only about 50% consider themselves fluent. The language may be important for the history of a country but should not act to restrict it’s future: learning about the history and culture is one thing but learning everything else in a unfamiliar language is absurd.

So my message to this writer is: although you are desperate to define your differences you should not ignore the startling similarities which essentially make you British. You’ve been empowered with the ability to move freely in a country, be educated and live anywhere within and you would have fundamentally have limited your future opportunities if you had been educated in Welsh.

Like me you might be half-welsh/ a quarter English/ Indian or whatever: the one thing you know for sure is that you are British. So when you talk of devolution make it clear that the Welsh Assembly deserves more autonomy for more local issues – like culture, tourism, transport – not a break from a strong and fundamental economic, social and ultimately democratic union which Wales is already constitutionally part of: This would be arbitrary and pedantic nationalism which would inevitably lead to the ostracisation of the majority of mixed nationality inhabitants of Britain as a whole.

progressive liberalism and the death of the west

2009-02-11T11:03:00.004Z

(This is not my idea, but I’m elaborating on my understanding.) I read a book by a gent called Patrick West. The first problem being that reading something that attacks liberalism, elements of democracy or the reality (rather than the ideal) of free speech suggests that you fit into the negative connotations of fascism, being “right wing” (whatever that is), a “neo-con” (even more ambiguous) or generally showing favour to absolutist or authoritarian government. This is absurd. “Labels” should be put to one side for the time being and cynicists should bear in mind that religious people should allow their faith to be tested (rather than following blindly) in the same way that people of certain political persuasions should know the contrary arguments thoroughly.

This book had amassed negative connotations because of political prudes being unable to ignore these “labels” – it was in fact a pragmatic and intellectual reality check of things as they stand with a disregard to the controversy that truth creates. I appreciated the tone – whilst disagreeing with many of his points.

The fundamental point is one which, for me at least, sums up a lot of the frustrations that arise when sociology meets reality. In order to “assert that no culture is better than another [the basic idea behind a multiculture], they [the government] happily elaborate that Western culture is actually inferior, and shy away from celebrating it for fear of causing offence”. One example being the traditional nativity play being removed from use in primary schools (I am an atheist but at my school we learned about the story of Hanukah as well suggesting there is a secular element to putting on a play in general). This is the difference between cultural toleration and cultural promotion. The book could easily be misinterpreted as a reassertion of our country’s nationalism: but it is in fact quite to the contrary. It suggests that culture overall is loosing out – not any specific culture but the fact that multiculturalism in reality overshadows individual cultures in favour of tolerance.

If interested the book is called "The Poverty of Multiculturalism" by Patrick West. Perhaps prepare for funny looks on the tube (although reading "And then there were none" by Agatha Christie was maybe a little more awkward - because my copy had the original title).

The irony is that the Western world’s predominant cultures are the ideas of social liberalism, freedom of speech and democracy: arguably the very things that are allowing the Western world to eventually lose its own identity. Whether this is a good or bad thing is another story.

unpaid caseworkers

2009-02-10T16:48:00.005Z

They may save law firms from individual crisis of credit but the idea of hiring unpaid caseworkers or paralegals is fundamentally adverse to social mobility.

There are a significant number of firms in the UK reaching out to the mass of inexperienced law graduands who are desperately seeking something to put them into training contract contention.

Law graduates have to pay up to £10,000 for their LPCs so those on low incomes have to take years out to this earn money. After that they still find themselves in a huge amount of debt and necessity means they need to enter the job market as soon as possible whilst desperately trying to swing their career paths onto the legal ladder. Experience, experience, experience, is all grads have to tip favour their way - but how to get it? Vacation schemes? unpaid. Shadowing? unpaid. CAB? unpaid. volunteer? erm... unpaid. Now becoming a caseworker will often mean you are unpaid. Other caseworker positions demand experience as a prerequisite. Paralegal positions require 3 years pqe or experience giving advice - say at the CAB where you are unpaid.

Of course the system is fair. It judges on merit: If an applicant is an excellent advocate (due to all their voluntary experience) they get the job on merit: they are genuinely better, they deserve it.

So when the government advocates social mobility, and getting kids to university, bear in mind that university educates you, but education doesnt necessarily give you a boost up the career ladder - you still start at the bottom - education merely resets the plateau.

There is an answer though! Low income graduands shouldn't fret they will make it if they want it - there will always be hurdles for everyone. Sometimes you might get a break as an administrator in a nearly legal capacity. Which you then might be able to blag as caseworker-esque experience. The phone queries you answer become "advice giving": The public that wander into the office you "interview". But this needn't be the only way of only firms decided to remunerate you for your experience searching troubles: you are doing them a favour after all.

the free movement of workers

2009-02-09T15:56:00.010Z

Hostility to foreign workers is nothing new and, in the recent context of EU workers in England, it's an even more tricky issue. Rather than pass personal judgement I will point out UNITE's approach of implying that British workers have been discriminated against rather than going into more dangerous territory by attacking the somewhat infallible EU regulations. They claim that British workers are being treated less favourably than the workers coming in from the EC who are prepared to work for less and therefore pushing their Brit counterparts out of the job market with cunningly simple supply demand economics.

The problem of course for British workers is that work opportunities in England seem attractive to individual citizens of the EC for a wide variety of reasons. Despite this the European Community, economicly rightly so, suggests that free movement of workers is good.

My point for this post is that the economic crisis has caused nations to become introverted. National governments buy out national banks paid for by the national taxpayers. Even America is looking within itself - seeking to take steps to being energy self-sufficient and, more controversially, by only allowing use of American steel. Restricting imports is essentially creating tariffs. If the US starts doing this the rest of the world might follow and simple economics suggets that the crisis will get worse. When considering how to deal with this situation parties should think of the bigger picture. The reason why there is free movement of workers is so that Europe prospers as a single economic entity. Therefore we should look to saving the European economy not just our national one.

A cheaper workforce means that many workers will be forced out of the job market - but it means that industry will be more likely to cope through the crisis. If people can sue firms for this suggested discrimination businesses are even more likely to go under. On a national level loosing our production industries is devastating. On a European scale you have to bear in mind that importation of skilled foreign workers is good for the economy. Both suggest that these measures are a good thing.

To save Britain from economic collapse we need to save Europe, and to save Europe we need to save the world. Gordon Brown was actually right when he said he wanted to save the world: using strong economic policy from an altruistic international perspective is more likely to save the world than the ridiculously selfish introspective nationalism: which will save us in the short term but bring the Western world to its knees before we see a single quarter of economic growth.

the snow day excuse

2009-02-04T12:24:00.008Z

Walking past the Old Curiosity Shop on Monday at 8am one would be forgiven for thinking that you were actually strolling through Dickensian London. Cliched I know. The snow in the capital was truly spectacular, something I have never seen in my experience, but it was the quiet that was having the strangest of effects. London had a day off.

Now as exciting as a snow day on this magnitude is, it throws up some pretty contentious employment problems. I checked the forcasts the night before and got up an hour and a half earlier to ensure I wasnt unduly delayed by the inevitable transport problems that would occur. This was common sense. I made it into work on time by just compromising a little and planning ahead.

On the other side of the coin you have people who live in places where you absolutely rely on a specific transport link which lets you down. This would have been very common on Monday - south east trains, all open air tube lines, all bus routes. These people are unable to get to work. If they were heart surgeons or firemen or the train drivers themselves they just couldn't make it.

Then you have this middle ground. People who dont make any prior arrangements, who look out of the window in the morning and think "no way". Maybe they phone up a colleague, the colleague says "I'm not sure, the lines are probably badly delayed/ blocked up/ not running, i'll phone someone else and get back to you". This chain of indecision runs until one person, who may or may not be able to attempt to get in, simply says they are not. Safety in numbers, everyone goes back to bed - snow day!

Finally there is another group who look out the window and see the weather and think - "the tube lines will be messed up - i can have another hour in bed and easily blame my lateness on the transport".

So the problem comes when the employers are considering what to do: Those who made it in worked hard to compensate for the lack of attendance while those who couldnt make it in stay at home. Those who couldn't be bothered to try also get a day off. Legally the day is an absence. It wouldnt be seem fair however to dock pay on such a big level. The compromise appears to be in the realm of making the day off count as annual leave - objectively this is fair on those who battled the elements to make it in. For the people who couldnt possibly get in this is harsh.

There is no way to distinguish between those who made genuine attempts to get in and those who just stayed in bed. The uproar from many of my colleagues, and other stories I have heard, concerning taking a day of annual leave for the day off is somewhat offensive - if they were to be just let off then surely those who made it into work should have been sent home immediately. But in there defense another problem is posed: what if some cunning employees preempt the problem and take the day off as sick leave?

social mobility and the class system

2009-01-30T13:01:00.007Z

Marx argued that class [was] the most fundamental inequality in society. This is now generally thought to be an outdated view because class has become far too complex to strictly define in modern society; and is now no longer the primary tool of racial, patriarchal and discriminatory divisions.

Social mobility has become the buzz-word for the destruction of class boundaries and one of the predominant tools of social mobility, advocated by most Western governments, is education. Education, along with the [seriously flawed] merit system ideal, is what someone needs to position themselves freely in society. Your history and social context is objectively irrelevant if you have obtained what you need through the education system. You can become a doctor or lawyer, previously purely the professions of the middle classes, if you work hard enough at school; and everyone is [supposed to be] given an equal opportunity to it.

So the labour government in the turn of the milennium advocated university education - to provide all of the aspiring educated with a means to succeed in the world. However, presumably in an attempt to implement blind equality, it has become quite clear that they have forgotten a few simple rules of economics. If everyone has a degree there will be a glut of graduates who cannot get "graduate-type" jobs. So in order to get head-and-shoulders above their fellow graduates many must seek further ways to educate themselves - with post graduate qualifications or more experience.

The government does not fund post-grad qualifications. And those "lower classes" saddled with crippling debt from university cannot afford to volunteer for experience and must simply enter the job market whereever they can. Many are forced to start at the bottom of the ladder again: 3-4 years behind everyone else and in serious debt.

This is the result of encouraging too many students to go to university to gain arbitrary degrees in "mickey mouse?" subjects - without then allowing appropriate equality of opportunity at recruitment level. Equality of opportunity must cover everything or it will fail.

The answer is there - it is just not used as it should be. The merit system for recruitment would help to select the right candidate for a job rather than the one who has had the benefit of nepotism or financial backing which have provided hollow experience or opportunities to "shadow" professionals (as if this could possibly demonstrate a higher level of experience).

The merit system is failing and needs to be fixed.

never judge a judge by the length of his.... service

2009-01-29T15:30:00.005Z

...clearly this one forgets the importance of equality laws in favour of personal pride:

"Written tests are no guide to your ability to be a judge". A Times article this week where a judge has decided to take action because his years of experience did not give him an advantage in the application process over more junior candidates.

Full article can be found here:
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article5599860.ece

The judge was told in a “dismissive and cursory” letter that his application would be taken no further.

I'm having a difficult job not attacking this article due to my own personal experiences of applications in the legal sector. This man has been turned down for a job as he was unable to get through the sifting stage of the process. The article makes it clear that this stage was in place to sift out candidates who couldn't demonstrate that they met the minimum standards. The judge evidently found the questions so trite that he reflected his superiority in his over-concise and cynical, albeit correct, responses: which were then interpreted as insufficient.

With great power comes great arrogance. Perhaps the judge would be surprised to hear that in this tricky economic times a law and LPC graduate, with top 5% academic qualifications, who has taken all practical steps to get on the legal career ladder has an even more torrid time. This type of candidate appreciates these "tests" which eliminate the often deceiving weighting placed on this so called experience - experience which in 9 out of 10 cases is gained from nepotism of some sorts - or otherwise greater opportunities being offered to those in circumstances where they can afford to work for free.

So when employers start developing ways of judging pure merit - through an extended incremental recruitment process (which may well be arbitrary to some) you would only complain if, on failure, you reflect that you could have tried harder - yet this judge's inflated ego suggests you shouldn't have had to! He states that "any bar student could swot up" - you could argue that if any judge swotted up too they could do equally well if not better! Essentially everyone has the same chance - some might find it easier if they have more experience, some might try harder if they haven't - and following, if some have learnt more from their experience it will come out at a later stage of application anyway. This is the whole point: equality of opportunity. The best candidate might never have been given the opportunity to have been a judge already for 6 years: why should they be dismissed at such an early stage in favour of someone who had?

Access to jobs is an issue for another day - but allowing candidates an equal opportunity to be heard by employers is far fairer than risking institutionaled discrimination to prevail: even if some overqualified candidates believe they have a predetermined right.

"Arab-Israeli" is not synonomous with "wrong-right"

2009-01-26T11:09:00.001Z

... or right-wrong for that matter. I have tried to avoid thinking too much about the issues in Gaza: not out of denial but through recognition of my ignorance on the matter. Opinion will always be polarised and standing on either side of the fence forces you to defend your opinions - to the point of having a debate on an issue you're simply not prepared for. So avoidance has been my motive thus far.

Recently however the vehemence from both sides towards relatively neutral opinion has inspired me to find out more. There have been marches across London where institutions have been petitioned to make statements as to their loyalty one way or another. London university students have staged sit-in protests demanding that their deans deny support of Israelis and make express statements that they will do all they can to help the Palestinian citizens who are suffering.

Now the BBC is under attack for being bias. Of course the media is bias - it's the media! But its the only real form of information we have on what is going on in gaza - so i ask - how do we know that any information we have isn't bias? This is really an arbitrary point. People are entitled to make up their own opinions - even if they are to be made up of terribly poor knowledge or terribly bias media influence. What seems to be the difficulty here is the singular methods of argument over the Arab-Israeli conflict: defend the Israeli government and you are branded as being anti-palestinian; fight for human rights protection for Gazans and be accused of insensitivity to the long term suffering of israeli citizens living in fear of terrorism.

I am so sure of the absurdity of this scenario - forcing public media to just keep quiet for fear of offense - that it will soon become general public opinion and that this small post will seem trite. But as we stand today people can not see the absurdity in their argumentation - only their own polarised opinion is relevant and they will take offense if you refute them.

What I find the most horrific thing of all is that the more I learn about the conflict as a whole the more I realise that the whole problem is a Western creation: I dont mean this from the viewpoint that the initial zionist habitation was wrong - but from the viewpoint that Westernised democracy was seen as the only logical answer to the problem for the most part of the conflict and following this the sensitivity of the situation meant that the majority of Western influence or "help" was underhand - essentially to suppress extremism which threatened the democratic model thought of as compulsory.

"Arab-Israeli" is not synonomous with "wrong-right" (or vice versa). I say we should take different sides: human rights vs national autonomy: liberty vs sanction: humanity vs pride: tolerance vs stubbornness.

the disguise of diversity

2009-01-23T23:45:00.000Z

This is short because if i start to rant it might be misinterpreted.

A white middle class male approached me today. He attends an institution which is famed for its ethnic and national diversity. It boasts its status as the most diverse institution where people from every corner of the globe, from every minority, are welcome to come and unite. The male told me that these people come and form societies based on their ethnic origins or nationalities. Consequently these societies cut themselves off slightly by being a united group in themselves. To be in the societies you have to fit the criteria. The institution is proud because they have hundreds of societies representing hundreds of minorities. Not only does the male have no society to which he fits but the societies have also segregated themselves from the others. They do not need to open themselves up to diversity or blending. So the institution is not a compound but a mixture. And it is not the role model of multiculturalism it says it is.

when institutionalisation meets affaires courantes

2009-01-12T14:51:00.000Z

Is Harry a racist? The online dictionary's definition of racism includes "...usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others". Humour can be seen in the fact that ones own "race" (or bloodline in this case) does indeed have the right to rule over others and by definition is therefore superior. whether that "right" is right or not is a debate for elsewhere.

Pedantics aside I can't decide how serious this issue is. "Paki" is a term which is generally considered as offensive. It is frequently used as a racial insult. I pondered the fact that the British army might be referred to as the "Brits" and the Pakistani army could - in pure linguistic terms - be referred to as the "Paks" for instance. However, the point is that when a word gains negative connotations through being used with offensive intentions it is by all accounts an offensive word. Perhaps therefore it would be fine to refer to the Pakistani army in this way if the term "Paki" had never been used in the racist way which it often is. So i dont think the word should be used on these grounds.

The other point of potential defense is the context which the word was used in. The army's institutionalised stereotypes are common - race based or not. the racism seems to go both ways. It is not abnormal to be branded with nicknames associated with the way you look - usually drawing on the negative in a depricating way. Even those with the names will defend them with the fact that they add to the camaraderie and therefore help with morale. Still where terms are instittutionalsed the people branded with them are covertly forced to accept them. Arguably therefore they are taken for granted and accepted and all possible offense is buried.

A problem for Harry is that if all of his peers in the army refer to peoples nicknames then he would be obliged to. obviously it can be suggested that an heir to the throne should be able to retain his absolute integrity and should not therefore use a general superficial expectations as an excuse.

I conclude that Harry's remarks were damaging and offensive. They were uncalled for and action should be taken. The action taken however should be very much in light of the context the remarks were made in. The racist witch-hunt of the modern era would do much better to look behind the racism rather than by just finding new people to accuse. If a person is offended the remarks were offensive but incidental racism is different from racial abuse and should be treated as distinct: not to suggets that the former is acceptable but to understand that incidental racism arises from circumstance more than from the deliberate mens rea of the culprit. On the other hand much of the media has neglected to mention that Harry also referred to people as ragheads - surely a comment with far less scope for justification yet a comment which recieved relatively little outcry.

so this is christmas

2008-12-23T13:21:00.001Z

so it's the 23rd of december which means in a day or two it will be christmas day. because i am an atheist i will be celebrating a purely capitalist christmas. this is the best type of christmas where you get the opportunity to get lots of presents and get even more presents for other people. this is good. could this be the first year that i haven't heard everyone moan about the capitalist christmas? probably - everyone is desperate for everyone else to forget about charity and religion and goodwell and go and spend shit loads on a pile of worthless stuff or food or whatever. i fully agree. plow millions back into the economy.

its not very odd that "christmas" has become commercialised. i never know why people try to pretend its a bad thing. it started as being a chritian festival but now in our multicultural nation everyone "celebrates" it. it is one of the most important holidays of the year - it has 2 massive days of debauchery (christmas day and newe years eve) and 2 whole weeks of almost compulsory office closure. the muslims, sikhs, jews, hindu's, atheists and christians all get a well earned break. religion is irrelevant to this. Uproar that is associated with not being allowed to put on a nativity play at a multicultural school may be a dent to our christian pride but it certainly isnt a dent to our national pride. In some sense banning of the play is retarded - but in others it is perfectly fair. it purely depends on if the school is marketing the story as historical/ religious fact or if they are marketing it as a nice christmas play which is inevitably intertwined with Western tradition. The latter is perfectly legitimate but due to the sickeningly polar views of many people it is probably best to scrap the thing altogether to avoid the inevitable problems that would occur from a little jew girl wondering why the three wise men were following a star rather than a menorah. still i would be happy to have put on a play based on the festival of ights purely due the fact that even at 8 i knew it was a jewish story and didnt necessarily start rushing to the synagogue every yom kippur. Islam has an alternative story of jesus - one which i would have loved to have learned about when i was 10 after hearing the nativity playing on loop for 5 years. and on top of all of that father christmas represents the christmas of western culture and is linked to this culture as much as the religions that make it. In the same way i use to revel in food available at Eid i am sure that a jewish or islamic family are partial to a bit of kosha/ halal turkey on christmas day.

i think its got something once again to do with the inherent separation which stems from differences in culture. i dont know where it comes from - maybe as an athiest it is easier to be open and liberal to cultural and religious ideas that it is for a strong detemined christian or whatever to open their mind for once. The worst thing about all of this is that british tradition (as distinct from its modern culture) is essentially christian - we needn't sacrifice these traditions because they have remnants of religion in them - why do we (the nation as a whole) feel the need to ignore some customs yet embrace others? is this what we are trying to call multicultural integration? because i would argue that it's not.

the lost generation

2008-12-22T15:02:00.000Z

i am a man who is trying to get a job. i have a masters degree and a great deal of acumen so i shouldnt have a problem. my father paid my way through univeristy and in the holidays i went to work at his company to see what it was like and get some experience. i got paid quite a bit for doing this and the experience was far more hands on that the people who volunteer at the local CAB or police station. i should have no problem getting a job soon.

i am a disabled man who is trying to get a job. i have poor vision in my left eye and no use of my left leg. i have a masters degree and a great deal of acumen but i am unable to get a job because i have no experience: i tried to get some but no one would give me any experience. all employers seem to want is experience but i never got any. i could have applied for vacation schemes while i studied but the communte would have been difficult because of my disability. i could have volunteered at the local CAB but my eyes get tired too quickly. thankfully there is a new scheme which means that if you meet the minimum criteria for a job you must be interviewed. this means i can work hard and impress at my interview - i an explain why i dont have much experience but why i am still best for the job. i can show them how intellegent i am, how i'm good with people and work hard. i can get myself a job.

i am a man who is trying to get a job. but for the odd financial difficulty i have nothing to complain about in my life. i have a masters degree and a great deal of acumen but i am unable to get a job because i have no experience: i tried to get some but no one would give me any experience. all employers seem to want is experience but i never got any. i could have applied for vacation schemes while i studied but i had to work evenings and weekends and every holiday to pay for my course. i could have volunteered at the local CAB but i was tired all of the time due to working evening shifts in a bar. they turn me a way and say their shortlist for interview is simpy made up of people with more experience. i have been trying to get a job for 2 years but so far have had no luck. i am an intelligent man and will keep trying.

xenophobe

2008-12-16T12:57:00.000Z

i live in london, sheffield, england, britain. my english is perfect. i have no accent. i am defined by my appearance. i appear pale and young and nervous but i am none of these things. i dont define myself by my ethnic origins. i dont say "i'm not a very good muslim". i dont say "i have jewish blood so i dont eat pork". i have english blood, jewish blood, islamic blood, italian blood, swedish blood, saxon blood, fascist blood, racist blood. i have given blood. now other people have my blood too. a palestinian now has jewish blood. a jew now has fascist blood.

i only buy my spices from the market: i have to support my people. i buy halal meat, i buy kosha meat. i write "jewish" on equal opportunities forms so that i can define my difference. my father is irish so now i am "white irish". i put "other" to confuse them. i am none of these things. i am all of them.

i am in love with a white boy. my father hates white boys. my father speaks with such a heavy accent i cant understand him. i grew up here. i was originally from argentina. i was born in england. i was born in pakistan. i am embarrassed by my white boy. he tries to understand. he learns a bit of punjab. he reads about moses, the holocaust, learns how to cook bahjis, learns about the culture, the history. i am embarrassed and i cannot take him home. he is a black boy, he is a white boy and my father has a history of white power bands and black hand gangs. my father hates my boyfriend from nigeria, my boyfirend from india, my boyfriend from israel.

my estate is ghetto. i live in an ethnic area. the food here is better than yours. i live in brick lane, headingly, bradford and glasgow. i am loyal to my culture: i fight to preserve it, i fight to emphasise it, i cannot lose it. i teach my children to braid hair and to play the drums, to dance. i teach them their history i tell them "you are jewish you will live like this", i say "this is your culture, your heritage". they will never see a synagogue, they will never see a church or mosque but they will live the culture.

we are modern people. we are a multiculture. i am multiculture. my children will not sing christian carols at school, they will not go on a field trip to derby i will deny them their multiculture to preserve their heritage. They will fear the black man, they will fear the WASPs, the jews, chinese people, all of them, they are all better and more successful, they are cooler, they can dance better, they are richer, they are taller, they are more intelligent, they are more cultured, they write better, talk better, love better, live better, stronger, happier. we will be divided and we will be conquered.