In reply to Post #1244
Good on ya Scozza, the point is, not everyone is like you.
As far as I can see, the BLM movement is asking for nothing more than this:
Colour of the skin does not matter to me at all Mal, can they do the job or not, end of story
All the ******** about cancelling the police etc was said by some daft BLM extremist and grabbed by the statue defenders as evidence that it's all nonsense.
Good on ya Scozza, the point is, not everyone is like you.
As far as I can see, the BLM movement is asking for nothing more than this:
Colour of the skin does not matter to me at all Mal, can they do the job or not, end of story
All the ******** about cancelling the police etc was said by some daft BLM extremist and grabbed by the statue defenders as evidence that it's all nonsense.
In reply to Post #1245
As in black people, white people, yellow people?
Funny, because I worked for a Japanese company for 20 years
I get it
Japanese
Chinese
African
As in black people, white people, yellow people?
Funny, because I worked for a Japanese company for 20 years
I get it
Japanese
Chinese
African
In reply to Post #1246
I understand that Jon
I understand that Jon
In reply to Post #1230
"Wayne can't change his mind - the pound shop won't take it back... It's not their fault he got one that was too small"
Rotten sods - it's unused!
"Wayne can't change his mind - the pound shop won't take it back... It's not their fault he got one that was too small"
Rotten sods - it's unused!
In reply to Post #1247
Just to sidebar slightly. The Washington redskins NFL team is being renamed. Nike and other sponsors have cut ties until they do. Native Americans are offended. No idea what they'll rebrand as but it would be nice To see it not move far and pay homage. Renamed the natives or something and retain logos, etc as it would be in tribute to them not an offensive name. Maybe take a directive to employ or support Native American communities or something.
Just to sidebar slightly. The Washington redskins NFL team is being renamed. Nike and other sponsors have cut ties until they do. Native Americans are offended. No idea what they'll rebrand as but it would be nice To see it not move far and pay homage. Renamed the natives or something and retain logos, etc as it would be in tribute to them not an offensive name. Maybe take a directive to employ or support Native American communities or something.
In reply to Post #1230
Can Always rely on you for the insults Mallory.......
Can Always rely on you for the insults Mallory.......
In reply to Post #1250
Maybe take a directive to employ or support Native American communities or something
Perfect
But let's look at the facts. Nike don't really give a **** do they, otherwise they wouldn't be paying peanuts to people in third world countries to produce their goods
I can hear it now, ah, but they are providing jobs for people in third world countries. The reality is they could be American jobs. It's down to the third world countries governments to sort out their problems.
Fact number 1, Nike are only bothered about their public perception and branding and need to be seen as politically correct like a lot of large corporations, load of bollox really. What they should be asking Nike is why are they banging on about native Americans when they are exploiting people in third world countries and the answer would be they are probably paying the government a nice wedge for the pleasure
Edit - One for Jon, he mentioned it a while ago and he is right
By 2017, American companies had put at least $2.6 trillion into offshore tax shelters. President Donald Trump, when arguing for his sweeping tax reform bill, claimed the actual number is $5 trillion.
If the companies ever decide to move the money back onshore, the IRS can levy taxes on it. But until recently, most companies had no intention of doing so. The offshore investments became known as “permanently reinvested earnings.”
By the end of 2017, Nike had $12.2 billion in permanently reinvested earnings. The company estimates that if its $12.2 billion was repatriated to the U.S., it would owe $4.1 billion in U.S. taxes, according to its SEC filings.
“Designating its profits this way allows the company to avoid paying even a dime of U.S. income taxes on these profits until they are repatriated to the U.S.,” said Matt Gardner, a senior fellow at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.
How's that for Nike. Imagine what you could do with that $
Not to mention screwing Indonesia down to pay less than there set minimum wages, again and again and again
Quite ethical eh. BLM
Maybe take a directive to employ or support Native American communities or something
Perfect
But let's look at the facts. Nike don't really give a **** do they, otherwise they wouldn't be paying peanuts to people in third world countries to produce their goods
I can hear it now, ah, but they are providing jobs for people in third world countries. The reality is they could be American jobs. It's down to the third world countries governments to sort out their problems.
Fact number 1, Nike are only bothered about their public perception and branding and need to be seen as politically correct like a lot of large corporations, load of bollox really. What they should be asking Nike is why are they banging on about native Americans when they are exploiting people in third world countries and the answer would be they are probably paying the government a nice wedge for the pleasure
Edit - One for Jon, he mentioned it a while ago and he is right
By 2017, American companies had put at least $2.6 trillion into offshore tax shelters. President Donald Trump, when arguing for his sweeping tax reform bill, claimed the actual number is $5 trillion.
If the companies ever decide to move the money back onshore, the IRS can levy taxes on it. But until recently, most companies had no intention of doing so. The offshore investments became known as “permanently reinvested earnings.”
By the end of 2017, Nike had $12.2 billion in permanently reinvested earnings. The company estimates that if its $12.2 billion was repatriated to the U.S., it would owe $4.1 billion in U.S. taxes, according to its SEC filings.
“Designating its profits this way allows the company to avoid paying even a dime of U.S. income taxes on these profits until they are repatriated to the U.S.,” said Matt Gardner, a senior fellow at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.
How's that for Nike. Imagine what you could do with that $
Not to mention screwing Indonesia down to pay less than there set minimum wages, again and again and again
Quite ethical eh. BLM
In reply to Post #1252
Yes Nike are probably the most hypocritical of the lot. But Fedex has said the same and also the federal government that own the land the stadium is built on have said they can't rebuild it as planned until it's changed. Positive movement.
Yes Nike are probably the most hypocritical of the lot. But Fedex has said the same and also the federal government that own the land the stadium is built on have said they can't rebuild it as planned until it's changed. Positive movement.
In reply to Post #1244
Scozza I do think that colour of skin is not an issue for you - But is is a huge issue for many others.
It's an issue for people of colour every day.
And unfortunately it's a different kind of issue for white right wing supremacists in a different way.
Positive discrimination only exists to redress imbalances. That applies to gender too. Imagine someone assuming your wife was a less effective police officer just because she's female.
Your idea of a totally level playing field for all is exactly what BLM is really about. A kind of utopia I suppose...
As for 'why's that then?' - it's absolutely NOT because of the colour of their skin. Poor training from your employer is more likely as a suggested reason.
Scozza I do think that colour of skin is not an issue for you - But is is a huge issue for many others.
It's an issue for people of colour every day.
And unfortunately it's a different kind of issue for white right wing supremacists in a different way.
Positive discrimination only exists to redress imbalances. That applies to gender too. Imagine someone assuming your wife was a less effective police officer just because she's female.
Your idea of a totally level playing field for all is exactly what BLM is really about. A kind of utopia I suppose...
As for 'why's that then?' - it's absolutely NOT because of the colour of their skin. Poor training from your employer is more likely as a suggested reason.
In reply to Post #1251
You're right.
Apologies to any pound shop owners out there if I offended you.
You're right.
Apologies to any pound shop owners out there if I offended you.
In reply to Post #1255
I don't get offended but thanks all the same......
I don't get offended but thanks all the same......
In reply to Post #1254
Poor training is not the problem, they have not got the relevant qualificatiins to start with, certain skills can be taught and that is open to all, whether they can do it is another story, another massive one, communications and an even bigger one, attitude towards work but more importantly towards others, some of them have a very ****ing bad attitude problem
Poor training is not the problem, they have not got the relevant qualificatiins to start with, certain skills can be taught and that is open to all, whether they can do it is another story, another massive one, communications and an even bigger one, attitude towards work but more importantly towards others, some of them have a very ****ing bad attitude problem
In reply to Post #1254
Poor training from your employer is more likely as a suggested reason.
We don't work at Scozza's company Mal but my guess is that in attempt to redress the balance with positive discrimination they've employed the wrong people, perhaps there wasn't enough suitable BAME applicants for the job but in attempt to do the right thing they employed them anyway?
Poor training from your employer is more likely as a suggested reason.
We don't work at Scozza's company Mal but my guess is that in attempt to redress the balance with positive discrimination they've employed the wrong people, perhaps there wasn't enough suitable BAME applicants for the job but in attempt to do the right thing they employed them anyway?
In reply to Post #1258
Exactly that
Lets set them all on in Mals, field, let them all be teachers, oh, wait a minute, they cant do it, they don't have the capabilty or right attitude for starters...
There are idiots in this life and they are idiots for.a reason
Lets try and reducate the UK again when they have already had one crack at it or most likely did not give a ****
Exactly that
Lets set them all on in Mals, field, let them all be teachers, oh, wait a minute, they cant do it, they don't have the capabilty or right attitude for starters...
There are idiots in this life and they are idiots for.a reason
Lets try and reducate the UK again when they have already had one crack at it or most likely did not give a ****
In reply to Post #1259
Then surely that's it not a reflection on the people employed, but the employee choosing the wrong people.
I agree, should be employed and paid based on your capabilities, not colour, gender, knowing the right people, etc. Equality.
Then surely that's it not a reflection on the people employed, but the employee choosing the wrong people.
I agree, should be employed and paid based on your capabilities, not colour, gender, knowing the right people, etc. Equality.