Rosenior, very harsh on our club

[The Dolman Pragmatist]

51 minutes ago, Bar BS3 said:

It's not just a race issue. It relates to sex & sexuality (amongst other things) as well. 

Equal rights, in many instances have gone ass about tit and it's now fine to have groups/awards/jobs/events etc specifically for women, blacks, gays. 

There would be uproar if something was restricted to White, English, straight men only (rightly so). 

You often find that it is the minority (or whatever term you may choose to use) groups themselves that differentiate themselves from everyone else and expect individual, seperated, preferential treatment, away from the rest of an all inclusive society. 

The best plumber should be the best plumber, regardless of race, gender, sexuality, religion etc. 

The same should go for music artist/fireman (person!)/teacher/politician AND football manager. 

Why aren't women allowed to be football managers of men's teams..? THAT, in this day & age is a far more relevant question than why some bloke has just chosen for the release of his autobiography to make claims of racial discrimination. 

I really don't know where to start with this.  Perhaps I'll limit myself to saying that of course I agree that the best candidate should always successful, but surely the issue is that there are those who believe that that is not always the case.  Are you really saying that you don't believe there is any discrimination in the UK against black people, women, the disabled, gay people, older people?  Really? I don't think any minority group wants preferential treatment.  I think what people want is equality.

[Bar BS3]

8 minutes ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

I really don't know where to start with this.  Perhaps I'll limit myself to saying that of course I agree that the best candidate should always successful, but surely the issue is that there are those who believe that that is not always the case.  Are you really saying that you don't believe there is any discrimination in the UK against black people, women, the disabled, gay people, older people?  Really? I don't think any minority group wants preferential treatment.  I think what people want is equality.

There should, of course, be equality. 

Where is the equality in a white man not getting a job with the fire brigade because they need to fill their quota of black people..?! 

If it wasn't true, it would almost sound like a joke!

Equality should mean equality. Not give preference to people who aren't white, straight, males, so that it looks like equality. 

On application forms it asks for details, claiming to fit in with equal opportunities. Surely equal opportunities would mean that info about race, disability, sex, religion shouldn't even be on there..?! 

Sadly, equality, in many situations, is not equality in the slightest, if you are not part of a minority. 

 

[LondonBristolian]

First of all, the simple fact is we don't know.

Leroy Rosenior is welcome to his opinion and, were I overlooked in a job for someone less qualified than me, I might start to ask questions about the reasons too. The people saying "well, he was a rubbish manager" are forgetting he had not managed then. As he himself says, he had no argument with it going to an experienced candidate but I can see why he thought it odd someone with even less experience than him was appointed.

At the same time, I don't think he's massively slagging off the club - more the culture in football at the time. The fact he's now bringing it up shows that that culture is starting to change, which is positive. We'll never know with any certainty why Fawthorp got the job over him but I have no issue at all with him bringing it up and I do feel some of the extreme over-sensitivity being displayed here rather interesting.

 

[LondonBristolian]

 

2 minutes ago, Bar BS3 said:

There should, of course, be equality. 

Where is the equality in a white man not getting a job with the fire brigade because they need to fill their quota of black people..?! 

If it wasn't true, it would almost sound like a joke!

Equality should mean equality. Not give preference to people who aren't white, straight, males, so that it looks like equality. 

On application forms it asks for details, claiming to fit in with equal opportunities. Surely equal opportunities would mean that info about race, disability, sex, religion shouldn't even be on there..?! 

Sadly, equality, in many situations, is not equality in the slightest, if you are not part of a minority. 

 

The situation in bold would be in breach of the equality act. Such quotas do not exist, and legally cannot exist.  So it probably sounds like a joke because the situation you describe is not true.

Also, the equal opportunities information you mention is almost always kept separate to the application. Human resources departments can find out afterwards how many people of different ethnicities, genders etc. apply for jobs and how many get applied. People cannot usually see that information when screening candidates for interviews and offer interviews based on that. There are only two situations where this is not true.

1) People are allowed to limit a role to people of a protected characteistic under the equality act in very specific circumstances if it is integral to the role. (So, for example, a women's refuge can only employ women, for example).

2) If you have two candidates equal in every respect, you can choose to use an under-represented protected characteristic as the tie-breaker.

But this whole idea that black people or gay people or disabled people have some advantage in job interviews is not consistent with actual employment law. Most of the circumstances you are describing both cannot and do not happen.

 

[Super]

Comes across as very bitter and disrespectful.

 

He added: "When Tony got it I was gutted. Tony had never got a coaching badge, let alone played the game. He was a fixer, a handyman around the club and so to be overlooked was a blow.
 

[LondonBristolian]

22 minutes ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

I really don't know where to start with this.  Perhaps I'll limit myself to saying that of course I agree that the best candidate should always successful, but surely the issue is that there are those who believe that that is not always the case.  Are you really saying that you don't believe there is any discrimination in the UK against black people, women, the disabled, gay people, older people?  Really? I don't think any minority group wants preferential treatment.  I think what people want is equality.

I think what people often forget is the (scientifically proven) role of confirmation bias when making decisions. Generally we'll consider someone more suited to be a politician or football manager or whatever else if they look like we expect those people to look. For example, if you were recruiting a football manger and a possible candidate was a wheelchair user then - even if they had all the badges, even if they were the most tactically astute candidate and even if someone else was running training sessions so their impairment would have no impact on their ability to do the role - they would probably be discounted. Similarly the woman manager Clermont Foot, or whatever the club called in France, has done a solid job but I suspect women would struggle to get the role. And, if we accept women are not likely to be appointed as football managers and wheelchair users are not likely to be appointed as football managers, why is it such a gigantic leap to suggest black people might be less likely to?

 

I don't think it's because people are hugely racist or horrible people. But I think when people think of a football manager they will think of Mourinho or Conte or Pep or whoever else (which again shows confirmation bias - continental managers succeed at the very top so I'd suggest some clubs consider continental managers even when there are English managers who more qualified). I don't think it is a massive leap to say that because a black manager does not look like Mourinho or Conte or Pep then it may sometimes make it less likely they will be considered. 

[Bar BS3]

8 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

 

The situation in bold would be in breach of the equality act. Such quotas do not exist, and legally cannot exist.  So it probably sounds like a joke because the situation you describe is not true.

Also, the equal opportunities information you mention is almost always kept separate to the application. Human resources departments can find out afterwards how many people of different ethnicities, genders etc. apply for jobs and how many get applied. People cannot usually see that information when screening candidates for interviews and offer interviews based on that. There are only two situations where this is not true.

1) People are allowed to limit a role to people of a protected characteistic under the equality act in very specific circumstances if it is integral to the role. (So, for example, a women's refuge can only employ women, for example).

2) If you have two candidates equal in every respect, you can choose to use an under-represented protected characteristic as the tie-breaker.

But this whole idea that black people or gay people or disabled people have some advantage in job interviews is not consistent with actual employment law. Most of the circumstances you are describing both cannot and do not happen.

 

I know for certain that a good friend of mine, who since joined the police and has worked his way up to Sargent, was not admitted into his first choice career of the fire service because they only had vacancies that were available to minority groups because they needed to fulfil those quotas of the work force. 

[Engvall's Splinter]

Played locally for a number clubs and played only under one black manager. 

At that level clubs can't often be as choosy yet it remains that managers are mostly white. Maybe there isn't as much interest in management. 

[LondonBristolian]

8 minutes ago, Super said:

Comes across as very bitter and disrespectful.

 

He added: "When Tony got it I was gutted. Tony had never got a coaching badge, let alone played the game. He was a fixer, a handyman around the club and so to be overlooked was a blow.
 

Surely it is only bitter and disrespectful if none of that is actually a fact? I can't remember - was it?

[Bar BS3]

12 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

 

The situation in bold would be in breach of the equality act. Such quotas do not exist, and legally cannot exist.  So it probably sounds like a joke because the situation you describe is not true.

Also, the equal opportunities information you mention is almost always kept separate to the application. Human resources departments can find out afterwards how many people of different ethnicities, genders etc. apply for jobs and how many get applied. People cannot usually see that information when screening candidates for interviews and offer interviews based on that. There are only two situations where this is not true.

1) People are allowed to limit a role to people of a protected characteistic under the equality act in very specific circumstances if it is integral to the role. (So, for example, a women's refuge can only employ women, for example).

2) If you have two candidates equal in every respect, you can choose to use an under-represented protected characteristic as the tie-breaker.

But this whole idea that black people or gay people or disabled people have some advantage in job interviews is not consistent with actual employment law. Most of the circumstances you are describing both cannot and do not happen.

 

I would also point you to this article. 

Like it or not, it does happen because organisations are terrified of being seen as racist. (Or as they would put it, "want to reflect the diverse cultures of Britain")

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/news/uk/670266/BBC-advert-white-people-ethnic-equality-staff-job-internship/amp

 

[Super]

3 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

Surely it is only bitter and disrespectful if none of that is actually a fact? I can't remember - was it?

Why should playing the game matter? Lots of managers have never played the game.

[LondonBristolian]

1 minute ago, Bar BS3 said:

I know for certain that a good friend of mine, who since joined the police and has worked his way up to Sargent, was not admitted into his first choice career of the fire service because they only had vacancies that were available to minority groups because they needed to fulfil those quotas of the work force. 

Was that before or after 2010? Certainly the 2010 Equality Act has very specific circumstances only where positive action can be applied and it can only be applied to equally qualified applicants. However, to my knowledge, positive discrimination has never been allowed under UK law and 'quotas' certainly are not. The fire brigade or police are able to target recruitment to certain groups if they feel is under-representation of parts of the community (which is fair enough really as they are serving the whole community) but cannot directly refuse someone a job based on their skin colour, whether that be white or otherwise. 

[LondonBristolian]

1 minute ago, Super said:

Why should playing the game matter? Lots of managers have never played the game.

Sure. Because they earn coaching badges and prove they can do it. If someone had never played the game, never held a coaching badge and never really been involved in training, it would be surprising to see them appointed as manager. 

[Bar BS3]

2 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

Was that before or after 2010? Certainly the 2010 Equality Act has very specific circumstances only where positive action can be applied and it can only be applied to equally qualified applicants. However, to my knowledge, positive discrimination has never been allowed under UK law and 'quotas' certainly are not. The fire brigade or police are able to target recruitment to certain groups if they feel is under-representation of parts of the community (which is fair enough really as they are serving the whole community) but cannot directly refuse someone a job based on their skin colour, whether that be white or otherwise. 

It was before then. 

[CotswoldRed]

Is he happy to answer a court case where individuals defend themselves against his accusation of them being racists? 

Maybe he can't then reveal the full evidence. 

[LondonBristolian]

8 minutes ago, Bar BS3 said:

I would also point you to this article. 

Like it or not, it does happen because organisations are terrified of being seen as racist. (Or as they would put it, "want to reflect the diverse cultures of Britain")

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/news/uk/670266/BBC-advert-white-people-ethnic-equality-staff-job-internship/amp

 

Unusually for the Express, the article explains the law fairly well. The BBC appears to claim it is targeting under-representation in creative and leadership roles. (I think my immediate question personally would be, if that is the case, why they are not trying to support the BAME staff already employed to develop their skills.) Nonetheless though the fact this has made the news is because it is unusual and, if the BBC cannot justify it, potentially illegal. 

[CotswoldRed]

4 hours ago, the frampton balti said:

Thinking back, Rosenior certainly seemed the most obvious candidate. i think he has a valid point , this would explain why he sometimes shows indifference to the club, which in turn explains why certain fans seem to show resentment to him. 

considering the period of disharmony we have just been/are currently going through with regard to management and board decisions , why do some people find it difficult to believe that the board would make poor decisions on the basis of prejudice favouritism or even pure racism in the past.

Leroy is entitled to his opinion and I also believe he was the right man  for the job at the time.

I dislike him because everything he says is so predictable and has zero insight. 

[City Ben]

Some of the comments on here re quotas/ positive discrimination etc come across as, at best, simplistic.

"Can you imagine if they favoured only white candidates! There would be uproar from people calling "racist"! So why isn't it the same the other way around?!" 

Well, the point that is missed and has been eloquently explained by LondonBristolian and others is that many believe there to be an inherent bias in our society against minority groups. Not against white people. Whites are the majority. As a society, most agree that this needs to be redressed and positive discrimination can be one way to do this. 

I don't think you'll find anyone sensible who disagrees with the idea of "the best person for the best job, regardless of anything else". However the point is more subtle than that - what if the best person for the job isn't getting shortlisted because of x reason? Or isn't even applying because they don't think they're in with a chance? I think that's perhaps closer to the real issue, and is potentially what we should be focussing on here. 

Returning back to the original topic...

• Rosenior was there.
• He has a view on the reasons for the board's decision.
• He has let us know that view.

Disagree with his view as much as you want, but I don't know how anyone can get upset with him for expressing it. 

[City Ben]

20 minutes ago, CotswoldRed said:

Is he happy to answer a court case where individuals defend themselves against his accusation of them being racists? 

Maybe he can't then reveal the full evidence. 

Perhaps if he had evidence he would have sued at the time. Who's to say? However he's not saying he has proof. He is just giving his opinion.

If we all had to be held to the same level of evidence we would be in court just to express an opinion, life would be very dull and I think this forum would close down pretty quickly! 

[Stortz]

27 minutes ago, Bar BS3 said:

I know for certain that a good friend of mine, who since joined the police and has worked his way up to Sargent, was not admitted into his first choice career of the fire service because they only had vacancies that were available to minority groups because they needed to fulfil those quotas of the work force. 

I work for the fire service and have done for many years and your friend is talking absolute rubbish I'm afraid. There has never been a quota for 'minority groups', as @LondonBristolian says, all the service is allowed to do is target particular under-represented groups to encourage them to apply for positions- be that women, bme candidates etc. The reason they try to do this is because the fire service is a bastion of the white male, to this day and despite attempts to recruit more widely.

[Lorenzos Only Goal]

12 hours ago, RedDave said:

By all means correct me if I'm wrong but I remember him being a joint manager and then Burnside getting job permanently.  If that is wrong then I apologise and my memory is obviously ****** 

He was but I think his experience at the time was limited and he was in his 30's still. 

[Bar BS3]

8 minutes ago, City Ben said:

Some of the comments on here re quotas/ positive discrimination etc come across as, at best, simplistic.

"Can you imagine if they favoured only white candidates! There would be uproar from people calling "racist"! So why isn't it the same the other way around?!" 

Well, the point that is missed and has been eloquently explained by LondonBristolian and others is that many believe there to be an inherent bias in our society against minority groups. Not against white people. Whites are the majority. As a society, most agree that this needs to be redressed and positive discrimination can be one way to do this. 

I don't think you'll find anyone sensible who disagrees with the idea of "the best person for the best job, regardless of anything else". However the point is more subtle than that - what if the best person for the job isn't getting shortlisted because of x reason? Or isn't even applying because they don't think they're in with a chance? I think that's perhaps closer to the real issue, and is potentially what we should be focussing on here. 

Returning back to the original topic...

• Rosenior was there.
• He has a view on the reasons for the board's decision.
• He has let us know that view.

Disagree with his view as much as you want, but I don't know how anyone can get upset with him for expressing it. 

I think it's the fact that he's saved the allegations for his Autobiography, rather than bringing it up/addressing it correctly in the past, which seems a bit suspect. 

 

[Bar BS3]

2 minutes ago, Stortz said:

I work for the fire service and have done for many years and your friend is talking absolute rubbish I'm afraid. There has never been a quota for 'minority groups', as @LondonBristolian says, all the service is allowed to do is target particular under-represented groups to encourage them to apply for positions- be that women, bme candidates etc. The reason they try to do this is because the fire service is a bastion of the white male, to this day and despite attempts to recruit more widely.

You've kind of contradicted yourself there. Why are attempts made to recruit more widely..? 

Take the applications and hire the best people to get me safely out of danger or get my cat out of the tree! It shouldn't matter whether that's a white male or a black female. 

The fact that they are encouraging minority groups to apply is the problem, not the solution, in my view. 

[LondonBristolian]

6 minutes ago, Bar BS3 said:

You've kind of contradicted yourself there. Why are attempts made to recruit more widely..? 

Take the applications and hire the best people to get me safely out of danger or get my cat out of the tree! It shouldn't matter whether that's a white male or a black female. 

The fact that they are encouraging minority groups to apply is the problem, not the solution, in my view. 

Exactly. And, if people from certain backgrounds are not applying as they do not believe they are going to be recruited then that makes it that much harder to get the best person for the job. Instead you are stuck with the best person who has applied. Encouraging more people to apply for a job can only improve the pool of candidates and increase the chances of getting someone of a higher quality.

 

Going back to Bristol City, let's face it. If Lee Johnson were to go at the end of the season, there is a less than outstanding pool of candidates that we might choose to replace him. If there are black ex-players with the potential of doing a better job than Michael Appleton or Russell Slade or whoever we might get then I want them to be applying for the bloody job and feel they have a chance of getting it...

[Stortz]

2 minutes ago, Bar BS3 said:

You've kind of contradicted yourself there. Why are attempts made to recruit more widely..? 

Take the applications and hire the best people to get me safely out of danger or get my cat out of the tree! It shouldn't matter whether that's a white male or a black female. 

The fact that they are encouraging minority groups to apply is the problem, not the solution, in my view. 

So a public service can reflect the public it serves? So obstacles to getting the best people to apply for positions are removed? Because it's inherently wrong for every single firefighter/ policeman/ figure of authority/ whatever to be a white male?

I'm afraid prior to more recent reform attampts the fire service- just like the police- had a lingering culture of systemic racism that made them virtually closed shops for white men. Don't you agree that that was wrong?

Could you please point out the contradiction in my previous post?

[handsofclay]

1 hour ago, Super said:

Comes across as very bitter and disrespectful.

 

He added: "When Tony got it I was gutted. Tony had never got a coaching badge, let alone played the game. He was a fixer, a handyman around the club and so to be overlooked was a blow.
 

Comes across as astute to me seeing that Tony only lasted a month in the job before he was removed as unsuitable!

[Bar BS3]

3 minutes ago, Stortz said:

So a public service can reflect the public it serves? So obstacles to getting the best people to apply for positions are removed? Because it's inherently wrong for every single firefighter/ policeman/ figure of authority/ whatever to be a white male?

I'm afraid prior to more recent reform attampts the fire service- just like the police- had a lingering culture of systemic racism that made them virtually closed shops for white men. Don't you agree that that was wrong?

Could you please point out the contradiction in my previous post?

I understand what you are saying. 

My point is that trying to encourage females/blacks/Asians to apply is not equality!

It should be a recruitment drive. End of. 

Not a recruitment drive aimed at minorities, otherwise that in itself in discriminatory. 

I've already clearly said that the best person, whoever that might be, should get the job. I don't see why "positive discrimination" should be used in attracting applicants. 

[Stortz]

24 minutes ago, Bar BS3 said:

I understand what you are saying. 

My point is that trying to encourage females/blacks/Asians to apply is not equality!

It should be a recruitment drive. End of. 

Not a recruitment drive aimed at minorities, otherwise that in itself in discriminatory. 

I've already clearly said that the best person, whoever that might be, should get the job. I don't see why "positive discrimination" should be used in attracting applicants. 

There is a massive difference though between targetting information of recruitment taking place and about the job itself- which is what I'm talking about- to positively discriminating when it comes to actually appointing people to the roles.

The service knows that when it anounces 20 new firefighter roles well over 1500 people will apply. Now if 10% of your population is bme and 50% are women but 1450 applications are from white males then there is something systemically wrong that needs to be looked at isn't there?

I agree with you of course that when it comes to employing new recruits the best person for it should get the job irrespectively, but you may never be in the postion where that person applies because of historical barriers.

[Bar BS3]

2 minutes ago, Stortz said:

There is a massive difference though between targetting information of recruitment taking place and about the job itself- which is what I'm talking about- to positively discriminating when it comes to actually appointing people to the roles.

The service knows that when it anounces 20 new firefighter roles well over 1500 people will apply. Now if 10% of your population is bme and 50% are women but 1450 applications are from white males then there is something systemically wrong that need to be looked at isn't there?

I agree with you of course that when it comes to employing new reruits the best person for it should get the job irrespectively, but you may never be in the postion where that person applies because of historical barriers.

It's a no win situation I guess. 

If minorities apply and don't The the job, then it opens up the Leroy scenario of "it's because I'm black"

Who's barriers are they anyway, if a company welcome applications from all walks of society, yet individuals feel that they shouldn't apply for such a job..? 

 

[City Ben]

2 minutes ago, Bar BS3 said:

It's a no win situation I guess. 

If minorities apply and don't The the job, then it opens up the Leroy scenario of "it's because I'm black"

Who's barriers are they anyway, if a company welcome applications from all walks of society, yet individuals feel that they shouldn't apply for such a job..? 

 

A different question: Whose problem is it anyway, if a company welcomes applications from all walks of society, yet individuals feel that they shouldn't apply for such a job? 

That's everyone's problem.