News

Every single attempt to get before a recruitment panel in government departments starts with an application. One final time, religion, ethnicity and sexual orientation did not come into it, and by law here cannot. it's fracking irrlevant, and discriminatory. Languages and cultural knowledge only ever come in to it when devising task forces for ethnic enclaves with a high crime rate. How bloody difficult is this to understand. A woman also cannot be asked if she intends having children. Why do you think that would be... never mind.

I'm starting from the fact that what is on a UK Police application would likely be comparable to what is on an application for most other Police forces across developed world, but it was irrelevant to begin with because Dani said she wasn't Police.

__________________

It was irrelevant because it's meaningless. It;s the same damn pplication form.

Is it discriminatory to simply ask what demographics someone belongs to? Or is it simply that for an important Government type role it's fair of them to want information about you.

Is it really illegal in Australia to ask someone's Religion/Ethnicity/sexual orientation? especially for a role like Police. Are you sure about that?

The woman point is something else entirely.

Sucking my will to live. I've answered it! I feel my IQ descending rapidly. Even faster than when the remote control gets stuck on idiotic reality tv.

You can't be that bored, you post here about 50 times per day.

You said under Australian law you cannot be asked basic information/demographic questions, and are claiming that you weren't for what sounds like quite a high profile Government role.

Is that right?

I did no such thing. You ASSumed it as you are want to do. Do you even lift...I mean read?

You said it here 28 minutes ago.

Because the supposed lack of coverage was the only particularly newsworthy thing about it. You obviously don't think the murder itself is actual news, either, because there are countless murders every day that you don't post about. You mentioned this one because you thought it made a larger point about the media. Even though it was immediately revealed that there had been more coverage than you'd thought.

And my point is that you literally just (and have previously) admitted to not being very good at looking things like this up, be it Googling hoaxes or even just news articles. Which is fine--I'm not laying into you for that. I'm pointing out that, if you confess to not being very good at this, you obviously shouldn't feel comfortable making proclamations about what the media is or isn't covering.

And let's be honest: if I ask you to substantiate these kinds of claims, I'm just going to get back some vague notion of what it feels like is covered more, right? It's not going to be an empirical claim. It'll be based entirely on anecdotes and vague memories. Which means we're probably just dealing with confirmation bias, as I said before.

Here is an Australian Police application, that supposedly doesn't ask questions of ethnicity because that would be discriminatory and against Australian law.

http://www.achievemore.com.au/pdf/PO...Employment.pdf

Isnt that amazing. Religion and sexual orientation...
YOU claimed this was asked. It is not. I already mentioned languages and cultural information. Anything else not related to emplyement processes is asked in the census.

You didnt get too far with the government recruitment process did you. Not hard to see why.

Now are you done yet or are you going to start throwing around 'delusional' again like you did when I didnt jump to knee jerk assumptions like you did about a bomb threat in UK when you decided the bomber was a muslim. Even when it was clearly pointed out to you it was a stock trader you continued your insults rather than retract your ridiculous claim.

Now how about some actual freaking news. So much for you claiming I was trolling.

I agree - there are murders everyday that I don't even know about because the media doesn't cover them. And obviously I'm using this case as a gauge and an example because it was a huge item for a few days, but soon virtually disappeared from the mainstream. So yes, indeed it does make a larger point about the media as opposed to cases that the media has never reported on.

Now, to avoid misunderstanding, I should make it clear that I'm not basing these assertions on intricate Internet searches - as I said earlier, info on virtually anything can be found on the Net for those willing to dig for it. I get the majority of my news from talk radio and in the evening I surf the various cable news networks to get views from all ends of the spectrum (and I usually check the local news stations from time to time as well). So I'm not talking about news you have to search the Internet for so much as news that's put in your face (if you're in your car it's the topic of talk radio, if your TV is on in the other room, you hear talking heads discussing it).

I don't even get a newspaper - so I can't comment on local, handheld print media.

Would you agree that some stories stay in the major media (meaning mostly prime time TV news) than others? My question is who or what determines that?

Why was Charlottesville a news frenzy for weeks then dwindled to a murmur? Did it just run its course, was it usurped by Hurricane Harvey or was it halted once evidence came out that the liberal narrative was false - that Antifa instigated the violence and several high profile PC practitioners like Nancy Pelosi had to publicly denounce Antifa. Strange that as soon as the PC narrative changed by exposed facts that the nightly indictments of the right and conservatives on the cable networks came to a virtual halt? (Just another example to facilitate further intellectual introspection debate and discussion!)

Are you not going to accuse the census of being discriminatory aswell?

Those things are asked in UK, but if they are in the Aus census there is no need to ask. You were wrong on the ethnicity part though, that is asked despite you're claim to the contrary.

You started this by bringing out the discrimination stick, when I was talking about Police Diversity quota madness.

In other news Australian Same Sex Marriage vote to go ahead.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-41183104

Don't let the puffters marry I say!!

WTF drugs are you on? You cant hide your snarks behind a winky.

And I was not wrong. I was not asked about my ethnicity. It;s pretty bloody obvious from my sir name, but once again, that was irrelevant to my application and job description. I told you when that question is asked. Do you really want me to believe you need answers bashed into your head a dozen times before the lights switch on? And I;m well aware of the plebiscite thank you. I am paying for it, after all.

I'm going to fill that application out right now and send it in!
But where it requests "Facebook, Myspace, Social Networking page address(es):" I'm putting down the MoFo!

Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuullllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllllssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt t.

Once in a while Nurofen for headache, Hayfever stuff for a few weeks of the year. Antibiotics when my foot was like a balloon in July.

That's nice. Please tell me what I was asked by the panel, you wizard. I;m so glad I have a foreigner letting me know what my experiences with government panels were. That;s very helpful. I'll send you a beer.

Why would a panel ask you about your ethnicity when you are sitting there in front of them and you've already answered that question on the application form.