To be annoyed by obvious waste by nhs

Thanks Elegran that takes into account all the profits from the insurance companies in the US. It is not possible therefore to make comparisons.

Reality Check: Does UK spend half as much on health as US?

It is not just what the state spends on healthcare, it is the total.

Ilovecheese I don't understand that statistic for the US. Surely it can't be the money the state spends on healthcare can it? I thought people had to buy insurance?

tidyskatemum said "We spend more per head for poorer outcomes" so I thought I would just Google to see if this was true.
According to the Office for National Statistics
"As a percentage of GDP, the UK spent less on healthcare than USA, Japan, France and Germany and a similar percentage to Canada. The USA spent the most on healthcare as a percentage of GDP at 16.6%." Looks to me that we get a good deal for the money we spend.

In today's British society, I can't see how anyone could be described as looking like they might not be British.

Nonnie, you are very right here. My father faced just that reaction whenever anyone saw his place of birth, an ex British colony in Africa, and indeed was greeted with 'but your not black' on numerous occasions in the 60's and early 70's. I was told at school that I was a half caste, despite having two white parents, whilst doing a family history project. I put this down to people's ignorance and ignore them as my father taught me to.

Mabel2, I think this is very true. The person wanting a job role filled can make sure the criteria is quite specific to a person to rule out other candidates. My DH saw this happening in his HR role.

trisher I don't know if recruitment is your 'specialist subject' but it is mine. I can assure you that many people who are not professional recruiters interview candidates, probably far more who are simply managers and not recruiters so it is rather naive to think that they would not show their surprise at what they had assumed to be a black candidate who turned out to be white. Once again it appears that you are talking about theories rather than reality.

It would be naive to expect interviewers not to put their own bias on any candidate regardless of 'set questions'. The interviewee can easily pick up on this, we all have a gut reaction to how a situation has gone.

If that is the case Nonnie I suggest she complains not about the outcome but about the behaviour of the interviewers. No interviewer should reveal at any time any indication of what the outcome may be. Indeed it would be difficult to know how she would know this, interviews are usually carefully planned with set questions and required answers and only after proper consultation afterwards can a candidate be ruled out.

PECS I can't provide evidence but can assure you that what I said is true. To provide such evidence would suggest my identity and I am not prepared to do that. However, I'm sure if you look on public sector recruitment websites you will see the type of format I refer to.

An interesting recent situation: a woman, born in Jamaica and now a well qualified social worker has applied for a few jobs where she has got to the interview stage. She saw shock and confusion when she walked into the interviews because she is white. It became quite clear as the interviews progressed that she had no chance of getting the job. No, it wasn't in a newspaper (as far as I know) it was a friend.

Iam64, I have no doubt that the majority of people get the job on their own merits. I just think that a policy of positive discrimination doesn't necessarily help because it automatically makes the minority seem like they are getting something they shouldn't. However, I don't claim to have the answer for countering discrimination which I also recognise happens.
Yes, there is more support for private schools but there is more pressure for them to give up their evenings and weekends too for school sports, drama, etc. I have had 5 go through State School and 1 through Private; the difference has not been better teachers at the latter, it has been the accepted standard of behaviour from the pupils. The one at the private school has gone to a school for a full day, just for the education part, has a decent lunch time and breaks so are ready for study unlike the State Schools where they get 40 minutes for lunch, no social time, etc. I would like to see the proper funding and organisation of State Schools to give all children the tools to get on in their university and working lives rather than discrimination in any form.

Within a couple of months of returning to work after maternity leave, I was short listed, then selected from a panel of 8 for my first middle management job. I then heard two of the men who'd been interviewed grumbling that "you have to be a breast feeding mother to get a management post these days".
They clearly believed that my appointment was some kind of box ticking exercise.
icanhandthemback - research shows that many of the young people who achieve better exam results because of the extra support they get in private school, go on to find university work more demanding than young people who went to state schools. Our MP's are still largely white, privately educated men. It's the same in the city, in leading law firms, accountancy, finance, the list is endless. How on earth does that support the suggestion made here that white middle class males suffer most from positive discrimination?

Not as unfair as having fought discrimination and difficulty all your life though!

My husband worked in HR in one of the public services, liaising with many more departments including County Councils, local Government, etc. These places are audited regularly to ensure that they have a diverse work force and certainly the need to tick a box to prove that means that there is positive discrimination happening regularly. It influences decisions where there might be two ethnically diverse people up for the same job who have similar qualifications, experience, etc, in that the box can be ticked. This can happen across the board for sex, disabilities, etc. However, I have heard many times where the minority person is picked even though they are not as qualified or experienced and that does cause resentment.
It is the same with most Universities. A young person who is from a Public School is expected to get much higher grades than someone from a State School. They are also expected to have a much higher profile even though the chances are they will be expected by their schools to fit in much more than someone from a State School. I understand all the reasons for it but I can't help thinking that if you are the person having to jump through the hoops, it can seem quite unfair.

Interesting article about positive discrimination and its effects
www.ft.com/content/234e404c-1da2-11e6-a7bc-ee846770ec15

Mabel2 I agree there are still far too many situations where clear inequality and prejudice jeopardises opportunities for perfectly well qualified people. Sadly positive discrimination has not had any real impact as the statistics speak for themselves in showing that white middle class able bodied heterosexual men are more likely to be employed than any other group! We need to think of other ways to improve equity.

PECS, positive discrimination does cause people to feel discriminated against negatively. The policy is outdated and in need of radical change. It may have worked back in the 80s or 90s but it's not working now. It has not changed the fact that in certain areas or careers the make up of those employed does not reflect the make up of the population. There is more involved than just ethnicity.

In a case that I cannot find on the internet the family of a deaf person interpreted for them and a person was later murdered by the patient.

It is not good practice to allow the family to interpret. Mistakes can be made, there is often a bias, and it means the patient has not privacy and frequently it is the younger generation the children who are expected to interpret which is unacceptable.

Also this means that the person is unlikely to understand the medical language as they have not been trained, there is a good chance that they are not fluent in all of the legal, medical or technical terminology that they may need to interpret,

It is not discrimination if it is making a situation more equitable! Redressing a balance through some positive discrimination is not actually discriminating against the majority!

It would be ideal if all jobs/grants etc. were equally available to all appropriate candidates. However there is a great deal of evidence to show that certain groups, equally qualified etc, are at a disadvantage when applying for jobs etc. Positive discrimination helps to address this.

Every piece of so called positive discrimination, causes negative effects on those excluded from the policies of the positive discrimination. Surely we should be aiming to end ALL discrimination positive or negative?

Thanks PECS, your question sums up the question I want to put to maddyone.
White working class boys are achieving less educationally and in the workplace than other groups. That is not the case for White, heterosexual, middle class, able bodied men. At least I haven't seen any research than supports that statement. I will read any links provided in support .

In what way do you perceive white, heterosexual, middle class, able bodied men to be discriminated against? White, heterosexual, middle class, able bodied men, I suspect, make up the largest %age of the employed workforce so it would be hard to argue they were discriminated against but I am happy to listen to other opinions. Please can you post the link to the evidence for this shocking statistic.

Often grants are ring fenced because they are intended to create greater equity for minority groups.

The most discriminated against group is white, heterosexual, middle class, able bodied men. You are right to mention this Nonnie, especially as your son has been a victim of this. In actual fact so has one of my sons. Not sure too many people are bothered about this though, it’s not a fashionable group or cause.

Mabel2 I take your point. In today's Sunday Times there is a piece about a man who has taken up a grant intended for black people because, apparently, he looks black. He has white parents, white grandparents and great grandparents. He decided he was black and apparently that qualified him for the grant. He must have fulfilled whatever other criteria was required. Sometimes I do wonder if positive discrimination has gone too far but that may be because I never see any negative discrimination in my life or in the town where I live. I see black and Asian people who are integrated and just a normal part of life. Don't see any oppressed women either. In another thread I mentioned that DS is discriminated in various grant applications because he is a white heterosexual, able bodied male and the application forms make it quite clear he has no chance of being offered the grants.