surely there is a big opportunity for a few of these ?

You would have the collective punditry of BBC/Sky shouting your accolades.

players, pundits, management ( kinda), ...surely Refereeing is the last bastion to fall ?

Kayla did Anfield & Old Trafford

Maybe this is a new beginning . . .

[Link]

This operation, will make the 'Charge Of The Light Brigade' seem like a simple military exercise.

Better not he was rubbish.

One more point

That is something of a fly in the ointment.

What i want to know is, WHY are Bi-Sexual people be labelled in with all this, when 95% of them belong to the 'swingers' scene up & down the country. Most of those are women & enjoy having Secs() with both men & women at the same time while their hubbys/partners are doing the same in the same room/house/car or garden.

So ive been reliably informed

This operation, will make the 'Charge Of The Light Brigade' seem like a simple military exercise.

Whether it's football referees, cabinet ministers or anything else, the preoccupation with 'diversity' captures so much that is wrong with current thinking.

It's irrelevant whether the ref is a middle aged white man, or a young black man, or an asian woman, or gay, or of any particular religious faith. The only thing that matters at all is that the best available, willing person for the job gets the chance to do it.

In nations where gender equality of opportunity is at its most advanced they have found that far more engineers still happen to be men, and far more nurses still happen to be women. Radical leftists can't handle this, but so long as the recruitment process is sound, fair, and open, then the outcome is what it is. The same should be true of refs in football. I don't care how many of any one 'group' gets to be a ref, only that it's open to all, and that the best available person does it.

In a genuine meritocracy the individual has the assurance that they are treated fairly and on merit, their peers get the assurance that the individual is in their position wholly on merit, and the wider society gets the benefits that come from each individual having the chance to fulfil their potential. There is direct, proven correlation between social openness (tolerance, race, gender and sexual equality etc) and social, economic performance. Societies that allow everyone a fair crack of the whip do far better. Those that discriminate do far less well, all of which is obvious really when you think of people as potential resources. Of course you'll do better if you use all your resources to best effect.

The problem is that for reasons which I can partly understand, but which are partly very wrong, parts of our society have mistaken, or deliberately replaced, the concept of a meritocracy with one of diversity, as if they must be the same thing.

Diversity requires that individuals be appointed to roles for reasons other than their competence as an individual. It leaves their peers uncertain if the individual occupies their role despite not being the best candidate, breeding distrust and placing undue and unfair pressure on the individual. It denies the wider society the benefits of having the best people in each role. Positive discrimination is still discrimination, and is incompatible with a meritocracy.

The focus must be on ensuring there are no barriers to entry for anyone, not on leading certain people to the front of the queue. That's what is wrong with stuff like BLM. Look at the US BLM website - it is all about getting people to vote for black candidates in various elections, quite regardless of the individuals politics, record, or competence. This is due to the nonsense idea, put forward on more than one occasion by the BBC amongst others, that 'If you can't see it, you can't be it' - that only someone exactly like you can represent you, or inspire you, that the fundamental human qualities (trustworthiness, diligence, skill, commitment, morality) come second to the boxes a person ticks when it comes to leading the way for others.

If someone can show me where it is made harder for a person to be a referee because they are black, or gay, or female, or anything else other than white, male and middle gaded, I will join you in confronting that injustice. But please, don't just look at how many types of people there are in a profession and deduce prejudice from it. There is enough of that simplistic, dumb nonsense around already.

Other than that though, I don't really have any strong views on it...

Edited by TheBigToePunt (06 Apr 2021 5.55pm)