Cycling UK Forum

well I assume the disappointed guy publicised his rejection out of hurt feelings and indignation? It seems to me he hasnt got the right attitude at all. He is there to serve God and the people of the parish not to indulge in his hurt feelings or sense of personal injustice? Many would regard that the holy spirit has spoken. If not that, then that the reference that he would feel uncomfortable is a polite way of say that the parishioners would feel uncomfortable and they would reject him?


"I think the church has institutional issues with [racism]." he says


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-53064929

mercalia wrote:well I assume the disappointed guy publicised his rejection out of hurt feelings and indignation? It seems to me he hasnt got the right attitude at all. He is there to serve God and the people of the parish not to indulge in his hurt feelings or sense of personal injustice? Many would regard that the holy spirit has spoken. If not that, then that the reference that he would feel uncomfortable is a polite way of say that the parishioners would feel uncomfortable and they would reject him?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-53064929

Shocking racism.

"You are the wrong colour for this job".

And surely illegal (or is the race relations act a piece of legislation which confers immunity on religious bigots?)

Primer on GOQs & race here:

https://www.eoc.org.hk/eoc/upload/embra ... gp2223.pdf

See in particular:

The holder of the job provides persons of a
particular racial group with personal services
promoting their welfare, and those services can
most effectively be provided by a person of that
racial group.

Very very dangerous ground indeed.

Bonefishblues wrote:Primer on GOQs & race here:

https://www.eoc.org.hk/eoc/upload/embra ... gp2223.pdf

See in particular:

The holder of the job provides persons of a
particular racial group with personal services
promoting their welfare, and those services can
most effectively be provided by a person of that
racial group.

Very very dangerous ground indeed.

I thought there might be some clause like that somewhere. Sounds sensible to me. its like this new defn of racism foisted on us - just ask the person who was on the receiving end, its racist if the person says so ( another dangerous defn?)

what is the source? "www.eoc.org.hk"

mercalia wrote:

Bonefishblues wrote:Primer on GOQs & race here:

https://www.eoc.org.hk/eoc/upload/embra ... gp2223.pdf

See in particular:

The holder of the job provides persons of a
particular racial group with personal services
promoting their welfare, and those services can
most effectively be provided by a person of that
racial group.

Very very dangerous ground indeed.

I thought there might be some clause like that somewhere. Sounds sensible to me.

what is the source? "www.eoc.org.hk"

Equal Opportunities Commission I believe, not sure why that extract is hosted elsewhere - likely because extract.

It's playing with legal fire, and says much about the church, I think.

Bonefishblues wrote:

mercalia wrote:

Bonefishblues wrote:Primer on GOQs & race here:

https://www.eoc.org.hk/eoc/upload/embra ... gp2223.pdf

See in particular:

The holder of the job provides persons of a
particular racial group with personal services
promoting their welfare, and those services can
most effectively be provided by a person of that
racial group.

Very very dangerous ground indeed.

I thought there might be some clause like that somewhere. Sounds sensible to me.

what is the source? "www.eoc.org.hk"

Equal Opportunities Commission I believe, not sure why that extract is hosted elsewhere - likely because extract.

It's playing with legal fire, and says much about the church, I think.

well just as the new defn of racism/anti semitic ( I added above?)

well by defn they are sinners so what do you expect?

Bonefishblues wrote:Primer on GOQs & race here:

https://www.eoc.org.hk/eoc/upload/embra ... gp2223.pdf

See in particular:

The holder of the job provides persons of a
particular racial group with personal services
promoting their welfare, and those services can
most effectively be provided by a person of that
racial group.

Very very dangerous ground indeed.

Thank you. Not something I was aware of. Hard to see how it's relevant here mind.

some thing being ignored is the letter mentioned the incumbent vicar was inexperienced. So possibly not up to dealing with any race issues. fair point I think. He ignored this point, so full of the injustice dealt him. That in its self proved he was not the right person for the job?

mercalia wrote:some thing being ignored is the letter mentioned the incumbent vicar was inexperienced. So possibly not up to dealing with any race issues. fair point I think. The black guy ignored this point, so full of the injustice dealt him. That in its self proved he was not the right person for the job?

I experience is an opportunity, he could surely learn

Cyril Haearn wrote:

mercalia wrote:some thing being ignored is the letter mentioned the incumbent vicar was inexperienced. So possibly not up to dealing with any race issues. fair point I think. He ignored this point, so full of the injustice dealt him. That in its self proved he was not the right person for the job?

I experience is an opportunity, he could surely learn

why the letter suggested a more experienced vicar. I think the guy would be in a trainee curate role.

https://www.london.anglican.org/kb/curates-in-training/

demands alot from the vicar. not fair on a new one, with the added problem of a potential hostile parish( or church warden)?

roubaixtuesday wrote:

Bonefishblues wrote:Primer on GOQs & race here:

https://www.eoc.org.hk/eoc/upload/embra ... gp2223.pdf

See in particular:

The holder of the job provides persons of a
particular racial group with personal services
promoting their welfare, and those services can
most effectively be provided by a person of that
racial group.

Very very dangerous ground indeed.

Thank you. Not something I was aware of. Hard to see how it's relevant here mind.

I think they're hanging it out in the wind, but that's the only basis on which I can see them trying to justify it. The law's really quite sensible in the most part.

I studied this area of the law under one of the leading experts in the field and I reckon I'd not like to be on the CofE's end of the argument, but none of us know enough to really pronounce, of course. It's inconceivable that advice wouldn't have been taken over this, especially as lthe letter is so explicit.

This article appears to show it's often church hierarchies than ordinary people who have the problem.

https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/ ... ing-priest

Bonefishblues wrote:

roubaixtuesday wrote:

Bonefishblues wrote:Primer on GOQs & race here:

https://www.eoc.org.hk/eoc/upload/embra ... gp2223.pdf

See in particular:

The holder of the job provides persons of a
particular racial group with personal services
promoting their welfare, and those services can
most effectively be provided by a person of that
racial group.

Very very dangerous ground indeed.

Thank you. Not something I was aware of. Hard to see how it's relevant here mind.

I think they're hanging it out in the wind, but that's the only basis on which I can see them trying to justify it. The law's really quite sensible in the most part.

I studied this area of the law under one of the leading experts in the field and I reckon I'd not like to be on the CofE's end of the argument, but none of us know enough to really pronounce, of course. It's inconceivable that advice wouldn't have been taken over this, especially as lthe letter is so explicit.

Its not as if they are refusing the guy any curates post? just that one in particular. He is too quick to shout "racism" and "institutional racism"

mercalia wrote:

Bonefishblues wrote:

roubaixtuesday wrote:
Thank you. Not something I was aware of. Hard to see how it's relevant here mind.

I think they're hanging it out in the wind, but that's the only basis on which I can see them trying to justify it. The law's really quite sensible in the most part.

I studied this area of the law under one of the leading experts in the field and I reckon I'd not like to be on the CofE's end of the argument, but none of us know enough to really pronounce, of course. It's inconceivable that advice wouldn't have been taken over this, especially as lthe letter is so explicit.

Its not as if they are refusing the guy any curates post? just that one in particular.

Yes, they're preferring a white person over a black person, who gets a runners-up prize.

Nope, not keen on running that argument...

mercalia wrote:

roubaixtuesday wrote:

Bonefishblues wrote:Primer on GOQs & race here:

https://www.eoc.org.hk/eoc/upload/embra ... gp2223.pdf

See in particular:

The holder of the job provides persons of a
particular racial group with personal services
promoting their welfare, and those services can
most effectively be provided by a person of that
racial group.

Very very dangerous ground indeed.

Thank you. Not something I was aware of. Hard to see how it's relevant here mind.

you clearly have no understanding/experience of religeon and pastoral care? attending the sick or dieing, burying the dead? its not all giving sermons.

I’m not a church goer as such - have faith but not an attender - and our local Vicar now is an OK guy. Unfortunately the guy before him was an atrocious fit with the parish and emptied the church. Having a Vicar that matches the congregation is important. I don’t judge the CofE on this rejection as anyone who joins the Parish needs to fit in with the rest of the Parish’s team and its congregation. Eventually our old Vicar disappeared off to a City centre Parish who took to his ‘evangelical’ and ‘happy clappy’ style, he was a nightmare for us but just right for them.

In this case the applicant didn’t appear to be an obvious contender for fitting that job and went wrong here is that the the mismatch wasn’t visibly explored and then ‘correctly’ explained. Rejection happens in nearly all aspects of life - remember asking some pretty girl for a date and being told to ‘go away’, remember applying for that dream job along with ‘ninety nine’ other unsuccessful candidates - and a sensible person accepts that and moves on, others do have the right to make choices that meet their needs ahead of your own.