Showing kids deformities

Why does it have to be representative? If it's trying to achieve something, why not go against the trend. It's not positive discrimination if the aim you're trying to achieve is to reduce discrimination in future generation.

I think the earlier, the better. I think it's important that we get to them before the playground prejudices entice them to being raging anti-paedophiles. It's better to form their opinions for them than to try and shape them later, and if there's anything childrens TV should be for, it's for forming children's opinions for them. I think the same is true for disabled people - maybe having a presenter with a severe case of relapsing multiple sclorosis will go over their heads sometimes, but if they see the presenter have an episode of fits and shakes on TV, they'll soon learn. They need it in their faces. All over their faces.

Answer the question, why is it offensive?

You sir are an idiot. Every one of your arguments have gaping holes in them. They are nothing but inflammatory. Enough of your nonsense.

You sir are an idiot. Every one of your arguments have gaping holes in them. They are nothing but inflammatory. Enough of your nonsense.

Because when I go for a job, I want to know I'm not going to be rejected because the company is piloting some pseudo-politically correct positive discrimination scheme.

Positive discrimination is never right, and neither is negative.

The best person for the job, should get the job. Not the one who'll show the company is diverse and promote a good image. That's just wrong.

If you must know, sweetie pom, it's disturbing in the same way a car crash is. It's not pleasant to see blood gushing out of someone and lots of people are squeamish when they see vanessa feltz being cut open (and indeed vanessa feltz at any time) and so, i think lots of people will be disturbed by seeing a stumpy run around after kids.

I respect her though. Im not being disrespectful.

It's not positive discrimination because the employers are looking for black and disabled people for a specific role in their organization, to reduce future prejudices. There's a subtle but very important differentiation. They're not discriminating just because they want to look good. They're accepting that they are looking for a black or disabled person, but it's for a very positive reason.

Phonicsdude (and OP as well really), what wold you do if your arms were sliced off in a freak accident?

So is it right then to sack her JUST because she has part of her arm missing? And just because she DOES have part of her arm missing doesn't mean she wasn't the best person for the job.

But in turn they are discriminating against those who aren't part of a minority, how is that okay?!

Why won't you understand! Jobs always involve discrimination against the majority, because they aren't capable of doing the job! The majority white and abled bodied people aren't required here. They can't do the job the BBC wants done.

Why won't you understand! Jobs always involve discrimination against the majority, because they aren't capable of doing the job! The majority white and abled bodied people aren't required here. They can't do the job the BBC wants done.

Children's television channel CBeebies have two new presenters.

However, one of them has had half her arm lopped off, from the elbow down.

Do you think it's immoral for children to be shown such grotesque images at an early age?

What if the job I want done, as a massively racist baker, is for white people to bake swastika crossaints? Is that OK? What if I'm running a greyhound track and I just don't want women working there? The jobs I want filling can't be done by women, because I'm not looking for them? What about if I employ loads of Chinese people to make little model ships in bottles in a whorehouse in Shoreditch, and I want a neo-colonial supervisor to whip them when they do wrong, but I only want him to be black in a bizarre historical switch of irony - is it OK to dismiss everyone else, just because I want a black man?