Report comment

Absolutely - why?

Does that mean positive discrimination to overlook better male candidates? That's......discrimination then isn't it?

Look, 100% of the better candidates might be women who are superb, in which case, great.... but if you're fudging figures to be PC savvy, that's surely wrong isn't it? I absolutely endorse the fact that no-one who fits an applicant's post should be discriminated against, but that's the point isn't it - positive discrimination is still favouring some characteristic, meaning a better candidate may lose out.

I couldn't care less about the sexuality, gender, religion or age of people who I recruit, I'm interested in one thing - the best candidate for the job.

Sadly, I remain of the view that the white middle aged heterosexual male is the most discriminated against - with them feeling somewhat apologetic that they have neither race, disability, gender or sexuality to 'offer'. I can even see some daft tree hugging liberal wincing at that comment.

What a terribly sad world we live in.