Report comment

I'm all for having the best candidates. I couldn't care less what gender or colour they are, as long as they're the best candidate for the role.

I'd be disappointed if the pool of candidates were restricted to 'white males', and equally disappointed if 'white males' were discriminated against.

Isn't it simply common sense to appoint the best person, whoever they are for the role and have done with it? If a disadvantaged or minority applicant were appointed simply to appease bean counters, wouldn't that be a retrograde step?

Many of my contemporaries here in Birmingham are white, black, asian, male, female, gay, straight, religious, atheist - the whole spectrum.

I'm a white male, and my very working class background and awful early comprehensive schooling would probably class me as disadvantaged, but I'd feel incredibly patronized if I were considered for a position, simply because of my early economic background.

So, the best person for the job please, appointed by an unbiased panel, blind to gender, race, sexual bias or wealth. It can be done.