good, so when i get a job people will know it is on merit. am sure there is going to be a major back lash agianst this type of discrimmination
Gays exist in all the listed categories-Black, w,ome, Asian, Disabled.
It’s slightly confusing reporting – or perhaps the situation is yet again confusing. Gay rights in relation to this specific area are being represented by one bill – ie. the bill states stuff about the inclusion of gay people on such boards BUT when it comes to the government making a public statement about it’s projected targets on the subject it does not mention gay people.
This could be because gay people are currently well represented and therefore not a governement priority at this time.
It could also be that the governemnt has just fudged the issue in a drive to focus on other minority groups, thereby being inadvertently devisive and excluding gay people.
I don’t think the story is about institutional prejudice, – where the gay issue in such areas is now broadly speaking established and accepted.
However it is important for the government to be clear about it’s wording and intent in such statements, after the recent case in Islington where a registrar was able to legally avoid her duties because she did not believe in the rights of gay people. All governmental institutions need to bring extra clarity in communicating where they stand regarding inclusion of minorities at this time.
I also do have problems with Pink News often reporting stories without really establishing some of the basic questions sourrounding the issue. Often it comes accross in this here-say, mixed message and confusing style of story. The practice of a bit more thourgh investigative journalism by journalists with an enquiring mind would do much to create clarity where the intitial press release Pink News may work off amount to little and can be confusing.