Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
@terry wrote:
. . . . . . . . And no wordsworth – that question wasn’t aimed at you specifically.
But that one was . . . . . .
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
@Sgt Pepper wrote:
. . . . Do feel free to post all your sporting comments and observations here over the next couple of weeks.. beginning with your thoughts on the opening ceremony which is just a few hours away . . . .
8)@terry wrote:
Mate
I apologise for being a wet blanket, but after reading these boards I have been reduced to a cultural and intellectual wreck by people that post here.
Panda has an answer for everything and Wordsworth thinks he does. That’s a typical taxi driver for you though.
As for jen_jen – I haven’t been the same since she did the flake eating thing.
Let’s face it we all love a woman that moans and there are none better than panda and jen for that. What they don’t seem to understand is that they should stick to moaning in the bedroom rather than bring it all here.
Terry, just 4 posts in! Brilliant! But I have to tell you, the foursome is out of the question! It’s not even an Olympic event!
Haven’t watched the ceremony yet, I was at a wedding (no DJ, so it couldn’t have been the one acs was at.
I understand Sir Paul was a bit embarrassing and, and the fireworks were magnificent, you could see them and feel the vibrations from my house!
I tend to listen to Classic FM, so I had no idea what that was about
thank you ma’am :D
@panda12 wrote:
@anc wrote:
@mrs_teapot wrote:
@anc wrote:
Crikey! Panda iis cute?!!! :wink: :lol:
Messy eater though :D
Yeah……………lobbs a flannel and a roll of kleenex at her! :D
Thanks anc.
*wipes mouth
I’m not dining with you again, Teapot! You’re going to have to pay me to use my image.
Deliver one tonne of bamboo to Panda Palace plz.
Ta.[/quote
You’ve been corrupted by the MaCoIBMDhL Games haven’t you!!!?
sorry certs,
@a certain sadness wrote:
Its the heat getting to you words.
Could be, although my singing partner seems to be an amazingly germy creature.
@minim wrote:
OK so let me see if I can get this right…..
if two people go for a job and one of them is fit and young and the job requires someone fit and young, they employ the fit young person.
So if someone requires a night watchman who is going to be sneaking around in the dark trying to catch criminals… they should choose someone hard to see in the dark, like a black person. Or…. if they need someone who can stock shelves beneath counters they should choose dwarves (or me), but if they need someone to put things on top shelves then someone over 6 ft tall.
Do physical attributes maketh the man (or woman) or can anyone achieve anything given the right implements?
And…..surely a victim is someone who either perceives themselves to be hard done by, for whatever reason, or has been the recipient of some crime or negative action perpetrated by one or more other people.
simples
“squeaks*
*don’s wig, turns off grammarcheck.
The law in England Wales and Scotland basically says you mustn’t discriminate directly (“you can’t have this job just because you are male female black white whatever”) or indirectly (“We only want people who are over 6ft tall not cos of the job but because – tee hee – we know most people over 6ft tall around here are men). Other things like Harassment are also illegal.
The law specifically covers the characteristics of race, sex, disability, religion, sexual orientation, age, marriage and Civil partnership, Pregnancy and maternity and Gender reassignment. There are various exceptions under each characteristic to allow for pragmatism.
The law allows you to place a requirement on a job that might discriminate for or against certain people if it is “a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim” – i.e. reasonable. So in the case you quoted, unless it was essential for the black person to crawl around naked, or that their face and hands would be highlighted, it would probably be unreasonable to insist on employing one to sneak around in the dark. However for artistic, or cultural reasons it might be necessary to specify a characteristic – you might insist on a gay man to be a case worker in gay men’s health, or for someone performing a religious duty to be of that faith.
One main principle behind the law is that everyone can have reasonable access to employment, goods and services with a reasonable level of dignity and safety. Face it, there’s no point in saying people should work rather than be on benefits if employers, especially big ones, can keep certain groups from working just on a whim.
Another is social cohesion.
So if being young and/or fit is a genuine requirement for a job then it’s reasonable to say that’s who you want, but if the job could be reasonably done by an older person then it would be wrong to prevent someone from working just because (real example) the idea of them in a mini skirt doesn’t appeal – unless the job is modelling mini skirts.
Some of the concerns about the law are more about rumours than about what the law actually says. Unfortunately, you can’t regulate people’s fears, so misinformation abounds and it’s exploited.
Sometimes employers play it safe or are badly advised and end up enacting or allowing daft things to take place which the law neither prescribes nor recommends.
Sometimes like other areas of law, unfairness takes place because Law tends to draw rigid straight lines through areas which are naturally curly and fuzzy.
*Removes wig and takes some more Day Nurse – I feel like cr ap
@a certain sadness wrote:
I cant see how people enjoy this weather, at least in the winter you can wrap up warm. Every part of me is sweating, soon i will have to remove my jacket.
I want an ice cream and flake
I’m sitting in my armchair, with a bowl of ice cream, in short sleeved shirt and chinos.
Scep, whatever happens, don’t loosen your tie!
Well back to something thread-related: final postal collections are an hour and a half earlier for the duration of the games.
But Mayor Boris says we mustn’t whinge and moan . . . .
