New Legislation

Re: New Legislation

Hannah Wynne Richards — Sun, 03 Oct 2010 13:56:01 GMT

Am I the only one who can see the sheer absurdity of an Equality law, which can't be equally applied It seems that any behavour, however trivial which can possibly cause offence to any group on the ground of religion or sex is unlawful. But some sexual behaviour causes extreme offence to some religious groups, so rulings will have tobe made on the basis of "some more equalthan others " Where did I hear that phrase before ??????????????????

Wynne

Re: New Legislation

Mark Holmes — Sat, 02 Oct 2010 09:44:16 GMT

Is it just me or does anyone else get irritated by the onus being on the individual not to offend. Rather than the individual not to be offended. Surely by adulthood you should have learnt to "get over it" Systematic bullying is a different matter but this is another pointless intrusion into our lives.

Re: New Legislation

Michael Woodhouse — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 20:39:31 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]Arlo Hadn't you better delete the comment "bumhead " That one could easily cause offence, and you might be held responsible ? That is a serious comment[/quote]

bumhead bumhead bumhead bumhead bumhead bumhead bumhead bumhead bumhead bumhead

Re: New Legislation

Bob Russell — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 20:37:48 GMT

I totally agree that all should be protected from unfair discrimination. Most of the new legislation is pulling together all the varied existing rules and regs. I hear that it does however put much more onus on the employer to prove he or she did not discriminate.

If all use common-sense this will not be a problem but it may be more difficult to defend oneself against the malicious claims.

Re: New Legislation

Martin Atkinson — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 18:58:34 GMT

Humour aside I think it is tricky it we can't ask someone about their health in relation to the job eg are they asthmatic and allergic to cats? When they can't work and we have to get rid of them they can then sue for unfair dismissal. I know things had to move on from sending small boys up chimneys but hasn't this gone a bit too far now?

Re: New Legislation

Hannah Wynne Richards — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 17:47:23 GMT

Ha ha ha

Wynne

Re: New Legislation

Bob Russell — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 15:20:59 GMT

We cannot have a written policy without writing a list. I would be offended by the sight of a list of words we cannot now say and would probably have to take myself to a tribunal on the grounds that I was now suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome.

Re: New Legislation

Hannah Wynne Richards — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 14:02:11 GMT

Cross referance with thread on A* private school girls I don't agree with Sandy, but I defend his right to say what he did A ban on free speach is very dangerous

Arlo Hadn't you better delete the comment "bumhead " That one could easily cause offence, and you might be held responsible ? That is a serious comment

I notice that a few days ago, Ed Miliband said "I think we (the Labour Party ) got it wrong on immigration If he'd waited until today , that remark would seem to me to be illegal

Wynne

Re: New Legislation

Hannah Wynne Richards — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 13:01:07 GMT

Bob To stay the right side of this OTT law, you will have to have a written policy that such words are now verboten-and give a formal verbal warning to any member of staff unfortuneate to drop a heavy object on his/her toe!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yes, but won't that not be allowed because it doesn't actually affect his/her ability to do the job ???????????

Total lunacy, but favoured by a certain occupational group whose Uni entrance requirements were lower than ours, and hourly rates higher

Wynne

Re: New Legislation

Bob Russell — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 12:29:51 GMT

My head nurse has just said sh*t and a certain reproduction related word because we nearly forgot to microchip a cat spay - can I sue her?

Of course I never use this kind of language at work because it is now unacceptable for an employer to use bad language in case it offends a member of staff.

Re: New Legislation

Bob Russell — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 11:49:14 GMT

Even a conversation overheard by a member of staff (including banter) could in theory result in a trip to a tribunal apparently.

Maybe there should be a partial opting out clause which would allow non-abusive banter. Bullying would be covered but the comment about the attractive lady walking down the road outside the practice would be allowed!!!

No more 'yummy mummy' comments here now!!!

Re: New Legislation

Hannah Wynne Richards — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 11:45:44 GMT

Gosh Jonathan I've just thought of a way of making up the £1 million shortfall in my bank account by not studying medicine or denistry-sue you !!!!!!!!!

Dash it, that won't work -you're also a veterinary surgeon, so won't be worth sueing There's an obvious continuation to that but I daren't write it

Seriously the 2 most objectionable parts of this legislation are that it interfears with free speach, and that it punishes someone for somebody else's crime-an employee makes a discriminatory joke, and the employer is punished, even if he/she wasn't even in the room at the time

Wynne