Culture of Victims

@a certain sadness wrote:

Its the heat getting to you words.

Could be, although my singing partner seems to be an amazingly germy creature.

thank you ma’am :D

@wordsworth60 wrote:

@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

You have definitetly got a degree in the bleeding obvious :lol:

You obviously don’t understand my sense of humour. And…for future reference, when I ask a question its usually rhetorical.

:wink:

@minim wrote:

You have definitetly got a degree in the bleeding obvious :lol:

Calm down! It’s only a JC board posting!

You obviously don’t understand my sense of humour.

Why the hell would I? Who the hell are you?

And…for future reference, when I ask a question its usually rhetorical.

Nice to see I’m not the only sense of humour failure in the house – again

:wink:

Oh yeah – it’s only banter . . . . . . . . . . that always works . . . . .

@wordsworth60 wrote:

@terry wrote:

. . . . lmao mims.

I get your sense of humour x

easy to say, harder to demonstrate . . . . . .

Why on earth would I need to demonstrate it..? :roll: