• We'd like to take this opportunity to wish you a Happy Holidays and a very Merry Christmas from all at Golf Monthly. Thank you for sharing your 2025 with us!

Did You Vote Today?

chrisd said:
I don't hold myself up as being a paragon of virtue Karen and life is all very good from a purely a moral standpoint. It's great that you can criticise me so strongly, from afar without knowing me, for making just one point that we will have to disagree on. Its just a shame that that you don't start your own business, risk everything you own and hold dear, and see whether you still hold the same ideological values.
Click to expand...

I'm usually someone who sees all the shades of grey in any debate. It tends to make me very bad at arguing. Of course, while you seemingly fail to appreciate its misconceptions, I understand the apparent practicalities of your position. But, in this instance, when I have undoubtedly been a victim of exactly the type of discrimination you espouse I am unable to do anything other than condemn you wholeheartedly.

Just to square the "walk in the others shoes" circle, perhaps if you had ever been discriminated against you'd understand why your comments provoked such a strong reaction.
 
G.U.R said:
:mmm: Back to the thread, no I didn't never have as I've never ben into politics and live in an area where there is no risk of any extremist party's getting in, and the rest are all as bad as each other.
Click to expand...

Why do you think they are all as bad as each other - do you know all the candidates? Or are you just jumping on that particular bandwagon? And if the candidates you have to chose between are indeed a bunch of unprincipled, self-seeking rascals then why don't you try and do anything about it. The truth is that you can't be bothered - a not unusual position these days it seems and maybe I also couldn't be bothered. But whenever and wherever there is change it takes someone to decide to do something about it. These days we are very good at looking around ourselves for that person without ever accepting that it could be ourselves.

btw - not getting at you in particular - but the 'they are all the same' justification for not voting really bugs me
 
Last edited:
Papas1982 said:
And yes I am happy for my daughters to grow up in a world like this, as I hope they'll have a work ethic like their parents and having children won't be an excuse to stop working like many and not a few do!
Click to expand...

I'm sure your daughters will relish the opportunity to compete on an uneven playing field thanks purely to their gender and age :thup:
 
SwingsitlikeHogan said:
Why do you think they are all as bad as each other - do you know all the candidates? Or are you just jumping on that particular bandwagon? And if the candidates you have to chose between are indeed a bunch of unprincipled, self-seeking rascals then why don't you try and do anything about it. The truth is that you can't be bothered - a not unusual position these days it seems and maybe I also couldn't be bothered. But whenever and wherever there is change it takes someone to decide to do something about it. These days we are very good at looking around ourselves for that person without ever accepting that it could be ourselves.

btw - not getting at you in particular - but the 'they are all the same' justification for not voting really bugs me
Click to expand...

Nope you make a fair point against my "can't be arsed" throw away comment. they probably aren't the same. Living in West Berkshire the candidates either own half the land round here OR resent the chap that owns half the land round here OR feels it's fair for him to own half the land round here but feels he could do more for the community with it. As I said I don't have a political bone in my body so should have just stuck with "couldn't be arsed".
 
FairwayDodger said:
I'm usually someone who sees all the shades of grey in any debate. It tends to make me very bad at arguing. Of course, while you seemingly fail to appreciate its misconceptions, I understand the apparent practicalities of your position. But, in this instance, when I have undoubtedly been a victim of exactly the type of discrimination you espouse I am unable to do anything other than condemn you wholeheartedly.

Just to square the "walk in the others shoes" circle, perhaps if you had ever been discriminated against you'd understand why your comments provoked such a strong reaction.
Click to expand...

I hope Karen that I've proven that I see the misconceptions, but circumstance, as Snelly has also posted, make the law an ass in certain circumstances. I have been discriminated against, I'm sure most of us have, selection processes in all walks of life are apt to do that but most times you'll never be told of the discrimination so you cant be sure its happened and, because I'm a lot older than you, nothing was illegal anyway back in the dark ages.

If I owned a big business that could carry the burden of the maternity regulations easier I would budget for it, and follow it, but that isn't the case. I still feel that the use of "odious" is just completely unacceptable and assure you that more legislation, like you advocate, will just not work, employers will always look to save the business first after all its us who lose everything if it goes down.
 
Papas1982 said:
And yes I am happy for my daughters to grow up in a world like this, as I hope they'll have a work ethic like their parents and having children won't be an excuse to stop working like many and not a few do!
Click to expand...

I suspect their work ethic will mean bugger all if they can't get a job in the first place. The discussion was around discrimination in recruitment, you can't really exhibit a great work ethic if you are not being considered for the job in the first place. That was kind of some peoples point, people should be recruited on their work ethic and other factors, not just their sex.

Also are they allowed a day off to have their baby?;)
 
chrisd said:
I hope Karen that I've proven that I see the misconceptions, but circumstance, as Snelly has also posted, make the law an ass in certain circumstances. I have been discriminated against, I'm sure most of us have, selection processes in all walks of life are apt to do that but most times you'll never be told of the discrimination so you cant be sure its happened and, because I'm a lot older than you, nothing was illegal anyway back in the dark ages.

If I owned a big business that could carry the burden of the maternity regulations easier I would budget for it, and follow it, but that isn't the case. I still feel that the use of "odious" is just completely unacceptable and assure you that more legislation, like you advocate, will just not work, employers will always look to save the business first after all its us who lose everything if it goes down.
Click to expand...

neither of you posted such definitive postings
 
chrisd said:
Just so as he doesn't feel too guilty, the reason that I dismissed him was that I am closing my business and retiring. I paid him 14 weeks sick pay and then his full redundancy package.

He was happy, I'm happy!
Click to expand...

I'll sleep easier tonight :thup:
 
Chris we're going to have to agree to disagree, I'm afraid. I don't know the ins and outs of the legislation but, while it may be onerous, one can assume that it has been considered from all angles, debated, voted on, and subsequently argued in court until it evolved to where it is now with the aim of striking the right balance between employers and workers. Clearly, that balance isn't where you would like it to be and you're perfectly entitled to express the opinion that it's wrong and to campaign to change it but not to openly flout it. Doesn't make you a bad person, necessarily, but we're definitely on opposite sides of this fence.
 
I wonder if all the people on here outraged, have ever mocked a friend for having a shandy, or not getting past the red tees?

Women in the work place have massive rights these days. I don't think an employee should need to be held accountable for when they go on leave. If all women agreed to come back fully then I would support it. But as I've said, many take fully maternity packages at the companies expense and then leave.
 
chrisd said:
Read the posts how you like, but if 25% of businesses don't consider employing women of child bearing age, then I'd think that the law is an ass.
Click to expand...

One wonders what proportion wouldn't employ them, or would dismiss them when they became pregnant, if there was no legislation in this area.
 
CMAC said:
neither of you posted such definitive postings
Click to expand...

The law is an ass if it's continually flouted, and, in real terms, acts a barrier to enterprise.

It's maybe a moot point, as my understanding is that maternity/paternity law has changed.
Maybe blokes of 'baby producing' age will be also discrimated against. Can't they also take extended leave now?
 
Papas1982 said:
I wonder if all the people on here outraged, have ever mocked a friend for having a shandy, or not getting past the red tees?
Click to expand...

I'm not 100% sure what these have to do with either voting, or maternity pay?

Also, when you talk about "companies expense", the direct cost to the company is 8% of SMP. This is £11 a week, for much of the maternity leave.

And the other costs, recruitment and such like, are indirect, and could potentially have to be incurred anyway, whenever anyone leaves.

I'm not going to argue with chrisd about whether his business could afford it, it;s none of my business, and he knows his company a lot better than I, but all this talk of the companies expense is a bit much. Do you forget the times the employee is working for the company and contributing to the profit? Or stays late and doesn't get paid overtime? That all comes at the employees expense.
 
It's no wonder our politics are in such a mess when on a small forum like this there appear to be so many who cannot be arrsed to vote. You deserve the politicians you get IMO. The political class love it when people don't vote, it gives them a job for life.

As the thread has gone way off, I know a public sector employer in my arear where male applicants don't get a look in on the many admin jobs that go on offer. Discrimination in the work place is as big amongst female employees as amongs males in my experience of 10 years in HR.
 
FairwayDodger said:
Chris we're going to have to agree to disagree, I'm afraid. I don't know the ins and outs of the legislation but, while it may be onerous, one can assume that it has been considered from all angles, debated, voted on, and subsequently argued in court until it evolved to where it is now with the aim of striking the right balance between employers and workers. Clearly, that balance isn't where you would like it to be and you're perfectly entitled to express the opinion that it's wrong and to campaign to change it but not to openly flout it. Doesn't make you a bad person, necessarily, but we're definitely on opposite sides of this fence.
Click to expand...

I'm happy to disagree over the matter Karen but am personally still offended by the "odious" slur.

Employment legislation is generally imposed by the Government in office without the agreement of employers and I suspect it was the 17 year Labour government, asked by, and bank rolled by the unions who pushed this through. I don't flout it, and never have done, as i have repeatedly pointed out that I have NEVER had a female job applicant and therefore never had to.

I can't be tried and convicted for something just because I have said I'd do it if I had to
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Crazyface
Mobile Phones HELP !!!!!!!
Replies
14
Views
675
Robster59
Robster59
jim8flog
Fred Astaire in Carefree
Replies
3
Views
253
anotherdouble
anotherdouble
SwingsitlikeHogan
Rental Rights Act
2
Replies
24
Views
1K
jim8flog
jim8flog
Don Barzini
Atheism and Theism
8 9 10
Replies
187
Views
15K
SwingsitlikeHogan
SwingsitlikeHogan
mikejohnchapman
Default Penalty Area Marking
Replies
10
Views
676
backwoodsman
B
Top