Equality Bill: key elements and timescale

Alex of course you’re correct the simple solution is to give people whatever they request and these situations wouldn’t develop into claims for compensation. Mmmm, on second thoughts that wouldn’t suit everyone either. Why don’t we go back to the time bcc, before compensation culture, do you remember it? Some of us do. It was a time when people applied a bit of common sense and accepted responsibility for their actions. It wasn’t always someone else’s fault. In those days employment legislation was aimed at protecting people and not to generate paydays for the law business. When did the terms reasonable and practical fall out of use with the legislators? When this young lady had her child either by design or accident it compromised her ability to do her job properly. Why was this the MOD’s fault? The army didn’t make her pregnant; at least nobody is claiming they did so why is it the MOD’s responsibility to make provisions to enable her to carry on in the totally incompatible roles of single parent mother and soldier? Why should we, the tax payers, have to compensate her with this huge sum of money because as a result of her own actions she could no longer carry out the duties required in the job that we the tax payers were kind enough to give her?
The same rational can be applied in the case of the lesbian. If some man has hurt her feelings she should sue him; he is the person responsible. It’s his behaviour that has caused the offence not the MOD’s and it certainly shouldn’t be the responsibility of us the tax payers to compensate her because this individual behaved in a way she found unacceptable.
And Alex I suggest you do not take any more advice from those meerkats they have strange ideas and cannot be trusted.

Ernie both payments could have been avoided if the MoD had;
a) taken steps to assist in getting childcare provision for the single mother. An option which was requested and was refused despite previous EAT rulings that this was reasonable.
b) that the neanderthal who harrased the lesbian soldier had been disciplined and that her complaint had been treated seriously.
Seemples.

It maybe semantics Mr Smith yet I wouldn't dare suggest that you were a grumpy old man just, like all of us, working toward it.

Nevertheless, as there is plenty of lead in our pencils, passion and enough streangth left to cry into that goodnight it is to be applauded especially where we just 'know' the common law as founded on "equity" or fairness has become just a little squewd to say the least.

Trouble is with friendly fire and systemic failure in feedback blindness or denial "stupid is as stupid does" never mind the 'box of choco-lates' ......

This post has been removed because it contravened our guidelines.

Nigel as you know I cannot argue with the grumpy old man bit but here's a couple of the latest benefits made possible with the "common sense" implimentation of the discrimination laws. The lunatics truly have taken control of the assylum.

“A single mother soldier is expecting to receive a payment of at least £100,000 from the Army after a tribunal ruled that it had failed to take enough notice of her childcare needs.
Tilern DeBique said she was forced to leave the forces because she was expected to be available for duty at all times. “

“A lesbian soldier has won nearly £200,000 damages from the Ministry of Defence for campaign of sexual harassment against her by a boss who claimed he could "convert" her to heterosexuality.”

Our young men are returning in coffins on a daily basis now. They are being transported home in droves so severely maimed that the government thinks it better if they are not brought to our attention and are compensated with a pitance and yet...................words simply fail me.

Some of the more sensible commentators here could use examples like this to say we rest our case. Is there really anyone out there, without a vested interest, that thinks rulings like this are right and in the interest of the population in general?

Now, now Ernie, whilst we are all heading toward the role of grumpy old men one shouldn't be too concerned about consolidating pre-existing legislation into one overarching document as the previous disperate elements made little difference other than initial surge of interest so why should this one be any different ?

Not only but also if we had voluntarily been more pro-active even pro-social and implimented common sense good conditions and practice in sustaining reasonable occupational health "givens" we wouldn't need the connections between poor performance and health 7 safety reinforced by red-tape.

Just a shame on us for the cavalier attititude surrounding our indifference to breaking the kit or causing so much collateral damage to UK human resources through friendly fire in the first place - not rocket science.

"We all know that the devil is in the detail, and employers will fall foul of the law, where the detail eludes them."

Yipee! like manna from heaven. Some of us have known this from the outset. The ambulance chasers must be clapping their hands and whooping with joy.