Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


PRIZES GALORE! Enter The ePHOTOzine Exclusive Christmas Prize Draw; Over £10,000 Worth of Prizes! Plus A Gift For Everybody On Christmas Day!

Govement u-turn


CaptivePhotons 11 1.6k 2 England
6 Feb 2013 7:27PM

Quote:I was one of three **** managers running a hotel


Smile

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

Paul Morgan e2
13 16.1k 6 England
6 Feb 2013 7:33PM
Hehe, that`s a typo and a half Smile
Focus_Man 4 481 631 United Kingdom
7 Feb 2013 8:43AM

Quote:I was one of three **** managers running a hotel

Smile



Guess the hotel didn't fare very well then!
Focus_Man 4 481 631 United Kingdom
7 Feb 2013 8:58AM

Quote:
There is an easy answer. Get a job and buy a house




Yes I have watched the utube video and I still stand by my comments. When we bought our first house in 1962 we too had to save for a massive deposit of 10% and on top of that we had to pay a mortgage arte of 8% rising to 15% in later years.

One has to make up one's mind about buying a house and yes, life can be tough. We were skint for years, no pubs, footie matches, no sweets, just basic food. You make your choice and suffer the early consequences to benefit later. No pun intended, I have never received benefits in my life.

people today seem to want to go out to pubs, picture houses, restaurants etc etc and stillw ant to own a home of their own. Sometimes you cannot do both. Saving seems to be out of fashion, as probably am I but I do not go short on anything now, We can afford all that we want. Luck? No hard work and saving hard, we have been through the hardships as I say of the 15% mortgage now the bank rate is 0.5% things are much easier now that they used to be that is for sure.

The only thing we suffer now is the hammering of pensioners and the lack of a decent interest rate on our savings. 2% interest is a joke; after deduction of tax does that equate with the rise in living costs? Does it equte before tax is deducted? And all because of the credit crunch, bankers acking like lunatics and a Labour government who amongst many other filings, failed to supervise the banks and people borrowing too much money and not saving sufficient for their needs.

I suppose today's problem arises from 'we get what we deserve'.
thewilliam 6 4.9k
7 Feb 2013 10:21AM
The majority of parents want the best for their children. We post-war babies grew up is austere times at the tail-end of rationing and had to struggle to make ends meet. It was only natural for us to give our children the good things that we'd missed.

Unfortunately, our children accepted an easier life as quite normal. They didn't need to save up for the luxuries like a washing machine. They bought on credit because it had become a necessity. They were brought up to believe that they could have all the good things in life and have them NOW, almost as a birthright.

Teenage girls learned that they could have a house provided for them just by getting pregnant. Better still, the benefit system meant that extra children would provide greater income. There was no need to work.

Unfortunately, good times don't last forever because there is always a day of reckoning.
LVanDhal 2 126 1 United Kingdom
7 Feb 2013 12:45PM

Quote:The majority of parents want the best for their children. We post-war babies grew up is austere times at the tail-end of rationing and had to struggle to make ends meet. It was only natural for us to give our children the good things that we'd missed.

Unfortunately, our children accepted an easier life as quite normal. They didn't need to save up for the luxuries like a washing machine. They bought on credit because it had become a necessity. They were brought up to believe that they could have all the good things in life and have them NOW, almost as a birthright.

Teenage girls learned that they could have a house provided for them just by getting pregnant. Better still, the benefit system meant that extra children would provide greater income. There was no need to work.

Unfortunately, good times don't last forever because there is always a day of reckoning.



So you are saying that the post war babies who became parents over indulged their children, due to their experiences of austerity deprivation,
and those over indulged children then grew up having to turn to credit to buy items such as washing machines which you regard as a luxury,
and then when on to produce teen aged girls who were then educated in to pregnancy as the way to obtain housing, and to have further children
to bring in an income.
So basically you are blaming the people who are now pensioners for getting us in to the current situation as their experience of extreme deprivation
post war caused them to become damaged parents, so essentially subjecting society to poverty ultimately costs more in the long run.
So with that in mind maybe the Government should think about increasing benefits ? or at the very least not decreasing them.
mikehit e2
5 7.1k 11 United Kingdom
7 Feb 2013 1:07PM
Although I would not call them 'damaged parents', there is a lot of mileage in that argument: if people are blaming parents for kids' behaviour nowadays, then who raised those who are now parents without teaching them the parenting skills? Discuss Smile
KevSB 10 1.5k 5 United Kingdom
7 Feb 2013 1:29PM

Quote:Aside from employers discriminating against english peaple, Around where I live some companys employ nearly all eastern europiens and this is perfectly legal as there is no descrimination laws to stop them.
Yes there are because nationality is a basis for discrimination.
If English people do not apply (which is often the situation ) that is a different matter.




Saw this in papers today and searched it out, It appears its not discriminatory to employ fluent polish speakers, I do wonder if that works the other way round
mikehit e2
5 7.1k 11 United Kingdom
7 Feb 2013 2:11PM
The article is about the advert, not the job requirements and that link does not say it was not discriminatory. The justification was that the person must be able to speak Polish and that justification has not been tested - but note also the advert was taken down (or did you miss that?). You can sometimes employ fluent speakers as long as the job is open to English people who can speak Polish fluently, but speaking a language fluently is quite different from writing/reading it fluently and as such placing the advert in Polish could be construed as unfairly biasing the advert to Polish people and therefore discrimnatory.

Misinterpretation of reports like this (or plain irresponsible reporting of them) adds significantly to the amount of bull excrement that people spout on the interet about equality/policial correctness/health and safety/EU.
KevSB 10 1.5k 5 United Kingdom
7 Feb 2013 2:33PM
The advert was taken down from this site and indeed.co as it broke the rules being in polish, but he was told he could still post it in English requesting fluent polish speakers only which was perfectly legal as he only spoke polish and it would be against health and safety as the owner did not speak English.
Now I realise that there are English speakers who can speak polish but it still proves the point that you can decriminate within the law
keith selmes 11 7.1k 1 United Kingdom
7 Feb 2013 2:35PM
I would have thought

" its not discriminatory to employ fluent polish speakers" is quite right.

If you need polish speakers, e.g. for a call centre with customers in Poland, you could specify that.
They could be any nationality, so long as they were fluent in that language.
It might be harder, or even not possible, if you wanted to specify native Polish speakers.
Same thing with English or any other language - a certain standard of literacy or fluency might be a requirement for a job, but specifying a nationality would be a lot harder.

There have been some odd stories, like wanting to employ a Scotsman for a tourist or broadcasting job in Scotland, and having to give the job to an Englishman.
You could try advertising for "willing to wear a kilt" and expect mostly Scottish applicants, or you could try "fluent in Polish" to get more Polish applicants, but if an unsuccessful applicant twigged what was happening, it could backfire on you. That sort of thing happens with sex discrimination as well, and I expect sometimes the employer gets away with it, but we know about it because sometimes they don't.
mikehit e2
5 7.1k 11 United Kingdom
7 Feb 2013 2:40PM

Quote:that you can decriminate within the law

Jeez! The whole point is that the requirement was deemed to be not discriminatory.
The logical extension of your comment is that only fluent English speakers can be managers in Britain because they must be able communicate with the locals. Oh...but that's discriminatory.

As the manager only speaks Polish, I would question if he he has enough knowledge of British H&S laws to ensure his workers are trained appropriately.
thewilliam 6 4.9k
7 Feb 2013 3:06PM

Quote:Although I would not call them 'damaged parents', there is a lot of mileage in that argument: if people are blaming parents for kids' behaviour nowadays, then who raised those who are now parents without teaching them the parenting skills? Discuss Smile


Children arrive into this world pure and unsullied. They're made good or bad by their upbringing and that means parents, extended family, schooling and the society that they live in.

We shouldn't blame social security scroungers, asylum seekers or any other ne'er-do-well who exploits the system because we, as a society, have allowed them to get away with it. All they're doing is making the best of their situation. Until society changes, the ills will always be with us.
thewilliam 6 4.9k
7 Feb 2013 3:14PM
Now for the other parallel thread! I thought that an employer could only specify that applicants be fluent in Polish if there was a clear business need such as setting up a sales team to sell to Poland.

Fluency in Polish can hardly be an essential requirement for workers on a production line in the UK, even if all the other workers were Poles. I suspect a Tribunal would regard this as discriminatory.

In a recruitment ad, an Arts organisation in Bristol mentioned that black people were under-represented and that applications from that community would be especially welcomed. It cost them dear at Tribunal!
Paul Morgan e2
13 16.1k 6 England
7 Feb 2013 5:28PM

Quote:Yes I have watched the utube video and I still stand by my comments. When we bought our first house in 1962 we too had to save for a massive deposit of 10% and on top of that we had to pay a mortgage arte of 8% rising to 15% in later years


It was a different world back in then, there were so many jobs you could quit one job in the morning and find a new job by tea time.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.