Even that seems fairly pointless though. I think it would be better to take the applicant quietly to one side and ask “Look, you’re not here to cause trouble, are you, old bean?”
Yeah, coming over here, taking our jobs - the ones we don’t want to do, that is.
I’ts a sad fact of life that the generations of under achievers who give up as soon as something becomes difficult,who leave school with paper qualifications but who are barely literate or numerate that we’ve been churning out in recent years are often pretty much useless (and its not just the education systems fault much of it is down to immature and over indulgent parenting) when it comes down to being productive in the work place.
Sad though it is we NEEd the wave of E Europeans immigrants. not just in the short term, to get the country back to adult status.
As an island we could get away with excusing incapability with terms like Dyslexia or ending in disorder,syndrome etc. when it was the lame in competition with the lame but unfortunatly the immigrants dont seem to understand the terms or could care less.
In their eyes you can either do the job or you cant,Dyslexic are you?
Sorry I dont want to hear your problems,the nearest job centre is thataway!
In defence of my home town, which seems to be in the news a lot lately, those job-avoiding dole-dossers are hardly unique to Peterborough. They were only shown as a counter to the hard working immigrants. Those immigrants work fucking hard, they earn every single pound. On that TV program those earning £24 a year were working 10 hours a day (plus 2 hours on a coach), 6 days a week.
A fully qualified Polish nurse can earn more over here as a cleaner. I don’t blame them for coming over, I just wish we could handle it better.
I think Charles Swift, my councillor, explained it perfectly. He welcomed immigrants in the past but recognises that we just don’t have the funds to cope with the numbers coming in.
Anyway… Forcing its own citizens to say a pledge of allegiance just seems so… un-British. How exactly do we plan to encourage ‘Britishness’ by adopting American ideals? How about, instead of an empty pledge, we actually stand up for freedom by not turning a blind eye to our friends using our own airports for extraordinary rendition. Or perhaps not locking people up, without charge, for extended periods of time. Or not manipulating intelligence to get us into a war which was clearly pencilled in a while back.
I do not give loyalty blindly. As for swearing loyalty to the Queen? Not bloody likely.
Posting as a non-dyslexic disabled person, I’m glad that you would lose at a employment tribunal after saying that to a prospective employee.
I’m not sure how employment laws run, but surely, if the position is for a manual labourer, you can turn away people who are not physically capable of doing the work? Or is that wrong?
In 2004 I suffered an accident whilst at work, I was a postman.
Now then, my accident prevented me from delivering mail in the future but did not prevent me from working indoors at the sorting frames.
Despite this, Royal Mail dispensed with my services giving me 3 months pay in lieu of notice, I took them to court over what I considered unfair dismissal, I won, it cost them plenty I’m glad to say.
What really pissed me off was the fact that after 20+ years service they thought they could just cast me aside like a sodden glove.
I believe that under the DDA an employer cannot discriminate on the basis of medical problems (with certain exemptions) where an employee is capable of doing the job and must make accomodations for that employee if they should require it (i.e. high-contrast monitors for visually impaired employees etc). You also cannot use disability as a means to separate candidates (two equal candidates, one in a wheelchair and you pick the able-bodied one just because he’s able-bodied).
OK that makes sense. I bet a lot of employers try to weasel around the “capable of doing the job” clause.
Probably but it’s very expensive if you get caught doing that.
Beautifully put.
This oath idea is utterly silly, and I suspect it will be quietly shelved. However, IF Brown tries to push ahead with it, it could have the happy side effect of leading a lot of school pupils to start thinking seriously about politics and society, and that just might not be something of benefit to Gordon Brown or, indeed, the next lot to take power. 
Try it, Gordon, and you’ll find it to be about as popular as the poll tax.
You have to make “reasonable adjustments” to ensure the disabled person is able to do the job - problems arise over what constitutes as “reasonable” though, especially for smaller companies with fewer resources.
As for the pledge, it’ll never happen, but if it did, I’d remove my (as-yet-hypothetical) children from the formal education system before I’d see them pledge allegiance to the queen.
*
Jennyrosity, who got kicked out of the Brownies at the age of seven for refusing to sing “God Save the Queen”.*
IANABrit, but I could see having an oath like that only for those about to become new citizens, MPs or other public officials, barristers/solicitors, military servicemembers, etc. For anyone else, it smacks of a very un-British groupthink.
I personally like the Pledge of Allegiance here in the U.S. (at least when it’s not used as a political bludgeon, as in the shameful 1988 Bush campaign, or when it’s forced on those who have a religious, political or moral objection to it). But it’s well-established here and we’re (most of us, anyway) used to it; it’s become pretty routine. To force a similar ritual on a mostly-recalcitrant British population would be idiotic.
Even then, it’s just a pointless exercise. Oaths are such an archaic idea - so they’re more acceptable in contexts where they’ve got a long tradition (swearing in witnesses, coronation of monarchs, etc), but to try to introduce a brand new one is just silly.
There are much more effective ways to get people to do the things they’re supposed to do, than having them stand up and chant a bunch of words.
But if a person doesn’t speak or sign an oath, in the contexts I described, and later violates whatever duty the oath would otherwise have imposed, there’d be no basis for prosecution or other consequences. Oaths give us a demarcation point to show when someone’s status changed and he or she incurred particular obligations. Somewhat archaic, yes, but all the more important because they’re something special and distinctive in human law and society.
I heard an interview with Lord Goldsmith where he came out with various moronic comments. One was that an oath would mark the transition for teenagers into ‘becoming full members of society’, as if children shouldn’t be seen to have such a status already. He also said he couldn’t see any objections any republicans would have with being required to say such an oath. Idiot.
Yup. I was just quoting it since Sal couldn’t remember how it went.
I’m not sure what you mean about a “basis for prosecution”. There’s already have a pretty solid demarcation point for when someone accepted citizenship - their name is inscribed upon the rolls of HM’s subjects, they get a EU passport, etc.
Moreover, both citizens and residents of Britain have basically the same obligations (other than voting). AFAIK, there are no crimes you can charge a citizen with that you couldn’t charge a resident with. It’s not like a Frenchman living in Britain can’t be executed for treason for shooting the Queen or something.
I suppose citizenship confers a stronger claim of jurisdiction over a crime involving a Briton on foreign soil (or international waters), but again, there’s a pretty clear record of whether or not you’ve accepted citizenship, regardless of any oaths.
The first of these is metaphorical, right? (‘British Subject’ is not synonymous with ‘British Citizen’, either.) One of the arguments for introuducing the ceremonies for new British citizens was that there was no such tangible marking of the moment, just a letter from the home office saying ‘OK, you’re in’.
Personally I have no problem with disabled people but I DO have a problem with non disabled people having their inadequacies described in pseudo phychiatric mumbo jumbo to make it seem that they are not responsible for their own actions.
Being lazy is not a medical disorder,being irresponsible is not a medical disorder,neither is lacking self discipline,persistant anti social behaviour or being a dummy.
The way employment legislation is going employers are going to be forced to employ quotas of people with these mythical syndromes and disorders because syndrome and disorder sound very much like illnesses to ordinary people.
I was born myself with Dexter oriented manual ability syndrome so that I think it only fair that Ican turn up late for work on occassions or have unscheduled days off without suffering disciplinary action.
Its bad enough having to live every day of my life with this condition without being persecuted by my employers and also I think that there should be some sort of financial help from the government to help me live as normal a life as I can and other sufferers like myself.
Its not my fault that I was born right handed.