A-chan

buggie Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Find the nature of the posts from A-Chan and Yuuna > very chippy - have you both been slighted by > *everyone* on this forum previously?! > > It's very nice that as her former employer > (looking at your past posts) Yuuna, your defending > A-Chan, but your both disliking that others are > debating what you are writing and - shock horror > given it's a public forum -not completely agreeing > with everything you are saying. > > By making such long posts of what appear to be cut > & pasted chunks of legislation, I think many of us > have found difficult & pretty boring to plough > through, more succinct posts talking of the > problems you'd had/how unfair you've find the > experience if trying to find a job with local > families (I'm guessing, although in your first > post I noticed the jobs you linked to weren't > local) you might have found more > response/discussion. > > Instead, you've both been really defensive to the > posters who have ploughed through & been kind > enough to respond & try to help forward the debate > adding more chunky posts & killing off further > conversation. > > I can empathise with you regarding age/experience > being questioned - as a paediatric nurse I would > sometimes have parents ask I had children myself > (any that point I didn't), and deride my years of > experience over the fact I hadn't at that point > met "the one" and been able to start my much > longed for family - I can guarantee that all of my > colleagues were asked the same question by parents > at one point or another. > > It is unfair, it shouldn't happen, but your manner > of posting is meaning the important issues are > being lost on most of us. I want to first make it clear that the vast majority of what I wrote in my first post was my own writing. I copied very little. The links were to support my writing and to be a resource for anyone wishing to look into it. The adverts were merely examples, as I wrote. I think the discussion never really happened and it turned into a debate. I don't often post on the forum, however I do read posts on it from time to time. I have seen how people get attacked on here. Everyone has not slighted me. I feel only one has, rightly or wrongly, so far. I felt offended if I am honest. Whilst it may not seem like much to you, please try to see that another can view it differently if it is directed at them. I think you may not have got where I was coming from. Looking back on my posts, I can see where I could have responded differently. Am I alone? Yuuna may have hammered her points home but I have to agree to an extent on what she wrote about SBot. She called her out on what she wrote. After all, it is a public forum. I did try to see where Saffron was coming from. I just didn't agree. So I am in the wrong for doing so? Why is it me that's killed off the discussion? People often don't apply what they write the other way. I too, felt uncomfortable. Perhaps that was not clear? Maybe my writing was boring then too? I am not happy with the way this thread turned out. I am also not happy that people are not being balanced about how the thread did turn out. Some people are only willing to be open about the side they agree with and not the alternate view. It's funny because I posted this on another forum and the responses were quite varied. Perhaps because it is more diverse. I received responses about the length of my writing too. "tl;dr" to quote one. (Meaning too long; didn't read). I actually laughed. The person was joking. I mean I knew some people would be put off by the length. That's their decision. I wanted to be thorough for a reason. I believe that was clear. I also had countless people relating their discrimination stories and were glad to know about the law and even felt empowered to learn more. Of course there were parents who were unaware of some information and others who didn?t appreciate being told what to do. Anyway, I read through my writing before I post it. I aim to be polite, respectful, balanced and clear. I don't always achieve that, but I try. I am also willing to admit when I am wrong.

Saffron, I in no way find SBot's comment 'legit'. If she read my post, she would have known the answer. Also, my previous posts being brought up did not add to the discussion. That was an attempt to deflect my message, forcing me to have to explain myself. I did not think it is simply 'my' interpretation of the law. I have spoken to lawyers who agree that parents are not exempt from the law; the Equality Act applies to all jobs unless it a job like I wrote above (police, military, government, club etc.) otherwise employers would have to justify the discrimination. I doubt they could - that is my interpretation. The Equality Act is from 2010. James, I meant that teaching in a formal setting is different to working in a home. I also do think it does depend on the hours you work. Some people seem to have taken what I wrote in a way I had not imagined. I'm not sure 'critical analysis' was necessary if you wanted to read my message and not read into me as a person. I thought you were nitpicking. My point was not to start a discussion (that's not to write I wasn't open to it) but to inform people and cause them to see things differently. I originally thought ageism only really happened to older people. Please stop focussing on me and what I say and what I don't say in an interview. This isn't a question and answer. This was my experience and what I learnt and how I am making others aware. Unfortunately, I now think people will focus on me and not my message due to certain comments.

It's okay Yuuna, I think the intention is clear. Thank you James, I had not thought of that. I have a friend who started teaching at 21. I appreciate being a nanny is different to being a teacher. I do think the responsibilty of 30 children is much greater. I would like to teach in future and I don't think caring for 2 or 3 children quite compares.

My previous posts are not part of the discussion. I am not answering to you. Personal information such as marital status, or whether I intend to get pregnant are not relevant to the job either. They are not permitted for obvious reasons. Perhaps you would like to asked them in an interview? Interviewers do not have a right to my personal information any more than you do. The law is merely confirming that. The years of experience will be evident by how long one has worked in a particular job, not the years they have been alive. Not employing someone because of their age is discrimination, whether you think it is right or wrong is another matter. Was your comment regarding my employment status meant to be an insult? What was the intent of your post? When I wrote my post I did nor expect to be insulted or have attempts made to discredit me. I merely meant to inform people, NOT justify myself, unfair discrimination or the law prohibiting. It's interesting to read so many opposed to it.

standswithfist Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > its a tricky one as I have had child carers > looking after my children of all ages and I would > prefer older carers now BECAUSE they have more > experience and would suit me much more. > > And this is in my experience. I appreciate your opinion and I do understand to a degree. Naturally if a person has cared for children for many years, then it is likely they are older. However, how old is 'older' and how much experience is necessary? That will vary from parent to parent so it is subjective. My point is age ought not be the determinant of suitability for the position. I am not suggesting an 18 year old care for a baby, it is unlikely they will have much experience, however, a 25 year old is quite different. When parents specify qualifications, which not all do, are they are aware of how long it takes to attain them? Does being 30 years and over mean they are better at looking after children? I believe certain jobs are like vocations. Experience does matter, I agree. Many turned down for jobs are not always due to lack of experience. You may prefer an older candidate due to your experiences, which is understandable. I'm sure there are others with your preference who have not had a range of childcarers of different ages work for them which could make them less open minded to younger applicants. Remember when I write 'younger' I do not mean 'less experienced'. Many adverts I see specify at least two years of experience not ten. Age isn't everything. I am also making the point that part of the problem is my perceived age, due to my appearance, something I could not change if even I had ten years of experience.

Saffron I'm falling into no such pit. I based my view on what I was told by some older interviewers and what they wrote to me. I did not look at them, see they were older and decide they would not hire a younger person. Perhaps you didn't read ''it's not a 22 year old's job''? (I am not 22, though I am told I look younger than that). I also mentioned older employers that did hire me... It seems you think the discrimination was acceptable. Thank you for your support. I do not think it is simply 'confusing age with experience', some people do have an age in mind there is little to confuse in that. (I will add that I did not mention I was considering legal action my point was to inform people). People are free to abhorently or oppositionally read what I wrote as is their right. People are also free to take on board what I wrote about being more open minded if they so wish to. I just want people to know their rights and know what they're protected against. I agree with Yuuna, if anyone disagrees with the Equality Act, you can do something about it. Write to your local MP or follow the above link and start a petition. I'm not being facetious; I have written to members of Parliament and I received replies. We as individuals and especially collectively are not powerless. I realise that now more than ever. Whilst I directed my above post to families seeking to employ domestic staff, my situation is far from unique as the links I provided show. After reading Saffron's post, I did consider removing my post (I can be easily disheartened by perceived negativity) however I am still glad I wrote what I did. I received a message congratulating me on what I wrote. If what I wrote helps even just one person, I will be happy. Ippee nifee deebiru Yuuna.

I have attached the second screenshot I captured of the advert because combined they were too large to be included in my above text. After reading some of the comments I decided to seek independent help and clarification on the law and it's interpretation. I called the Equality Advisory & Support Service. http://www.equalityadvisoryservice.com. I spoke to a knowledgeable man who I explained my situation to. I said that I had recently learnt and read about the Equality Act. I told him that I wanted to know if I am protected by it in my specific case. I said I work as a nanny and I feel I have been discriminated against because of my age. I told him of the innapropriate interview questions I am asked and what I have been told when I did not get some positions. He explained to me a number of things and the notes I took are below: If a nanny is being employed in the home, it would be the work place and therefore not exempt from the Equality Act. Age is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act. The age discrimination section is quite fluid. Employers may not discriminate during the recruitment process unless they can justify the discrimination was a necessary part of the job. Specifying a minimum age, age range or age limit within an advert would discriminate against those not of or within the specified age/age range. There are exceptions in certain jobs such as within bars/clubs, the police, military, government etc. where a minimum age is lawful. Even specifying a number of years of experience should be justified as anyone without for example ten years of experience would be discriminated against. They might not have had the time to gain such experience.?? Someone newly qualified could have more relevant skills than an applicant with many years of experience. Employers should be able to justify any specified characteristic or they could be open to legal action over possible discrimination. Employees would have to prove that the treatment they received was discriminatory. There is a (4 stage?) process to show/prove or ascertain whether conduct was?discriminatory. During the interview, employers may not ask for an applicant's age/date of birth.?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Employers should not ask for date of birth on application forms and if for *internal review* purposes then it should be on a separate sheet.????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Prospective employers should treat applicants fairly by asking the same questions. Suitability for a role should not be based on age.* There are guidelines available for employers on codes of conduct. (The * indicates when I was unable to remember his phrasing of the sentence). After the phone call I went onto the website and downloaded some useful Citizens Advice and government documents regarding the Equality Act and discrimination. On the Resources page I found many informative articles: http://www.equalityadvisoryservice.com/app/answers/list. I then went onto the Government Equalities Office website and I found numerous documents available for download on the Publications page after searching for words such as 'discrimination' and 'Equality Act'. Unfortunately many of the documents are too large for me to attach to this message. Here is the page with documents available on the website relating to the Equality Act: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications?keywords=Equality+Act&publication_filter_option=all&topics%5B%5D=all&departments%5B%5D=all&official_document_status=all&world_locations%5B%5D=all&from_date=&to_date=. ***If you think or feel you have been discriminated against, this informs you how to complain: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/process-for-complaints-under-the-equality-act-2010. *** On the HMRC website, I found this definition of workplace: "A place at which an employee works is a permanent workplace if he or she attends it?regularly?for the performance of the duties of the employment." http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/eimanual/eim32065.htm Whilst I recognise a house is not a workplace in the conventional sense of the word, that does not mean it is not a workplace if you are a nanny or a childminder. If you do not consider your home to be the place of work of your childcarer, where is it that they work? Perhaps you are suggesting that childcare unless in a conventional setting like a nursery is not actually work? If that is the case, what on Earth are you paying for? (My meaning here was not offend. Obviously you would see childcare is work. Parents raising children work most of all, no doubt). I think it is therefore safe to conclude that for a nanny or childminder, a house is a workplace. A workplace is not exempt from the ban on age discrimination, as well as all other forms of discrimination, as written in the Equality Act. I agree that SBot made a good point about information written on your CV revealing much information about you. I am rather careful about what I include on my CV. I think it is not wise to post your CV onto job websites for example, you have no guarantee that your personal details are safe. I would caution against doing so as well as posting your CV onto this forum, even in a private message. Those seeking applicants for a position should consider setting up a specific email address for applicants to send their CVs to. Perhaps I was not clear above. I am well aware parents will still ask inappropriate questions, especially if they do not realise they leave themselves open to discrimination claims by doing so. I did provide the link to the Know How Non Profit website's list of inappropriate questions, which explains why they are inappropriate/illegal and better alternatives. Please bear in mind what the man I spoke to said about the interviews: "Prospective employers should treat applicants fairly by asking the same questions." I am unable to prove that the parents who interviewed me asked completely different questions to different applicants, clearly. However, I do recall numerous occasions of parents simply asking questions off the top of their heads, apparently; they had no sheet of paper with notes or any questions. Therefore it is entirely possible for them to have asked slightly different questions to applicants if they did not have a set list of questions. I honestly can count on one hand the number of parents who had a printed list of questions to ask me. I have had to suggest good questions to ask. Would you not want to do some research on the right questions to ask? My point is that parents should endeavour to be prepared by having a set of questions to ask each applicant and therefore make a decision more fairly based on the answers and of course, how they feel about them. It should not be a matter of nannies having to dodge or deflect inappropriate, personal questions, it should be parents' responsibility to ask the appropriate, pertinent questions that will help ensure they select the right carer for them and their child. I would do so if it were about my child(ren). Please consider this parents. I have looked at a number of websites that have lists of nanny interview questions and I found some that I think are appropriate. The Care.com website has a list of good questions to ask during an interview with a nanny. http://blog.uk.care.com/how-to-interview-a-childcarer-questions-checklist/. The page also lists inappropriate topics you may not ask according to prohibitions in the UK. Hello Bee lists useful questions: http://www.hellobee.com/2011/12/15/nanny-interview-questions/. Being the Best Dad lists some good questions: http://www.beingthebestdad.com/2012/02/08/19-interview-questions-you-should-ask-any-nannycaregiver-before-hiring-herhim/. Any American website questions can easily be adapted from 'US' to 'UK' for example. The Nannyjob website also has a list of inappropriate questions and it explains why they are so. It provides alternatives. Here is the list (with some ammendments): 'Interviewing can be a nerve wracking process and it?s understandable that families want to find out as m ?Are you married/in a relationship?? Why it?s bad: Questions about marital status can be seen as discrimatory, or trying to find out about sexual preferences. Why you might want to know: If you?re hiring a live in nanny you might want to know whether they?re going to move their partner in too, or whether you?ll be waking up to a string of different ?houseguests?[.] What you can say: ?Would you expect to have guests to stay?? ?Do you have children?? Why it?s bad: A nanny could claim that you discriminated against them if you didn?t give them the job and gave it to someone who didn?t have children. Why you might want to know: A whole host of reasons, including whether the nanny is likely to want to bring their children to work regularly or occasionally or whether they have their own children to pick up from childcare, thus reducing their flexibility. What you can say: ?Do you have any obligations at home which may interfere with your attendance or ability to do this job and how do you plan to minimise the [effect] of those? ?Are you planning to have children soon?? Why it?s bad: This is definitely discriminatory ? although you are trying to reduce the [effect] of an employee going on maternity or paternity leave it?s illegal to ask this question. Why you might want to know: A nanny planning to start a family will mean you need to find alternative childcare to cover the leave they are entitled to. What you can say: Nothing. This is a risk you need to be prepared to take. ?Do you have a disability?? Why it?s bad: Asking someone whether they have a disability contravenes legislation on equality. Why you might want to know: Some disabilities may impair a nanny?s ability to do their job. What you can say: You can focus on whether the applicant is able to do the job e.g. ?Are you able to lift and carry my toddler??. You can also ask whether you need to make reasonable adjustments once a job offer has been made. As an employer it is up to you to decide what is ?reasonable? in terms of your requirements. You may not be able to adjust working hours, for example, but you may be able to accommodate time off for treatment on a regular basis. If you are in any doubt we suggest you seek specialist advice. ?How old are you?? Why it?s bad: Knowing someone?s age could lead to a claim of age discrimination. You must focus on someone?s ability to do the job, whether old or young. Why you might want to know: Nosiness! What you can say: Nothing. [Are you over 18? <--- You may ask this question if you feel it is necessary.] ?Where do you come from?? Why it?s bad: Nationality and ethnicity should have no bearing on someone?s suitability as a nanny. Why you might want to know: If you require your nanny to travel or if you have concerns about their right to work in the UK (which you should verify in any case) you may feel reassured by knowing their nationality. You may also think this is a friendly question inviting the nanny to talk about themselves. In rare cases it may be a genuine occupational requirement that a nanny holds a particular passport. What you can say: ?Are you able to travel within the EU without restrictions/to X with the appropriate visa?? ?Can you provide evidence of your right to work in the UK?? ?What religion are you?? Why it?s bad: This question is grounds for claiming discrimination. Why you might want to know: If you want your nanny to support your religious practices you might think the simplest way is if they belong to your religion. What you can say: ?We are Jewish/Hindu/Catholic and would like you to respect our traditions and support our children in their [religious] development. Do you feel comfortable doing that??' http://www.nannyjob.co.uk/blog/parents/questions-not-to-ask-at-interview/. The irony of this list being written on the Nannyjob website is twofold. This is the very same website with the discriminatory adverts and it is a website I know East Dulwich residents/forum users have advertised on. If they found the time to list an advert on the website, why did they not find the time to read this guide? I have been asked some of the inappropriate questions in interviews by East Dulwich parents who had advertised on the Nannyjob website. I have spent some time reading, researching and writing about this topic. If you feel so strongly that it is unreasonable for me to politely request that you do not ask inappropriate interview questions and or not treat applicants unfairly or if you think that a house is not a workplace and therefore not included in the Equality Act 2010 then what I have written thus far is unlikely to convince you. My aim was to make others aware of the law; age discrimination in particular, how to avoid possible accusations of unfair treatment, share my experience of discrimination and help others; both carers and parents. I did not mean to accuse or offend, merely to highlight an issue. I have provided numerous links and further resources to support my writing. I do hope that both childcarers and parents will read the links. I have found them helpful and informative. Perhaps you will too. I do think that parents seeking childcare should make the effort to learn about employment law and ensure they are being as fair as possible. (I do acknowledge that my post is long. Is that wrong? Please do not be put off by it. I am genuinely trying to help spread awareness. Unless indicated by ' or " or a website link, I wrote every word. I did not simply copy and paste. It was a shame to read that one seemed to think that's what I did. I know not everyone will read what I wrote. That would not only be due to the length, I believe. I thought this was an open forum. It's looking quite narrow from my viewpoint). If anyone is wondering what I will do in possible future interviews, I will write that I have considered simply sending parents links to websites with interview questions, such as those above. My aim will be to help them be prepared as much as myself. I think it is important to be prepared for an interview, don't you? This will be my last post on this thread. I feel I have achieved my aim. Thank you for the supportive messages. If there is anyone (nanny or parent) that would like to send me a message about this, I am happy to help if I can or try and offer support.

I am writing to inform or perhaps remind many of the law against discrimination. The Equality Act of 2010 outlawed discrimination based on protected characteristics: age being or becoming a transsexual person being married or in a civil partnership being?pregnant?or having a child disability race including colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin religion, belief or lack of religion/belief sex sexual orientation. People are protected from these forms of discrimination in the following situations: at work in education as a consumer when using public services when buying or renting property as a member or guest of a private club or association. You may think that these are not surprising and will likely be aware of this law. I wonder if you were also aware of how widespread and common such discrimination is and where it most often occurs. Being discriminated against at work or when applying for a job, including during an interview, is illegal. You may not advertise that you discriminate against people with protected characteristics such as those written above. Of course, there are exceptions. For example, if you specify that only those over 18 may apply for a position working in a bar. This is because under 18 year olds may not legally serve alcohol. However, writing that only nannies over 25 may apply is unlawful. There is no law stating people under 25 may not be nannies. The parents or agency would have a hard time proving that being over 25 is essential to the job, especially if they did not specify qualifications in the advert. The law also protects against inappropriate interview questions such as: 'how old are you?'. You may also not ask: 'do you plan to get pregnant?'. Those are just two of the illegal questions an interviewer may not ask. Were you aware of that? I was not until very recently. The Gov UK website outlines how one may or may not be discriminated against: https://www.gov.uk/discrimination-your-rights/types-of-discrimination. This explains how employers can avoid unlawful discrimination: https://www.gov.uk/employer-preventing-discrimination/what-discrimination-is. This page explains how discriminatory job adverts can be unlawful: https://www.gov.uk/employer-preventing-discrimination/recruitment. I have been discriminated against because of my young age and appearance countless times. I thought that this was something I would have to live with; I can't alter my face. However, I now realise that this discrimination was and is unlawful. I hope to educate both (prospective) employees and employers about the law so they may not be discriminated against or possibly face a court case. You may have an ideal age in mind of an employee (whether you would admit it or not),? however, you should realise that discriminating against someone based on age is illegal. Obviously, there are other forms of unlawful discrimination. I am merely focusing on the particular discrimination I face; age. This is an example of a rejection email I received recently: 'It was great to meet you on Friday ? thanks so much for coming. I met with a much older nanny on Saturday morning and I thought she might be good for handling my crazy three year old so I took the hard decision to go with her. But it was great to meet you and if its OK with you I?ll keep in touch, in case you are ever available to come and babysit?' I will add that I was asked my age at the interview and the woman was surprised (?). Yes, I was at least offered the opportunity to babysit, however, I was also discriminated against because of my age. I have received numerous similar emails where they wrote that they went with an older candidate or a much older woman with children. Remember it would still have been unlawful to write such stipulations in the adverts; it's illegal discrimination. This is a Work Smart article explaining age discrimination: http://www.worksmart.org.uk/rights/viewsubsection.php?sun=90. There is also a list of other forms of unlawful discrimination that you could experience or unknowingly commit. This is another helpful Which? article further explaining your rights to fair treatment: http://legalservice.which.co.uk/employment/discrimination.aspx?expanddiv=subpane3. This BBC report explains that illegal questions are still being asked at interviews and the article lists prohibited questions: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7187032.stm. The Guardian also reported on inappropriate interview questions: http://www.theguardian.com/money/blog/2012/mar/30/what-can-ask-job-interview. Essential Personnel also lists banned questions: http://www.essentialpersonnel.co.uk/blog/10-illegal-interview-questions-that-you-should-not-ask-candidates/. Know How Non Profit lists questions to avoid asking as well as giving useful alternatives. They do note that not all the questions are illegal per se, however, they could lead to litigation: http://knowhownonprofit.org/how-to/how-to-avoid-illegal-or-innapropriate-interview-questions. As you can see, there is a wealth of information regarding unlawful discrimination. So why is it still happening? Some people are simply unaware that you may not discriminate against potential candidates based on age, for example. I acknowledge that I do not think the Government does a sufficient job of notifying people of the laws, though there are many. However, surely people realise that age discrimination is unfair? Some people may think that these laws do not necessarily apply to a 'private sector' job such as being a nanny or housekeeper for example. There is no exemption in the law for such positions. It is hypocritical to think that unlawful discrimination only applies in the office but not at home; you as the employer must also obey the law. I have been asked whether I have a boyfriend or I plan to conceive. Naively, I answered. I am almost always asked my age during interviews. I answered because I did not know better. However, it would not be so easy to deflect, dodge, or simply refuse to answer such a direct question without potentially ruining the chance of being hired. I do appear younger than my age and that is why I am asked my age so often I believe. A simple search revealed a number of illegal job adverts posted on the nannyjob and Gumtree websites, two websites I know East Dulwich residents and forum users have posted job adverts on. Some of the examples are from nanny agencies, the rest are from parents. Gumtree: http://www.gumtree.com/p/jobs/an-english-nanny-needed-moscow-area-russia-800-per-week/1052214345. I am unsure if they are allowed to specify an 'English nanny' as opposed to an 'English speaking nanny' or 'fluent (native) speaking nanny'. Remember, though this may seem pedantic, these laws are to stop persons knowingly or unknowingly discriminating against people based on age, nationality or ethnicity etc. That is outlined in the Equality Act of 2010. Welsh, Scottish, Irish, American, Canadian, South African, Australian and New Zealanders could be discriminated against because they are also from countries where the main language is English. Similarly, adverts specifically requesting 'Kiwi or Oz' applicants would also therefore be prohibited because it gives an unfair advantage to non Australian or New Zealander people. I believe they would have a hard time justifying a need for such persons simply because the family would prefer an employee from their own country. We all speak English... (Whilst I recognise that the advert is for a position in Russia, the advert was posted on a website in the United Kingdom, so the law would apply I believe. I am also informed that such adverts do sometimes turn out to be fake when they offer to pay higher than the usual live in rate, though that is a different issue). On nannyjob these are two agency adverts: http://www.nannyjob.co.uk/job/350405/Nanny-Greater_London and http://www.nannyjob.co.uk/job/348720/Nanny-Greater_London. I called both agencies yesterday morning and I enquired about the wording of their adverts. I informed them that specifying an age in their adverts was unlawful under the Equality Act of 2010. I wrote some notes on my phone calls: Nanny Agency Telephone Enquiries?????????????????? Fulham Nannies - Attempted to backtrack and claim age was about the calculated amount of experience. However, the advert does not include any specific qualifications because qualifications are 'not essential'. The woman seemed to not comprehend the Equality Act 2010 and that advertising a specific age for a job is unlawful. ????????????????????????????????? Nannies of St. James - Told me it was "not a 22 year old's job basically'" and seemed surprised when I said that was an example of age discrimination and advertising a specific age was in violation of the law. The woman asked for my name twice, on the second occasion she said it was because I was 'obviously passionate about this'. That may be true, however, I believe she wanted to know if I was connected to law enforcement in any way. ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Both women said the adverts would be amended. They were informed that parents would be liable not them. However, I believe they do have a responsibility to be aware of the law and ensure they follow it as well as the parents. You might notice that both adverts have since been amended. The first advert read '...will at least be 27+'. The second advert previously read after the ten years of experience 'Preferred age 28 yrs+'. I captured a screenshot of each advert which I will include below. The women I spoke to did say they would change the adverts and indeed they have. Regarding the Nannies of St. James' advert (the second advert), do bear in mind that I first asked her (before telling her it was discriminatory) why the advert read that the preferred age was 28 years and over. She went on to explain that the mother was anxious, the baby will be 15 months when the job starts, she is a first time mother etc. Let us not forget her "it's not a 22 year old's job basically"... These nannyjob adverts were posted by parents: http://www.nannyjob.co.uk/job/350094/Nanny-Housekeeper-Europe_(non_UK) http://www.nannyjob.co.uk/job/350026/Nanny-Europe_(non_UK) http://www.nannyjob.co.uk/job/349928/Temporary_Positions-Greater_London. These adverts are all examples of unlawful age discrimination. Asking for specific qualifications is one thing, requiring applicants be between 30 and 40 years is another; it is unfair and unlawful. The following are prohibited questions that interviewers may not ask: How old are you? Are you married? Are you gay? What are your childcare arrangements? Are you planning to start a family soon? Are you a member of a trade union? What political party do you support? Source: Which? Parents interviewing prospective nannies, childminders or housekeepers etc. are not exempt from this. You would not like it if your boss asked you these questions at an interview. Why should you therefore ask someone else? I acknowledge that some or even many may not have been asked such questions and parents may simply be unware of the law, as was I. Now I know and I hope you do too. I have provided a plethora of websites and links for you to research, should you wish to. My aim is to make nannies and other domestic staff aware of their rights as well as helping parents to avoid illegal behaviour. The Know How Non Profit link I pasted above lists avoidable questions and more useful alternatives. My point is that a person?s suitability for a job ought not be based on age nor any of the other protected characteristics. (Remember jobs like police, military, government or bars, clubs etc. may discriminate based on age lawfully). I believe that the discrimination I have experienced is based partly on the age of the interviewers. I do realise that many mothers of very young children are in their thirties nowadays. That does not mean people in their twenties are less capable of caring for children. They should realise this. The woman who wrote 'I met with a much older nanny on Saturday morning and I thought she might be good for handling my crazy three year old'. So only 'much older' nannies can handle 'crazy' three year olds? I and my referees would beg to differ. Remember her offer to have me babysit? Apparently I am only capable of handling the crazy three year when she is asleep. Charming. Parents, please stop discriminating against younger applicants. Nannies, childminders, babysitters, housekeepers, cleaners, everyone; know your rights, especially in this day and age. I appreciate my post is long. My intent was to make others aware of what I was until very recently, unaware of. I hope that this will help open people's minds. I will add, that I am currently employed by a woman nearly twice my age. Incidentally, she did not ask for my age during the interview. She based her decision on my experience, what I would bring to the job and my references. (We are both Leos though, perhaps it was written in the stars? Semi serious). I should note that I fully realise that age discrimination happens to older people also. I am sure there are domestic staff or childcarers who have experienced this. It is equally unfair. It seems today we're too young, too old, too big, too small, too this and too that... When are we ever just right or fine as we are? I will also write that I am not claiming I am always discriminated against because of my age. Of course, there are times when I did not secure a position because a more experienced, qualified or suitable applicant was chosen. However, I do know that in some cases my age played in part. I have gotten jobs even after I was asked my age and the interviewer was surprised. They did say that they were impressed that a young person seemed so mature... Perhaps I proved their misconceptions wrong. I still like to think that in most cases I will get a fair chance, however, I do truly doubt that when the vast majority of rejections I received specified my youth was a factor against me and their preference for an older candidate. I see their surprised looks when they see me; I'm not what they expected. Again, I cannot change my facial features. I am who I am. Please, open your minds and your hearts. Be more open minded. Try it, you'll like it (?).

.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Cash is just another thing for the driver to worry > about. It's 2013, let's move on. > > What does this have to do with East Dulwich > though? I think it's because there are TfL bus services in East Dulwich and there are people who use them.

I wrote based on what my Uncle saw - he left her alive in the ambulance. I didn't ask if he got her name or anything. He was with his son so he wanted to shield him from it as much as he could otherwise I'm sure he would have gone with her to the hospital, as would I had I been there. Her injuries were severe, I don't think it's necessary to elaborate, however it is possible she could recover physically though she would be disabled. Many don't die instantly but as a result of their injuries. I hope the latter won't be her fate. Even in my darkest time, for want of a better phrase, I don't think I could have comtemplated such a way to go...

My uncle witnessed the collision (he was with his son and shielded him from seeing the impact) and he called the ambulance and the police. She survived although she was severely injured (she was alive when he left her in the ambulance). He is very shaken up by what he saw.