Yuuna

A 'grab bag'? In the US, there are people who have prepared bug out bags. My husband was in the military for over 10 years, and he has one ready, just in case...

Hello, I'm hoping that someone is able to recommend a locally based (ideally) dressmaker, specifically of lingerie, who can help. I would like to have vintage 1940s/1950s style lingerie made, and I was wondering if anyone could recommend (or know of someone) with those skills? I am looking for an individual, ideally, who is based here, that I could personally visit, if that helps. Thanks in advance!

This thread was posted in error to this forum.

Saffron Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A-chan Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > 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. > > When you post a comment on a public forum, you > open yourself up for public debate. > Particularly, but not limited to the fact that > you've made the post specifically about *your* > experience: > > > 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. I'm not sure she opened herself up for public debate. That is so broad as practically to be a non statement. She mentioned her personal experience. She is not on trial here. 'Public forum' or not does not mean wishes cannot be respected. People use that flimsy explanation all too easily. They have to prove the 'occupation requirements' are justified, as was written above if challenged. Your last paragraph makes little sense to me. I see no critical reflection, only deflection and noise. You've created a barrier that 'some people will find difficult to process.' It could be seen as you write however it's highly unlikely to stand up in court. Obviously, we're going to go round and round on this one. You disagree, I get it. Your attempts to appear objective are just that, attempts. You already expressed "And personally I think families should be able to specify and hire whomever they want and the government (except for lawful collection of taxes) should stay the hell out of it." So you set out to prove that. That was your agenda: to prove A-chan wrong not give an alternative way at seeing it. The post was about the Equality Act not the European Convention on Human Rights. Under the Rights to Receive Equal Treatment: http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/right-to-receive-equal-treatment/index.html it reads: 'The United Kingdom (UK) has specific legislation on equality that outlaws discrimination and provides a mechanism for individuals to lodge complaints with the courts when they experience unlawful discrimination. The UK now has legislation prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of race, religion and belief, sex, sexual orientation and transgender status, disability and age.' Under Exceptions it is written: 'A second exemption which applies to recruitment and dismissal is that an employer can refuse to employ you where possessing a characteristic which is related to age is a genuine and determining occupational requirement and it is proportionate to apply the requirement in your particular case. If you do not meet the requirement or the employer reasonably does not believe that you satisfy the requirement then the employer is not obliged to employ you and the employer may dismiss you if you are already employed. However, these genuine occupational requirements are exceptionally rare and if your employer suggests that he can rely on one of these you should immediately seek legal advice.' Whilst I agree that's about as clear as mud (what is the characteristic related to age and does ut apply to all ages?), it does show employers would have to prove the supposed 'occupational requirement' were indeed genuine and not simply discriminatory. Only wanting older and more 'experienced' applicants doesn't seem like a genuine occupational requirement. That's just discrimination. There are many laws I don't like however, the Equality Act isn't one of them. The lawyer has an opinion, as do you. Unlike you, I believe the lawyer knows the law better so I think their opinion counts for more. The main focus of the original post was about the interview/recruitment process which is also covered under the law not just once you are employed. I think it is important people know that.

SBot please also read this on the Equality Act Guidance: https://www.gov.uk/equality-act-2010-guidance. If you look under the Age discrimination: exceptions section you can see whom is exempt. It reads: "There are no specific exceptions to the ban on age discrimination for health or social care services." I believe childcare is part of social care. If you click on the government response you can read the full document on the consultation on exceptions. Whilst it doesn't specify household workers that does not mean the law does not apply to those jobs. It is merely unspecifed. I actually think the page is worth reading and I'm glad I looked.

SBot if it is on your CV do they need to ask...? If you read the first post, you would have seen the link to the Know How Non Profit website with inappropriate and suggested questions. http://knowhownonprofit.org/how-to/how-to-avoid-illegal-or-innapropriate-interview-questions Prospective employers can read it also. Employers do discriminate based on what details are written on a CV. You have raised a fair point. You aren't obligated to provide that on your CV it may be standard practice however it can be used against you. A-chan wrote: "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." Obviously it isn't easy to avoid the questions. Did you read that or anything she wrote... A-chan copied this in her first post: 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? Which of those questions is appropriate, (forget the legality part for now), and if only some are why and why are the others inappropriate? Do you understand how a person can be given favourable or unfavourable treatment based on the answers to any of the questions? Do you understand the point of the Equality Act 2010? It's not wrong to ask an employer that if you have the job already. I would not think it appropriate to ask at the interview - if they didn't specify they plan to have more children, why should you ask during the interview? I would be surprised if I was asked at such an early stage. Should my prospective employee ask for my sexual orientation or my age? Your questions are: How old are you? Are you married? So you have any of your own children? What do I answer?? Are you regularly asked them? If they are on your CV why would they? Anyway, you could attempt to deflect from say the age question by mentioning experience counts for more. I'm not asked my age, my date of birth is not on my CV. If an employer asked me if I have children I would ask if it relevant to the job. My marital status is my business, I wear a ring... What you call 'basics' I say is unnecessary. Discrimination literally is: The term discriminate appeared in the early 17th century in the English language. It is from the Latin discriminat- 'distinguished between', from the verb discriminare, from discrimen 'distinction', from the verb discernere.[3] Since the American Civil War the term "discrimination" generally evolved in American English usage as an understanding of prejudicial treatment of an individual based solely on their race, later generalized as membership in a certain socially undesirable group or social category.[4] "Discrimination" derives from Latin, where the verb discrimire means "to separate, to distinguish, to make a distinction". This is from Wikipedia. So making a distinction is discrimination. However we are discussing inappropriate, and unlawful discrimination. You think it is fine, others don't. The above link, is meant to help parents avoid such questions. Is A-chan clicking her fingers to make the situation instantly better? Or is she trying to inform people and providing links to back up her points? Did you honestly read only what you wanted to? I know it was long, but it wasn't that taxing. I mean she even gave a link with suggested questions. I wanted to post them but I am unsure if the page is copyright or I may do so. Did you do any research? I actually read the law here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents.

Saffron Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yuuna Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > SBot Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > It's my opinion within this discussion, no > > intent > > > to discredit. So if at an interview you we're > > > asked "how old are you?", what do you say?? > > > > > > Are you serious? What exactly are you > discussing? > > Trying to find out her age? Will you please > stop > > ruining this thread? > > SBot's question seems legit. And, in fact, if the > OP's goal was to educate and inform both parents > and carers, it would be helpful for prospective > nannies to know how other prospective nannies are > dealing with these questions, which can be awkward > for both parties. That's not ruining the thread > in anyway. It's simply adding to the discussion, > IMHO. SBot's question 'seems legit'... (and her others)? A-chan wrote (in her first post): "I am almost always asked my age during interviews. I answered because I did not know better." Yet, apparently, SBot (short for SuperBot?) wrote: "So if at an interview you we're asked "how old are you?", what do you say??" and it is supposedly a 'legit' question. This is from the same user who wrote: "And you've "removed" all of your old posts regarding nanny jobs because........." Please explain how that is both 'legit' and relevant to this 'discussion'. SBot also wrote: "You have a job so well done, the nanny market is not what it used to be, we can't be choosy these days." Patronising and sarcastic much? Of course, none of that was in any way intentional (?). SBot is a mother and I think a nanny also. Her opinion is that personal sujects will be discussed, which is fair enough. I disagree that it is appropriate to ask such questions, as written above, during an interview or not hire someone for any of the characteristics above. It is also illegal. However, why does SBot feel the need to ask about unrelated subjects, like previous posts being deleted. Did she think by reading them she would gain an understanding of A-chan's discrimination? Perhaps she thought she would find justification? Or perhaps by asking about them she would cause people to wonder 'oh yeah, why did she remove her previous posts, hmm...' therefore invalidating her post? Did it not occur to SBot that she removed her posts because she was no longer seeking employment, her commitments changed, or she didn't want personal details like her phone number or email address still being on the forum? I mean, I'm just thinking aloud... I too have removed previous posts (suspicious activity?). Also, why should A-chan have to explain this to SBot? Is it her business? A-chan could ignore her, SBot could also not have asked... That's why I maintain that SBot was providing a distraction by not so slyly putting the focus on A-chan's character. The way I wrote was intentional to highlight another way of looking at what 'seems legit'. Please focus on the points she wrote not what you want to know about her personally, that is inappropriate. Apart from the SBot comment, Saffron, I agree. Unfortunately other nannies have not offered such nor have parents. You may have tried to pursue critical analysis, however, it didn't come across that way. It looked like nitpicking and trying to find fault. When my family move I will be seeking childcare. I don't think I have asked any inappropriate questions at interviews but I am and I will be more mindful about how I view people. I think I am quite open minded. I am still a young mum and I have sympathy for others who are discriminated against for being young. I also sympathise with older people who are discriminated against, something A-chan also pointed out. She also wrote about national/ethnic discrimination something I have experienced. Whilst the focus was undoubtedly on age, the point was also to highlight all forms of discrimination. I agree it is good to have a nanny's point of view, though I don't think some are attempting to see it from her point of view. The legislation is not so poorly written in my view; the exceptions are clear. The childcare sector be it domestic or not, is simply not one of them. That's the point. I think the piece is meant to be empowering also: know your rights (to fair treatment). Thank you A-chan for writing what you did. I know there are many who will appreciate the time and energy it took for you to write it (whether they agree with the law or not). I like your writing too.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You make a very good points. > > Just to re enforce your point. A newly qualified > teacher could start work at 21 full-time and have > been on teaching practice earlier. They'll be in > charge of classes of 30 children. That's a good example.

SBot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's my opinion within this discussion, no intent > to discredit. So if at an interview you we're > asked "how old are you?", what do you say?? Are you serious? What exactly are you discussing? Trying to find out her age? Will you please stop ruining this thread? Your comment shows you did not read the post. You're not even trying to understand you're just causing a distraction from points raised in the first post.

SBot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And you've "removed" all of your old posts > regarding nanny jobs because......... > Being a nanny is a very personal job for both > sides so interviews are generally more relaxed and > your personal information gets discussed. > Age will obviously show years of experience, a 23 > year old will only have had 4/5 years experience, > possibly only working for 1 or 2 families. > > I don't think it's discrimination, it's more their > preference of a nanny. > You have a job so well done, the nanny market is > not what it used to be, we can't be choosy these > days. And A-chan's previous nanny job posts are relevant because...... Are you looking for a nanny? Would you like to be turned down for a job because of your age? Do you have a sensitivity chip, SBot...? You might be fine with your personal information being discussed but that doesn't mean others will or should be. Who is 'we', parents? I really hope not. Don't include others in your snide comment. It shows lack of maturity and reveals your true intent (deflection of the thread). For some people someone 23 years old is sufficient, because they are looking for the right person for them and their children. I had my first child then. Age is not a designation. I don't get why you felt you had to post and be insulting as well. Is it too much for people to put across their opinions WITHOUT putting another down? I think it's a real shame that this thread has been turned negative by a few. That's why I don't much like this forum. A person can share their experiences and genuinely want to make others aware to help and what do people do? Try to discredit them and practically knock them...

I do suspect some will read what you wrote as they wish to, possibly abhorrently/oppositionally which is a shame. That's people for you. You wrote a thorough, yet long post, people were bound to read what they wanted and skip the rest which I am sure you knew. I think the negative perception was spot on. I'm glad you got a positive message, despite the message deflection above, I hope people do become more aware. Karii (good health), Yuuna

Saffron I believe you took the quote out of context. I think it is true. I'm not sure A-chan wrote that she asked for the age of the potential employers... They knew her age, because they asked for it. I actually agree with what was written wholeheartedly. It's a shame the first comment from another forum user was less than supportive. The point of the post was try and open people's minds. I disagree that families should be exempt from the law in regards to employment. Age isn't the only form of discrimination potential as well as current employees face. Obviously, the complainant would have to prove the discrimination. I actually think the Equality Act is a good thing and more people should be aware of it. If parents want to employ staff, abide by the law. If anyone else disagrees with the Equality Act 2010 or thinks parents should be made exempt, you can act now: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk. I am great believer in actions speak louder than words. I believe A-chan was trying to turn her experiences into a positive by educating others and being supportive of those experiencing similar situations. That is how I read it. I have experienced discrimination based on my age, gender, skin colour/ethnicity so I do empathise with people who are discriminated against.

Ianr you miss my point... I posted, as I have observed others have done, so people could read the whole text not have others simply pick quotes out to use for their opinion. I understand how a discussion works. Perhaps, suggest that to others being rude? Please do not assume I was being inconsiderate, that is untrue. Also, am I missing something? You said to Admin, only about what I wrote...? Roots, if you can't tell I was being sarcastic, then...perhaps consult Wikipedia for useful examples? Let me help you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm

Ianr I posted the link already, twice. I did not realise it was copyright, however I did post a link (twice)... I removed the text I copied, from my second posting of it (admin please delete the first one or allow us to delete our posts, please?). I did not just dump it, Ianr, like I wrote, I did provide the link (read my post next time...?). Is it not better to remove the thread then? If you only think 'succintly' stated points have been useful...

I posted earlier accidentally and this forum doesn't allow for a delete button... It is unfair to make parents feel bad by claiming not vaccinating their children means they put other children at risk. How so? If the other children are all vaccinated for all known diseases, what's the problem? They'll be protected, won't they? That is all just propaganda with little to no evidence to back it up. It is also undermined by disease outbreaks in vaccinated populations whose victims were all vaccinated. Well that makes no sense to me. Shame on people for scaremongering and branding others selfish. I and others who have not allowed their children to be vaccinated, am/are not responsible for the measles outbreaks in developed countries; they're only occurring in highly vaccinated areas. I'm not a bad parent for realising this.