Jump to content

Recommended Posts

There's a nice parent out there who would love work during school time. Leaping down this poor persons throat because they didn't vet their post over and over again so as not to attract the vitriol of the forum is counter productive. You will put people off posting and we could all miss out on interesting opportunities which are hard to come by. The original post has been removed now so perhaps this has already happened. The original poster already took on opinion and edited to say parents and not mummys.
Sadly employers NEED to be aware of sex discrimination laws as even well meaning errors can land you in an expensive legal case. It's tough on small employers as they're experts in their field, not HR. But flagging it up isn't having a go at them - it's trying to be helpful

Spoonty, there are people on this forum and in ED who know how to speak to others properly and address any issues they may have (valid or otherwise) in a more appropriate manner


Thankfully, you don't have to employ the ones who failed to qualify at charm school ;-)

Before you posted, the OP already changed her language to parent rather than mother in follow up posts. Trying to reach out directly to those most potentially in need of flexible working hours shouldn't be criticized. Also, there is a way to highlight a potential oversight someone has made without being unkind.

When I posted, the ad read 'mummies' and spoonty clearly stated that the company wanted to employ a mother, not a parent. That's not a 'potential' oversight, that is clear statement of an intention to discriminate. Look at the time stamps on the posts.


But I'm in the wrong and unkind for not pointing out this breach of law in the nicest, kindest possible way so as not to hurt spoonty's feelings? Ok, if you say so.

FFS, get over yourself. They posted on a forum used mostly by mothers, and aimed their post at that audience. It's not like they put a sign up in the job centre asking for just "mummies".


You come across as someone that will look for offence even when none is meant, and your post above about racial descrimination is just a joke, and an insulting one at that.


Don't get me wrong, the word "mummies" is vomit inducing, and it's good that it was changed to "parent", but the point is they were trying to offer a job opportunity. I'd rather see that opportunity with some badly selected wording than not see it at all.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I'm a bit worried by your sudden involvement on this Forum.  The former Prince Andrew is now Andrew Mountbatten Windsor Mountbatten in an anglicisation of Von Battenburg adopted by that branch of our Royal Family in 1917 due to anti-German sentiment. Another anglicisation could be simply Battenburg as in the checker board cake.  So I surmise that your are Andrew Battenburg, aka Andrew Mountbatten Windsor and that you have infiltrated social media so that the country can put the emphasis on Mandelson ather than yourself.  Bit of a failure. I don't expect an answer from police custody.  
    • We had John fit our PLYKEA kitchen (IKEA cabinets with custom doors) and would happily recommend him and Gabi to anyone. Gabi handled all communication and was brilliant throughout — responsive and happy to answer questions however detailed. John is meticulous, cares about the small details, and was a pleasure to have in the house. The carpentry required for the custom doors was done to a high standard, and he even refinished the plumbing under the sink to sit better with the new cabinets — a small touch that made a real difference. They were happy to return and tie up a few things that couldn't be finished in the time, which we appreciated. No hesitations recommending them.
    • Not sure about that. Rockets seems to have (rightly in my view) identified two key motivating elements in Mcash's defection: anger at his previous (arguably shabby) treatment and a (linked) desire to trash the Labour party, nationally and locally. The defection, timed for maximum damage, combined with the invective and moral exhibitionism of his statement counts as rather more than a "hissy fit".  I would add a third motivation of political ambition: it's not inconceivable that he has his eye on the Dulwich & West Norwood seat which is predicted to go Green.  James Barber was indulging in typical LibDem sleight of hand, claiming that Blair introduced austerity to *councils* before the coalition. This is a kind of sixth form debating point. From 1997-1999 Labour broadly stuck to Tory spending totals, meaning there was limited growth in departmental spending, including local govt grants. However local government funding rose substantially in the Noughties, especially in education and social care. It is a matter of record that real-terms local authority spending increased in the Blair / Brown years overall. So he's manifestly wrong (or only right if the focus is on 1997-1999, which would be a bizarre focus and one he didn't include in his claim) but he wasn't claiming Blair introduced austerity more widely. 
    • My view is that any party that welcomes a self-declared Marxist would merit a negative point. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...