We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Useless jobs still being recruited for in the civil service
Comments
-
a similar dilemma came about with church groups in charge of adoptions who have refused to agree to comply with the law which states gay couples should have equal rights to adopt. i'm not sure where it currently stands. i think the church groups got away with it. anyway lots of money for the lawyers again.:D
No, they didn't. They closed down IIRC.That sort of question does tend to tie the PC types up in knots.
I had to go on a diversity course many years ago and when the question about if a Muslim man is in a care home and refuses to be cared for by a woman is this considered sexism and should it be allowed or encouraged by the local authority. I should imagine it is even more of a puzzle now with gay rights issues.
As far as intimate personal care is concerned, anyone is allowed to request same sex carers, whether it's for religious reasons or not - it's in the legislation as a permitted exception.
I know an 80-year-old lady who has carers who visit her home to get her up in the morning and put her to bed at night. She prefers to have her bed bath done by women, so the care agency provide female carers for her. Does anyone really think there's a problem with that?
However, there are much more difficult questions about gender/sexuality rights clashing with faith/culture rights. Most of the world's major religions consider homosexual practice to be wrong, and many of them consider women to be inherently less valuable than men. This raises enormous issues.
For example, some people have suggested that where faith groups want to have their own mediators to deal with civil matters, then they should be allowed to do so. We have a long history in this country of allowing the Jewish legal system to run alongside the secular one, doing things like granting divorces. While I think these divorces are supposed to be in addition to a secular divorce, I think they do have some influence on the distribution of assets in the settlement that is later presented to the secular court. AFAIAA this Jewish system hasn't caused too much problem, apart from the problem of men whose wives have divorced them in a secular court sometimes refusing to grant their wives a religious divorce as well. This leaves the man free to marry again in the eyes of the faith (in law he's divorced and in religion he's allowed more than one wife) but not the woman (who isn't allowed more than one husband in the religion and can't initiate a religious divorce, or sometimes can't, or something).
This Jewish system was permitted when Jews were the most prominent minority religion in this cournty. The Muslim minority here has increased over the last 50 years or so, and there is now a suggestion that Islamic courts should similarly be allowed to mediate divorce settlements for Muslims. However, this would result in Muslim women receiving much smaller settlements than they would have got in a secular court. Questions are asked about the validity of a Muslim woman's consent to have her divorce settlement decided according to Sharia, and the possibility (or probability) that considerations of family honour (or something stronger) might constitute unacceptable duress forcing her to act against her best interests.
While nobody seems to want to make any definitive pronouncements, anecdotal evidence suggests that what generally happens in practice in this country seems to be:
1) Violence isn't considered acceptable whatever reasons it's for, although there's limited ongoing protection available for those who are at risk of violence because of changing their faith or marrying out of their faith.
2) Most religions are regarded as minorities and therefore usually get away with discriminating against women/girls and LGBT people. Christians frequently don't (apart from about women bishops) because they're not perceived as a minority, or as being "discrimination vulnerable" as ninky put it. It would be very interesting to know if a Muslim adoption agency would be allowed to refuse to place babies with gay couples. Are there any Muslim adoption agencies in this country????? Does anyone know what their policies are about this?Do you know anyone who's bereaved? Point them to https://www.AtaLoss.org which does for bereavement support what MSE does for financial services, providing links to support organisations relevant to the circumstances of the loss & the local area. (Link permitted by forum team)
Tyre performance in the wet deteriorates rapidly below about 3mm tread - change yours when they get dangerous, not just when they are nearly illegal (1.6mm).
Oh, and wear your seatbelt. My kids are only alive because they were wearing theirs when somebody else was driving in wet weather with worn tyres.
0 -
It would be very interesting to know if a Muslim adoption agency would be allowed to refuse to place babies with gay couples. Are there any Muslim adoption agencies in this country????? Does anyone know what their policies are about this?
afaik islam does not allow adoption at all. the only way non bio relations can be seen as relatives in the eyes of islam is if they are breastfed by the mother (and it has to be a certain number of times or something).
however my husband knows some people who have been adopted in iran so i'm not sure how that works.
a bit more info here....
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503544070
“We can say that you are allowed to raise a child and take care of him or her while keeping in mind the following points:
1- You are not allowed to adopt a child by giving him your family name and denying his biological parents’. The aforementioned verse is a clear example in this respect.
2-When raising kids, we must differentiate between male and female, in the sense that each is treated differently. You are allowed to raise a boy till he reaches puberty and becomes independent. However, regardless of child-parent affection between you and him, and regardless the motherly tender care you have for him, you are to bear in mind that Islamically the child is non-mahram to you in the sense that the rules of Khalwah (privacy) must be given due respect. All this is to block means of evil and corruption that pervade the non-Muslim societies.Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves. - Lord Byron0 -
The_White_Horse wrote: »what a load of rubbish. jobs for the sake of jobs.
if i am hiring a chef, i want the best chef I can get. whether they are gay, lesbian or bisexual or transgendered is irrelevant.
its idiotic lefties that keep these barriers up. they make people prejudice because of roles like this. a white working class male may harbour a grudge against a white homosexual working class male if he feels the gay bloke is getting preferential treatment.
like dianne abbott saying blacks should lose their jobs last in the public sector because more blacks work in the public sector than the private sector. so, nothing to do with service, ability, attitude etc. just to do with colour. its people like abbott and lefties in general that cause the problems.
if there are public sector job cuts (and please may there be many) the people to go should be the inefficient, non-jobs, lazy useless people first. The good ones should stay. colour or sexual preference should have nothing to do with it. the lefties always make sure that it is. this is another reason why they are useless moronic scum.
Diane Abbott is a loony far-leftie - always has been and always will be. Fortunately people like her are a minority in the modern Labour party.0 -
Erm, there is another point to this.
Nearly £60K for a coordinator type role?
London has gone truly barking.
How must lower paid engineers and scientists feel valued by our society when they see this.
The basement pay is £50k and most would start at that level unless they have exceptional skills or experience. In any case it's a middle management role, not a 'co-oordinator' one, and the salary level is about right. The issue I have is with the job content, not the job grade.0 -
i was just quoting the poster but i am guessing they are referring to those who are not hetronormative ,
it covers, gay lesbian bisexual , trans queer , and those who are non gender specific
Asexuals? You've left them out....much enquiry having been made concerning a gentleman, who had quitted a company where Johnson was, and no information being obtained; at last Johnson observed, that 'he did not care to speak ill of any man behind his back, but he believed the gentleman was an attorney'.0 -
We've come a long way from the days when Love Thy Neighbour was the country's favourite sitcom . . . .
Never heard of it....much enquiry having been made concerning a gentleman, who had quitted a company where Johnson was, and no information being obtained; at last Johnson observed, that 'he did not care to speak ill of any man behind his back, but he believed the gentleman was an attorney'.0 -
a similar dilemma came about with church groups in charge of adoptions who have refused to agree to comply with the law which states gay couples should have equal rights to adopt. i'm not sure where it currently stands. i think the church groups got away with it. anyway lots of money for the lawyers again.:D
They didn't. They got told it was gay adoption included or no adoption agency....much enquiry having been made concerning a gentleman, who had quitted a company where Johnson was, and no information being obtained; at last Johnson observed, that 'he did not care to speak ill of any man behind his back, but he believed the gentleman was an attorney'.0 -
Apparently the now official defintion of race includes religion and place of birth.
Is there an official order of which "isms" are worst and which one trumps another?
Race doesn't generally include religion. Jews and Sikhs are an exception.
Place of birth has always been included in racism since the 1970s....much enquiry having been made concerning a gentleman, who had quitted a company where Johnson was, and no information being obtained; at last Johnson observed, that 'he did not care to speak ill of any man behind his back, but he believed the gentleman was an attorney'.0 -
this is true. this is why places like the bbc had positive discrimination policies for some roles.
Positive discrimination is, and always has been, unlawful....much enquiry having been made concerning a gentleman, who had quitted a company where Johnson was, and no information being obtained; at last Johnson observed, that 'he did not care to speak ill of any man behind his back, but he believed the gentleman was an attorney'.0 -
Never???neverdespairgirl wrote: »Never heard of it.
It was one of my favourite TV programmes in the 70s.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards