Employer Banning Out Of Hours Socialising!

dmg24

WoodruffsDad wrote: »

I give up! I will NOT be returning to this forum.

I have never read such a load of politically correct, uninformed, uncaring comments. It is evident that few posters have any idea of the reasoning behind sheltered housing or how it works. I'll reach my own conclusions.

Goodbye.

When it comes to protecting vulnerable members of society, I am happy to be politically correct. The reason for that? Because I care.

KiKi

WoodruffsDad wrote: »

I give up! I will NOT be returning to this forum.

I have never read such a load of politically correct, uninformed, uncaring comments. It is evident that few posters have any idea of the reasoning behind sheltered housing or how it works. I'll reach my own conclusions.

Goodbye.

You asked for a legal opinion on whether or not your wife's employers are legally in the right to do what they did.

This was given to you. You don't like the answer, and you don't like the valid arguments put forward about why it happened, and what your wife could do about it.

You've ignored all posts which put forward sensible arguments and suggestions for ways forward.

If you don't want a legal opinion, or opinions of others - don't post on a forum. Just because you don't like the advice, it doesn't make it wrong.

KiKi

viktory

WoodruffsDad wrote: »

I give up! I will NOT be returning to this forum.

I have never read such a load of politically correct, uninformed, uncaring comments. It is evident that few posters have any idea of the reasoning behind sheltered housing or how it works. I'll reach my own conclusions.

Goodbye.

And off he stomps with his dander hoisted aloft!! :T

What an idiot! There are some excellent posts on here with reasonable explanations and that is the reaction! You just can't help some people.

RuthnJasper

Similar issues on another thread started by the OP (https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3040520). Requested advice, pertinent advice duly given. OP didn't like the advice or took exception to the posters and some toys made a rapid exit from the pram.

This is not a personal attack at the OP. I don't always like replies or advice that I am lucky enough to receive - but nothing is achieved by throwing a hissy fit at those who have taken the time and trouble to offer advice or relevant comments.

Hey-ho. Takes all sorts, I suppose. But then the World would be a terribly boring place if we were all the same!

catfish50

WoodruffsDad wrote: »

It's not a "home"! It's a collection of flats and bungalows which makes for independent living.

I suspect this is the basic point of confusion.

Are residents of sheltered housing schemes to be seen as "independent", as you suggest here, or as "vulnerable", as you suggest in post #27.

If independent, they're able and entitled to organize their own social activities if they want to. It's completely inappropriate for any non-resident to behave as if they have a "right" to attend such activities uninvited.

If the residents are classed as vulnerable, social activities may be seen as a kind of therapy, and residents may be "encouraged" to join in socializing activities regardless of whether they want to or not. In this kind of framework, the residents may have little say over what activities are organized, or what outsiders may be allowed to attend.

I suspect that most local authorities are moving away from treating people over the age of 55 as automatically "vulnerable" (and therefore subject to compulsory befriending), and towards treating them as independent. Seems like a healthy move, to me. You may find it inconvenient not to be invited on their outings, but hey, just think, you're in the same boat as the Syrian ambassador who has just been "uninvited" from the Royal Wedding.

Why are you so concerned with my personal life and friendships?

Trying to encourage you to engage in appropriate socializing activities.

DCFC79

OP why can you not abide by the councils decision,

dmg24

DCFC79 wrote: »

OP why can you not abide by the councils decision,

He does seem more than a tad obsessive about it. I guess that is what concerns people so much?

DCFC79

dmg24 wrote: »

He does seem more than a tad obsessive about it. I guess that is what concerns people so much?

be easier for the OP and his wife to either abide by the decision or for the wife to look for another job but depends if the OP will listen

tbourner

RuthnJasper wrote: »

I don't always like replies or advice that I am lucky enough to receive - but nothing is achieved by throwing a hissy fit at those who have taken the time and trouble to offer advice or relevant comments.

I did a similar thing to the OP in a recent thread of my own, luckily I realised quite early on that I was just hoping everyone would agree with me and make me feel better about the decision, and got frustrated when it was unanimously against my view!! (as it happens, I've gone against advice and gone with the plan anyway ).

kai666

WoodruffsDad wrote: »

Please read my earlier posts. I explained that, having been born and brought up in the local area, I knew many of the sheltered residents as friends, as did my wife, long before my wife got her present job.

What are we supposed to do? Blank them?

Theory is fine but we live in the REAL world!

they are not and cannot be friends in the workplace. there is a power imbalance which means in that in the work environment they are not your friends, but clients, service users or whatever you call them