Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Proportionality and positive Discrimination


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3638 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

In peoples opinions, do you think all women shortlists as to reserved seats is discriminatory. I can understand the principle, take a trade Union hierachy as to positions. They tend to be white, middle aged and male. If both the male and female candidates are equally qualified, why should the female take precedence and the male candidate withdraw, even if the female role is not equal to the male?

 

I put forward this scenario as well, do you have to be Gay to work in an equality role, or non white just because they are unerepresented as a specific tital. Why stick a lable on someone, the very thing equality strives to eliminate.

 

Trade unions are there to ensure equality, my argument is that women should be encouraged to take part in an organisation, but not jump into reserved seats because of your sex. That stinks of cronyism

 

No Racist, sexist or homophobic response please, serious question

Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the OED cronyism means: “The appointment of friends and associates to positions of authority, without proper regard to their qualifications”.

 

How can it stink of cronyism if it is doing the opposite and getting away from the jobs or the boys attitude and removing the barriers to people who have been discriminated against in the past?

 

How many female MPs are there in Parliament compared to male; and how does that correspond to the England and Wales male/female breakdown?

 

 

Doesn't it really make you mad that there's a glass ceiling for those who aren’t white middle class men?

In England advise is a verb (a doing word) advise/advising/advised, advice is a noun. I might ask for advice or give advice.

 

The same with license (verb) license/licensing/licensed, but one would have a driving licence (noun).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cronyism- Old Boy Network-Reserved seats

 

Why do we have that culture of a sitting tenant mentality on positions that are Male, white dominated. Why are we not tackling that culture without discrimination of a section of society.

 

Take our membership of the EU and Discrimination laws, the CJEU considers that positive discrimination as a derogation as to the equal treatment of men and women. Considering the CJEU is the primary source of law within the 28 member states, how can UK institutions instigate a policy of proportionality contrary to EU law

Link to post
Share on other sites

In your example where you have an equally qualified man and woman applying for the same job. I would suggest it isn't positive discrimination to employ the woman. They're equally qualified.

 

To me positive discrimination would be, e.g. the female candidate was slightly less qualified than the male candidate, but was offered training to get the qualifications and then employed on the basis she gains them in 6 months, thereby overlooking the male candidate. Replace the word female with black/asian/gay etc, the situation is still the same - positive discrimination in my view.

 

But surely you've answered your own question anyway. If it is a culture of white middle aged male candidates taking up the roles you refer to, then culture doesn't change overnight. And sometimes it doesn't change at all without a little helping hand.

 

So employing the equally qualified woman instead of the man is taking a step to changing the culture. If you just employ the man the culture doesn't change and the status quo remains - I mean look at it this way - if you picked the man for the job what would your reason for doing so be? They're both equally qualified - is it just because he's a man? In which case it is also potentially discriminatory.

 

Changing culture can be done without positive discrimination, as you suggest, when people are genuinely employed on merit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Diversity is strogly supported when and only when it equals merit. It is important that people especially from ethnic minorities who may not be able to bear the strain of the role their position do not find themselves failing because to much enthusiasm for diversity, and not enough on merit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its important to recognise how in some cases discrimination can occur.

 

Why are top women in jobs less likely. One of them is down to service. If A Women has a child or more they leave the workforce for a while and do not accrual the same level of experience and service a non pregnant Women did or a Gentlemen.

 

If job selection hinges on length of service or anything to do with it then the Women is at a disadvantage and this is where positive discrimination and positive action comes in to redress the balance.

Similarly with disability discrimination those who suffer a disability have all sorts of barriers that can lead them being discriminated indirectly.

 

Lawful positive discrimination is about readdressing the balance so those disadvantaged and under represented can get an equal chance.

 

HOWEVER

 

Like everything It has to be measured and used carefully. Positive discrimination can lead to unlawful discrimination if done incorrectly.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...