Am I getting old or are our courts really becoming a joke

[Poshgill]

Using McCammon isn't an accurate analogy Gary. McCammon went to Scally and claimed discrimination. Scally then dismissed the accusation out of hand without investigating it. Had he done so properly then McCammon would not have wo his case. In effect he won because Scally failed to do his job properly not because he was discriminated against.

[Elgrande]

But surely that's the problem Posh; the minorities now play the discrimination / race card much too often and get away with it. If I complained I was being picked on at work because of my size / age / ability to express myself coherently would that be seriously investigated? Well unless it was local government!

[Poshgill]

Well yes it should be investigated and any employer worth their salt would investigate if you made those allegations and conversley if found to be claimed maliciously then you would be subject to disciplinary action. And I have seen this happen to people regardless of their race. Also despite the hyperbole from some quarters the vast majority of black people hate to use the race card and hate those that report maliciously.

[Garawa]

I guess so but all that anyone remembers is that the club "racially discriminated against" a black player who claimed he and other black players were treated differently. What you have suggested Posh is quite a distinction from race to employment procedures and I'm sure the club would have taken steps to stress the differentiation between the two as they are labelled now (almost) as racist. I do agree with you that most minorities hate to use it but when all else fails, it is a card to play that no-one else holds.

[Poshgill]

The McCammon case is quite interesting from an employment legislation point of view. The court found in favour of McCammon, not because he was discriminated against, but because the club could not prove he WAS'NT discriminated against. It is an important distinction. Of course, the media in this country put their own incorrect spin on it and that is why it is percieved that we are a racist club (when obviously we are not).

Yet again, it was Scally that failed miserably. Any employer has a duty to investigate allegations that are made (be it race, disability, age or if the allegation is about harrasment or bullying). Once the investigation is conducted properly with appropriate records kept, then there is no way it would go to an Employment Tribunal. (unless it was found that McCammon HAD been the victim of discrimination.)

In a similar way, I used to work with an Asian train driver. He reported several people over the course of a few years for race discrimination. On the 3rd time of his reporting and with no evidence found to support his claim, I had great delight in disciplining him for malicious reporting. He appealed my decision as high as he could (the Union refusing to back him as I'd kept proper records of interviews etc) and in the end he became a model employee.

[Elgrande]

Surely he should have been sacked for malicious intent. Isn't it funny that people are so even tempered and understandingly correct in some cases, but vehemently vocal when the opposite (but equal) happen. My working patch encompasses South and Southeast London and in many places the atmosphere is intimidating and toxic at best. The local white residents are in most cases scared to speak out and often feel marginalised and under represented. The majority of people who seem to espouse racial harmony tend to live in areas with a much lower ethnic presence and always have stories from friends to back up their views, but very seldom spend time in places like Catford, Peckham, Hoxton, Stamford Hill, Tottenham etc to see the other side of the story. As soon as one side or the other gets different / preferential treatment it causes resentment. It seems we are always trying to make up for the past, but choose the past to concentrate on. As soon as someone plays the race, homophobe card it seems that the accused is guilty until proven innocent, but reverse the complaint and it has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

[Poshgill]

Do you think sacking him would have stood up in an Employment tribunal? I don't think so. You can only dismiss someone for Gross Misconduct and malicious intent would not constitute that. However, if he had continued to report maliciously, then I could have sacked him for misconduct as he had failed to obey to the rules and would thus have breached his contract of employment.

Interesting you speak of the white residents being marginalised in areas of the south east. I work very closely with a black woman who has moved from Lewisham to MK for a better quality of life. She says that the social deprivation and conditions in London are not ideal for raising a family. She reckons that the problems are not just racial but are a much wider thing. In fact she says the white youth are as bad as the black youth (and she is quite forcful in her views of the black kids in Lewisham). So, I suspect it is not just white people that are marginalised as you suggest but it is probably the hard-working people that are marginilised by the under class.

[Elgrande]

Malicious intent is not gross misconduct? Good grief! Is making a racist comment?

[Poshgill]

No. Not necessarily.

[Rimshot]

ElGrande, are you a member of the BNP or the English Defence League ? It's a question I ask because so much of the stuff you post could have been written by Martin Webster.

[Elgrande]

No Rimshot i am not, nor never have been. How are things in rural Bucks? Lots of "Blues" parties, gang crime etc? To view your concerns is not racist, but many try to make it so. There is a silent majority who never bother to vote anymore because no one is brave enough to tackle many of their concerns. I have always had a diverse selection of acquaintances, but many areas are now near to breaking point because people run scared from the race issue. I drive through these areas weekly, deal with the residents who are trapped in homes that no one wants to buy and have seen places decline and change over the last 20+ years. There is no happy mixing of cultures, just fear and resentment on both sides and all because the same people who can see nothing wrong in an unemployed family recieving more than the average (£35,000) wage in benefits get on their hind legs when any blame is laid on an immigrants doorstep.

[Elgrande]

Oh Dear; it seems that being a member of UKIP means you can't be a Foster parent according to the Labour Party. Can someone please explain.

[Poshgill]

Please get your facts right Elg. This decision has absolutely nothing to do with the Labour party either nationally or locally. It is not policy it was decision taken by someone in the Social Services department. I doubt very much if it was just a knee-jerk decision though. I suspect that they know more about the case than we do.

[Garawa]

Not so sure Posh. The official statement given by the spokesperson said that the children were in no danger but removed with their long term care in mind and that being a member of UKIP marginalised certain sectors of the community.

Now I detest UKIP, particularly Nigel Farage. I understand why people feel they are an option but I don't see any radicalisation in them, all I see is hypocrisy in having EU members and taking the money despite being deadly against it.

[Poshgill]

No Gary. Absolutely nothing to do with Labour. Certainly not official policy. In fact the leader of Rotherham council (Labour ) has called for an immediate enquiry as to why Social Services made this decision without referring it to the council.