Supermarkets & mask wearing

[deecom]

I see that all supermarkets have now enforced the wearing of masks in their stores, why now after all this time ?
I wonder if there is a test case pending ?
Employers have a duty of care to protect their employees.
It may be that an employee has contacted covid from a customer not wearing a mask.

[Returnofrros]

I see that all supermarkets have now enforced the wearing of masks in their stores, why now after all this time ?
I wonder if there is a test case pending ?
Employers have a duty of care to protect their employees.
It may be that an employee has contacted covid from a customer not wearing a mask.

There was a test case, customer won 7k.

[Deeranged]

My wife works in a popular supermarket in the affluent Kirkton are of our fine city. Green one.

Since the whole thing started last March, and both before and since compulsory face coverings, she knows of two people employed in that store that have contracted Covid - both had close relatives that picked it up elsewhere and passed it to them. Remarkably, as an aside, neither got particularly ill, ended up in ICU or died.

I believe Tesco Kingsway had an outbreak around Christmas; affected people told not to go to work and no more cases found.

Of course supermarkets do have a duty of care to staff and customers but that doesn't really extend to taking entirely unnecessary precautions to prevent the spread of a virus in an environment where the air conditioning will likely suck the virus out of harm's way anyway.

I can't see any way that any employee could ever say they definitely contracted a virus from a customer. They'd have to prove they didn't get it at home, on a bus, in the local shop, from the take away etc. etc. and even then would need to prove with absolute certainty that they came into contact with an infected customer so would need to know who that customer was (by name) and where the contact was made (by exact time and location). I doubt track and trace would have sufficient evidence to prove beyond doubt the passing of infection to an individual at a point in time and space.

[Returnofrros]

My wife works in a popular supermarket in the affluent Kirkton are of our fine city. Green one.

Since the whole thing started last March, and both before and since compulsory face coverings, she knows of two people employed in that store that have contracted Covid - both had close relatives that picked it up elsewhere and passed it to them. Remarkably, as an aside, neither got particularly ill, ended up in ICU or died.

I believe Tesco Kingsway had an outbreak around Christmas; affected people told not to go to work and no more cases found.

Of course supermarkets do have a duty of care to staff and customers but that doesn't really extend to taking entirely unnecessary precautions to prevent the spread of a virus in an environment where the air conditioning will likely suck the virus out of harm's way anyway.

I can't see any way that any employee could ever say they definitely contracted a virus from a customer. They'd have to prove they didn't get it at home, on a bus, in the local shop, from the take away etc. etc. and even then would need to prove with absolute certainty that they came into contact with an infected customer so would need to know who that customer was (by name) and where the contact was made (by exact time and location). I doubt track and trace would have sufficient evidence to prove beyond doubt the passing of infection to an individual at a point in time and space.

It's a big guessing game, like the R rate.

[deecom]

Did not see Rros post regarding the payout.
The government has said its mandatory to wear masks in shops etc , so why would they pay out ?
Have not read anything about this 7k payout, was it a supermarket, seems strange that they would payout and not fight the case.
Always comes back to liability in the end.

[Returnofrros]

Did not see Rros post regarding the payout.
The government has said its mandatory to wear masks in shops etc , so why would they pay out ?
Have not read anything about this 7k payout, was it a supermarket, seems strange that they would payout and not fight the case.
Always comes back to liability in the end.

She was refused entry.

She was exempt

Supermarkets only have a right to ask if you are exempt.....If answers yes.....that shud be it.

Unfortunately give someone a high viz and sometimes it dosent end there.

They have no right to ask why, see documentation or in one case I've read about "You had a mask on a couple of weeks ago"

[Returnofrros]

No sure if the 7k case was a supermarket.

It's just the place where a dispute is likely to happen.

[islaydarkblue]

If customers in supermarkets are having to wear a face mask then all the supermarket staff including the staff on the tills should also have to wear a mask.
However I hark back to the discussion I had with the Public Health Scotland doctor last October after she told me that my Covid-19 was negative.
I said to her that the wearing of face masks was a waste of time as it is not stopping the spread of the Covid-19 virus. She replied stating “We know that and that is why we also advise everyone to also wash their hands”.
One thing is certain. The wearing of face masks is not making a jot of difference stopping the spread of the Covid-19 virus throughout the U.K. and the rest of Europe.

[hmac]

There was a test case, customer won 7k.

There wasn’t. Settled out of court so no test case ever happened.

[Returnofrros]

There wasn’t. Settled out of court so no test case ever happened.

Yes there was no case as they admitted liability.

[hmac]

Yes there was no case as they admitted liability.

So it’s not been tested legally.

[Returnofrros]

So it’s not been tested legally.

Not in court.

But it's been tested as far as we are gonna take you to court and win.

Yep yo will and we were wrong, let's haggle.

[hmac]

Not in court.

But it's been tested as far as we are gonna take you to court and win.

Yep yo will and we were wrong, let's haggle.

So not tested?

I know you know the difference so a simple yes or no will do 😊

[BCram]

So not tested?

I know you know the difference so a simple yes or no will do 😊

No, but the conjecture is that not wearing a mask has to be accepted by the retailer because the customer has a medical condition which has been accepted as a reason for not wearing a mask. It isn't just a bolshie attitude to wearing a mask.

[Taintedice]

Last year I think it was, a young muslim woman wasn't given a job in a hairdresser because she insisted on wearing a head-covering. The salon owner said it wasn't appropriate, she needed her staff to show their hair so customers could have some confidence in their abilities. The young muslim woman was awared several thousand pounds in settlement out of court and the salon owner was screwed. I'd love to know what rros's opinion on that would be, whether the young muslim woman was in the right to threaten to ruin the salon owner even further with a court case? Did I mention she was muslim.

[Deeranged]

The hairdresser was an idiot.

You don't need to give a reason for not employing someone and if an applicant does ask for feedback all you say is either you fell short of our expectations or we had more suitable applicants.

[Returnofrros]

So not tested?

I know you know the difference so a simple yes or no will do 😊

Yes. I'd say it has been tested as the potential defendant gave in without a fight and admitted liability.

I can't get the better of Mike Tyson, I don't need that to be put to the test in a ring.

The authorities and media instead of trying to hide this case or not cover it on MSM should be alerting business owners that this is the consequence of discriminating.

Luckily I've not come across much of it here and hopefully it continues to be the case or is disability discrimination laws which were hard fought for and won over the decades gonna be ignored under the guise of covid as well as numerous other things.

Woman was perfectly entitled to shop, they refused entry, she with backing threatened to sue......They admitted discrimination and paid out.......I don't think there's much more to say.

I don't think she's went out of her way to find an excuse, shes no a serial pavement stripper or falling Doon manholes type of person.

As for the hairdresser, why give that as a reason for not giving someone a job.

Stupid and opened himself or herself up to being sued.

So you really have to say Muslim woman was within her rights.

If it's the case they are just presuming that's why she didn't get the job then that's wrong.

Hairdressers.....learn to lie.....you do it with 95% of your customers anyway.🙄

[Returnofrros]

The hairdresser was an idiot.

You don't need to give a reason for not employing someone and if an applicant does ask for feedback all you say is either you fell short of our expectations or we had more suitable applicants.

Lol, see answer below

[Returnofrros]

Pavement stripper...ffs....Pavement tripper

[BCram]

The answer is that the action of the salon owner was racist and therefore exactly the same as the action of the shopkeeper in that both actions fall foul of legislation.
Whether or not one agrees with the outcome of these incidents depends on whether you agree that both incidents fall within the legal definitions of the relevant legislation. Since both were settled out of court there is no legal decision and perhaps the law might have rejected both claims. I am sitting on the fence!

[Returnofrros]

The answer is that the action of the salon owner was racist and therefore exactly the same as the action of the shopkeeper in that both actions fall foul of legislation.
Whether or not one agrees with the outcome of these incidents depends on whether you agree that both incidents fall within the legal definitions of the relevant legislation. Since both were settled out of court there is no legal decision and perhaps the law might have rejected both claims. I am sitting on the fence!

He didn't discriminate against a race.

[Deeranged]

The answer is that the action of the salon owner was racist and therefore exactly the same as the action of the shopkeeper in that both actions fall foul of legislation.
Whether or not one agrees with the outcome of these incidents depends on whether you agree that both incidents fall within the legal definitions of the relevant legislation. Since both were settled out of court there is no legal decision and perhaps the law might have rejected both claims. I am sitting on the fence!

The salon owner was probably (definitely for me) showing some bias toward racism; but only if it's racist to define your business' product or service in a particular way (image) and to want to employ people that openly project that image in a customer facing role.

Would an African cafe specializing in for example Nigerian food really be that wrong to say they'd prefer not to have white people serving that food? For me that cafe would be right to only employ Nigerians to fully project the ethos and to maintain the genuine feel of the place. strictly speaking it's racist, but is it possibly justifiable?

[Returnofrros]

The salon owner was probably (definitely for me) showing some bias toward racism; but only if it's racist to define your business' product or service in a particular way (image) and to want to employ people that openly project that image in a customer facing role.

Would an African cafe specializing in for example Nigerian food really be that wrong to say they'd prefer not to have white people serving that food? For me that cafe would be right to only employ Nigerians to fully project the ethos and to maintain the genuine feel of the place. strictly speaking it's racist, but is it possibly justifiable?

What race has this hairdresser discriminated against?

[Deeranged]

What race has this hairdresser discriminated against?

Only had a quick scan but the gist is that she didn't employ the girl because she was wearing head covering and the owner wanted her employees to show the modern, jaunty, modern, punky I suppose image of the hairstyles on offer.

So essentially not racist but the fact she was rejected simply on the head covering is obviously seen as racist and obviously that's where the complaint was pointed. For me the owner has the right to say the applicant didn't fit the image she wants to project for the business, however I suspect there was more to it than the head covering but that's because I'm a cynical old ****.

[Returnofrros]

Only had a quick scan but the gist is that she didn't employ the girl because she was wearing head covering and the owner wanted her employees to show the modern, jaunty, modern, punky I suppose image of the hairstyles on offer.

So essentially not racist but the fact she was rejected simply on the head covering is obviously seen as racist and obviously that's where the complaint was pointed. For me the owner has the right to say the applicant didn't fit the image she wants to project for the business, however I suspect there was more to it than the head covering but that's because I'm a cynical old ****.

Not discriminated on grounds of race as nowhere on this thread does it mention race.

He's maybe discriminated against her because of her religious beliefs although I'm not sure if every Muslim sect insist on head coverings.

Being a Muslim isn't a race......you can't be racist against Muslims.

If say I was interviewing and I didnae fancy employing an overtly camp guy wearing a tartan mini kilt in my garage repair shop would I be racist against Scots? No I would be in that circumstance predudiced against campness.

Hairdresser was guilty of openly admitting to common sense.

Muslim wifey was perfectly entitled to exploit his or hers stupidity.

[Deeranged]

Not discriminated on grounds of race as nowhere on this thread does it mention race.

He's maybe discriminated against her because of her religious beliefs although I'm not sure if every Muslim sect insist on head coverings.

Being a Muslim isn't a race......you can't be racist against Muslims.

If say I was interviewing and I didnae fancy employing an overtly camp guy wearing a tartan mini kilt in my garage repair shop would I be racist against Scots? No I would be in that circumstance predudiced against campness.

Hairdresser was guilty of openly admitting to common sense.

Muslim wifey was perfectly entitled to exploit his or hers stupidity.

Pretty much what I said, common sense applied by owner but stupidly didn't word her defence correctly.

[BCram]

My bad, used race wrongly. Should have been religious prejudice. Same principle, say or do something wrong and legal action gets threatened. Insurance companies pay something to save themselves legal fees etc.

[hmac]

The answer is that the action of the salon owner was racist and therefore exactly the same as the action of the shopkeeper in that both actions fall foul of legislation.
Whether or not one agrees with the outcome of these incidents depends on whether you agree that both incidents fall within the legal definitions of the relevant legislation. Since both were settled out of court there is no legal decision and perhaps the law might have rejected both claims. I am sitting on the fence!

That’s not the case bcram.

The Islamaphobic actions by the salon owner are against the law and discriminatory, however the salon owner would have been at no risk.

It’s against the law to discriminate against disabled people too, but in this case it’s not simply this point. Nobody has to put themselves at risk, in fact in the workplace it is against the law to do so. Two laws would clash here but it’s never been tested in court because the shopkeeper has caved.

[Returnofrros]

That’s not the case bcram.

The Islamaphobic actions by the salon owner are against the law and discriminatory, however the salon owner would have been at no risk.

It’s against the law to discriminate against disabled people too, but in this case it’s not simply this point. Nobody has to put themselves at risk, in fact in the workplace it is against the law to do so. Two laws would clash here but it’s never been tested in court because the shopkeeper has caved.

No such thing as islamaphobia.

[BCram]

That’s not the case bcram.

The Islamaphobic actions by the salon owner are against the law and discriminatory, however the salon owner would have been at no risk.

It’s against the law to discriminate against disabled people too, but in this case it’s not simply this point. Nobody has to put themselves at risk, in fact in the workplace it is against the law to do so. Two laws would clash here but it’s never been tested in court because the shopkeeper has caved.

Still not clear about this. I obviously don't understand what right was infringed by the shopkeeper. Help!

[The AuldYin]

Absolute pish. Any business can refuse to serve anyone they want as long as they box clever on their reason for doing so. There's no law in this land that can force any business into selling their product to someone they don't want to sell it to. There's certain people I would never do business with and no law can force me to.

[hmac]

No such thing as islamaphobia.

Lots of publications disagree.

[Taintedice]

What race has this hairdresser discriminated against?From the billy who thinks people wanting their own government in Scotland are anti-English racists :?

What race are English people :s

[Returnofrros]

Lots of publications disagree.

A phobia is an irrational fear.

So islamaphobia is no more relevalent than gingerphobia, irishphobia, dabaphobia, etc etc etc.....all made up words.

You have people who don't think what scientologists believe is correct.....is that scientologistaphobia? and possibly vudoo isnae really that a rational belief is that vudooaphobia....people want to grow up and accept people do not share their beliefs in some immortal sky fairy who either created the world in 7 days, impregnated virgin woman, flew Doon to earth on a space ship or has promised you 100 virgins if you kill the infidel.

People want to indulge this guff crack on.....It's not a phobia it's islamarational, christianarational or scien****ingtologyarational.

Believe in what you want just don't accept me to go along with it.

Dosent alter the fact hairdresser was wrong and could have used a multitude of other reasons for not giving her the job.

[BCram]

Absolute pish. Any business can refuse to serve anyone they want as long as they box clever on their reason for doing so. There's no law in this land that can force any business into selling their product to someone they don't want to sell it to. There's certain people I would never do business with and no law can force me to.

There may not be a law but the point is a lawyer for the plaintiff will find a way to make it into a case and you the defendant is faced with using your insurance policy to contest the claim . Without a shadow of doubt they will want to settle as it will be many times cheaper, even if they win the case because the plaintiff will not be made to pay all costs.

[BCram]

From the billy who thinks people wanting their own government in Scotland are anti-English racists :?

What race are English people :s

The master race! LOL

[The AuldYin]

There may not be a law but the point is a lawyer for the plaintiff will find a way to make it into a case and you the defendant is faced with using your insurance policy to contest the claim . Without a shadow of doubt they will want to settle as it will be many times cheaper, even if they win the case because the plaintiff will not be made to pay all costs.
I have turned down plenty of business and never been sued, I have also never once heard of a shop or any business being successfully sued for refusing to either serve or refusing entry to someone, not one. There has been cases of hotels and B&B's being sued for refusing to take poofs and I think a cake shop refused to make a wedding cake for poofs once and got sued. As I say just box clever and don't give a reason just don't let them in, a business has legal rights too.

[Returnofrros]

I have turned down plenty of business and never been sued, I have also never once heard of a shop or any business being successfully sued for refusing to either serve or refusing entry to someone, not one. There has been cases of hotels and B&B's being sued for refusing to take poofs and I think a cake shop refused to make a wedding cake for poofs once and got sued. As I say just box clever and don't give a reason just don't let them in, a business has legal rights too.

I think the burden of proof that they haven't discriminated is beginning to fall on business owners.

That again is wrong

[Deeranged]

I have turned down plenty of business and never been sued, I have also never once heard of a shop or any business being successfully sued for refusing to either serve or refusing entry to someone, not one. There has been cases of hotels and B&B's being sued for refusing to take poofs and I think a cake shop refused to make a wedding cake for poofs once and got sued. As I say just box clever and don't give a reason just don't let them in, a business has legal rights too.

Using the language you have shows me what you are.

The discussion isn't about refusing custom, it's about an allegation that someone was discriminated against in the search for employment simply because she wore a head covering. The prospective employer was challenged and made an arse of her reasons for not employing the person. She was an idiot.

I once spoke to a HR Manager who told me he would never have allowed a particular person to be employed if he'd known he was gay. That person was as camp as Christmas and clearly gay to me and every other sensible person in the world, he did his job, was good at it and we didn't give a **** what he was. That guy was the right person for the job, better than all the other applicants but the business had the 'right' ultimately to refuse him employment simply because he was gay? Any idea what year this is you ****ing dinosaur?

You sound just like that HR Manager and I feel it's my duty to call you out on it.

For the record I'm not gay, I just have a brain and choose to use it to think.

[The AuldYin]

Using the language you have shows me what you are.

The discussion isn't about refusing custom, it's about an allegation that someone was discriminated against in the search for employment simply because she wore a head covering. The prospective employer was challenged and made an arse of her reasons for not employing the person. She was an idiot.

I once spoke to a HR Manager who told me he would never have allowed a particular person to be employed if he'd known he was gay. That person was as camp as Christmas and clearly gay to me and every other sensible person in the world, he did his job, was good at it and we didn't give a **** what he was. That guy was the right person for the job, better than all the other applicants but the business had the 'right' ultimately to refuse him employment simply because he was gay? Any idea what year this is you ****ing dinosaur?

You sound just like that HR Manager and I feel it's my duty to call you out on it.

For the record I'm not gay, I just have a brain and choose to use it to think.

Take a deep breath go back and check the thread title and the OP. I said a company were sued because they refused to make a wedding cake for poofs ( I think they were Christians), that neither proves or disproves whether I would employ one or not. In fact it matters not a jot whether I would or not, if other employers feel they don't want to that's entirely up to them. The state cannot force you to employ poofs any more than it can enforce you to employ non poofs. There is no law that says you have to allow anybody into your premises masks or no masks gay or not gay.



Ya poof.

[Deeranged]

Take a deep breath go back and check the thread title and the OP. I said a company were sued because they refused to make a wedding cake for poofs ( I think they were Christians), that neither proves or disproves whether I would employ one or not. In fact it matters not a jot whether I would or not, if other employers feel they don't want to that's entirely up to them. The state cannot force you to employ poofs any more than it can enforce you to employ non poofs. There is no law that says you have to allow anybody into your premises masks or no masks gay or not gay.



Ya poof.

Are you Tainted in disguise?

[Taintedice]

Oh dear, more barrel-scraping from one of the 3 stooges. Tell me when I've made homophobic remarks before, I'll wait here. Muppet.

[Deeranged]

Oh dear, more barrel-scraping from one of the 3 stooges. Tell me when I've made homophobic remarks before, I'll wait here. Muppet.

I don't think you're the type to make that kind of remark but the other poster seems to be completely blinkered - just made me think of you. Guess I just miss you since I've been put on ignore.

[The AuldYin]

I don't think you're the type to make that kind of remark but the other poster seems to be completely blinkered - just made me think of you. Guess I just miss you since I've been put on ignore.

Blinkered to what exactly?

[islaydarkblue]

Using the language you have shows me what you are.

The discussion isn't about refusing custom, it's about an allegation that someone was discriminated against in the search for employment simply because she wore a head covering. The prospective employer was challenged and made an arse of her reasons for not employing the person. She was an idiot.

I once spoke to a HR Manager who told me he would never have allowed a particular person to be employed if he'd known he was gay. That person was as camp as Christmas and clearly gay to me and every other sensible person in the world, he did his job, was good at it and we didn't give a **** what he was. That guy was the right person for the job, better than all the other applicants but the business had the 'right' ultimately to refuse him employment simply because he was gay? Any idea what year this is you ****ing dinosaur?

You sound just like that HR Manager and I feel it's my duty to call you out on it.

For the record I'm not gay, I just have a brain and choose to use it to think.
DC Thomson’s used to not employ Roman Catholics but rule has changed over the years.
In the late 1970’s my brother who was a student applied for a summer job in DC Thomson’s. In his application form he had to state his religion. He was a member of the Church of Scotland and got his summer job at DCT.

[Deeranged]

DC Thomson’s used to not employ Roman Catholics but rule has changed over the years.
In the late 1970’s my brother who was a student applied for a summer job in DC Thomson’s. In his application form he had to state his religion. He was a member of the Church of Scotland and got his summer job at DCT.

I know two people, brothers, both of whom started work late sixties, both of whom spent almost their entire working lives at DCT and both catholic.

I've heard various stories about gaining employment at DCT back in the day but the only one I've ever had confirmed was the union one, i.e. you had to join the union or you didn't get in. The others, no catholics, no women, only people's sons all seem to be urban legends.

I started my working life in 1979 and from the first application I ever made out where I was asked for religion I always put N/A. I never once thought that the reason I wasn't asked in for an interview was that I had N/A'd religion. Thankfully that kind of application is a thing of the past and that question is never asked until you start work and fill out a next of kin form.

[Returnofrros]

I know two people, brothers, both of whom started work late sixties, both of whom spent almost their entire working lives at DCT and both catholic.

I've heard various stories about gaining employment at DCT back in the day but the only one I've ever had confirmed was the union one, i.e. you had to join the union or you didn't get in. The others, no catholics, no women, only people's sons all seem to be urban legends.

I started my working life in 1979 and from the first application I ever made out where I was asked for religion I always put N/A. I never once thought that the reason I wasn't asked in for an interview was that I had N/A'd religion. Thankfully that kind of application is a thing of the past and that question is never asked until you start work and fill out a next of kin form.

My interview at DCT I was asked if I attended church regularly and if I was a practising Roman Catholic. Hard to believe I know but I've posted that on here before.

People who have a problem with the Catholic religion tend to spit out the word "Roman" which I felt he did.

I never attended church but I felt the guy doing the interview probed far too much 're this aspect. He also seemed a little dissappointed I wasn't in the BB or scouts!!.

17 at the time and far too shy to make a fuss about it.

Now the guy interviewing me was probably just some radge and not the maker of DCT policy but it happened.

If it was today I'd sue for catholicaphobia, know it's not a thing but I'd sue anyway.😁

I have asked two quite high profile DCT journalists (both gone) if there was a bias at DCT both gave different answers, one along your lines Deeranged and one along the lines of my reply above.

[Deeranged]

My interview at DCT I was asked if I attended church regularly and if I was a practising Roman Catholic. Hard to believe I know but I've posted that on here before.

People who have a problem with the Catholic religion tend to spit out the word "Roman" which I felt he did.

I never attended church but I felt the guy doing the interview probed far too much 're this aspect. He also seemed a little dissappointed I wasn't in the BB or scouts!!.

17 at the time and far too shy to make a fuss about it.

Now the guy interviewing me was probably just some radge and not the maker of DCT policy but it happened.

If it was today I'd sue for catholicaphobia, know it's not a thing but I'd sue anyway.��

I have asked two quite high profile DCT journalists (both gone) if there was a bias at DCT both gave different answers, one along your lines Deeranged and one along the lines of my reply above.

I'm sure there were individuals with agendas, there will still be such individuals with dinosaur like views, some of the posts on this thread kind of prove that but hopefully these narrow minded bigots are becoming fewer and farther between.

I've said previously I was discriminated against in the RAF for being Scottish, often very openly, so it happens in most walks of life but not every person in that walk of life will hold the same views, thankfully. You didn't too badly after your experience at DCT and I haven't done too badly since leaving the RAF, always best to rise above those types of people.

[Returnofrros]

I'm sure there were individuals with agendas, there will still be such individuals with dinosaur like views, some of the posts on this thread kind of prove that but hopefully these narrow minded bigots are becoming fewer and farther between.

I've said previously I was discriminated against in the RAF for being Scottish, often very openly, so it happens in most walks of life but not every person in that walk of life will hold the same views, thankfully. You didn't too badly after your experience at DCT and I haven't done too badly since leaving the RAF, always best to rise above those types of people.

Yes as I said probably not DCT policy.

But how many guys did they employ with the same views or predjuces as the guy who interviewed me.

Institutional bias??? rather than out and out sectarianism.

I'd probably say a very light version of the former which I've no doubt has pretty much died out now.

DCT weren't the only employer who had dubious interview "techniques" in the early to mid 80s.

I was once asked "how far can a bear run into the woods" ....by some dick who worked for the blessed NHS with far too much time on his hands.

[Returnofrros]

Guy at supermarket after school job asked me "what is national insurance and why do you pay it"

I started answer with (15 mind) "well national insurance is a form of tax......".....he burst out laughing and ridiculed the answer.

Years later, studying for my financial diploma exams I got to the mammoth section on taxation.

Chapter 4.

National insurance;

National insurance is a form of taxation......

😁.....did make me smile.

[deecom]

Re- DC Thomsons being non Union, the Daily Record tried to open a printing works in Dundee in the sixties, bought DCT bought up all the old mills and factories in Dundee to , keep them out.
Years after that DCT did the same again to keep Pergammon Press (Robert Maxwell) out of Dundee.
The print unions, as powerful as they were, could not do much to change DCT.
DCT even had their own ships and paper mills in Sweden, to avoid any embargoes.

[The AuldYin]

I'm sure there were individuals with agendas, there will still be such individuals with dinosaur like views, some of the posts on this thread kind of prove that but hopefully these narrow minded bigots are becoming fewer and farther between.

I've said previously I was discriminated against in the RAF for being Scottish, often very openly, so it happens in most walks of life but not every person in that walk of life will hold the same views, thankfully. You didn't too badly after your experience at DCT and I haven't done too badly since leaving the RAF, always best to rise above those types of people.You're user name couldn't be more appropriate if you think folk don't hire people just because they don't like their puss. There are plenty of reasons I wouldn't hire certain people, I wouldn't tell them why I just wouldn't employ them but if you think I'm in a minority you're mental. My reasons might not be the same as the next employer but that's not the point.

[Deeranged]

You're user name couldn't be more appropriate if you think folk don't hire people just because they don't like their puss. There are plenty of reasons I wouldn't hire certain people, I wouldn't tell them why I just wouldn't employ them but if you think I'm in a minority you're mental. My reasons might not be the same as the next employer but that's not the point.

Depends of course on the company. I worked for a reputable company and the hiring process was fair and equal, based on scoring of responses to specifically structured questions. The only time I ever turned to the HR rep after an interview and said 'no way will he ever work in this company' was when an interviewee made blatant ***ist and racist remarks in front of the HR rep who was a young Asian girl. She was a bit annoyed that I stopped the interview early and asked me why; she was disappointed because she was ready to lay into the guy verbally and bring him down to size.

Of course personality comes into once the scores are analyzed and you find two or three close but to simply dismiss an applicant because you 'don't like their puss', ***uality, race or any other single aspect of their being is simply bigoted and moronic.

You're not the only person posting on here that's ever been responsible for employing people, far from it, but you do seem to be the single most narrow minded and bigoted person posting on here who's ever been responsible for employing people.

Please don't be offended if I don't respond to any more of your bigoted ramblings it's not personal - I just detest all bigots.

[The AuldYin]

Depends of course on the company. I worked for a reputable company and the hiring process was fair and equal, based on scoring of responses to specifically structured questions. The only time I ever turned to the HR rep after an interview and said 'no way will he ever work in this company' was when an interviewee made blatant ***ist and racist remarks in front of the HR rep who was a young Asian girl. She was a bit annoyed that I stopped the interview early and asked me why; she was disappointed because she was ready to lay into the guy verbally and bring him down to size.

Of course personality comes into once the scores are analyzed and you find two or three close but to simply dismiss an applicant because you 'don't like their puss', ***uality, race or any other single aspect of their being is simply bigoted and moronic.

You're not the only person posting on here that's ever been responsible for employing people, far from it, but you do seem to be the single most narrow minded and bigoted person posting on here who's ever been responsible for employing people.

Please don't be offended if I don't respond to any more of your bigoted ramblings it's not personal - I just detest all bigots.

You could have just finished after the first sentence, not all companies have HR departments. You're the one who quoted not employing someone on racial or ***ual reasons not me. I do however have plenty reasons I wouldn't employ someone, I wouldn't employ someone who used a mobile phone excessively for a start.

[BCram]

I used to like a hand written application letter. Long time ago of course when typist were needed. Only time it came unstuck was when the new employee started to write down orders from customers with names and addresses. They were a complete mess and he couldn't read them back himself. Turned out his mother wrote out his application. Managed to get his writing sorted because he was good at his job in all other aspects.

[The AuldYin]

I used to like a hand written application letter. Long time ago of course when typist were needed. Only time it came unstuck was when the new employee started to write down orders from customers with names and addresses. They were a complete mess and he couldn't read them back himself. Turned out his mother wrote out his application. Managed to get his writing sorted because he was good at his job in all other aspects.Dunno how auld you are but you'll either know what I mean or you won't but On the move? Some of the aulder posters might know what I'm talking about.

[BCram]

Dunno how auld you are but you'll either know what I mean or you won't but On the move? Some of the aulder posters might know what I'm talking about.

Sorry AuldYin I don't know the meaning you impute to the expression On the move.

[Deeranged]

I used to like a hand written application letter. Long time ago of course when typist were needed. Only time it came unstuck was when the new employee started to write down orders from customers with names and addresses. They were a complete mess and he couldn't read them back himself. Turned out his mother wrote out his application. Managed to get his writing sorted because he was good at his job in all other aspects.

My hand writing has always been awful although it has improved a bit in the last ten years or so as I've managed to slow myself down. Pretty sure that if I looked back on something I scrawled 20 years ago I'd struggle to read it. My problem was that my hand couldn't keep up with my brain, note taking was a nightmare because as the lecturer or whatever was speaking I'd be forming questions and would often look back at notes and see that I'd scrawled down the questions without addressing the point. When I started using keyboards it was the same and I tried to type at the speed I was thinking - result is I took twice as long to do anything because even a spell checker had no chance of correcting it.

[BCram]

My hand writing has always been awful although it has improved a bit in the last ten years or so as I've managed to slow myself down. Pretty sure that if I looked back on something I scrawled 20 years ago I'd struggle to read it. My problem was that my hand couldn't keep up with my brain, note taking was a nightmare because as the lecturer or whatever was speaking I'd be forming questions and would often look back at notes and see that I'd scrawled down the questions without addressing the point. When I started using keyboards it was the same and I tried to type at the speed I was thinking - result is I took twice as long to do anything because even a spell checker had no chance of correcting it.

Understand the problem of youth! Now find typing with one finger on a mobile phone is great. Predictive text gives you words to choose from even if they are only partially spelled ( had an option of spelt and didn't know which one to use). The one finger typing also gives you more time if you want to think about the correct punctuation.

[The AuldYin]

Sorry AuldYin I don't know the meaning you impute to the expression On the move.There used to be a programme on the telly when I was wee called On the move. Bob Hoskins was in it about 2 men in a removal man one of whom was illiterate. It was a short 15 minutes each night thing where 1 of them was teaching the other to read and write. Like a public information thing.

[BCram]

There used to be a programme on the telly when I was wee called On the move. Bob Hoskins was in it about 2 men in a removal man one of whom was illiterate. It was a short 15 minutes each night thing where 1 of them was teaching the other to read and write. Like a public information thing.

Sorry AuldYin don't remember the show.