Well well well

[peteblue]

haha I genuinely thought you were taking the piss until I read it

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/02/dinner-lady-sacked

That's a disgraceful view from a national newspaper........

 

[caught]

haha I genuinely thought you were taking the piss until I read it

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/02/dinner-lady-sacked

That's a disgraceful view from a national newspaper........

It's a complicated position, but I can't deny I'm familiar with the rationale behind it. And I think the stance actually says a lot about how mixed race relationships have a dominant/submissive aspects that we as a society just can't deny anymore.

 

[Gwladys St. Glory]

*phones up the producers of Survivor to get Chico in a group with Sarah Palin and reappearance of Elisabeth Hasselbeck*

*sits back...munches*

 

[Bungle]

It's a complicated position, but I can't deny I'm familiar with the rationale behind it. And I think the stance actually says a lot about how mixed race relationships have a dominant/submissive aspects that we as a society just can't deny anymore.

Spot on there

 

[peteblue]

Spot on there

Sounds more like animal sex to me.........

 

[Moomin]

haha I genuinely thought you were taking the piss until I read it

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/02/dinner-lady-sacked

Very interesting, but it seems to indicate the whites are in the dominant position and the mixed races have to take it up the arse.

 

[EvertruvianMan]

I see the sacked dinner lady story takes another twist......

The parents of the child have decided to leave the UK...

"Mrs Darr, 33, wrote on her Facebook page: ‘So we’re leaving the country end of August for good … We’re moving to Sharjah. We want to go relax in a nice hot Muslim country where the kids know their identities as Muslims.’

The move comes after Mr Darr’s recruitment firm was closed down in June when he was found to be working as a company director illegally.

Following an investigation by the Insolvency Service, he was banned from holding company directorships after he was caught pocketing over £500,000 owed in tax in 2008.

His firm Interecruit (UK) went into liquidation after Mr Darr, 36, ‘diverted’ money owed to the taxman in VAT, income tax and national insurance to another of his companies.

The nine-year ban was imposed in February 2011 but in May this year he was found to be operating a similar company named Interecruit (GB), which supplied agricultural workers.

As well as working as a director when disqualified, Mr Darr was not paying staff the minimum wage and failing to provide holiday pay. He had his gangmaster’s licence revoked by the licensing authority."

Cant throw this guy into prison when the duckheads that sunk the banks are swanning around with their filthy embezzled millions didnt get clink.

 

[Bungle]

Sounds more like animal sex to me.........

Woah there, let's not drop it to that level ffs

 

[Gwladys St. Glory]

[video=youtube_share;np6vAuS0KNs]http://youtu.be/np6vAuS0KNs[/video]

 

[peteblue]

Woah there, let's not drop it to that level ffs

It's been a long day, and I haven't had any lunch......

 

[Tree13]

Sorry if I'm not making my point clear here.

IF she was wronged then I support her case for appropriate compensation 100%. IF it was as trivial as that which you describe she'd appear to have a rock solid case.

Her employer went through a process to decide if the sacking was fair. They believed it was. She has a full right of appeal and now has a legion of supporters to fund it. Once all the evidence is out there she can have her say. IF it is as straightforward as you suggest it'll last two hours and she can walk down the steps of the tribunal arm in arm with Farage and Jim Davidson. She'll be a hero.

Why wouldn't she challenge the sacking if it was so simple? That's my scepticism.

Asked and answered already mate. I pointed out two possible barriers off the top of my head;

The first, length of service, is not a problem if her quoted eleven years as an dinner lady meets the minimum period of UNBROKEN employment with the employer who sacked her. Let's assume it does, and she isn't in a position where, for instance, she has been a dinner lady employed directly by the school for ten years, but eleven months ago the operation was contracted out to a catering company who took her and the other existing staff on - in that hypothetical position she would nOT qualify for employment rights.

The second is the minimum contracted hours barrier. If she works below a set number of hours per year - sadly I cannot remember the figure - then she would still not qualify, regardless of length of service.

As someone else pointed out, it is the height of hypocrisy that someone who claims to be a labour voter is simply not bothered about the vulnerable position this woman may be in by merit of the low-hours nature of her job. In fact, I think you are WUMming with a vengeance here.

 

[EFCNIK]

Asked and answered already mate. I pointed out two possible barriers off the top of my head;

The first, length of service, is not a problem if her quoted eleven years as an dinner lady meets the minimum period of UNBROKEN employment with the employer who sacked her. Let's assume it does, and she isn't in a position where, for instance, she has been a dinner lady employed directly by the school for ten years, but eleven months ago the operation was contracted out to a catering company who took her and the other existing staff on - in that hypothetical position she would nOT qualify for employment rights.

The second is the minimum contracted hours barrier. If she works below a set number of hours per year - sadly I cannot remember the figure - then she would still not qualify, regardless of length of service.

As someone else pointed out, it is the height of hypocrisy that someone who claims to be a labour voter is simply not bothered about the vulnerable position this woman may be in by merit of the low-hours nature of her job. In fact, I think you are WUMming with a vengeance here.

When it comes to the blind defence of anyone following a certain religion, people's values seem to go out of the window.

 

[Seamus Colemole]

When it comes to the blind defence of anyone following a certain religion, people's values seem to go out of the window.

Except no ones defending any religion are they, you just like to think they are so you can get a dig in.

The sacking of a white British women by a British company is the issue here. Employment rights (or lack of) are the issue here.

The fact Islam is a religion therefor bull**** means its ****ing pointless arguing about the rights and wrongs of not eating pork, thats a minor detail in all this, excpet to someone who is obessed.

I'm surprised you haven't been criticising LunchtimeUK more, they're the ones afraid of upsetting Muslims, you should be angry with them. Maybe mention them in other threads every chance you get.

 

[EFCNIK]

Except no ones defending any religion are they, you just like to think they are so you can get a dig in.

The sacking of a white British women by a British company is the issue here. Employment rights (or lack of) are the issue here.

The fact Islam is a religion therefor bull**** means its ****ing pointless arguing about the rights and wrongs of not eating pork, thats a minor detail in all this, excpet to someone who is obessed.

I'm surprised you haven't been criticising LunchtimeUK more, they're the ones afraid of upsetting Muslims, you should be angry with them. Maybe mention them in other threads every chance you get.

Brother DBRAG inshallah you shall be saved from the hellfire x

 

[Dell Boy]

Asked and answered already mate. I pointed out two possible barriers off the top of my head;

The first, length of service, is not a problem if her quoted eleven years as an dinner lady meets the minimum period of UNBROKEN employment with the employer who sacked her. Let's assume it does, and she isn't in a position where, for instance, she has been a dinner lady employed directly by the school for ten years, but eleven months ago the operation was contracted out to a catering company who took her and the other existing staff on - in that hypothetical position she would nOT qualify for employment rights.

The second is the minimum contracted hours barrier. If she works below a set number of hours per year - sadly I cannot remember the figure - then she would still not qualify, regardless of length of service.

As someone else pointed out, it is the height of hypocrisy that someone who claims to be a labour voter is simply not bothered about the vulnerable position this woman may be in by merit of the low-hours nature of her job. In fact, I think you are WUMming with a vengeance here.

First of all the woman in this instance does have a right to appeal to an independent tribunal - that's after her employer already went through a process.

I think you are badly stereotyping all left-wing voters. We are not all militant Tony Benns.

I've said previously there has to be a cut-off point in deciding which workers qualify for full employment rights. It cannot be open to all or the whole system would fail. We have to be pragmatic. There has to be some flexibility.

But also if somebody deserves to be sacked then there shouldn't be a safety net to protect them. Or do you automatically think all left Wing supporters are pushovers? It is alleged that this dinner lady had previous form for bad behaviour for example.

If she's been wronged then she'll be appropriately compensated. If she doesn't appeal - after all the publicity - or if she does appeal and it is dismissed then she's one worker that society can do without.

I'm also curious as to how UKIP got in on this........and before any independent appeal.

The UK has no place for racial intolerance. The UK is an island nation that has embraced immigrants for thousands of years. Without immigrants the UK wouldn't be half the place it is today.

The truly laughable thing about the likes of UKIP, the BNP and the EDL is that the leading lights of each probably have more immigrant blood in them than they were ever care to admit.

What is a true Englishman anyway? At what point does an immigrant become accepted as a native? Three generations or seven?!