Hiring Locals

[RJH]

Is it legal to specify that only local people can apply for a job - a home
repairs apprentice for example?

The area in question is, say, deprived, with high levels of unemployment.

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by RJH
Is it legal to specify that only local people can apply for a job - a
home repairs apprentice for example?
The area in question is, say, deprived, with high levels of
unemployment.

It depends what you mean by "local people". If you were to say that the
job required applicants to be *born* locally then I think that would
certainly not be legal. If you were to say they have to *live* locally
then that might be alright, although it would perhaps be better to
simply state that the job requires being able to appear at local
locations at short notice and just reject any applicants whose home
address means they would not be able to meet that requirement.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by RJH
Is it legal to specify that only local people can apply for a job - a
home repairs apprentice for example?
The area in question is, say, deprived, with high levels of
unemployment.

It depends what you mean by "local people". If you were to say that the
job required applicants to be *born* locally then I think that would
certainly not be legal. If you were to say they have to *live* locally
then that might be alright, although it would perhaps be better to
simply state that the job requires being able to appear at local
locations at short notice and just reject any applicants whose home
address means they would not be able to meet that requirement.

And I think it would be hard to exclude people willing to move to a local
address. Unless it were a very cosmopolitan locality it would probably amount
to indirect discrimination. Indeed many people might suspect that indirect
discrimination was the main purpose of the restriction.

[RJH]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by RJH
Is it legal to specify that only local people can apply for a job - a
home repairs apprentice for example?
The area in question is, say, deprived, with high levels of
unemployment.

It depends what you mean by "local people". If you were to say that the
job required applicants to be *born* locally then I think that would
certainly not be legal. If you were to say they have to *live* locally
then that might be alright, although it would perhaps be better to
simply state that the job requires being able to appear at local
locations at short notice and just reject any applicants whose home
address means they would not be able to meet that requirement.

The case I have in mind is live locally - a council estate for example.

Post by Roger Hayter
And I think it would be hard to exclude people willing to move to a local
address. Unless it were a very cosmopolitan locality it would probably amount
to indirect discrimination. Indeed many people might suspect that indirect
discrimination was the main purpose of the restriction.

That's what I was thinking. And I gather they want to further extend the
criteria to 'young'.

[Tim Jackson]

On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 11:23:14 -0000 (UTC), RJH wrote...

Post by RJH

Post by RJH
Is it legal to specify that only local people can apply for a job - a
home repairs apprentice for example?

[....]

Post by RJH
And I gather they want to further extend the
criteria to 'young'.

See GB's post with a list of specific characteristics that are protected
from discrimination. Age is one of them.

[Mark Goodge]

Post by Tim Jackson
On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 11:23:14 -0000 (UTC), RJH wrote...

Post by RJH

Post by RJH
Is it legal to specify that only local people can apply for a job - a
home repairs apprentice for example?

[....]

Post by RJH
And I gather they want to further extend the
criteria to 'young'.

See GB's post with a list of specific characteristics that are protected
from discrimination. Age is one of them.

But taking action to redress inequality is one of the general exceptions to
anti-discrimination legislation. So if, say, there's a particular problem
with unemployment among young people in a certain location, then giving
those people priority in recruitment would be a legitimate aim. Also, if
there is an element of education in the role (such as, for example, an
apprenticeship), then that, too can lawfully be restricted by age where
appropriate.

Mark

[GB]

Post by Mark Goodge
But taking action to redress inequality is one of the general exceptions to
anti-discrimination legislation. So if, say, there's a particular problem
with unemployment among young people in a certain location, then giving
those people priority in recruitment would be a legitimate aim.

It seems to be a minefield, though:

"An example of positive discrimination is the case of Furlong v Chief
Constable of Cheshire Police. Cheshire Police operated a policy of
treating all candidates who passed the recruitment tests (regardless of
score) as being equally qualified for the job. Ethnic minority
candidates were then prioritised for selection. The Employment Tribunal
found that Cheshire Police Service directly discriminated on grounds of
sex, race and sexual orientation against Mr Furlong, who was a white,
heterosexual male.

The Tribunal found that while there was evidence that ethnic minority
groups were underrepresented within the force, reliance on section 159
of the Act failed because the prioritised candidates were not as well
qualified as Mr Furlong. The tribunal therefore found that the action
taken by the police force was unlawful because the test in section
159(4) was not met. First, the police force had set an artificially low
threshold in their recruitment tests and it was wrong that all 127
candidates were equally suitable for the job. Second, the tribunal found
that the police force’s recruitment approach of prioritising ethnic
minority candidates had the hallmarks of being a policy. And third,
although the police force had a legitimate aim to improve ethnic
diversity in its force, the tribunal held that the blanket approach to
positive action in recruitment was not reasonably necessary or a
proportionate means of achieving that legitimate aim. More information
on positive action in recruitment is available in later sections of this
guidance."

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/positive-action-in-the-workplace-guidance-for-employers/positive-action-in-the-workplace

[Roger Hayter]

On 9 Oct 2024 at 18:01:27 BST, "Mark Goodge"

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Tim Jackson
On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 11:23:14 -0000 (UTC), RJH wrote...

Post by RJH

Post by RJH
Is it legal to specify that only local people can apply for a job - a
home repairs apprentice for example?

[....]

Post by RJH
And I gather they want to further extend the
criteria to 'young'.

See GB's post with a list of specific characteristics that are protected
from discrimination. Age is one of them.

But taking action to redress inequality is one of the general exceptions to
anti-discrimination legislation. So if, say, there's a particular problem
with unemployment among young people in a certain location, then giving
those people priority in recruitment would be a legitimate aim. Also, if
there is an element of education in the role (such as, for example, an
apprenticeship), then that, too can lawfully be restricted by age where
appropriate.
Mark

Without another reason, apprenticeships are not limited by age; education is
encouraged at any age.

[billy bookcase]

Post by Roger Hayter
On 9 Oct 2024 at 18:01:27 BST, "Mark Goodge"

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Tim Jackson
On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 11:23:14 -0000 (UTC), RJH wrote...

Post by RJH

Post by RJH
Is it legal to specify that only local people can apply for a job - a
home repairs apprentice for example?

[....]

Post by RJH
And I gather they want to further extend the
criteria to 'young'.

See GB's post with a list of specific characteristics that are protected
from discrimination. Age is one of them.

But taking action to redress inequality is one of the general exceptions to
anti-discrimination legislation. So if, say, there's a particular problem
with unemployment among young people in a certain location, then giving
those people priority in recruitment would be a legitimate aim. Also, if
there is an element of education in the role (such as, for example, an
apprenticeship), then that, too can lawfully be restricted by age where
appropriate.
Mark

Without another reason, apprenticeships are not limited by age; education is
encouraged at any age.

Even primary school ?


bb

[JNugent]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by Tim Jackson
On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 11:23:14 -0000 (UTC), RJH wrote...

Post by RJH

Post by RJH
Is it legal to specify that only local people can apply for a job - a
home repairs apprentice for example?

[....]
And I gather they want to further extend the

Post by RJH
criteria to 'young'.

See GB's post with a list of specific characteristics that are protected
from discrimination. Age is one of them.

But taking action to redress inequality is one of the general exceptions to
anti-discrimination legislation. So if, say, there's a particular problem
with unemployment among young people in a certain location, then giving
those people priority in recruitment would be a legitimate aim. Also, if
there is an element of education in the role (such as, for example, an
apprenticeship), then that, too can lawfully be restricted by age where
appropriate.

Without another reason, apprenticeships are not limited by age; education is
encouraged at any age.

Well, that's OK as long as people of mature years are prepared to earn,
as starter apprentices, wages which start at about a quarter of the rate
paid to a time-served skilled worker and only increments to the skilled
rate over some years (probably five).

I estimate the "quarter" based on my own memory of the time when I was
an apprentice engineer. I never stayed in the job after 22; I hated it.

[GB]

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by RJH
Is it legal to specify that only local people can apply for a job - a
home repairs apprentice for example?
The area in question is, say, deprived, with high levels of
unemployment.

It depends what you mean by "local people". If you were to say that the
job required applicants to be *born* locally then I think that would
certainly not be legal. If you were to say they have to *live* locally
then that might be alright, although it would perhaps be better to
simply state that the job requires being able to appear at local
locations at short notice and just reject any applicants whose home
address means they would not be able to meet that requirement.

I assume that idea is that this is a job creation scheme for local people.

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by GB

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by RJH
Is it legal to specify that only local people can apply for a job - a
home repairs apprentice for example?
The area in question is, say, deprived, with high levels of
unemployment.

It depends what you mean by "local people". If you were to say that the
job required applicants to be *born* locally then I think that would
certainly not be legal. If you were to say they have to *live* locally
then that might be alright, although it would perhaps be better to
simply state that the job requires being able to appear at local
locations at short notice and just reject any applicants whose home
address means they would not be able to meet that requirement.

I assume that idea is that this is a job creation scheme for local people.

So that would make it the latter option I suggested then.

[GB]

Post by RJH
Is it legal to specify that only local people can apply for a job - a home
repairs apprentice for example?
The area in question is, say, deprived, with high levels of unemployment.

It is legal to discriminate, except when it's illegal!

I know that sounds trite, but there's an assumption at the back of
people's minds that all discrimination is banned. If you think about it,
discrimination happens all the time. For example, if hiring a brain
surgeon, I am perfectly entitled to discriminate against people lacking
the qualifications or skills to do the job.

Only specific characteristics are protected from discrimination, namely:
Age
„ Disability
„ Gender reassignment
„ Marriage and civil partnership
„ Pregnancy and maternity
„ Race
„ Religion and belief
„ Sex
„ Sexual orientation.

You'll notice that place of residence is not on the list. So, in
principle, it is okay to specify that.

Both direct and indirect discrimination is unlawful. So, if by
specifying a particular area, that indirectly discriminates against a
particular protected group, then that could cause a problem. For
example, the local population might mainly be black (or white).

[Codger]

Post by GB

Post by RJH
Is it legal to specify that only local people can apply for a job - a home
repairs apprentice for example?
The area in question is, say, deprived, with high levels of unemployment.

It is legal to discriminate, except when it's illegal!
I know that sounds trite, but there's an assumption at the back of
people's minds that all discrimination is banned. If you think about it,
discrimination happens all the time. For example, if hiring a brain
surgeon, I am perfectly entitled to discriminate against people lacking
the qualifications or skills to do the job.
Age
? Disability
? Gender reassignment
? Marriage and civil partnership
? Pregnancy and maternity
? Race
? Religion and belief
? Sex
? Sexual orientation.
You'll notice that place of residence is not on the list. So, in
principle, it is okay to specify that.
Both direct and indirect discrimination is unlawful. So, if by
specifying a particular area, that indirectly discriminates against a
particular protected group, then that could cause a problem. For
example, the local population might mainly be black (or white).

How does Transport For London manage not to get into trouble for hiring policies like this?

https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/careers/stuart-ross-communications-internship

"Applications for joining TfL in 2024 are sought from candidates with specific protected

Post by GB
From Black, Asian or other minority ethnic backgrounds and/or

People with a disability (as defined by the Equality Act 2010)..."

[GB]

Post by Codger

Post by GB

Post by RJH
Is it legal to specify that only local people can apply for a job - a home
repairs apprentice for example?
The area in question is, say, deprived, with high levels of unemployment.

It is legal to discriminate, except when it's illegal!
I know that sounds trite, but there's an assumption at the back of
people's minds that all discrimination is banned. If you think about it,
discrimination happens all the time. For example, if hiring a brain
surgeon, I am perfectly entitled to discriminate against people lacking
the qualifications or skills to do the job.
Age
? Disability
? Gender reassignment
? Marriage and civil partnership
? Pregnancy and maternity
? Race
? Religion and belief
? Sex
? Sexual orientation.
You'll notice that place of residence is not on the list. So, in
principle, it is okay to specify that.
Both direct and indirect discrimination is unlawful. So, if by
specifying a particular area, that indirectly discriminates against a
particular protected group, then that could cause a problem. For
example, the local population might mainly be black (or white).

How does Transport For London manage not to get into trouble for hiring policies like this?
https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/careers/stuart-ross-communications-internship
"Applications for joining TfL in 2024 are sought from candidates with specific protected

Post by GB
From Black, Asian or other minority ethnic backgrounds and/or

People with a disability (as defined by the Equality Act 2010)..."

I don't know. Here's a link that suggests positive discrimination is
unlawful:

https://www.skillcast.com/blog/positive-discrimination-unlawful

[billy bookcase]

Post by GB

Post by Codger

Post by GB

Post by RJH
Is it legal to specify that only local people can apply for a job - a home
repairs apprentice for example?
The area in question is, say, deprived, with high levels of unemployment.

It is legal to discriminate, except when it's illegal!
I know that sounds trite, but there's an assumption at the back of
people's minds that all discrimination is banned. If you think about it,
discrimination happens all the time. For example, if hiring a brain
surgeon, I am perfectly entitled to discriminate against people lacking
the qualifications or skills to do the job.
Age
? Disability
? Gender reassignment
? Marriage and civil partnership
? Pregnancy and maternity
? Race
? Religion and belief
? Sex
? Sexual orientation.
You'll notice that place of residence is not on the list. So, in
principle, it is okay to specify that.
Both direct and indirect discrimination is unlawful. So, if by
specifying a particular area, that indirectly discriminates against a
particular protected group, then that could cause a problem. For
example, the local population might mainly be black (or white).

How does Transport For London manage not to get into trouble for hiring policies like
this?
https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/careers/stuart-ross-communications-internship
"Applications for joining TfL in 2024 are sought from candidates with specific protected

Post by GB
From Black, Asian or other minority ethnic backgrounds and/or

People with a disability (as defined by the Equality Act 2010)..."

https://www.skillcast.com/blog/positive-discrimination-unlawful

Except It isn't positive discrimination.

It's merely informing people, who maybe might have thought otherwise,
that their job application will be treated on a fair and equal basis.

It isn't in itself guarenteeing anyone a job. Merely seeking to ensure
that the most suitable and best qualified (in the widest sense of the
term)range of candidates, apply for the jobs in question.


bb

[Codger]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by GB

Post by Codger

Post by GB

Post by RJH
Is it legal to specify that only local people can apply for a job - a home
repairs apprentice for example?
The area in question is, say, deprived, with high levels of unemployment.

It is legal to discriminate, except when it's illegal!
I know that sounds trite, but there's an assumption at the back of
people's minds that all discrimination is banned. If you think about it,
discrimination happens all the time. For example, if hiring a brain
surgeon, I am perfectly entitled to discriminate against people lacking
the qualifications or skills to do the job.
Age
? Disability
? Gender reassignment
? Marriage and civil partnership
? Pregnancy and maternity
? Race
? Religion and belief
? Sex
? Sexual orientation.
You'll notice that place of residence is not on the list. So, in
principle, it is okay to specify that.
Both direct and indirect discrimination is unlawful. So, if by
specifying a particular area, that indirectly discriminates against a
particular protected group, then that could cause a problem. For
example, the local population might mainly be black (or white).

How does Transport For London manage not to get into trouble for hiring policies like
this?
https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/careers/stuart-ross-communications-internship
"Applications for joining TfL in 2024 are sought from candidates with specific
protected

Post by GB
From Black, Asian or other minority ethnic backgrounds and/or

People with a disability (as defined by the Equality Act 2010)..."

https://www.skillcast.com/blog/positive-discrimination-unlawful

Except It isn't positive discrimination.
It's merely informing people, who maybe might have thought otherwise,
that their job application will be treated on a fair and equal basis.

Come off it, they are clearly stating that able-bodied white applicants are disqualified. Racism,
as clear as day.

Post by billy bookcase
It isn't in itself guarenteeing anyone a job. Merely seeking to ensure
that the most suitable and best qualified (in the widest sense of the
term)range of candidates, apply for the jobs in question.

A red herring, no job advert guarantees that an application will be successful.

[billy bookcase]

Post by Codger

Post by billy bookcase

Post by GB

Post by Codger

Post by GB

Post by RJH
Is it legal to specify that only local people can apply for a job - a home
repairs apprentice for example?
The area in question is, say, deprived, with high levels of unemployment.

It is legal to discriminate, except when it's illegal!
I know that sounds trite, but there's an assumption at the back of
people's minds that all discrimination is banned. If you think about it,
discrimination happens all the time. For example, if hiring a brain
surgeon, I am perfectly entitled to discriminate against people lacking
the qualifications or skills to do the job.
Age
? Disability
? Gender reassignment
? Marriage and civil partnership
? Pregnancy and maternity
? Race
? Religion and belief
? Sex
? Sexual orientation.
You'll notice that place of residence is not on the list. So, in
principle, it is okay to specify that.
Both direct and indirect discrimination is unlawful. So, if by
specifying a particular area, that indirectly discriminates against a
particular protected group, then that could cause a problem. For
example, the local population might mainly be black (or white).

How does Transport For London manage not to get into trouble for hiring policies like
this?
https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/careers/stuart-ross-communications-internship
"Applications for joining TfL in 2024 are sought from candidates with specific
protected

Post by GB
From Black, Asian or other minority ethnic backgrounds and/or

People with a disability (as defined by the Equality Act 2010)..."

https://www.skillcast.com/blog/positive-discrimination-unlawful

Except It isn't positive discrimination.
It's merely informing people, who maybe might have thought otherwise,
that their job application will be treated on a fair and equal basis.

Come off it, they are clearly stating that able-bodied white applicants
are disqualified. Racism as clear as day.

VG; if just a bit too obvious if you don't mind me saying so.

Now quite clearly this in no way applies to you. But cynics might
suggest this is merely an excuse put forward by embittered losers
who were unable to secure the jobs or education that they thought
they were entitled to by virtue of birth alone; when if fact they
simply weren't clever enough.


bb

[GB]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Codger

Post by billy bookcase
It's merely informing people, who maybe might have thought otherwise,
that their job application will be treated on a fair and equal basis.

Come off it, they are clearly stating that able-bodied white applicants
are disqualified. Racism as clear as day.

VG; if just a bit too obvious if you don't mind me saying so.

The advert says:

"What you'll need
Applications for joining TfL in 2024 are sought from candidates with
specific protected characteristics who are:

From Black, Asian or other minority ethnic backgrounds and/or
People with a disability ... and/or
Individuals from a disadvantaged socio-economic background

Additionally, you must be either:
[A graduate], or
[A non-graduate]"

Taken as a whole there's a very strong inference that candidates will
not be considered unless they are in those three target groups. I can't
see any other implication from words like "you'll need' or
'additionally, you must"?


There's nothing wrong with encouraging applications from disadvantaged
groups, and helping them feel welcome. However, setting up jobs that are
only open to particular groups is (I think) unlawful.

The government has tried to make a distinction between positive action
and positive discrimination here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/positive-action-in-the-workplace-guidance-for-employers/positive-action-in-the-workplace

That says unequivocally "Positive discrimination is unlawful in Great
Britain."

[billy bookcase]

Post by GB

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Codger

Post by billy bookcase
It's merely informing people, who maybe might have thought otherwise,
that their job application will be treated on a fair and equal basis.

Come off it, they are clearly stating that able-bodied white applicants
are disqualified. Racism as clear as day.

VG; if just a bit too obvious if you don't mind me saying so.

"What you'll need
Applications for joining TfL in 2024 are sought from candidates with specific protected
From Black, Asian or other minority ethnic backgrounds and/or
People with a disability ... and/or
Individuals from a disadvantaged socio-economic background
[A graduate], or
[A non-graduate]"
Taken as a whole there's a very strong inference that candidates will not be considered
unless they are in those three target groups. I can't see any other implication from
words like "you'll need' or 'additionally, you must"?

Oh really ?

Where does it say on there, that applications for joining TfL in 2024, will
be considered *only* if candidates have specific protected characteristics ?

This is simply targeted advertising aimed at a specific group. In order to
recruit from as wide a spectrum as possible it may be necessary to target
ads at different groups, that's all.

But that nowhere implies that recruitment won't continue as normal from
other groups, via different channels.

While a cynic might also suggest, that even such targeted advertising as
this, is simply a box ticking exercise. So as to conform with some legislation
or other.


bb

[GB]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by GB

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Codger

Post by billy bookcase
It's merely informing people, who maybe might have thought otherwise,
that their job application will be treated on a fair and equal basis.

Come off it, they are clearly stating that able-bodied white applicants
are disqualified. Racism as clear as day.

VG; if just a bit too obvious if you don't mind me saying so.

"What you'll need
Applications for joining TfL in 2024 are sought from candidates with specific protected
From Black, Asian or other minority ethnic backgrounds and/or
People with a disability ... and/or
Individuals from a disadvantaged socio-economic background
[A graduate], or
[A non-graduate]"
Taken as a whole there's a very strong inference that candidates will not be considered
unless they are in those three target groups. I can't see any other implication from
words like "you'll need' or 'additionally, you must"?

Oh really ?
Where does it say on there, that applications for joining TfL in 2024, will
be considered *only* if candidates have specific protected characteristics ?

That is the advert for that particular internship, and I wasn't
commenting on any other adverts.

Post by billy bookcase
This is simply targeted advertising aimed at a specific group. In order to
recruit from as wide a spectrum as possible it may be necessary to target
ads at different groups, that's all.

Targeted advertising would be in channels likely to be seen by the
targeted groups. They might make it clear that applications will be
considered from those groups.

I can see nothing wrong with "We go to great lengths to accommodate
people with disabilities."

But, that advert more or less says "You have to be disabled to apply for
this job."

Post by billy bookcase
But that nowhere implies that recruitment won't continue as normal from
other groups, via different channels.

Have you been able to find these other adverts?

Post by billy bookcase
While a cynic might also suggest, that even such targeted advertising as
this, is simply a box ticking exercise. So as to conform with some legislation
or other.
bb

[billy bookcase]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by GB

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Codger

Post by billy bookcase
It's merely informing people, who maybe might have thought otherwise,
that their job application will be treated on a fair and equal basis.

Come off it, they are clearly stating that able-bodied white applicants
are disqualified. Racism as clear as day.

VG; if just a bit too obvious if you don't mind me saying so.

"What you'll need
Applications for joining TfL in 2024 are sought from candidates with specific protected
From Black, Asian or other minority ethnic backgrounds and/or
People with a disability ... and/or
Individuals from a disadvantaged socio-economic background
[A graduate], or
[A non-graduate]"
Taken as a whole there's a very strong inference that candidates will not be considered
unless they are in those three target groups. I can't see any other implication from
words like "you'll need' or 'additionally, you must"?

Oh really ?
Where does it say on there, that applications for joining TfL in 2024, will
be considered *only* if candidates have specific protected characteristics ?

That is the advert for that particular internship, and I wasn't commenting on any other
adverts.

Post by billy bookcase
This is simply targeted advertising aimed at a specific group. In order to
recruit from as wide a spectrum as possible it may be necessary to target
ads at different groups, that's all.

Targeted advertising would be in channels likely to be seen by the targeted groups.
They might make it clear that applications will be considered from those groups.
I can see nothing wrong with "We go to great lengths to accommodate people with
disabilities."

Accomodate ? Acccomodate ? In other words they will *if necessary*
take whatever *special measures* are necessary to accomodate
people with disabilities.

Talk about *inclusivity*, and making people feel welcome !

But, that advert more or less says "You have to be disabled to apply for this job."

No it doesn't. It says they welcome applications from disabled people.

But there is no implication there that it doesnt also welcome applications
from able bodied people.

Only this particulat advert clearly isn't aimed at them

Post by billy bookcase
But that nowhere implies that recruitment won't continue as normal from
other groups, via different channels.

Have you been able to find these other adverts?

Why should I need to.?

If you sincerely wish to believe that all further recruiment to Tfl, from
cleaners (already in place) to bus drivers, tube drivers, signals techicians
senior managers and all board members will be limited to candidates
from protected groups, at the expense, possibly of far better qualified
unprotected candidates, then who am to stop you ?


bb

[GB]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by GB

Post by billy bookcase
But that nowhere implies that recruitment won't continue as normal from
other groups, via different channels.

Have you been able to find these other adverts?

Why should I need to.?
If you sincerely wish to believe that all further recruiment to Tfl, from
cleaners (already in place) to bus drivers, tube drivers, signals techicians
senior managers and all board members will be limited to candidates
from protected groups, at the expense, possibly of far better qualified
unprotected candidates, then who am to stop you ?

I don't think it's true, and I have said nothing at all to imply that I do.

Post by billy bookcase
bb

[JNugent]

Post by Codger

Post by billy bookcase

Post by GB

Post by Codger

Post by GB

Post by RJH
Is it legal to specify that only local people can apply for a job - a home
repairs apprentice for example?
The area in question is, say, deprived, with high levels of unemployment.

It is legal to discriminate, except when it's illegal!
I know that sounds trite, but there's an assumption at the back of
people's minds that all discrimination is banned. If you think about it,
discrimination happens all the time. For example, if hiring a brain
surgeon, I am perfectly entitled to discriminate against people lacking
the qualifications or skills to do the job.
Age
? Disability
? Gender reassignment
? Marriage and civil partnership
? Pregnancy and maternity
? Race
? Religion and belief
? Sex
? Sexual orientation.
You'll notice that place of residence is not on the list. So, in
principle, it is okay to specify that.
Both direct and indirect discrimination is unlawful. So, if by
specifying a particular area, that indirectly discriminates against a
particular protected group, then that could cause a problem. For
example, the local population might mainly be black (or white).

How does Transport For London manage not to get into trouble for hiring policies like
this?
https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/careers/stuart-ross-communications-internship
"Applications for joining TfL in 2024 are sought from candidates with specific
protected

Post by GB
From Black, Asian or other minority ethnic backgrounds and/or

People with a disability (as defined by the Equality Act 2010)..."

https://www.skillcast.com/blog/positive-discrimination-unlawful

Except It isn't positive discrimination.
It's merely informing people, who maybe might have thought otherwise,
that their job application will be treated on a fair and equal basis.

Come off it, they are clearly stating that able-bodied white applicants are disqualified. Racism,
as clear as day.

That is my thought too. The wording (if accurate) more or less says
exactly that. If that was not what was meant, it ought to have been
worded completely differently.

They're counting on not being challenged.

Post by Codger

Post by billy bookcase
It isn't in itself guarenteeing anyone a job. Merely seeking to ensure
that the most suitable and best qualified (in the widest sense of the
term)range of candidates, apply for the jobs in question.

A red herring, no job advert guarantees that an application will be successful.

[RJH]

Post by JNugent

Post by Codger

Post by billy bookcase

Post by GB
https://www.skillcast.com/blog/positive-discrimination-unlawful

Except It isn't positive discrimination.
It's merely informing people, who maybe might have thought otherwise,
that their job application will be treated on a fair and equal basis.

Come off it, they are clearly stating that able-bodied white applicants are
disqualified. Racism,
as clear as day.

That is my thought too. The wording (if accurate) more or less says
exactly that. If that was not what was meant, it ought to have been
worded completely differently.
They're counting on not being challenged.

IMO, that's not racist - a word which relies on the context of power
imbalance.

It *is* (if accurate) an example of racial selection and affirmative action to
redress imbalances, and assumes white people are over-represented in the
field.

[Mark Goodge]

Post by RJH

Post by JNugent

Post by Codger

Post by billy bookcase

Post by GB
https://www.skillcast.com/blog/positive-discrimination-unlawful

Except It isn't positive discrimination.
It's merely informing people, who maybe might have thought otherwise,
that their job application will be treated on a fair and equal basis.

Come off it, they are clearly stating that able-bodied white applicants are
disqualified. Racism,
as clear as day.

That is my thought too. The wording (if accurate) more or less says
exactly that. If that was not what was meant, it ought to have been
worded completely differently.
They're counting on not being challenged.

IMO, that's not racist - a word which relies on the context of power
imbalance.

But if a person or organisation has the ability to deny a job to someone
based on their skin colour, that is an almost textbook example of a power
imbalance.

Mark

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by RJH

Post by JNugent

Post by Codger
Come off it, they are clearly stating that able-bodied white
applicants are disqualified. Racism, as clear as day.

That is my thought too. The wording (if accurate) more or less says
exactly that. If that was not what was meant, it ought to have been
worded completely differently.
They're counting on not being challenged.

IMO, that's not racist - a word which relies on the context of power
imbalance.

But if a person or organisation has the ability to deny a job to someone
based on their skin colour, that is an almost textbook example of a power
imbalance.

No, power imbalance would be if they had the ability to make it
difficult or impossible for the person to get any decent job, not
merely that they could reject the person from one particular job.

[JNugent]

[in response to:]

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by RJH

Post by JNugent

Post by Codger
Come off it, they are clearly stating that able-bodied white
applicants are disqualified. Racism, as clear as day.

[JN:]

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by RJH

Post by JNugent
That is my thought too. The wording (if accurate) more or less says
exactly that. If that was not what was meant, it ought to have been
worded completely differently.
They're counting on not being challenged.

IMO, that's not racist - a word which relies on the context of power
imbalance.

But if a person or organisation has the ability to deny a job to someone
based on their skin colour, that is an almost textbook example of a power
imbalance.

No, power imbalance would be if they had the ability to make it
difficult or impossible for the person to get any decent job, not
merely that they could reject the person from one particular job.

It's difficult to see how any one employer could "make it difficult or
impossible for the person to get any decent job".

An employer's power is limited to a "yay" or a "nay" on jobs at that
firm, isn't it?

That means, if "power imbalance" is to mean anything, that it can exist
within the relationship between an employer and an applicant.

OTOH, that "imbalance" always exists, for every applicant. It's always
the hirer in the driving seat.

[JNugent]

[I did NOT write the parts between the markers, despite it all being
attributed to me.]

**********

Post by RJH

Post by JNugent

Post by Codger

Post by billy bookcase

Post by GB
https://www.skillcast.com/blog/positive-discrimination-unlawful

Except It isn't positive discrimination.
It's merely informing people, who maybe might have thought otherwise,
that their job application will be treated on a fair and equal basis.

Come off it, they are clearly stating that able-bodied white applicants are
disqualified. Racism, as clear as day.

**********

Post by RJH

Post by JNugent
That is my thought too. The wording (if accurate) more or less says
exactly that. If that was not what was meant, it ought to have been
worded completely differently.
They're counting on not being challenged.

IMO, that's not racist - a word which relies on the context of power
imbalance.
It *is* (if accurate) an example of racial selection and affirmative action to
redress imbalances, and assumes white people are over-represented in the
field.

"over-represented"!

[JNugent]

[ ... ]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by GB

Post by Codger
How does Transport For London manage not to get into trouble for hiring policies like
this?
https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/careers/stuart-ross-communications-internship
"Applications for joining TfL in 2024 are sought from candidates with specific
From Black, Asian or other minority ethnic backgrounds and/or
People with a disability (as defined by the Equality Act 2010)..."

https://www.skillcast.com/blog/positive-discrimination-unlawful

Except It isn't positive discrimination.
It's merely informing people, who maybe might have thought otherwise,
that their job application will be treated on a fair and equal basis.

That would be more credible IF the line were rendered something like:

"Applications for joining TfL in 2024 are PARTICULARLY sought from
candidates with specific protected characteristics who are:

From Black, Asian or other minority ethnic backgrounds and/or
People with a disability (as defined by the Equality Act 2010)..."

Perhaps "particularly" might not be the best word (since it does seem to
carry an overtone of "others need not apply", but the original wording
says that even more strongly.

Post by billy bookcase
It isn't in itself guarenteeing anyone a job. Merely seeking to ensure
that the most suitable and best qualified (in the widest sense of the
term)range of candidates, apply for the jobs in question.

How would those "protected characteristics" make an applicant *best*
qualified for the job?

[billy bookcase]

Post by billy bookcase
It isn't in itself guarenteeing anyone a job. Merely seeking to ensure
that the most suitable and best qualified (in the widest sense of the
term)range of candidates, apply for the jobs in question.

How would those "protected characteristics" make an applicant *best* qualified for the
job?

1. Where in the above sentence, is that inference in any way implied ?

Please note, as noted elsewhere the biggest cause of failure on Usenet
is falure to actually answer the question put.

Your time starts now.

Answers

1...............................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................


bb

[JNugent]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by billy bookcase
It isn't in itself guarenteeing anyone a job. Merely seeking to ensure
that the most suitable and best qualified (in the widest sense of the
term)range of candidates, apply for the jobs in question.

How would those "protected characteristics" make an applicant *best* qualified for the
job?

1. Where in the above sentence, is that inference in any way implied ?

It wasn't implied.

It was stated.

QUOTE:
"...the most suitable and best qualified (in the widest sense of the
term) range of candidates...".

[Roger Hayter]

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by billy bookcase
It isn't in itself guarenteeing anyone a job. Merely seeking to ensure
that the most suitable and best qualified (in the widest sense of the
term)range of candidates, apply for the jobs in question.

How would those "protected characteristics" make an applicant *best* qualified for the
job?

1. Where in the above sentence, is that inference in any way implied ?

It wasn't implied.
It was stated.
"...the most suitable and best qualified (in the widest sense of the
term) range of candidates...".

That statement only makes any sense at all if they already have plenty of
white candidates and they want to ensure they have a wider cross-section of
the population. Otherwise it would be a silly sort of inverse racism.

[JNugent]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase
It isn't in itself guarenteeing anyone a job. Merely seeking to ensure
that the most suitable and best qualified (in the widest sense of the
term)range of candidates, apply for the jobs in question.

How would those "protected characteristics" make an applicant *best*
qualified for the
job?

1. Where in the above sentence, is that inference in any way implied ?

It wasn't implied.
It was stated.
"...the most suitable and best qualified (in the widest sense of the
term) range of candidates...".

That statement only makes any sense at all if they already have plenty of
white candidates and they want to ensure they have a wider cross-section of
the population. Otherwise it would be a silly sort of inverse racism.

Are you claiming that with TfL (better understood as TaL), that is not
easy to envisage?

[Ottavio Caruso]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase
It isn't in itself guarenteeing anyone a job. Merely seeking to ensure
that the most suitable and best qualified (in the widest sense of the
term)range of candidates, apply for the jobs in question.

How would those "protected characteristics" make an applicant *best*
qualified for the
job?

1. Where in the above sentence, is that inference in any way implied ?

It wasn't implied.
It was stated.
"...the most suitable and best qualified (in the widest sense of the
term) range of candidates...".

That statement only makes any sense at all if they already have plenty of
white candidates and they want to ensure they have a wider cross-section of
the population. Otherwise it would be a silly sort of inverse racism.

Well, it is indeed reverse racism, a.k.a. racism.

[billy bookcase]

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by billy bookcase
It isn't in itself guarenteeing anyone a job. Merely seeking to ensure
that the most suitable and best qualified (in the widest sense of the
term)range of candidates, apply for the jobs in question.

a) How would those "protected characteristics" make an applicant *best* qualified for
the
job?

1. Where in the above sentence, is that inference in any way implied ?

It wasn't implied.
It was stated.
"...the most suitable and best qualified (in the widest sense of the term) range of
candidates...".

And where does that imply that the *most suitable and best qualified* candidates
would *necessarily* have protected characteristics ?

Which appears to be the assumption at the basis of your question a) above


bb

[JNugent]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by billy bookcase
It isn't in itself guarenteeing anyone a job. Merely seeking to ensure
that the most suitable and best qualified (in the widest sense of the
term)range of candidates, apply for the jobs in question.

a) How would those "protected characteristics" make an applicant *best* qualified for
the
job?

1. Where in the above sentence, is that inference in any way implied ?

It wasn't implied.
It was stated.
"...the most suitable and best qualified (in the widest sense of the term) range of
candidates...".

And where does that imply that the *most suitable and best qualified* candidates
would *necessarily* have protected characteristics ?
Which appears to be the assumption at the basis of your question a) above

What does "widest sense of the term" mean?

[billy bookcase]

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by billy bookcase
It isn't in itself guarenteeing anyone a job. Merely seeking to ensure
that the most suitable and best qualified (in the widest sense of the
term)range of candidates, apply for the jobs in question.

a) How would those "protected characteristics" make an applicant *best* qualified
for
the
job?

1. Where in the above sentence, is that inference in any way implied ?

It wasn't implied.
It was stated.
"...the most suitable and best qualified (in the widest sense of the term) range of
candidates...".

And where does that imply that the *most suitable and best qualified* candidates
would *necessarily* have protected characteristics ?
Which appears to be the assumption at the basis of your question a) above

What does "widest sense of the term" mean?

Having actual experience of doing the job rather than actual paper qualifications.

best qualified (in the widest sense of the term)

I would have thought it was obvious.


bb

[JNugent]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by billy bookcase
It isn't in itself guarenteeing anyone a job. Merely seeking to ensure
that the most suitable and best qualified (in the widest sense of the
term)range of candidates, apply for the jobs in question.

a) How would those "protected characteristics" make an applicant *best* qualified
for
the
job?

1. Where in the above sentence, is that inference in any way implied ?

It wasn't implied.
It was stated.
"...the most suitable and best qualified (in the widest sense of the term) range of
candidates...".

[was: ENDQUOTE]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase
And where does that imply that the *most suitable and best qualified* candidates
would *necessarily* have protected characteristics ?
Which appears to be the assumption at the basis of your question a) above

What does "widest sense of the term" mean?

Having actual experience of doing the job rather than actual paper qualifications.

That might be what you would mean.

It isn't what every public authority in the London area would mean,
particularly, though not exclusively, for jobs which do not require
specific educational qualifications.

Post by billy bookcase
best qualified (in the widest sense of the term)
I would have thought it was obvious.

So would I, yet we come to divergent conclusions.

[billy bookcase]

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by billy bookcase
It isn't in itself guarenteeing anyone a job. Merely seeking to ensure
that the most suitable and best qualified (in the widest sense of the
term)range of candidates, apply for the jobs in question.

a) How would those "protected characteristics" make an applicant *best*
qualified
for
the
job?

1. Where in the above sentence, is that inference in any way implied ?

It wasn't implied.
It was stated.
"...the most suitable and best qualified (in the widest sense of the term) range of
candidates...".

[was: ENDQUOTE]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase
And where does that imply that the *most suitable and best qualified* candidates
would *necessarily* have protected characteristics ?
Which appears to be the assumption at the basis of your question a) above

What does "widest sense of the term" mean?

Having actual experience of doing the job rather than actual paper qualifications.

That might be what you would mean.
It isn't what every public authority in the London area would mean, particularly,
though not exclusively, for jobs which do not require specific educational
qualifications.

Why would a public authority in the London area used the term "best qualified"
in advertisements for jobs which did not require specific qualifications ?


bb

[JNugent]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by billy bookcase
It isn't in itself guarenteeing anyone a job. Merely seeking to ensure
that the most suitable and best qualified (in the widest sense of the
term)range of candidates, apply for the jobs in question.

a) How would those "protected characteristics" make an applicant *best*
qualified for the job?

1. Where in the above sentence, is that inference in any way implied ?

It wasn't implied.
It was stated.
"...the most suitable and best qualified (in the widest sense of the term) range of
candidates...".

[was: ENDQUOTE]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase
And where does that imply that the *most suitable and best qualified* candidates
would *necessarily* have protected characteristics ?
Which appears to be the assumption at the basis of your question a) above

What does "widest sense of the term" mean?

Having actual experience of doing the job rather than actual paper qualifications.

That might be what you would mean.
It isn't what every public authority in the London area would mean, particularly,
though not exclusively, for jobs which do not require specific educational
qualifications.

Why would a public authority in the London area used the term "best qualified"
in advertisements for jobs which did not require specific qualifications ?

What qualification is demanded of applicants for peripatetic home-care jobs?

What qualification is essential for recruitment for the street-cleansing
department?

[billy bookcase]

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by billy bookcase
It isn't in itself guarenteeing anyone a job. Merely seeking to ensure
that the most suitable and best qualified (in the widest sense of the
term)range of candidates, apply for the jobs in question.

a) How would those "protected characteristics" make an applicant *best*
qualified for the job?

1. Where in the above sentence, is that inference in any way implied ?

It wasn't implied.
It was stated.
"...the most suitable and best qualified (in the widest sense of the term) range
of
candidates...".

[was: ENDQUOTE]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase
And where does that imply that the *most suitable and best qualified* candidates
would *necessarily* have protected characteristics ?
Which appears to be the assumption at the basis of your question a) above

What does "widest sense of the term" mean?

Having actual experience of doing the job rather than actual paper qualifications.

That might be what you would mean.

(a)

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent
It isn't what every public authority in the London area would mean, particularly,
though not exclusively, for jobs which do not require specific educational
qualifications.

Why would a public authority in the London area used the term "best qualified"
in advertisements for jobs which did not require specific qualifications ?

What qualification is demanded of applicants for peripatetic home-care jobs?
What qualification is essential for recruitment for the street-cleansing department?

So why would a public authority in the London area speficically use the term
"best qualified", when recruiting for such jobs, as you claim they do above
in (a) ?


bb

[JNugent]

***************************************
[bb:]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by billy bookcase
It isn't in itself guarenteeing anyone a job. Merely seeking to ensure
that the most suitable and best qualified (in the widest sense of the
term)range of candidates, apply for the jobs in question.

***************************************

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

a) How would those "protected characteristics" make an applicant *best*
qualified for the job?

1. Where in the above sentence, is that inference in any way implied ?

It wasn't implied.
It was stated.
"...the most suitable and best qualified (in the widest sense of the term) range
of candidates...".

[was: ENDQUOTE]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase
And where does that imply that the *most suitable and best qualified* candidates
would *necessarily* have protected characteristics ?
Which appears to be the assumption at the basis of your question a) above

What does "widest sense of the term" mean?

Having actual experience of doing the job rather than actual paper qualifications.

That might be what you would mean.
It isn't what every public authority in the London area would mean, particularly,
though not exclusively, for jobs which do not require specific educational
qualifications.

Why would a public authority in the London area used the term "best qualified"
in advertisements for jobs which did not require specific qualifications ?

What qualification is demanded of applicants for peripatetic home-care jobs?
What qualification is essential for recruitment for the street-cleansing department?

So why would a public authority in the London area speficically use the term
"best qualified", when recruiting for such jobs, as you claim they do above
in (a) ?

The phrase...

"...the most suitable and best qualified (in the widest sense of the
term) range of candidates..."

...was sourced or formulated and quoted by YOU!

If you want to know what it means, you must resort to your own source
for it, surely?

[billy bookcase]

Post by JNugent
***************************************
[bb:]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by billy bookcase
It isn't in itself guarenteeing anyone a job. Merely seeking to ensure
that the most suitable and best qualified (in the widest sense of the
term)range of candidates, apply for the jobs in question.

***************************************

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

a) How would those "protected characteristics" make an applicant *best*
qualified for the job?

1. Where in the above sentence, is that inference in any way implied ?

It wasn't implied.
It was stated.
"...the most suitable and best qualified (in the widest sense of the term)
range
of candidates...".

[was: ENDQUOTE]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase
And where does that imply that the *most suitable and best qualified* candidates
would *necessarily* have protected characteristics ?
Which appears to be the assumption at the basis of your question a) above

What does "widest sense of the term" mean?

Having actual experience of doing the job rather than actual paper qualifications.

That might be what you would mean.
It isn't what every public authority in the London area would mean, particularly,
though not exclusively, for jobs which do not require specific educational
qualifications.

Why would a public authority in the London area used the term "best qualified"
in advertisements for jobs which did not require specific qualifications ?

What qualification is demanded of applicants for peripatetic home-care jobs?
What qualification is essential for recruitment for the street-cleansing department?

So why would a public authority in the London area speficically use the term
"best qualified", when recruiting for such jobs, as you claim they do above
in (a) ?

The phrase...
"...the most suitable and best qualified (in the widest sense of the term) range of
candidates..."
...was sourced or formulated and quoted by YOU!

Yes indeed. You've finally noticed.

Only I didn't "source" it, or "quote" it.

As had I done so, I would have indicated as such, as I always do

It was simply my own interpretation of that particular situation,
expressed entirely in my own words. A fact which I have never
attempted to conceal or disguise in any way/

And so I can only ask you again.

Why would a public authority in the London area chose to use a phrase
I originated last week in a Usenet post in relation to a particular
situation, when advertising jobs which do not require specific
educational qualifications ?


bb

[JNugent]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent
***************************************
[bb:]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by billy bookcase
It isn't in itself guarenteeing anyone a job. Merely seeking to ensure
that the most suitable and best qualified (in the widest sense of the
term)range of candidates, apply for the jobs in question.

***************************************

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

a) How would those "protected characteristics" make an applicant *best*
qualified for the job?

1. Where in the above sentence, is that inference in any way implied ?

It wasn't implied.
It was stated.
"...the most suitable and best qualified (in the widest sense of the term)
range
of candidates...".

[was: ENDQUOTE]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase
And where does that imply that the *most suitable and best qualified* candidates
would *necessarily* have protected characteristics ?
Which appears to be the assumption at the basis of your question a) above

What does "widest sense of the term" mean?

Having actual experience of doing the job rather than actual paper qualifications.

That might be what you would mean.
It isn't what every public authority in the London area would mean, particularly,
though not exclusively, for jobs which do not require specific educational
qualifications.

Why would a public authority in the London area used the term "best qualified"
in advertisements for jobs which did not require specific qualifications ?

What qualification is demanded of applicants for peripatetic home-care jobs?
What qualification is essential for recruitment for the street-cleansing department?

So why would a public authority in the London area speficically use the term
"best qualified", when recruiting for such jobs, as you claim they do above
in (a) ?

The phrase...
"...the most suitable and best qualified (in the widest sense of the term) range of
candidates..."
...was sourced or formulated and quoted by YOU!

Yes indeed. You've finally noticed.
Only I didn't "source" it, or "quote" it.
As had I done so, I would have indicated as such, as I always do
It was simply my own interpretation of that particular situation,
expressed entirely in my own words. A fact which I have never
attempted to conceal or disguise in any way/
And so I can only ask you again.
Why would a public authority in the London area chose to use a phrase
I originated last week in a Usenet post in relation to a particular
situation, when advertising jobs which do not require specific
educational qualifications ?

You'll have to explain:

(a) why you chose a particular form of words, and then

(b) demand an explanation of that reason (if any) from yourself.

It's no use asking a third party why *you* did something.

[billy bookcase]

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent
***************************************
[bb:]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by billy bookcase
It isn't in itself guarenteeing anyone a job. Merely seeking to ensure
that the most suitable and best qualified (in the widest sense of the
term)range of candidates, apply for the jobs in question.

***************************************

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

a) How would those "protected characteristics" make an applicant *best*
qualified for the job?

1. Where in the above sentence, is that inference in any way implied ?

It wasn't implied.
It was stated.
"...the most suitable and best qualified (in the widest sense of the term)
range
of candidates...".

[was: ENDQUOTE]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase
And where does that imply that the *most suitable and best qualified*
candidates
would *necessarily* have protected characteristics ?
Which appears to be the assumption at the basis of your question a) above

What does "widest sense of the term" mean?

Having actual experience of doing the job rather than actual paper
qualifications.

That might be what you would mean.
It isn't what every public authority in the London area would mean, particularly,
though not exclusively, for jobs which do not require specific educational
qualifications.

Why would a public authority in the London area used the term "best qualified"
in advertisements for jobs which did not require specific qualifications ?

What qualification is demanded of applicants for peripatetic home-care jobs?
What qualification is essential for recruitment for the street-cleansing
department?

So why would a public authority in the London area speficically use the term
"best qualified", when recruiting for such jobs, as you claim they do above
in (a) ?

The phrase...
"...the most suitable and best qualified (in the widest sense of the term) range of
candidates..."
...was sourced or formulated and quoted by YOU!

Yes indeed. You've finally noticed.
Only I didn't "source" it, or "quote" it.
As had I done so, I would have indicated as such, as I always do
It was simply my own interpretation of that particular situation,
expressed entirely in my own words. A fact which I have never
attempted to conceal or disguise in any way/
And so I can only ask you again.
Why would a public authority in the London area chose to use a phrase
I originated last week in a Usenet post in relation to a particular
situation, when advertising jobs which do not require specific
educational qualifications ?

In order to extract yet more pointless evasions from you, what will
I need to do, I wonder ?

Post by JNugent
(a) why you chose a particular form of words, and then

Because they best summmarised the situation as I saw it,
as I already explained.

The only other possibility being I suppose. that I simply hit keys
at random, and keep coming up lucky.

Post by JNugent
(b) demand an explanation of that reason (if any) from yourself.

I did and I was reasonably pleased, As it fully expressed my intentions,
was reasonably succinct, and furthermore had a nice ring to it

Post by JNugent
It's no use asking a third party why *you* did something.

I'm not. I'm asking a *third party*, *you*, why *you* did something .

So why would *you* claim that a public authority in the London area
would *ever* chose to use a phrase I originated last week in a Usenet
post, in relation to a particular situation, when advertising jobs which
do not require specific educational qualifications ?

Or maybe more to the point, can you produce a single example of a
public authority *anywhere*, *ever* having used any such a phrase,
in the almost 200 year history of public authority undertakings in
the UK ?



bb

[JNugent]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent
***************************************
[bb:]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by billy bookcase
It isn't in itself guarenteeing anyone a job. Merely seeking to ensure
that the most suitable and best qualified (in the widest sense of the
term)range of candidates, apply for the jobs in question.

***************************************

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

a) How would those "protected characteristics" make an applicant *best*
qualified for the job?

1. Where in the above sentence, is that inference in any way implied ?

It wasn't implied.
It was stated.
"...the most suitable and best qualified (in the widest sense of the term)
range
of candidates...".

[was: ENDQUOTE]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase
And where does that imply that the *most suitable and best qualified*
candidates
would *necessarily* have protected characteristics ?
Which appears to be the assumption at the basis of your question a) above

What does "widest sense of the term" mean?

Having actual experience of doing the job rather than actual paper
qualifications.

That might be what you would mean.
It isn't what every public authority in the London area would mean, particularly,
though not exclusively, for jobs which do not require specific educational
qualifications.

Why would a public authority in the London area used the term "best qualified"
in advertisements for jobs which did not require specific qualifications ?

What qualification is demanded of applicants for peripatetic home-care jobs?
What qualification is essential for recruitment for the street-cleansing
department?

So why would a public authority in the London area speficically use the term
"best qualified", when recruiting for such jobs, as you claim they do above
in (a) ?

The phrase...
"...the most suitable and best qualified (in the widest sense of the term) range of
candidates..."
...was sourced or formulated and quoted by YOU!

Yes indeed. You've finally noticed.
Only I didn't "source" it, or "quote" it.
As had I done so, I would have indicated as such, as I always do
It was simply my own interpretation of that particular situation,
expressed entirely in my own words. A fact which I have never
attempted to conceal or disguise in any way/
And so I can only ask you again.
Why would a public authority in the London area chose to use a phrase
I originated last week in a Usenet post in relation to a particular
situation, when advertising jobs which do not require specific
educational qualifications ?

In order to extract yet more pointless evasions from you, what will
I need to do, I wonder ?

Post by JNugent
(a) why you chose a particular form of words, and then

Because they best summmarised the situation as I saw it,
as I already explained.
The only other possibility being I suppose. that I simply hit keys
at random, and keep coming up lucky.

Post by JNugent
(b) demand an explanation of that reason (if any) from yourself.

I did and I was reasonably pleased, As it fully expressed my intentions,
was reasonably succinct, and furthermore had a nice ring to it

Post by JNugent
It's no use asking a third party why *you* did something.

I'm not. I'm asking a *third party*, *you*, why *you* did something .
So why would *you* claim that a public authority in the London area
would *ever* chose to use a phrase I originated last week in a Usenet
post, in relation to a particular situation, when advertising jobs which
do not require specific educational qualifications ?

I didn't. You did.

Post by billy bookcase
Or maybe more to the point, can you produce a single example of a
public authority *anywhere*, *ever* having used any such a phrase,
in the almost 200 year history of public authority undertakings in
the UK ?

Only in your citation.

Did you just make it up?

[billy bookcase]

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent
***************************************
[bb:]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by billy bookcase
It isn't in itself guarenteeing anyone a job. Merely seeking to ensure
that the most suitable and best qualified (in the widest sense of the
term)range of candidates, apply for the jobs in question.

***************************************

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase

a) How would those "protected characteristics" make an applicant *best*
qualified for the job?

1. Where in the above sentence, is that inference in any way implied ?

It wasn't implied.
It was stated.
"...the most suitable and best qualified (in the widest sense of the term)
range
of candidates...".

[was: ENDQUOTE]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by JNugent

Post by billy bookcase
And where does that imply that the *most suitable and best qualified*
candidates
would *necessarily* have protected characteristics ?
Which appears to be the assumption at the basis of your question a) above

What does "widest sense of the term" mean?

Having actual experience of doing the job rather than actual paper
qualifications.

That might be what you would mean.
It isn't what every public authority in the London area would mean,
particularly,
though not exclusively, for jobs which do not require specific educational
qualifications.

Why would a public authority in the London area used the term "best qualified"
in advertisements for jobs which did not require specific qualifications ?

What qualification is demanded of applicants for peripatetic home-care jobs?
What qualification is essential for recruitment for the street-cleansing
department?

So why would a public authority in the London area speficically use the term
"best qualified", when recruiting for such jobs, as you claim they do above
in (a) ?

The phrase...
"...the most suitable and best qualified (in the widest sense of the term) range of
candidates..."
...was sourced or formulated and quoted by YOU!

Yes indeed. You've finally noticed.
Only I didn't "source" it, or "quote" it.
As had I done so, I would have indicated as such, as I always do
It was simply my own interpretation of that particular situation,
expressed entirely in my own words. A fact which I have never
attempted to conceal or disguise in any way/
And so I can only ask you again.
Why would a public authority in the London area chose to use a phrase
I originated last week in a Usenet post in relation to a particular
situation, when advertising jobs which do not require specific
educational qualifications ?

In order to extract yet more pointless evasions from you, what will
I need to do, I wonder ?

Post by JNugent
(a) why you chose a particular form of words, and then

Because they best summmarised the situation as I saw it,
as I already explained.
The only other possibility being I suppose. that I simply hit keys
at random, and keep coming up lucky.

Post by JNugent
(b) demand an explanation of that reason (if any) from yourself.

I did and I was reasonably pleased, As it fully expressed my intentions,
was reasonably succinct, and furthermore had a nice ring to it

Post by JNugent
It's no use asking a third party why *you* did something.

I'm not. I'm asking a *third party*, *you*, why *you* did something .
So why would *you* claim that a public authority in the London area
would *ever* chose to use a phrase I originated last week in a Usenet
post, in relation to a particular situation, when advertising jobs which
do not require specific educational qualifications ?

I didn't. You did.

quote:

It isn't what every public authority in the London area would mean, particularly,
though not exclusively, for jobs which do not require specific educational
qualifications.

:unquote

So who wrote that ?

hint:it wasn't me

As I've never mentioned the London area at all.


bb

[billy bookcase]

Post by Codger

Post by GB

Post by RJH
Is it legal to specify that only local people can apply for a job - a home
repairs apprentice for example?
The area in question is, say, deprived, with high levels of unemployment.

It is legal to discriminate, except when it's illegal!
I know that sounds trite, but there's an assumption at the back of
people's minds that all discrimination is banned. If you think about it,
discrimination happens all the time. For example, if hiring a brain
surgeon, I am perfectly entitled to discriminate against people lacking
the qualifications or skills to do the job.
Age
? Disability
? Gender reassignment
? Marriage and civil partnership
? Pregnancy and maternity
? Race
? Religion and belief
? Sex
? Sexual orientation.
You'll notice that place of residence is not on the list. So, in
principle, it is okay to specify that.
Both direct and indirect discrimination is unlawful. So, if by
specifying a particular area, that indirectly discriminates against a
particular protected group, then that could cause a problem. For
example, the local population might mainly be black (or white).

How does Transport For London manage not to get into trouble for hiring policies like this?

Because its inclusive, but not exclusive.


bb

Post by Codger
https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/careers/stuart-ross-communications-internship
"Applications for joining TfL in 2024 are sought from candidates with specific protected

Post by GB
From Black, Asian or other minority ethnic backgrounds and/or

People with a disability (as defined by the Equality Act 2010)..."

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Codger

Post by GB

Post by RJH
Is it legal to specify that only local people can apply for a job - a home
repairs apprentice for example?
The area in question is, say, deprived, with high levels of unemployment.

It is legal to discriminate, except when it's illegal!
I know that sounds trite, but there's an assumption at the back of
people's minds that all discrimination is banned. If you think about it,
discrimination happens all the time. For example, if hiring a brain
surgeon, I am perfectly entitled to discriminate against people lacking
the qualifications or skills to do the job.
Age
? Disability
? Gender reassignment
? Marriage and civil partnership
? Pregnancy and maternity
? Race
? Religion and belief
? Sex
? Sexual orientation.
You'll notice that place of residence is not on the list. So, in
principle, it is okay to specify that.
Both direct and indirect discrimination is unlawful. So, if by
specifying a particular area, that indirectly discriminates against a
particular protected group, then that could cause a problem. For
example, the local population might mainly be black (or white).

How does Transport For London manage not to get into trouble for hiring policies like this?
https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/careers/stuart-ross-communications-internship
"Applications for joining TfL in 2024 are sought from candidates with specific protected

Post by GB
From Black, Asian or other minority ethnic backgrounds and/or

People with a disability (as defined by the Equality Act 2010)..."

It depends on how they assess the applicants when they have applied.
Encouraging people to apply, especially members of a group underrepresented
among applicants, is not in itself unlawful. If they then treat them more
favourably then other applicants it might be.

[JNugent]

Post by GB

Post by RJH
Is it legal to specify that only local people can apply for a job - a home
repairs apprentice for example?
The area in question is, say, deprived, with high levels of unemployment.

It is legal to discriminate, except when it's illegal!
I know that sounds trite, but there's an assumption at the back of
people's minds that all discrimination is banned. If you think about it,
discrimination happens all the time. For example, if hiring a brain
surgeon, I am perfectly entitled to discriminate against people lacking
the qualifications or skills to do the job.
 Age
„ Disability
„ Gender reassignment
„ Marriage and civil partnership
„ Pregnancy and maternity
„ Race
„ Religion and belief
„ Sex
„ Sexual orientation.
You'll notice that place of residence is not on the list. So, in
principle, it is okay to specify that.
Both direct and indirect discrimination is unlawful. So, if by
specifying a particular area, that indirectly discriminates against a
particular protected group, then that could cause a problem. For
example, the local population might mainly be black (or white).

Several decades ago, and certainly before the area was transformed by
the more recent "Liverpool One" development, I remember a reported case
where a medium sized furniture retail firm located in Paradise Street
(L1) was challenged at a tribunal by a job-applicant who had been
rejected on the basis of his address.

The firm seems to have had a policy of recruiting no-one who lived
within two miles of the shop (measured as the crow flies) because their
experience was that friends of such a person tended to gather in the
shop to socialise and that this put off customers and impaired trade.

The rejected applicant / appellant was black and lived on the borders of
L1 / L8, locally known as the Rialto area. It is less than a mile from
the shop. This was some time before the 1981 so-called Toxteth riots.

It was all reported in the local press and from memory, the tribunal
found in favour of the rejected applicant and decided that the shop's
policy amounted to racial discrimination.

The fact that the vast majority of those excluded by the policy
(especially to the east and north within the city and to the west on the
Wirral peninsula) were not black (and so presumably not protected)
didn't seem to be taken into account.

[billy bookcase]

Post by GB

Post by RJH
Is it legal to specify that only local people can apply for a job - a home
repairs apprentice for example?
The area in question is, say, deprived, with high levels of unemployment.

It is legal to discriminate, except when it's illegal!
I know that sounds trite, but there's an assumption at the back of people's minds that
all discrimination is banned. If you think about it, discrimination happens all the
time. For example, if hiring a brain surgeon, I am perfectly entitled to discriminate
against people lacking the qualifications or skills to do the job.
Age
„ Disability
„ Gender reassignment
„ Marriage and civil partnership
„ Pregnancy and maternity
„ Race
„ Religion and belief
„ Sex
„ Sexual orientation.
You'll notice that place of residence is not on the list. So, in principle, it is okay
to specify that.
Both direct and indirect discrimination is unlawful. So, if by specifying a particular
area, that indirectly discriminates against a particular protected group, then that
could cause a problem. For example, the local population might mainly be black (or
white).

Several decades ago, and certainly before the area was transformed by the more recent
"Liverpool One" development, I remember a reported case where a medium sized furniture
retail firm located in Paradise Street (L1) was challenged at a tribunal by a
job-applicant who had been rejected on the basis of his address.

Whereas if the medium sized furniture retail firm had simply put all the
appliants on a short list, without rejecting any outright, or even laying down
any specific conditions, then they could have avoided any such problems.

The firm seems to have had a policy of recruiting no-one who lived within two miles of
the shop (measured as the crow flies) because their experience was that friends of such
a person tended to gather in the shop to socialise and that this put off customers and
impaired trade.

Which is almost inviting sob stories and special pleading, Non ?*


bb

The rejected applicant / appellant was black and lived on the borders of L1 / L8,
locally known as the Rialto area. It is less than a mile from the shop. This was some
time before the 1981 so-called Toxteth riots.
It was all reported in the local press and from memory, the tribunal found in favour of
the rejected applicant and decided that the shop's policy amounted to racial
discrimination.
The fact that the vast majority of those excluded by the policy (especially to the east
and north within the city and to the west on the Wirral peninsula) were not black (and
so presumably not protected) didn't seem to be taken into account.

* The Bruno Cremer "Maigret" is currently playing on TPTV. 9.00 pm Weds They're
re-running all 53 eps this is around no 3

[Roger Hayter]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by GB

Post by RJH
Is it legal to specify that only local people can apply for a job - a home
repairs apprentice for example?
The area in question is, say, deprived, with high levels of unemployment.

It is legal to discriminate, except when it's illegal!
I know that sounds trite, but there's an assumption at the back of people's minds that
all discrimination is banned. If you think about it, discrimination happens all the
time. For example, if hiring a brain surgeon, I am perfectly entitled to discriminate
against people lacking the qualifications or skills to do the job.
Age
„ Disability
„ Gender reassignment
„ Marriage and civil partnership
„ Pregnancy and maternity
„ Race
„ Religion and belief
„ Sex
„ Sexual orientation.
You'll notice that place of residence is not on the list. So, in principle, it is okay
to specify that.
Both direct and indirect discrimination is unlawful. So, if by specifying a particular
area, that indirectly discriminates against a particular protected group, then that
could cause a problem. For example, the local population might mainly be black (or
white).

Several decades ago, and certainly before the area was transformed by the more recent
"Liverpool One" development, I remember a reported case where a medium sized furniture
retail firm located in Paradise Street (L1) was challenged at a tribunal by a
job-applicant who had been rejected on the basis of his address.

Whereas if the medium sized furniture retail firm had simply put all the
appliants on a short list, without rejecting any outright, or even laying down
any specific conditions, then they could have avoided any such problems.

Not immediately. But if the first 100 black people to apply all failed to be
selected they might well have faced a tribunal anyway.

[billy bookcase]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by billy bookcase

Post by GB

Post by RJH
Is it legal to specify that only local people can apply for a job - a home
repairs apprentice for example?
The area in question is, say, deprived, with high levels of unemployment.

It is legal to discriminate, except when it's illegal!
I know that sounds trite, but there's an assumption at the back of people's
minds that
all discrimination is banned. If you think about it, discrimination happens all the
time. For example, if hiring a brain surgeon, I am perfectly entitled to discriminate
against people lacking the qualifications or skills to do the job.
Age
" Disability
" Gender reassignment
" Marriage and civil partnership
" Pregnancy and maternity
" Race
" Religion and belief
" Sex
" Sexual orientation.
You'll notice that place of residence is not on the list. So, in principle,
it is okay
to specify that.
Both direct and indirect discrimination is unlawful. So, if by specifying a
particular
area, that indirectly discriminates against a particular protected group, then that
could cause a problem. For example, the local population might mainly be black (or
white).

Several decades ago, and certainly before the area was transformed by the more recent
"Liverpool One" development, I remember a reported case where a medium sized furniture
retail firm located in Paradise Street (L1) was challenged at a tribunal by a
job-applicant who had been rejected on the basis of his address.

Whereas if the medium sized furniture retail firm had simply put all the
appliants on a short list, without rejecting any outright, or even laying down
any specific conditions, then they could have avoided any such problems.

Not immediately. But if the first 100 black people to apply all failed to be
selected they might well have faced a tribunal anyway.

Really ? And how would anyone other than the medium sized furniture retail firm,
itself, and maybe friends applying, know anything about how many other applicants
there were, or any of their details ?

That's the whole point of first putting all applicants on a list,

You set a closing date, note down all their relevant details, name address,
experience personality criminal record etc. sift through them all and call in the most
suitable for interview at the end. Telling all of them that if they haven't heard
anything by the closing date then they haven't got the job

Leaving no scope for whinging or begging.



bb

[JNugent]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by GB

Post by RJH
Is it legal to specify that only local people can apply for a job - a home
repairs apprentice for example?
The area in question is, say, deprived, with high levels of unemployment.

It is legal to discriminate, except when it's illegal!
I know that sounds trite, but there's an assumption at the back of people's minds that
all discrimination is banned. If you think about it, discrimination happens all the
time. For example, if hiring a brain surgeon, I am perfectly entitled to discriminate
against people lacking the qualifications or skills to do the job.
Age
„ Disability
„ Gender reassignment
„ Marriage and civil partnership
„ Pregnancy and maternity
„ Race
„ Religion and belief
„ Sex
„ Sexual orientation.
You'll notice that place of residence is not on the list. So, in principle, it is okay
to specify that.
Both direct and indirect discrimination is unlawful. So, if by specifying a particular
area, that indirectly discriminates against a particular protected group, then that
could cause a problem. For example, the local population might mainly be black (or
white).

Several decades ago, and certainly before the area was transformed by the more recent
"Liverpool One" development, I remember a reported case where a medium sized furniture
retail firm located in Paradise Street (L1) was challenged at a tribunal by a
job-applicant who had been rejected on the basis of his address.

Whereas if the medium sized furniture retail firm had simply put all the
appliants on a short list, without rejecting any outright, or even laying down
any specific conditions, then they could have avoided any such problems.

The firm seems to have had a policy of recruiting no-one who lived within two miles of
the shop (measured as the crow flies) because their experience was that friends of such
a person tended to gather in the shop to socialise and that this put off customers and
impaired trade.

Which is almost inviting sob stories and special pleading, Non ?*

There are always going to be problems of one sort or another when
Parliament tries to intervene in personal or contractual arrangements
and agreement.

Post by billy bookcase

The rejected applicant / appellant was black and lived on the borders of L1 / L8,
locally known as the Rialto area. It is less than a mile from the shop. This was some
time before the 1981 so-called Toxteth riots.
It was all reported in the local press and from memory, the tribunal found in favour of
the rejected applicant and decided that the shop's policy amounted to racial
discrimination.
The fact that the vast majority of those excluded by the policy (especially to the east
and north within the city and to the west on the Wirral peninsula) were not black (and
so presumably not protected) didn't seem to be taken into account.

* The Bruno Cremer "Maigret" is currently playing on TPTV. 9.00 pm Weds They're
re-running all 53 eps this is around no 3

I'm sure it's a worthwhile programme (never seen it, I'm afraid). But...
er... ?

[billy bookcase]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by GB

Post by RJH
Is it legal to specify that only local people can apply for a job - a home
repairs apprentice for example?
The area in question is, say, deprived, with high levels of unemployment.

It is legal to discriminate, except when it's illegal!
I know that sounds trite, but there's an assumption at the back of people's minds
that
all discrimination is banned. If you think about it, discrimination happens all the
time. For example, if hiring a brain surgeon, I am perfectly entitled to discriminate
against people lacking the qualifications or skills to do the job.
Age
" Disability
" Gender reassignment
" Marriage and civil partnership
" Pregnancy and maternity
" Race
" Religion and belief
" Sex
" Sexual orientation.
You'll notice that place of residence is not on the list. So, in principle, it is
okay
to specify that.
Both direct and indirect discrimination is unlawful. So, if by specifying a
particular
area, that indirectly discriminates against a particular protected group, then that
could cause a problem. For example, the local population might mainly be black (or
white).

Several decades ago, and certainly before the area was transformed by the more recent
"Liverpool One" development, I remember a reported case where a medium sized furniture
retail firm located in Paradise Street (L1) was challenged at a tribunal by a
job-applicant who had been rejected on the basis of his address.

Whereas if the medium sized furniture retail firm had simply put all the
appliants on a short list, without rejecting any outright, or even laying down
any specific conditions, then they could have avoided any such problems.

The firm seems to have had a policy of recruiting no-one who lived within two miles of
the shop (measured as the crow flies) because their experience was that friends of such
a person tended to gather in the shop to socialise and that this put off customers and
impaired trade.

Which is almost inviting sob stories and special pleading, Non ?*

There are always going to be problems of one sort or another when Parliament tries to
intervene in personal or contractual arrangements and agreement.

I'm talking about the applicant pleading with the shop upon being *immediately*
turned down. Arguing about actual distances, relevance etc.

If their names are simply put on a list, applicants will have no way of knowing
what were the deciding factors.

And will in no position to argue, the decision already having been taken, in any
case.

Whereas In announcing the policy publicly, the shop were simply making a rod
for their own backs,


bb.

[JNugent]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by billy bookcase

Post by GB

Post by RJH
Is it legal to specify that only local people can apply for a job - a home
repairs apprentice for example?
The area in question is, say, deprived, with high levels of unemployment.

It is legal to discriminate, except when it's illegal!
I know that sounds trite, but there's an assumption at the back of people's minds
that
all discrimination is banned. If you think about it, discrimination happens all the
time. For example, if hiring a brain surgeon, I am perfectly entitled to
discriminate
against people lacking the qualifications or skills to do the job.
Age
" Disability
" Gender reassignment
" Marriage and civil partnership
" Pregnancy and maternity
" Race
" Religion and belief
" Sex
" Sexual orientation.
You'll notice that place of residence is not on the list. So, in principle, it is
okay
to specify that.
Both direct and indirect discrimination is unlawful. So, if by specifying a
particular
area, that indirectly discriminates against a particular protected group, then that
could cause a problem. For example, the local population might mainly be black (or
white).

Several decades ago, and certainly before the area was transformed by the more recent
"Liverpool One" development, I remember a reported case where a medium sized
furniture
retail firm located in Paradise Street (L1) was challenged at a tribunal by a
job-applicant who had been rejected on the basis of his address.

Whereas if the medium sized furniture retail firm had simply put all the
appliants on a short list, without rejecting any outright, or even laying down
any specific conditions, then they could have avoided any such problems.

The firm seems to have had a policy of recruiting no-one who lived within two miles
of the shop (measured as the crow flies) because their experience was that friends
of such a person tended to gather in the shop to socialise and that this put off
customers and impaired trade.

Which is almost inviting sob stories and special pleading, Non ?*

There are always going to be problems of one sort or another when Parliament tries to
intervene in personal or contractual arrangements and agreement.

I'm talking about the applicant pleading with the shop upon being *immediately*
turned down. Arguing about actual distances, relevance etc.

I have no way of assessing how frequently that happens, or even whether
the number of cases is significant.

Post by billy bookcase
If their names are simply put on a list, applicants will have no way of knowing
what were the deciding factors.
And will in no position to argue, the decision already having been taken, in any
case.
Whereas In announcing the policy publicly, the shop were simply making a rod
for their own backs,

That would probably be true, though whether it was the way it happened
was not reported (AFAICR). The policy might only have been cited after
the tribunal action was started by the frustrated applicant.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by JNugent

Post by GB

Post by RJH
Is it legal to specify that only local people can apply for a job - a home
repairs apprentice for example?
The area in question is, say, deprived, with high levels of unemployment.

It is legal to discriminate, except when it's illegal!
I know that sounds trite, but there's an assumption at the back of
people's minds that all discrimination is banned. If you think about it,
discrimination happens all the time. For example, if hiring a brain
surgeon, I am perfectly entitled to discriminate against people lacking
the qualifications or skills to do the job.
Age
„ Disability
„ Gender reassignment
„ Marriage and civil partnership
„ Pregnancy and maternity
„ Race
„ Religion and belief
„ Sex
„ Sexual orientation.
You'll notice that place of residence is not on the list. So, in
principle, it is okay to specify that.
Both direct and indirect discrimination is unlawful. So, if by
specifying a particular area, that indirectly discriminates against a
particular protected group, then that could cause a problem. For
example, the local population might mainly be black (or white).

Several decades ago, and certainly before the area was transformed by
the more recent "Liverpool One" development, I remember a reported case
where a medium sized furniture retail firm located in Paradise Street
(L1) was challenged at a tribunal by a job-applicant who had been
rejected on the basis of his address.
The firm seems to have had a policy of recruiting no-one who lived
within two miles of the shop (measured as the crow flies) because their
experience was that friends of such a person tended to gather in the
shop to socialise and that this put off customers and impaired trade.
The rejected applicant / appellant was black and lived on the borders of
L1 / L8, locally known as the Rialto area. It is less than a mile from
the shop. This was some time before the 1981 so-called Toxteth riots.
It was all reported in the local press and from memory, the tribunal
found in favour of the rejected applicant and decided that the shop's
policy amounted to racial discrimination.
The fact that the vast majority of those excluded by the policy
(especially to the east and north within the city and to the west on the
Wirral peninsula) were not black (and so presumably not protected)
didn't seem to be taken into account.

Really?? I would have thought that, even by Liverpool standards, the story
about not wanting their mates to drop in was a pretty brazen lie! And maybe in
practice they did employ locals from the white areas, that wouldn't surprise
me.

[JNugent]

[ ... ]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent

Post by GB
Both direct and indirect discrimination is unlawful. So, if by
specifying a particular area, that indirectly discriminates against a
particular protected group, then that could cause a problem. For
example, the local population might mainly be black (or white).

Several decades ago, and certainly before the area was transformed by
the more recent "Liverpool One" development, I remember a reported case
where a medium sized furniture retail firm located in Paradise Street
(L1) was challenged at a tribunal by a job-applicant who had been
rejected on the basis of his address.
The firm seems to have had a policy of recruiting no-one who lived
within two miles of the shop (measured as the crow flies) because their
experience was that friends of such a person tended to gather in the
shop to socialise and that this put off customers and impaired trade.
The rejected applicant / appellant was black and lived on the borders of
L1 / L8, locally known as the Rialto area. It is less than a mile from
the shop. This was some time before the 1981 so-called Toxteth riots.
It was all reported in the local press and from memory, the tribunal
found in favour of the rejected applicant and decided that the shop's
policy amounted to racial discrimination.
The fact that the vast majority of those excluded by the policy
(especially to the east and north within the city and to the west on the
Wirral peninsula) were not black (and so presumably not protected)
didn't seem to be taken into account.

Really?? I would have thought that, even by Liverpool standards, the story
about not wanting their mates to drop in was a pretty brazen lie! And maybe in
practice they did employ locals from the white areas, that wouldn't surprise
me.

What makes you "conclude" that?

I am the one who remembers the case as reported in the local press, yet
I have no knowledge or memory of the case additional to what I typed above.

But it seems that some others know more about it than I was able to
racell! Who knew it was such a national cause celebré?

[Roger Hayter]

Post by JNugent
[ ... ]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent

Post by GB
Both direct and indirect discrimination is unlawful. So, if by
specifying a particular area, that indirectly discriminates against a
particular protected group, then that could cause a problem. For
example, the local population might mainly be black (or white).

Several decades ago, and certainly before the area was transformed by
the more recent "Liverpool One" development, I remember a reported case
where a medium sized furniture retail firm located in Paradise Street
(L1) was challenged at a tribunal by a job-applicant who had been
rejected on the basis of his address.
The firm seems to have had a policy of recruiting no-one who lived
within two miles of the shop (measured as the crow flies) because their
experience was that friends of such a person tended to gather in the
shop to socialise and that this put off customers and impaired trade.
The rejected applicant / appellant was black and lived on the borders of
L1 / L8, locally known as the Rialto area. It is less than a mile from
the shop. This was some time before the 1981 so-called Toxteth riots.
It was all reported in the local press and from memory, the tribunal
found in favour of the rejected applicant and decided that the shop's
policy amounted to racial discrimination.
The fact that the vast majority of those excluded by the policy
(especially to the east and north within the city and to the west on the
Wirral peninsula) were not black (and so presumably not protected)
didn't seem to be taken into account.

Really?? I would have thought that, even by Liverpool standards, the story
about not wanting their mates to drop in was a pretty brazen lie! And maybe in
practice they did employ locals from the white areas, that wouldn't surprise
me.

What makes you "conclude" that?
I am the one who remembers the case as reported in the local press, yet
I have no knowledge or memory of the case additional to what I typed above.
But it seems that some others know more about it than I was able to
racell! Who knew it was such a national cause celebré?

I lived in Liverpool for four years. The highlight was being blackmailed by a
senior member of the medical profession with a university role to enable his
nepotism. There was the almost daily threats, abuse and dishonesty from others
too. I think I learnt enough of the zeitgeist. Should one capitalise German
nouns when writing English?

[JNugent]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent
[ ... ]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent

Post by GB
Both direct and indirect discrimination is unlawful. So, if by
specifying a particular area, that indirectly discriminates against a
particular protected group, then that could cause a problem. For
example, the local population might mainly be black (or white).

Several decades ago, and certainly before the area was transformed by
the more recent "Liverpool One" development, I remember a reported case
where a medium sized furniture retail firm located in Paradise Street
(L1) was challenged at a tribunal by a job-applicant who had been
rejected on the basis of his address.
The firm seems to have had a policy of recruiting no-one who lived
within two miles of the shop (measured as the crow flies) because their
experience was that friends of such a person tended to gather in the
shop to socialise and that this put off customers and impaired trade.
The rejected applicant / appellant was black and lived on the borders of
L1 / L8, locally known as the Rialto area. It is less than a mile from
the shop. This was some time before the 1981 so-called Toxteth riots.
It was all reported in the local press and from memory, the tribunal
found in favour of the rejected applicant and decided that the shop's
policy amounted to racial discrimination.
The fact that the vast majority of those excluded by the policy
(especially to the east and north within the city and to the west on the
Wirral peninsula) were not black (and so presumably not protected)
didn't seem to be taken into account.

Really?? I would have thought that, even by Liverpool standards, the story
about not wanting their mates to drop in was a pretty brazen lie! And maybe in
practice they did employ locals from the white areas, that wouldn't surprise
me.

What makes you "conclude" that?
I am the one who remembers the case as reported in the local press, yet
I have no knowledge or memory of the case additional to what I typed above.
But it seems that some others know more about it than I was able to
racell! Who knew it was such a national cause celebré?

I lived in Liverpool for four years. The highlight was being blackmailed by a
senior member of the medical profession with a university role to enable his
nepotism. There was the almost daily threats, abuse and dishonesty from others
too. I think I learnt enough of the zeitgeist. Should one capitalise German
nouns when writing English?

You think that a "senior member of medical staff" is a fair description
of the typical Liverpudlian native and resident?

[Roger Hayter]

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent
[ ... ]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent

Post by GB
Both direct and indirect discrimination is unlawful. So, if by
specifying a particular area, that indirectly discriminates against a
particular protected group, then that could cause a problem. For
example, the local population might mainly be black (or white).

Several decades ago, and certainly before the area was transformed by
the more recent "Liverpool One" development, I remember a reported case
where a medium sized furniture retail firm located in Paradise Street
(L1) was challenged at a tribunal by a job-applicant who had been
rejected on the basis of his address.
The firm seems to have had a policy of recruiting no-one who lived
within two miles of the shop (measured as the crow flies) because their
experience was that friends of such a person tended to gather in the
shop to socialise and that this put off customers and impaired trade.
The rejected applicant / appellant was black and lived on the borders of
L1 / L8, locally known as the Rialto area. It is less than a mile from
the shop. This was some time before the 1981 so-called Toxteth riots.
It was all reported in the local press and from memory, the tribunal
found in favour of the rejected applicant and decided that the shop's
policy amounted to racial discrimination.
The fact that the vast majority of those excluded by the policy
(especially to the east and north within the city and to the west on the
Wirral peninsula) were not black (and so presumably not protected)
didn't seem to be taken into account.

Really?? I would have thought that, even by Liverpool standards, the story
about not wanting their mates to drop in was a pretty brazen lie! And maybe in
practice they did employ locals from the white areas, that wouldn't surprise
me.

What makes you "conclude" that?
I am the one who remembers the case as reported in the local press, yet
I have no knowledge or memory of the case additional to what I typed above.
But it seems that some others know more about it than I was able to
racell! Who knew it was such a national cause celebré?

I lived in Liverpool for four years. The highlight was being blackmailed by a
senior member of the medical profession with a university role to enable his
nepotism. There was the almost daily threats, abuse and dishonesty from others
too. I think I learnt enough of the zeitgeist. Should one capitalise German
nouns when writing English?

You think that a "senior member of medical staff" is a fair description
of the typical Liverpudlian native and resident?

I don't think there is any rule excluding Liverpudlians from fulfilling that
role.

[JNugent]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent
[ ... ]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent

Post by GB
Both direct and indirect discrimination is unlawful. So, if by
specifying a particular area, that indirectly discriminates against a
particular protected group, then that could cause a problem. For
example, the local population might mainly be black (or white).

Several decades ago, and certainly before the area was transformed by
the more recent "Liverpool One" development, I remember a reported case
where a medium sized furniture retail firm located in Paradise Street
(L1) was challenged at a tribunal by a job-applicant who had been
rejected on the basis of his address.
The firm seems to have had a policy of recruiting no-one who lived
within two miles of the shop (measured as the crow flies) because their
experience was that friends of such a person tended to gather in the
shop to socialise and that this put off customers and impaired trade.
The rejected applicant / appellant was black and lived on the borders of
L1 / L8, locally known as the Rialto area. It is less than a mile from
the shop. This was some time before the 1981 so-called Toxteth riots.
It was all reported in the local press and from memory, the tribunal
found in favour of the rejected applicant and decided that the shop's
policy amounted to racial discrimination.
The fact that the vast majority of those excluded by the policy
(especially to the east and north within the city and to the west on the
Wirral peninsula) were not black (and so presumably not protected)
didn't seem to be taken into account.

Really?? I would have thought that, even by Liverpool standards, the story
about not wanting their mates to drop in was a pretty brazen lie! And maybe in
practice they did employ locals from the white areas, that wouldn't surprise
me.

What makes you "conclude" that?
I am the one who remembers the case as reported in the local press, yet
I have no knowledge or memory of the case additional to what I typed above.
But it seems that some others know more about it than I was able to
racell! Who knew it was such a national cause celebré?

I lived in Liverpool for four years. The highlight was being blackmailed by a
senior member of the medical profession with a university role to enable his
nepotism. There was the almost daily threats, abuse and dishonesty from others
too. I think I learnt enough of the zeitgeist. Should one capitalise German
nouns when writing English?

You think that a "senior member of medical staff" is a fair description
of the typical Liverpudlian native and resident?

I don't think there is any rule excluding Liverpudlians from fulfilling that
role.

:-)

When I used to have the job of cross-examination, I always noticed when
a witness answered a question of his own choice rather than the one
which had been asked!

[Roger Hayter]

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent
[ ... ]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent

Post by GB
Both direct and indirect discrimination is unlawful. So, if by
specifying a particular area, that indirectly discriminates against a
particular protected group, then that could cause a problem. For
example, the local population might mainly be black (or white).

Several decades ago, and certainly before the area was transformed by
the more recent "Liverpool One" development, I remember a reported case
where a medium sized furniture retail firm located in Paradise Street
(L1) was challenged at a tribunal by a job-applicant who had been
rejected on the basis of his address.
The firm seems to have had a policy of recruiting no-one who lived
within two miles of the shop (measured as the crow flies) because their
experience was that friends of such a person tended to gather in the
shop to socialise and that this put off customers and impaired trade.
The rejected applicant / appellant was black and lived on the borders of
L1 / L8, locally known as the Rialto area. It is less than a mile from
the shop. This was some time before the 1981 so-called Toxteth riots.
It was all reported in the local press and from memory, the tribunal
found in favour of the rejected applicant and decided that the shop's
policy amounted to racial discrimination.
The fact that the vast majority of those excluded by the policy
(especially to the east and north within the city and to the west on the
Wirral peninsula) were not black (and so presumably not protected)
didn't seem to be taken into account.

Really?? I would have thought that, even by Liverpool standards, the story
about not wanting their mates to drop in was a pretty brazen lie! And maybe in
practice they did employ locals from the white areas, that wouldn't surprise
me.

What makes you "conclude" that?
I am the one who remembers the case as reported in the local press, yet
I have no knowledge or memory of the case additional to what I typed above.
But it seems that some others know more about it than I was able to
racell! Who knew it was such a national cause celebré?

I lived in Liverpool for four years. The highlight was being blackmailed by a
senior member of the medical profession with a university role to enable his
nepotism. There was the almost daily threats, abuse and dishonesty from others
too. I think I learnt enough of the zeitgeist. Should one capitalise German
nouns when writing English?

You think that a "senior member of medical staff" is a fair description
of the typical Liverpudlian native and resident?

I don't think there is any rule excluding Liverpudlians from fulfilling that
role.

:-)
When I used to have the job of cross-examination, I always noticed when
a witness answered a question of his own choice rather than the one
which had been asked!

When I was being questioned I always noticed when a nonsensical question was
being asked; I don't think any particular job role could ever be a "a fair
description of the typical Liverpudlian native and resident". Not even
"bricklayer", "clerk" or "petty criminal". Because, as in any place, too wide
a range of professions existed for one to be typical. You must take my word
for it that he was a typical Liverpudlian, even though not typical "of"
Liverpudlians in his professional role.

[JNugent]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent
[ ... ]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent

Post by GB
Both direct and indirect discrimination is unlawful. So, if by
specifying a particular area, that indirectly discriminates against a
particular protected group, then that could cause a problem. For
example, the local population might mainly be black (or white).

Several decades ago, and certainly before the area was transformed by
the more recent "Liverpool One" development, I remember a reported case
where a medium sized furniture retail firm located in Paradise Street
(L1) was challenged at a tribunal by a job-applicant who had been
rejected on the basis of his address.
The firm seems to have had a policy of recruiting no-one who lived
within two miles of the shop (measured as the crow flies) because their
experience was that friends of such a person tended to gather in the
shop to socialise and that this put off customers and impaired trade.
The rejected applicant / appellant was black and lived on the borders of
L1 / L8, locally known as the Rialto area. It is less than a mile from
the shop. This was some time before the 1981 so-called Toxteth riots.
It was all reported in the local press and from memory, the tribunal
found in favour of the rejected applicant and decided that the shop's
policy amounted to racial discrimination.
The fact that the vast majority of those excluded by the policy
(especially to the east and north within the city and to the west on the
Wirral peninsula) were not black (and so presumably not protected)
didn't seem to be taken into account.

Really?? I would have thought that, even by Liverpool standards, the story
about not wanting their mates to drop in was a pretty brazen lie! And maybe in
practice they did employ locals from the white areas, that wouldn't surprise
me.

What makes you "conclude" that?
I am the one who remembers the case as reported in the local press, yet
I have no knowledge or memory of the case additional to what I typed above.
But it seems that some others know more about it than I was able to
racell! Who knew it was such a national cause celebré?

I lived in Liverpool for four years. The highlight was being blackmailed by a
senior member of the medical profession with a university role to enable his
nepotism. There was the almost daily threats, abuse and dishonesty from others
too. I think I learnt enough of the zeitgeist. Should one capitalise German
nouns when writing English?

You think that a "senior member of medical staff" is a fair description
of the typical Liverpudlian native and resident?

I don't think there is any rule excluding Liverpudlians from fulfilling that
role.

:-)
When I used to have the job of cross-examination, I always noticed when
a witness answered a question of his own choice rather than the one
which had been asked!

When I was being questioned I always noticed when a nonsensical question was
being asked; I don't think any particular job role could ever be a "a fair
description of the typical Liverpudlian native and resident". Not even
"bricklayer", "clerk" or "petty criminal". Because, as in any place, too wide
a range of professions existed for one to be typical. You must take my word
for it that he was a typical Liverpudlian, even though not typical "of"
Liverpudlians in his professional role.

You are asking me to accept what I know - from around three decades of
direct experience to the age of 31 - to be an inaccurate
characterisation of the "typical Liverpudlian native and resident".

[Roland Perry]

If you think about it, discrimination happens all the time. For
example, if hiring a brain surgeon, I am perfectly entitled to
discriminate against people lacking the qualifications or skills to do
the job.
Age
„ Disability

It'd be interesting to see a brain surgeon who was blind, or in a
wheelchair. Ditto, bus driver.

„ Gender reassignment
„ Marriage and civil partnership
„ Pregnancy and maternity
„ Race
„ Religion and belief
„ Sex
„ Sexual orientation.
You'll notice that place of residence is not on the list. So, in
principle, it is okay to specify that.

[GB]

Post by Roland Perry

If you think about it, discrimination happens all the time. For
example, if hiring a brain surgeon, I am perfectly entitled to
discriminate against people lacking the qualifications or skills to do
the job.
Age
„ Disability

It'd be interesting to see a brain surgeon who was blind, or in a
wheelchair. Ditto, bus driver.

A wheelchair user could make an excellent bus driver. The bus might need
adaptation, though.

I can understand why employers might not wish to do this. For example,
if the adaptation requires removing the driver's seat, to make space for
a wheelchair, then the bus couldn't be driven by a non-wheelchair-user.

[Mark Goodge]

Post by GB

Post by Roland Perry

If you think about it, discrimination happens all the time. For
example, if hiring a brain surgeon, I am perfectly entitled to
discriminate against people lacking the qualifications or skills to do
the job.
Age
„ Disability

It'd be interesting to see a brain surgeon who was blind, or in a
wheelchair. Ditto, bus driver.

A wheelchair user could make an excellent bus driver. The bus might need
adaptation, though.
I can understand why employers might not wish to do this. For example,
if the adaptation requires removing the driver's seat, to make space for
a wheelchair, then the bus couldn't be driven by a non-wheelchair-user.

Bus drivers also need to be able to leave their seat in order to assist
passengers who need assistance. That's likely to be difficult if the driver
also needs assistance.

Mark

[JNugent]

Post by GB

Post by Roland Perry

If you think about it, discrimination happens all the time. For
example, if hiring a brain surgeon, I am perfectly entitled to
discriminate against people lacking the qualifications or skills to
do the job.
Age
„ Disability

It'd be interesting to see a brain surgeon who was blind, or in a
wheelchair. Ditto, bus driver.

A wheelchair user could make an excellent bus driver. The bus might need
adaptation, though.

How many buses per fleet?

Post by GB
I can understand why employers might not wish to do this. For example,
if the adaptation requires removing the driver's seat, to make space for
a wheelchair, then the bus couldn't be driven by a non-wheelchair-user.

[GB]

Post by JNugent

Post by GB

Post by Roland Perry

If you think about it, discrimination happens all the time. For
example, if hiring a brain surgeon, I am perfectly entitled to
discriminate against people lacking the qualifications or skills to
do the job.
Age
„ Disability

It'd be interesting to see a brain surgeon who was blind, or in a
wheelchair. Ditto, bus driver.

A wheelchair user could make an excellent bus driver. The bus might
need adaptation, though.

How many buses per fleet?

Our local bus route only has 3 or 4 buses operating on it. The bus
company has *many* routes, and it operates hundreds/thousands of buses.

Just about feasibly, the bus company could adapt all the buses on our
local route for drivers in wheelchairs, and then only assign drivers in
wheelchairs to this route. It could work?

Post by JNugent

Post by GB
I can understand why employers might not wish to do this. For example,
if the adaptation requires removing the driver's seat, to make space
for a wheelchair, then the bus couldn't be driven by a non-wheelchair-
user.

[JNugent]

Post by GB

Post by JNugent

Post by GB

Post by Roland Perry

If you think about it, discrimination happens all the time. For
example, if hiring a brain surgeon, I am perfectly entitled to
discriminate against people lacking the qualifications or skills to
do the job.
Age
„ Disability

It'd be interesting to see a brain surgeon who was blind, or in a
wheelchair. Ditto, bus driver.

A wheelchair user could make an excellent bus driver. The bus might
need adaptation, though.

How many buses per fleet?

Our local bus route only has 3 or 4 buses operating on it. The bus
company has *many* routes, and it operates hundreds/thousands of buses.
Just about feasibly, the bus company could adapt all the buses on our
local route for drivers in wheelchairs, and then only assign drivers in
wheelchairs to this route. It could work?

A tenuous case, as I think you are agreeing.

[Jeff]

Post by GB

Post by Roland Perry
It'd be interesting to see a brain surgeon who was blind, or in a
wheelchair. Ditto, bus driver.

A wheelchair user could make an excellent bus driver. The bus might need
adaptation, though.

Not so, there are times where the driver is required to be able to get
on and off the bus quickly and assist passengers.
One such common instance being to assist disabled and wheelchair users
on and off, not to mention emergency situations.

Jeff

[GB]

Post by Jeff

Post by GB

Post by Roland Perry
It'd be interesting to see a brain surgeon who was blind, or in a
wheelchair. Ditto, bus driver.

A wheelchair user could make an excellent bus driver. The bus might
need adaptation, though.

Not so, there are times where the driver is required to be able to get
on and off the bus quickly and assist passengers.
One such common instance being to assist disabled and wheelchair users
on and off, not to mention emergency situations.
Jeff

Okay, I'll admit that there's more to driving buses than I realised. :)

[Roland Perry]

Post by GB

Post by Roland Perry

If you think about it, discrimination happens all the time. For
example, if hiring a brain surgeon, I am perfectly entitled to
discriminate against people lacking the qualifications or skills to
do the job.
Age
„ Disability

It'd be interesting to see a brain surgeon who was blind, or in a
wheelchair. Ditto, bus driver.

A wheelchair user could make an excellent bus driver. The bus might
need adaptation, though.

Especially regarding the manner the driver is expected to deploy a ramp
and assist [other] wheelchair users onto the vehicle. Then you have the
requirement to move around the bus to assist, for example, a passenger
who has been taken ill, or been assaulted etc.

Post by GB
I can understand why employers might not wish to do this. For example,
if the adaptation requires removing the driver's seat, to make space
for a wheelchair, then the bus couldn't be driven by a
non-wheelchair-user.

I'm not aware of any vehicles where the driver uses his wheelchair as
the seat. What normally happens is there's some process to get the
driver into a normal seat *from* his wheelchair.

[Jethro_uk]

Post by Roland Perry
I'm not aware of any vehicles where the driver uses his wheelchair as
the seat. What normally happens is there's some process to get the
driver into a normal seat *from* his wheelchair.

You need to get out more :)

There are a few - very specially adapted where a wheelchair can replace
a front seat. I know because I have done extensive research. However all
such adaptations are obviously beyond the scope of the Motability scheme
(which as we all know is there to benefit manufacturers and dealers)
which makes it a very expensive option. Probably better off bumping your
arse up and down a platform, like Dame Tanni Grey Thompson has shown.

[billy bookcase]

Post by RJH
Is it legal to specify that only local people can apply for a job - a home
repairs apprentice for example?
The area in question is, say, deprived, with high levels of unemployment.

If the apprentiships are being sponsored or subsidised, possibly by the
L.A. or a public spirited L.A. contracter, with the specific intention of reducing
unemployment within a specific area, then it would be difficult to see how such
an inititiative, could possibly raise any real objections.

And to that end presumably the vacancies are only being advertied locally
in any case.


bb

[GB]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by RJH
Is it legal to specify that only local people can apply for a job - a home
repairs apprentice for example?
The area in question is, say, deprived, with high levels of unemployment.

If the apprentiships are being sponsored or subsidised, possibly by the
L.A. or a public spirited L.A. contracter, with the specific intention of reducing
unemployment within a specific area, then it would be difficult to see how such
an inititiative, could possibly raise any real objections.

It could certainly raise objections from people excluded.

As an example, there might be a large Asian community in the centre of
town, and this job creation scheme could be for a maintenance worker for
an estate on the edge of town, where scarcely any Asian people live. If
the job criterion requires the candidates to live on the estate, that
looks like indirect discrimination.

Post by billy bookcase
And to that end presumably the vacancies are only being advertied locally
in any case.
bb

[billy bookcase]

Post by GB

Post by billy bookcase

Post by RJH
Is it legal to specify that only local people can apply for a job - a home
repairs apprentice for example?
The area in question is, say, deprived, with high levels of unemployment.

If the apprentiships are being sponsored or subsidised, possibly by the
L.A. or a public spirited L.A. contracter, with the specific intention of reducing
unemployment within a specific area, then it would be difficult to see how such
an inititiative, could possibly raise any real objections.

It could certainly raise objections from people excluded.
As an example, there might be a large Asian community in the centre of town, and this
job creation scheme could be for a maintenance worker for an estate on the edge of
town, where scarcely any Asian people live. If the job criterion requires the
candidates to live on the estate, that looks like indirect discrimination.

Isn't it usually the case that "local" usually starts at the centre of a named
"locality", be it a village, town, or city and works "outwards" ?

Whereas if, as you suggest they were attempting to recruit apprentices
solely from say the "Edgely Estate" or the "Edgeworth Estate " then
they would presumably have specified as much, in the advertisement.

Unless that is, they only posted the advert in locations within the
actual estate itself. Maybe on noticeboards assuming that such exist.

Post by GB

Post by billy bookcase
And to that end presumably the vacancies are only being advertised locally
in any case.

bb

[Ottavio Caruso]

Post by RJH
Is it legal to specify that only local people can apply for a job - a home
repairs apprentice for example?
The area in question is, say, deprived, with high levels of unemployment.

You already had tons of replies but bear in mind, that, even if that was
legal, "local" means "local resident". I have been a local here in
Birmingham for 13 years, yet I am foreigner.

[Fredxx]

Post by RJH
Is it legal to specify that only local people can apply for a job - a home
repairs apprentice for example?
The area in question is, say, deprived, with high levels of unemployment.

If the Welsh can stipulate local houses for local people, I don't see
why not?

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Fredxx

Post by RJH
Is it legal to specify that only local people can apply for a job - a home
repairs apprentice for example?
The area in question is, say, deprived, with high levels of unemployment.

If the Welsh can stipulate local houses for local people, I don't see
why not?

But they don't! They stipulate that local houses should be for people who want
to live there, not for people who want to run AirBnB or holiday homes.

[Simon Parker]

Post by RJH
Is it legal to specify that only local people can apply for a job - a home
repairs apprentice for example?
The area in question is, say, deprived, with high levels of unemployment.

Not only is it legal, but I am aware of an instance where it was a
condition of planning permission being granted. (A large supermarket
being built in a "deprived" area with high unemployment had to employ
[x]% of staff that lived within [y] miles of the store for the first [z]
months, from memory.)

All per section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. [^1]

Job ads in the run up to the store opening were quite clear about this
stipulation.

Regards

S.P.

[^1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/8/section/106

[Roland Perry]

Post by RJH
Is it legal to specify that only local people can apply for a job

Apparently if you want to be a tube train driver, you must live within
half an hour of the deport, which is pretty local.

[Omega]

Post by RJH
Is it legal to specify that only local people can apply for a job - a home
repairs apprentice for example?
The area in question is, say, deprived, with high levels of unemployment.

Why on earth would any employer want to dilute his ability to recruit
the 'best man for the job' by adding restriction or not, as to where his
potential workforce live?

I understand your question is about legality?


omega

[billy bookcase]

Post by RJH
Is it legal to specify that only local people can apply for a job - a home
repairs apprentice for example?
The area in question is, say, deprived, with high levels of unemployment.

Why on earth would any employer want to dilute his ability to recruit the 'best man for
the job' by adding restriction or not, as to where his potential workforce live?

Possibly because he's being sponsored by the Local Authority; Or is the
Local Authority itself. Taking advantage of Government grants to promote
local employment



bb

[jon]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Omega

Post by RJH
Is it legal to specify that only local people can apply for a job - a
home repairs apprentice for example?
The area in question is, say, deprived, with high levels of
unemployment.

Why on earth would any employer want to dilute his ability to recruit
the 'best man for the job' by adding restriction or not, as to where
his potential workforce live?

Possibly because he's being sponsored by the Local Authority; Or is the
Local Authority itself. Taking advantage of Government grants to promote
local employment
bb

Is nepotism, positive discrimination.?

[Mark Goodge]

Post by Omega

Post by RJH
Is it legal to specify that only local people can apply for a job - a home
repairs apprentice for example?
The area in question is, say, deprived, with high levels of unemployment.

Why on earth would any employer want to dilute his ability to recruit
the 'best man for the job' by adding restriction or not, as to where his
potential workforce live?

When it's not really a job, it's a social project dressed up as a job.

Now, that's a slightly cynical statement, and I do need to qualify it by
adding that I don't object to social projects dressed up as jobs. In my
town, there's an absolutely wonderful organisation which exists to provide
meangful purpose for people who would otherwise be unemployable due to a
range of mental disabilities. The work their people do is real work (you
can, for example, hire the organisation to deliver leaflets, or provide
outside event catering), but it is, nonetheless, primarily for the sake of
giving them something meaningful to do rather than employing them in a fully
commercial capacity (the organisation is a not-for-profit and relies on
fundraising as well as their commercial income from the services they
provide for hire). They are deliberately "recruiting" those who are *not*
"the best person for the job", they are recruiting people who will never be
the best person for the job.

In the same way, I think it's perfectly acceptable to have a social project
aimed at mitigating the effects of unemployment in a particular demographic
by providing meaningful work for those people even if they are not
necessarily the "best person for the job" in a normal commmercial sense.
And, if so, it's equally accceptable to discriminate in favour of those
people (eg, by restricting employment opportunities to those who live in a
particular location, if that's a part of the relevant demographic), provided
it doesn't reduce the availablity of normal, commmercially competitive job
vacancies. People who actually are the best person for the job won't be
needing this particular leg-up, they'll already have found (or will be able
to find) employment with a different employer.

Mark

[Roland Perry]

Post by Omega
Why on earth would any employer want to dilute his ability to recruit
the 'best man for the job' by adding restriction or not, as to where
his potential workforce live?

In the case of TfL tube drivers, I understand "the best man for the job"
includes being able to get to the depot in half an hour, if called in on
a rest-day to substitute for another driver who has called in sick.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Omega
Why on earth would any employer want to dilute his ability to recruit
the 'best man for the job' by adding restriction or not, as to where
his potential workforce live?

In the case of TfL tube drivers, I understand "the best man for the job"
includes being able to get to the depot in half an hour, if called in on
a rest-day to substitute for another driver who has called in sick.

It was common in many industries for manual jobs to be offered to the family
members of existing employees only. Over the years from the sixties to the
nineties these practices were gradually realised to indirect discrimination
against protected characteristics. Could your railway depot jobs have started
out like this?

[Roland Perry]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Omega
Why on earth would any employer want to dilute his ability to recruit
the 'best man for the job' by adding restriction or not, as to where
his potential workforce live?

In the case of TfL tube drivers, I understand "the best man for the job"
includes being able to get to the depot in half an hour, if called in on
a rest-day to substitute for another driver who has called in sick.

It was common in many industries for manual jobs to be offered to the family
members of existing employees only. Over the years from the sixties to the
nineties these practices were gradually realised to indirect discrimination
against protected characteristics. Could your railway depot jobs have started
out like this?

Unlikely. I think it's purely a practical decision as a result of the
"ripple effect" of people moving out of London to inner then outer
suburbia, and as a result having a longer commute to work. Especially
at 6am when you need extra tube drivers the most.

[Jethro_uk]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Omega
Why on earth would any employer want to dilute his ability to recruit
the 'best man for the job' by adding restriction or not, as to where his
potential workforce live?

In the case of TfL tube drivers, I understand "the best man for the job"
includes being able to get to the depot in half an hour, if called in on
a rest-day to substitute for another driver who has called in sick.

So it's not really a rest day, is it ?

[Roland Perry]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Omega
Why on earth would any employer want to dilute his ability to recruit
the 'best man for the job' by adding restriction or not, as to where his
potential workforce live?

In the case of TfL tube drivers, I understand "the best man for the job"
includes being able to get to the depot in half an hour, if called in on
a rest-day to substitute for another driver who has called in sick.

So it's not really a rest day, is it ?

It *was* a rest day, and is now voluntary rest-day-working, it's
commonplace in the railway industry. Especially on Sundays.

[Mark Goodge]

On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 10:35:09 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Omega
Why on earth would any employer want to dilute his ability to recruit
the 'best man for the job' by adding restriction or not, as to where his
potential workforce live?

In the case of TfL tube drivers, I understand "the best man for the job"
includes being able to get to the depot in half an hour, if called in on
a rest-day to substitute for another driver who has called in sick.

So it's not really a rest day, is it ?

It's a rest day most of the time, but occasionally it's an overtime day.

A lot of industries have similar arrangements. When I worked in tech support
for an ISP, we had an "on call" rota in case any of the scheduled staff were
unpredictably absent (eg, having called in sick). If you were on call, you
had to go in if called, and you had to be able to get to the office in less
than an hour. If you did have to go in, you got paid overtime rates for the
entire shift. If you didn't have to go it, you got paid a small on-call fee
to compensate for the fact that even if you didn't need to work, there were
things you couldn't do (eg, go out of area, or get drunk). Being on the on
call rota was a contractual requirement, but you could swap it with someone
else if both of you were happy to do so. And, in practice, there were
usually more people who wanted to swap onto the on call rota than swap off
it. Because we were mostly young, single people who appreciated the extra
money if we could get it.

Mark

[Les. Hayward]

Post by Mark Goodge
A lot of industries have similar arrangements. When I worked in tech support
for an ISP, we had an "on call" rota in case any of the scheduled staff were
unpredictably absent (eg, having called in sick). If you were on call, you
had to go in if called, and you had to be able to get to the office in less
than an hour. If you did have to go in, you got paid overtime rates for the
entire shift. If you didn't have to go it, you got paid a small on-call fee
to compensate for the fact that even if you didn't need to work, there were
things you couldn't do (eg, go out of area, or get drunk). Being on the on
call rota was a contractual requirement, but you could swap it with someone
else if both of you were happy to do so. And, in practice, there were
usually more people who wanted to swap onto the on call rota than swap off
it. Because we were mostly young, single people who appreciated the extra
money if we could get it.
Mark

Ha ha - that reminded me of my time with Marconi's. Precisely the system
you describe. Had to wear a pager and be close to a phone if called.
Poser phones had yet to be invented...