Discrimination during maternity leave

[JustinP1]

PurpleMoonlight said:

Surely members should be able to state their disagreement to the OP's chosen course of action, or are only those that support and encourage to be permitted to respond? Because that's never going to happen

As for rude and personal attacks, well the OP is hardly a paragon of virtue ....

Actus Reus said:

but they come from people so demonstrably stupid and mean-spirited that they're easy to ignore.

Let's not cut off half the sentence to make out that the OP has been the aggressor? Here it is in full:

Actus Reus said:

The attacks are personal, but they come from people so demonstrably stupid and mean-spirited that they're easy to ignore.

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Edited by JustinP1 on Friday 9th October 10:13

[PurpleMoonlight]

JustinP1 said:

Let's not cut off half the sentence to make out that the OP has been the aggressor? Here it is in full:

Actus Reus said:

The attacks are personal, but they come from people so demonstrably stupid and mean-spirited that they're easy to ignore.

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Edited by JustinP1 on Friday 9th October 10:13

Sounds like the 'you made me hit you' mentality to me.

[anonymous-user]

PurpleMoonlight said:

JustinP1 said:

Let's not cut off half the sentence to make out that the OP has been the aggressor? Here it is in full:

Actus Reus said:

The attacks are personal, but they come from people so demonstrably stupid and mean-spirited that they're easy to ignore.

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 9th October 10:13

Sounds like the 'you made me hit you' mentality to me.

I can absolutely understand why you would think that.

[JustinP1]

Seriously though Purple, I'm active in a few forums on PH, Film and TV, Photography and Video, Business, Home Cinema and Hi-Fi.... Ferrari V12s...

(OK, I'm just dreaming on the last one... )

The reason I mentioned that one though is if you go through those fora, I don't think I've ever seen a personal or moral inquisition on the starter of a thread.

Instead, I see posters using Photoshop as a favour for another member on a photo, an audio installer offering to pop round to another PHers house to figure out his wiring, and on the Ferrari V12 site an amateur enthusiast scanning an emailing a diagram to help solve a fuse problem.


I've seen plenty of healthy discussion on the best courses of action for the OP, but there is a big difference between debating courses of action to *help* the OP, and simply attacking his moral compass.

Edited by JustinP1 on Friday 9th October 10:31

[PurpleMoonlight]

JustinP1 said:

Seriously though Purple, I'm active in a few forums on PH, Film and TV, Photography and Video, Business, Home Cinema and Hi-Fi.... Ferrari V12s...

(OK, I'm just dreaming on the last one... )

The reason I mentioned that one though is if you go through those fora, I don't think I've ever seen a personal or moral inquisition on the starter of a thread.

Gees, best you not venture into News, Politics & Economics then.

Seriously though, if you look you will see that compensation claims will always have the supporters and non-supporters of whether or not the claim is justified.

I'm a great believer of 'just because you can doesn't mean you should'.

As much as people will criticise when a criminal gets off on a technicality, so they will criticise where someone seeks a personal financial gain on a technicality where there has been no loss or injury.

[JustinP1]

You've hit the nail on the head.

In N, P and E, posters are discussing a news story, so they are free to attack the morals of the protagonists or argue to their heart's content.

Here though, a good proportion of threads are posters asking for help on how they can deal with a situation. They do not ask for a moral inquisition or an attack on them as people and doing so stifles people posting their issues here.

[Actus Reus]

I don't mind people questioning the morals of it even - I do mind being told what I intended, that I'm money-grabbing blah blah. It's rude - common decency should tell anybody that. The fact that those comments are wide of the mark is secondary to the common decency of it.

[PurpleMoonlight]

JustinP1 said:

Here though, a good proportion of threads are posters asking for help on how they can deal with a situation. They do not ask for a moral inquisition or an attack on them as people and doing so stifles people posting their issues here.

Perhaps society would be better if morality superseded the law, rather than the other way around.

[PurpleMoonlight]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

People are free to disagree with my opinion on the OP's compensation claim. I have no issue with that. Just as I will continue to disagree with theirs.

[RobinOakapple]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Stand up for their rights? But who decides what those rights should be?

[PurpleMoonlight]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Do you not see the difference between someone standing up for their rights to protect their income and employment, and someone using those rights to gain financial compensation from an employer who they did not intent to return to work for?

[Corpulent Tosser]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Late 90s would do me, I think the balance was about right then, 18 weeks paid leave for the mother, up to 3 months unpaid for the father.

[RobinOakapple]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Thanks for the explanations about how laws in a democracy work.

But why would you speak about 'standing up for rights' if those rights are in fact laws? You don't need to stand up for them, you simply initiate proceedings.

That's why I thought you were talking about moral rights, not legal ones

[IanA2]

desolate said:

I really do take my hat off to you, but why bother trying to have a rational argument?

I can accept people having entrenched positions on the rights and wrongs of Mat leave - but the attacks on you and your Mrs are a disgrace and have no place here.

Agreed, my hat's off too.

[Richie Slow]

OK, back on topic, sort of...

I always thought the ruling in Webb v EMO was particularly unfair against the employer, despite being the natural conclusion with the laws available. It seems the sometimes the law, whilst technically correct, cannot provide a balanced outcome in every case.

Have the principles obtained from that particular ruling and the law behind it been contorted beyond their original intention? It's probably the core of contention here, and the division of opinions too. It's probably a good arena for the seasoned professional to ply his trade, either way.

[Brave Fart]

Actus Reus said:

I don't mind people questioning the morals of it even - I do mind being told what I intended, that I'm money-grabbing blah blah. It's rude - common decency should tell anybody that. The fact that those comments are wide of the mark is secondary to the common decency of it.

You are absolutely right OP. As for Mr Purple Moonlight, would you repeat your posts if you were face to face with the OP? If so, you'd be acting even more rudely than you already have. How about you apologise to the OP and wish him and his wife well in the future?

[Actus Reus]

PurpleMoonlight said:

Do you not see the difference between someone standing up for their rights to protect their income and employment, and someone using those rights to gain financial compensation from an employer who they did not intent to return to work for?

OK, ignoring my own case, try and prove that intent. You can't. You say someone's wife had no intention of going back, she says she did. Who do you have to believe? It HAS to be her - there's no evidence one way or another unless she's planning on leaving the country. Thus the law is the way it is - it's not difficult for an employer to comply with it - literally one email is all it takes.

So whilst I understand your moral point the law is correct on a practical level, surely?

[PurpleMoonlight]

Brave Fart said:

You are absolutely right OP. As for Mr Purple Moonlight, would you repeat your posts if you were face to face with the OP? If so, you'd be acting even more rudely than you already have. How about you apologise to the OP and wish him and his wife well in the future?

Since when did it become rude to have a difference of opinion?

[RobinOakapple]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I'm not looking for an argument, I'm taking part in a discussion and I am asking those who feel that pregnant women have intrinsic rights defend their position.

There's something very lopsided in a society that gives such special privileges to people to people who have made a lifestyle choice.


Do you feel the same rights should apply to any person who stops working for several months in order to pursue an activity that is important to them?

[PurpleMoonlight]

Actus Reus said:

OK, ignoring my own case, try and prove that intent. You can't. You say someone's wife had no intention of going back, she says she did. Who do you have to believe? It HAS to be her - there's no evidence one way or another unless she's planning on leaving the country. Thus the law is the way it is - it's not difficult for an employer to comply with it - literally one email is all it takes.

So whilst I understand your moral point the law is correct on a practical level, surely?

No I don't have to believe her. People are often less than 100% honest. Especially where they see gaining something for nothing.

But yes, the law as it stands would likely support the claim.

Edited by PurpleMoonlight on Friday 9th October 11:46