In message , at 02:42:06 on
Wed, 12 Jan 2011, DevilsPGD
remarked:
Age discrimination prevents one from requiring experience in a field?

No, it potentially prevents some advertisements from asking for it.

eg "Ten years post-gradudate experience in $foo" will discriminate
against most people under 31/32 years old.

But again, since when is requiring an applicant to be qualified
considered discrimination?

No-one has said that. The discrimination here is the implication that
only people aged 31/32 or older will be considered.

No, the implication is that only those who are qualified will be
considered.

If a 22 year old shows up who has experience they'll be considered.

Given that the experience I used in my example was "ten years post
graduate", how many 12 year olds do you know with a degree, and who
started employment straight away?

That's why the "10 years" stipulation is age discrimination in disguise.

If a 32 year old shows up without experience, they won't.

Irrelevant.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 10:58:06 on
Wed, 12 Jan 2011, Chris Tolley remarked:
If I were you, I would bail out of this one now, otherwise you're just
inviting Roland to go on inventing increasingly unlikely and irrelevant
"what-if" scenarios which, by the second iteration, have lost all
contact with the original point.

If I were you, Chris, I'd stop the ad hominem attacks, especially when
you are on such flimsy ground as here.
--
Roland Perry

On 11 Jan 2011 19:12, DevilsPGD wrote:
Look, I get that actual discrimination is a problem, but at some point
you have to draw the line, otherwise Hooters is going to have to hire
me, and believe me when I tell you that *nobody* wants to see that!

IIRC, there a discrimination suit against Hooters, which resulted in
them hiring several male waiters in DC.

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

"MIG" wrote in message
...
On Jan 11, 12:10 pm, wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 14:48:14 -0800 (PST)

MIG wrote:
All of the violence and damage was either done by or provoked by
police goons.
***********

Please explain why someone took enough flammable fuel and glass bottles to
create at least one, if not two or more petrol bombs on a peaceful march.
I'd say he was provoking the police.
Nobody was forced to stand outside the Millbank Tower, shove their way thru
a line of police and then kick the windows in and stand on the top of the
building. The march was going past the building unstopped. Nobody was forced
to spray paint and smash up a police vehicle or to try and turn it over.
Nobody was forced to throw sticks and stones at the police line, but they
did.
From what I can tell a good number of the marchers went out seeking
confrontation and they got it, thus involving many other innocent
protestors. It might have made for great headlines but perhaps the
protestors' next move should be to try peaceful tactics as advocated by
Gandhi et al.

On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 10:15:04 -0000
"Nick P" wrote:
MIG wrote:
All of the violence and damage was either done by or provoked by
police goons.
***********

Please explain why someone took enough flammable fuel and glass bottles to
create at least one, if not two or more petrol bombs on a peaceful march.
I'd say he was provoking the police.
Nobody was forced to stand outside the Millbank Tower, shove their way thru
a line of police and then kick the windows in and stand on the top of the
building. The march was going past the building unstopped. Nobody was forced
to spray paint and smash up a police vehicle or to try and turn it over.
Nobody was forced to throw sticks and stones at the police line, but they
did.

You're arguing against the logic of the playground - "He made me do it Miss,
it weren't my fault! Waaaaaa! *sniffle*"

From what I can tell a good number of the marchers went out seeking
confrontation and they got it, thus involving many other innocent
protestors. It might have made for great headlines but perhaps the
protestors' next move should be to try peaceful tactics as advocated by
Gandhi et al.

And from the interviews I've seen on TV and heard on the radio and MIG, even
the ones who didn't cause trouble either tacitly supported it or didn't really
condemn it. Way to go on making others change their opinions about students
from people struggling with debt to a bunch of troublemaking arseholes no
better than a street gangs. I bet it really advanced the cause. Not.

B2003

On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 15:04:54 -0000
"Recliner" wrote:
Clare Solomon, 37-year old president of the University of London Union
and instigator of some of the student riots, is a Marxist revolutionary:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education...firebrand-behi
d-wave-of-protests.html

37 years old and still a student activist? That pretty much tells you all you
need to know about her. What a loser.

She sounds like she hits all of Boltar's alarm buttons ("her agenda goes
much wider: to bring down capitalism and replace it with a socialist
society where the ruling class is expropriated and wealth is spread
equally"). She even managed to get herself expelled from the SWP (too

Standard communist rhetoric. No surprises there.

would like to see all universities occupied." [Presumably to be trashed
by the students before the government gets a chance?]

It always makes me laugh when students "strike" or prevent normal running of
a university. Do they seriously think anyone gives a **** or that they're
incoveniencing anyone except themselves and maybe the odd cleaner?

B2003

wrote in message

On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 15:04:54 -0000
"Recliner" wrote:
would like to see all universities occupied." [Presumably to be
trashed by the students before the government gets a chance?]

It always makes me laugh when students "strike" or prevent normal
running of a university. Do they seriously think anyone gives a ****
or that they're incoveniencing anyone except themselves and maybe the
odd cleaner?

Exactly! I suppose it's just to prepare themselves for a jobless
future; I can't imagine many employers would rush to offer these
activists jobs, even if they did manage to get a worthwhile degree.

On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 15:34:48 -0000
"Recliner" wrote:
Exactly! I suppose it's just to prepare themselves for a jobless
future; I can't imagine many employers would rush to offer these
activists jobs, even if they did manage to get a worthwhile degree.

I get the feeling gob****es like Solomon and her flunkies simply become
students so they can muscle their way into the political side of it and
give themselves a platform they otherwise wouldn't have. I doubt they gives
a rats arse about whatever worthless sociopolitical degree they'll scrape
through with.

B2003

wrote in message

On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 15:34:48 -0000
"Recliner" wrote:
Exactly! I suppose it's just to prepare themselves for a jobless
future; I can't imagine many employers would rush to offer these
activists jobs, even if they did manage to get a worthwhile degree.

I get the feeling gob****es like Solomon and her flunkies simply
become students so they can muscle their way into the political side
of it and give themselves a platform they otherwise wouldn't have. I
doubt they gives a rats arse about whatever worthless sociopolitical
degree they'll scrape through with.

I wasn't thinking of her, but the actual students she's urging to ruin
their futures. She obviously is a professional politician already,
which is what most student union leaders aspire to. Normally (like Aaron
Parter now, and the likes of Jack Straw in the past) they aim to become
Labour party ministers, but she's almost off the left-hand edge of the
political scale. I hadn't even heard of Crossfire ("a network of
activists who are Marxist, anti-capitalist, anti-war, anti-cuts while
campaigning for equality and workers' rights"), which is apparently an
SWP splinter group.

In message , d
writes

I get the feeling gob****es like Solomon and her flunkies simply become
students so they can muscle their way into the political side of it and
give themselves a platform they otherwise wouldn't have.

I'm sure you're right. SOAS has more than 4500 students, but only a
couple of hundred vote in union lectures. There was a vote to oust
Solomon at the end of last year, but not enough students were interested
to carry the proposal.

I doubt they gives a rats arse about whatever worthless sociopolitical
degree they'll scrape through with.

Clare Solomon already has her degree (in the study of religion!) - she's
been a full-time paid official of the union for several years now. I
don't think that student unions need full-time paid officials -
certainly not more than one.
--
Paul Terry