salsafan

Child psychology and social group dynamics. Teachers need to be supported and given the confidence again to tackle this kind of scenarios. If two child are trying to play up, then that lesson needs to be in a setting where split group work will work. The child may not like this, but it will reduce their behaviour somewhat and dampen the effect a little bit. I think the introduction of league table created havoc in the way teachers deliver the lessons which is probably why we have our current educational system.

In the military, and if I understand the sentiment behind that, it is that the individuals were challenged with their own aggression to motivate as to prove that they are a man. But in a school, children are taught to be kind and at the same time collaborative. If the teacher is a seasoned one and know how to get the best of the child, then they would have done this already. So rewards are those activities which the child enjoys the most. This is to motivate them to work towards this goal. If they fail then they do not get the prize. "Carrots and sticks". Carrots to lead, sticks to push. Not in the literal sense. Maybe in this day and age, we do need to use social media technology of one form or another to really lead the child, but they should indeed be shown the good and bad of the social mediums. You cannot change the world sometimes and you cannot change globalisation and what the good and bad side of society that it brings to the child, but you can at least educate what is the good or the bad elements of it too, and to allow the child to critique this themselves too. Also to protect them from harmful elements too, and show them the better method so that they can take this with them into adult life. The other thing is maybe the educator should indeed focus on is that, a child should not be overexposed to too many technology or information, as this does affect their own brain's development, and creates ADHD or ADD, or whatever overactive neural networks that exists and create a very insecure and paranoid child. They should indeed be groomed to focus more on sleep, their own health, and to also play too. The reward system like housepoints, or school trips should indeed be emphasized too. It is a way to form a discipline into the child to note that in the adult world, you eventually need to earn your way. So this is not a bad thing, even though you may see that as a parent, that it is unfair, but in a way, it is teaching the child empathy also, or to talk to their own peers to stop the behaviour, or to remind them not to lose house points and so forth. This creates emotional ties, and calms a child more too. Because then they will have friends.

Well, when I was a child at school. When I was a bit alone and shy, I would stand by the dinner ladies, or the teachers, and then she would encourage me to play with others. Whereas there are always guys who play football and was more active. They are also encouraged to channel their activeness out in a game. So as you can see, teachers, or dinner ladies who see a situation from brewing, can always nip things in the bud. Even if children are not aware that their teacher is watching them, but they do. It is always best to encourage children to find common friendships amongst a few, so that they can both learn about themselves, and about another too. That is how you build up communication skills, and also check where your own learning lies. The article in the OP is indeed about encouraging collaboration as well as cohesion too. You are so much more aware when in a group, and a child can know if they have to learn to co-operate than when they do not. Sometimes it is a "carrot and stick" strategy that you have to apply, as my sister say. Not necessarily just consistent harsh punishment, without any reward. Reward in the sense that it is a motivation and a direction which the child likes to move towards. You will see the nature of their personalities so much more when you see them on a daily basis. By providing activities or school work which channels them to achieve and strive for themselves is what matters in the end. Obviously not all parents agree with this sentiment and I am sure that they prefer a different method but it is how I would approach it too. To raise a generic overall rounded person.

Then you have to understand sociology, psychology, and also group dynamics. The only reason why sometimes a group of people, or a group of children do not follow, or that they do indeed follow others in a mindless way is indeed because of a psychological phenomena. There is a kind of social dynamic even within that kind of setting. They are children, and should indeed be kept innocent, until they are ready to learn that bit more about the world. When they are ready, then they more or less will comply and be more reasonable. As with adults too really.

No no. I meant my comment previously was to respond to this: The above situation was or must have been a collective group of children acting up which drove the teacher to ask for support from the head master. I did read the comment that you then responded with, and if this was done when you were a child, then yes, I acknowledge your view and your approach, even if I am uncertain in its chance of it working. As to my view, I still think that there are other variables in the equation which is required before making this work. I am guessing that the above situation is not a case of a few children misbehaving. Because if it was, then I would not expect the teachers to collectively walk out as then this is also allowing a small group of children to hold the school to ransom and I would have thought that the teachers had more common sense and responsibility than this alone. When you are a child, you do not know what is right and what is wrong, which is the whole point here. This is why parents and teachers must also have the patience too. You and I know what is right and what is wrong now, and that is because we are so much older, and we have since learnt in our life time what that truly means. But remember that this is a school, and that children still need to be led, shown, or taught what is right, and what is wrong too. It is not punishing as it is disciplining, and this method of discipline really is not necessarily for you to judge if the headmaster is in that situation, as you can indeed take your child out of that specific school and into another where you find the method to be more acceptable by your terms. That is why most schools do and can still take children in even in mid-year. But as with everything in this country, you still have to do the best that you can with the cards that you are dealt with. "I can't think a single good reason why anyone would think that punishing the innocent is better than snaking the guilty." Because we are still a Christian country ? Just kidding. Yes, if they can be found, then maybe they can indeed be isolated, or channel more closely to find their sweet spot so that they can apply themselves. Teachers do have a lot of tools up their sleeves you know.

The whole point, if you are a parent, then groom your child to fit into society in the future. That is the point. If it means getting them to comply and work with teachers, then so be it. I wrote what I wrote really was more for Ivanava's sake, than it is for yours, or other readers to be honest, as I could see that she was struggling against other people's opinions and that they are misleading her argument down a particular path and I did not like reading that, so I stepped in with my own view on that specific situation. Yes, in real life, I would not get involved, but I am merely answering Ivanava's query of "what would you have done", and that is what it would have come up to my mind of a possible solution. Of course, we will never know what would have worked or not, as we are not as close to that specific situation in that specific school at all. Nor do I want to state that is my implicit action, since I am not the parent of those children. That is my hypothetical angle and judgment. As at the end of the day, regardless of if we wish to or not, when it comes to the real world in the far future when children becomes adult, this kind of group management theories will still apply. Yes, I wrote "management". In a way, whether we know if this is what our manages are doing or not is really none of our business. But of course one hopes that they still believe and trust on some level that they are the boss, and we are the employees and that is our contractual obligation and responsibilities as adults. So teaching kids from a young age how the hierarchy works is not that wrong imho.

But if those kids truly misbehaved, then they just would be expelled already. They would not be in the school afterall. When you mentioned that the children collectively acted up. Then this is what you have to do. It has several reasons. One to warn those who did not misbehave what will happen if they did. Others, will also know if they are the culprit, and they won't be shamed this way publically which will make them even more upset and cry. By the way, this was in a Sheffield school. Where social cohesion was VERY strong. If someone did bring down the whole class, we would definitely say something in the playground. But I can imagine this would not work in a boarding school, say. Where each parent would pay such a high fee, they would expect the teachers and the headmaster to take control and not let one child hold the school to ransom, and will possibly be more stricter and clamp down harder on the individual too. The child let their own parent down by acting up and not towing the line and work harder. But that is down to their own parent's discipline too. That is why if I also have the money, I would send my child to a public school too. I would prefer this. I was also actually educated abroad first too before I was educated in the UK. My learning level was much higher, and then it was deteriorated. So yes, I will consider it a lot more. At the end of the day, if children are taught to be defiant, and that they continue to be defiant, then you have to question what is happening with those children don't you ? If I was the teacher, I would go ape shape, and I will do so too, if it means that it brings them back down to a calm manner. If they do not feel ashamed at all in being defiant and putting others at risk, or that they feel shamed of their own behaviours, then what chance has society got? Either they learn how to discipline themselves and self govern themselves, or that they should be governed by others. Children learn the right from wrong from a young age. Why do you think that emphasis is placed on filtering on what children can access, read or be exposed to ? Even on here, a lot of people do not self filter, nor do they retract their own opinions and so forth without affecting and deliberately harming others. This is also a sign of the times too. With the internet age, anything goes it seems. This "was" a family forum, but now it is no longer the case. As you could see. Society can only be as such, if we moderate one another, and bring things back down. So those kind of tactics in teaching is not necessarily wrong in my view, to be honest.

Why not ring up the hospital and asks whether you can talk to those and thank the individuals personally, and also ask them what their policies are in accepting gifts as you do not wish to intervene with policies ? Then take it from there? My first thought was that, food, or drinks, or small gifts, will be acceptable. A meaningful card are always welcomed. If you want to pamper, I wonder if you can gift restaurant vouchers for example. Rather than to take them out to dinner, in a way which can be seen as an unethical networking way. The other thing to really appreciate them, is to contact the hospital that they work for, and tell their management of the good work that they did, and let them be praised this way too for their professionalism. Or to write a very praising good letter to their director. This is a big help, if ever they are either considered for promotions, and also it focuses them too. Hey, am glad to hear that you are okay. You sound very happy and grateful to them.

It was really interesting what you wrote about the other comment on verbal abuse. I guess those more empathetic orientated nature people would not see their own words as having that much power. Maybe. It certainly made me think about myself and if I see myself that way too. You have a point there somewhere. You raised a good question, and these are the ideas and thoughts that came to my mind, although whether it will work or not, I have no idea. If this was back in my school days, and we are talking around 30 odd years ago. I would imagine that my headteacher would march all the children into the assembly, and he will let rip. He would. Great big lecture. He would not name names, and he would not shame everyone, but he will indeed let everyone know of his disappointment. The teachers would just stand by the door, and listen, and the kids will also listen too. He then maybe will send out a letter to all parents of the fact that their lessons were disrupted today because of xyz, and apologise for this, but hope that the parents will indeed work with them in controlling the collective situation exhibited from the children. The head teacher always gave morning assemblies to address the children, and he always state a moral stories too, to let the children think for themselves. That is how it was in my school. If the social media is actually an issue with the school and affecting how children are learning and behaving, then the headteacher need to address this and have a clamp down on this and ask parents to stop their children from being externally influenced by materials which are beyond their own age. If the children are a bit more younger and softer, I would expect the teachers to bring together a campaign to resolve this kind of danger of seeing things online and so forth. Maybe the modern era has changed, and it should make children be more aware of what is wrong too. I remember that when I was at school, we were asked to watch less tv programs, or that we were given homework to do to take home to focus us, and to remember to then attend the lesson to keep us motivated and also focused too. (This tactic is no different now when I have seen this currently used in a previous job by management. When there is chaos, you instill a sense of order and nip the numerous diversion, and focus the team's effort and collaboration. Increase intensity and bring everyone back into line and be focusing on the work, as we had a tight deadline.) Even when the children did misbehave, the headteacher could indeed pull off any extracurricular activities that the school did as an outing, and remove this as a sign of punishment. To be honest, this is indeed a psychological thing also, but it needs to be stated really doesn't it ? It actually is indeed very hard to be a parent, and you do indeed have to work with the teachers, but at the same time kind of give away your own power to go with the ride and to enforce the discipline also from the school too.

Don't think that, but think realistically, which is that, he has no job experience at the moment, which is true. Any employers will know this. If the company is fairly big, then they too know their boundaries too, and they cannot cross over the grey areas and put themselves at risk too. It goes both ways. Do not see it as you against employers, but see it as employers also need to protect their own interests too. If you set your expectation level correctly, then the experience will be so much easier and much better. You already assume and that you want to try and make your son to be workable and employable asap and be willing to do anything, but some employers may not want this kind of candidate, they want someone that they can train. In some cases, they want someone who can start asap without teaching. Each job is different. This is why it can indeed be frustrating too. So if you expose yourself to more experiences, even if it is a short one, then at least you can write on your CV and be clear of what you have experienced, and how you think you can do the job. So he should be made aware of what to expect, and that this is an OPPORTUNITY, and a training opportunity for him to learn. So ask him or to encourage him to continually asks questions, and let him learn. Those companies who can afford to do this, or wishes to do this, will indeed judge you even when you are there in person, to assess you and see if you possibly fit into their company and if you like the work. It is a two way street. Remember that. Give himself a chance to learn, and also to learn to say "no this is not for me", and be responsible in handling those kind of mature decisions too. It can go both ways. By the way, he could also approach the local careers service in town. I also did a lot of research too both at my university's career office, as well as my old college's career service, as well as my local library. If anything, he needs to know realistically how to get to where he wants to go. It helps if he wants to do something to keep himself motivated, and stay motivated too. You already mentioned to us that he has done manual labour jobs, but try and expose him to an office job, and try to expose him to the knowledge and the understanding of a business. So at least he has a good footing into the world of work and is more realistic on his own expectation. He will then know which direction to go later on. In an office job, you need to know what is a sales department, what is a marketing department, and who is the finance team, and what the company does. Do they sell things, or do they provide a service ? I remember training a young helpdesk person once, and she was so arrogant, she did not like the job, finds it boring (and to be honest, you need to listen to your elders and learn), and in the end asked her boss to transfer her. When in reality, I gave her my 10 year's worth of experience and solution under one hour. So she can get her ticket to my team in the right way without me going backward and doing her part again, which annoyed me. I did not like her one bit. Your son needs to be exposed to things like that. How to work as a team, and how to listen to what others are saying without being too defensive, and how to respond correctly and professionally without offending others indirectly. When a young person works with an older person, then he should indeed be more open. If he gets stuck, do not hesitate to ask too. The objective is really not to let down your team. I hope he finds something too.

Maybe she is still inexperienced at the teaching field then. As this is a minefield, and even if she feels that the children are enjoying themselves, she need to be strict to enforce a kind of discipline so that they do not end up hurting each other indirectly and they have to be herded or guarded into a particular direction. When I see my sister handle my nephew, I can see why. Sometimes when he is a little bit defiant, he can actually do things to hurt himself. In those circumstances, you need to try and reduce this behaviour and coax them into the right direction. Because children do not know the adult world yet, but they can know how things affect them immediately. It seems that she did wanted quietness from the children, and one children took it out of context to start playing around with sellotapes, and then others may be in on the game, but some did not like it, so you have a situation whereby some liked it, played up, some did not cos it hurt, and the ones that are hurt went home upset, but she is not to know as maybe during the time it was funny and everyone laughed, until they discovered the sore lips from peeling away the sellotapes too quickly. So child goes to mommy upset. Mommy gets more upset when they see the sore lips, and from what is an innocent game has turned into a nightmare and accusation goes everywhere. Well, this is the real world unfortunately. I do not know why the police got involved. I hope for her sake that she recovers from this and learn from it as well and how parents do have to take a strong interest in their children's upbringing in this kind of scary world in this modern day.

Ok, so he has 6 months. Put yourself into the shoes of the employers and consider who would employ an inexperienced person. Either he go for these internships, or trainee programs. Or he asks for short work experiences whereby there is no liabilities on the side of the employer. Because of his age, he should indeed write to many local companies and ask for job shadowing, to see if they are willing to do that for him. He may not be doing the work, but actually learn to see what a person does in their job, and also to see the actual company, environment, and understanding of the business itself. I remember doing this when I was at college too. In fact, I worked in an architect's firm for a few weeks. I was just given a desk to sit in, not to do the actual work as I am not allowed to do so. I just sat there either sometimes doing basic work like filing, or reading articles which they give to me about the industry and that was it. I was taught how to do the petty cash by the receptionist. I think in the end, they too cannot give me a salary or an earning but they gave me something like 20 pound book vouchers as a nice gesture. I was over the moon ! You need to be aware of the laws that govern a business, and to find ways for him to learn and be exposed to more things, so that he can then later on write to the different respective employers to look for work. If he has an idea now of what he like to do, then he should make sure he learns all about those industries and work towards that goal. I also did a summer internship in a lab, asking myself if science is for me. I also ended up working, with little pay, but my name was put into an actual lab report, but they did manage to train me in H&S, and I was around 20 at the time. I wrote to them directly about this. Whereas some of my friends from uni managed to gain these formal internships in London and they got a salary. This was done in their year out, so that they can get into full time employment afterwards, and they did. That was how his industry worked in civil engineering. Now that there is a minimum age legal requirement in place, you need to know what it is that you are asking of employers. If you ask for a shadow session, but not a full time job pay, then many if not most, will be accommodating. They will let your son be exposed to a work environment and to learn a little bit about the business. Most maybe asked to be the coffee boy or something like that. They are not allowed to ask you to do something which enables you to demand a full pay. There will be some disputes over that, but it is more often than not understood that this is not a full paying position. Maybe he should write a very nice letter and deliver it to the HSBC office, and ask them if he can get one or two week's of job shadowing ? I am sure that they are more than happy to oblige. "Dear Sir/Madam, I am a 17 year old who is looking for job shadowing opportunities of 1 to 2 week's length to gain an insight into the industry. I understand that I am not asking for an internship, but an opportunity to understand the business and the various job function that it offers to allow myself an understanding of where to take my career to." If a person is still under 18 years of age, he is still considered as a child in the eyes of the law as well. So many employers have to be aware of this and such that, they cannot employ an underage worker for their specific areas. Work experiences and job shadowing is non-paid work, and if they are for a short period of time, then this is understood. Maybe you need to check this part out. By the way, I used these two work experiences later on to help me find a job. I also did work for family too in waitressing and things like that which helped, so the employer knows that I am not lazy, but also gain an understanding of what I was exposed to and how I gained to know such things. At least then they know what they need to train me on or not.

1 - I did not start a thread. Someone else started a thread. 2 - I said in an indirect way "Dear OP, please don't take this to heart, because even I have been accused and got the situation wrong before but one can only laugh about it. It was like when my bf and I walked through town, and then we saw a bunch of people congregating and ready to kick off, when I was younger, I used to find this intimidating, but I have let this go now and walk through pretending that there may not be a fight that is about to happen and occur, even though I am scared of such situation to be honest. I can assume that you may find it intimidating when those women sit and gaggle that way. Please pretend to not see and walk away. Even my bf sensed the atmosphere and we both don't like what is likely to happen next." 3 - The OP then got curious as to why my bf also have never seen this situation before. So I kindly explained that he is not from around here and he is also not English. (To be honest, I did not have to explain myself here. I would also assumed that he is fine with me dating someone of my own choosing. No? Shouldn't that be the case?) 4 - He then flipped and said that my bf is a softie, in not wanting to support football, or to have seen this kind of situation, and obviously I flipped, cos he implied that my bf is less of a man ! Yes, I then touted back and said that I don't like guys who actually act like a hooligan and I personally find that intimidating. He then had a go at me for explaining why I like my bf, and then he assumed that it was having a go at every other English guy. How the heck does he work that one out, despite me trying to gently say, "don't worry about the women in the cafe" to begin with to him, as a way to extend my sympathy, to attacking me and my personal life, even when I tried to say not to worry about it. From that point onwards I distrusted him. You hurt me, I do not care all that much for you any more. Simple. 5 - I did not generalise and say that I won't go out with anybody English, but I know when he started to attack me, my personal life and choices too, then I clarified to him that I dated a gentlemen who treated me well and he was working in the banking industry. So yes, why should I subject myself to abuse from a guy that I want to date ? It makes no sense. My point is to let him know that I differentiate the different kind of guys and which ones I prefer or not. There is nothing wrong with that. He took offence to that and reacted. Even though he is not the one dating. Yet, he did not seem to accept what I said as "just". It was like he felt he had a right to my life ? How does that work then? If he wishes to accept my intent and understand where I am coming from, then he could have. Or he could have read into what I wrote and think that it is to do with his own agenda, then so be it. There is nothing that I can do about that. He peeved me off and of course I will react.

I will say that I got baited cos that guy called my boyfriend a softie (and eluding to that he is not a man, so yes, I was definitely going to defend my partner!), and I don't even know who the hell he was. So yes, I deliberately reacted to that person and I realised that in doing so, it made me say things that I don't even believe in. When I stepped back and realised what I was doing, he actually was indeed acting as a pervert in those scenario and I was way too kind and diplomatic to see it. So yes. It is swings and round abouts. I retracted what I said, especially after a conversation at home with my bf. In this instance, I do wish the girls well, and I hope for their sake that this case is really not true. Cos I do not know about you, but I myself have been exposed to so many sexual harrassments and antagonism even in my line of work, and one can only walk away cry their guts out at night and to come back to work the next day with dignity. Yes, am I aware that men do not give sympathies or is confused in these kind of scenarios and that they are not so self aware of their own actions? Yes I am beginning to realise this too. Especially judging that other thread about the man being more pervy and deliberately then chose to write about it. For your information, I did not call English men yobs. I wrote about a situation about when my BF visited and I told him to ignore certain people and to walk through, as he was quite worried that those pubs had so many police surrounding the place and he has never seen this kind of scenario before. So yes, he was asking because he was concerned for our safety ! There is nothing wrong with that. I do not think that in doing so, that he deserves that antagonism by that other poster in assuming that he is a softie (and less of a man). He was way out of line. So yes, he was also deliberately baiting me, and I was too stupid to see it until I stepped back. Yes, I still think he is an nasty man, and I shall refrain from my swearing. To me hitting below the belt and touting someone's BF's masculinity is way way out of line.

You know, paraphrasing my words are not going to impress me in the slightest. At best, I find it rude. If you noticed how I wrote my point, I asked Anna to consider, and not to state and to tell her. There is a difference and a deliberate in expression of what you are saying to how I wanted to express myself. Please do read. I think you are still missing the point really. Do these regulators require you to register with them, and if you perform a misconduct, then will you be struck of the list ? Right. Ok. So it means you need a professional qualification and being certified first, and I assume that this certification is also the same set of qualification for all solicitor's. Is that right? If this is so, then this is also similar to the medical industry. All doctors require a basic degree in medicine, and then work experiences added on top before the actual certified title can be achieved. From that point onwards, they can still study further to specialise in any specific areas. But in comparison to IT. This is not the same. Anyone with an IT degree (or not), can enter the industry. They do not have to have the qualification to back themselves up, even within managerial positions. Some companies do require you to have a degree, but others do not. Also, some companies will want you to have vendor specific professional certification, than a general standard, and regulated certification. Microsoft's certification, and any other system certification is to qualify you to work on those specific systems, but it can also mean that anyone can support them once implemented. So this is where it gets confusing and the salaries can fluctuate, and it is not even linked to work experiences, or certification. The certification are also market driven too. Meaning that it is provided by the product maker themselves, and not by an impartial entities that is agreed across the globe. This is the difference here. With accountancy and with medicine, there is a global agreed standard and basic. There may be country specific regulations and a little bit of difference, but overall, this is set for any person. Whereas within IT, this is not so. This was the point I was trying to drive at. In those professional industries that has an existing global standard will seem to be at a much higher in salary level, than other jobs which do not have the same global standard and its associated entities to back them up. In medicine, at leas the GMC can show the number of doctors that exist at any one time. So therefore if even hospitals and other health entities need to check salary levels against the number of candidate before deciding on salaries this can show that this is indeed a limiting resource pool of people. So maybe this can explain why salaries can also be higher too. Whereas with IT, you do not have a main register of people. Anybody who remotely touched a single button can claim themselves to be a professional, even if they have only provided support only or used the system only, then they can indeed place this on their own CV to promote themselves. This drives salaries down also, as well as it drives and dilute expertise too. Even when entities like BCS provides certain level of certification, employers do not necessarily also pay you more for this kind of professional certification as they do not recognise this. Plus they also do not want to pay more, even if the candidate can know and do so much more. They often try to squeeze the salary to match a certain level inline with the company's profit, rather than to give salaries inaccordance to what you have certified towards. I was trying to find an understanding as to why the difference in salaries. Yes, I know that there are regional differences as well as a supply and demand angle during the different times depending on the numbers available within the pool of candidates at any moment in time, but as I was saying, without that regulation, it can fluctuate even more so, than it would have done normally, comparatively in any profession.

I didn't realise that there was no conviction, but I could see that these women had already been slated too. This is also a surprising reaction for me to see too. Bit worrying really.

I got this part wrong, as I thought that it was about a winning case, but it was not, so I misread this. Anyway, it is not often you see sexual harrassment cases that is highlighted in the media, or that it shows a winning case. Most people normally sweep this kind of sexual harrassment thing under the carpet really. I presume that the newspaper journalist did check the facts before writing those bold quotations. If this is true, then he is no more of a man than that of Jimmy Saville either who also used his position in his role to subject women to harassment basically. I added those other articles is because it links with the condition of the world that Jimmy Saville existed in those kind of days, and hence it can indeed show you what the world of work can be like.

Jimmy Saville did not just sexually harrassed young children, but he also took advantage of several famous female celebrities too. Did you not know that ? Every woman's nightmare, that expectation of needing to sleep with the boss in order to stay in work. That itself is outrageous too. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/shamed-jimmy-savile-sexually-harassed-2677214 http://shirazsocialist.wordpress.com/2012/10/08/sir-jimmy-saviles-crime/ http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/liz-kershaw-radio-one-like-3228317 I realised slowly that, certain individuals became homosexuals are to protect themselves in this ugly business. I now realised why femininity was indeed suppressed, and to a large extent too. I can now see why Sandy Toksvig is also a lesbian too. It is also no wonder that as an advanced country, people have this "lifestyle choice" attitude to their own gender too, or that some women would claim back their sexuality and be louder than to actually express their own femininity. It is also no wonder that the G8's goal is to promote "gender equality and empowering women". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Development_Goals Because of such people like Saville, and how entities like the BBC used to be, it really suppresses women from their on expressions. Or to express their own gender, without being manipulated to turn into a man, and act like a man in order to survive in society.

Any business owners can run their business in any way that they like, but as an employer, they are also subjected to a specific set of laws as well, which governs how they need to run within the boundaries of those set of laws. I would have thought that this is understood for any business owners. If they do not understand this, then they are indeed overlooking the idea of the human resources aspect of the business. Maybe this is not seen that much in small to medium size companies, but within large to multi-national businesses, then I would assume that a formal HR department will check and verify every aspect of their processes both within the company itself when in working mode, and during the recruitment phases of candidates. When a person does not fit a company, a business can have several different tactics legally to get rid of the employee too. You may be surprised, but yes, this also exist too. In some cases, employers do put together a strategy to exist a set of employees also. As I mentioned in another thread on graduate recruitments, and allowing candidates to fail, and to leave a small percentage of employees to be trained upwards and groomed into various positions within the company.

The state has a duty to look after everyone and that includes you and me. It also should indeed support everyone who wants to live their lives in harmony and whether this is thrown in with a religion of their own choice or not. I have never and wouldn't actually have minded if there are religious schools, and of which there are many any way. I am sure that they have their own policies, and I for one would love to see each person believe in something which motivates them in life, and not enforce my own perception of my values onto them. I would want equality for them too. But not in the literal sense as in "do as I tell you", or "do as I do ".

Ok I have read that article now and gave it a lot of thoughts. The reason why the salon owner lost the case is indeed that she is not acting within the realms of the Employment Law itself. Even though yes, she is the business owner, and she can indeed run her business as how she see fits. But her words, and her action was done in an indirect way which contravenes one of the race discrimination act. As a business, and an employer, she is subjected to Employment Law too. This is the point. Even though she is a simple salon owner, in bigger companies, you will have properly trained HR personnels which will conduct the interviewing process to be fair and to be just. As well as putting processes in place which would prevent any possible actions that may occur which conflicts with the employment law itself where it crosses the line on discrimination. Basically even though the salon owner thinks that she can ask her workers to dress how she see fit, and that they too have to change themselves in order to fit into the workplace. But the laws in this country do state that "everyone has an equal opportunity to be employed and to find work in the workplace". That is why the law exists, it is to prevent this kind of situation to exist. I know that in the actual creative industry itself, many people tries to impress their own employers by dressing in a particular way or to embrace themselves in a particular fashion sense to denote their creativity. But in reality, I would have thought that this was done by the individual themselves as an understated rule, and not as a legal requirement for a job. So in this instance, the salon owner maybe crossed that fine line without an understanding of the law itself. In the workplace, unless it is for safety reasons, no employer can ask you to degrade your own self dignity, or your own image before performing the work. If this is done, then I would have thought that a legal contract would have been drafted up. i.e. movie stars and celebrities need to write very specific clauses especially if asked to show nudity, and this was done with consent and with agreement, and not without agreement, but have implied expectation on the side of the employer. By the way, the case won based on "indirect discrimination". I am not sure how this particular case will look like now in 2014. As it seems to me that this happened in 2008. The law has since changed also.

I wouldn't call him a sexist pig. A sexist pig is someone whistling and harrassing you whilst you walk down the street. He is more than this alone. It seems that Miss Mazover has money and her father to back up this lawsuit. Who else would actually consider to fight legal cases like this ? Most most of us wouldn't. If what is written is true, then he is an evil man for manipulating his position. Isn't he just another Jimmy Saville in the making ? I would definitely say that at least you have one smart woman here, propping up another possibly more naive one. No, you're right gear, the police has not found evidence enough to prosecute. I hope they find justice.

What did you think I meant ? It is okay if you do not understand where I was coming from at all. Whereas you read into what I wrote more than my intent. As you can see, I elaborated more and clarified based on your misunderstood post above. I was under the assumption that in the legal industry, they also have a certified professional structure similar to that of the medical industry. Not just based on a company's own decision based on their own profit level. I presume you work in the legal industry, can you clarify if I am correct with this assumption, or should I just google and research to check ? Ok, so if I understood the above, your area is a niche specialist area from the main legal structure of which it is based on market demand, and not based on an actual professional hierarchial and regulated structure ? I brought this point up about the salary level against regulated profession is to show Anna why certain jobs could be higher than average, and it stays that way.

I know little bits of histories here and there, but it is indeed interesting to see it all linked together like this and see those boundaries move so much. Sometimes ignorance is bliss isn't it ? I only like to consider myself to be part of the British Commonwealth and after that, my brain cannot handle it all. No wonder the Scots want to be independent. ---------- Post added 17-03-2014 at 19:10 ---------- Thanks for that link. The info is also interesting too. I worked out that we are in a quite peace time period in history. Republic of China - 1910 Iran-Iraq war - 1980 gulf war - 1990 Bosnian war - 1992 Kosovo war - 1996 war of afghanistan - 2000 iraq war - 2003 Apart from the China's internal conflicts, other than that, I think there is not that much conflict in the overall political arena.

Do you guys actually think that these entities are merely changing inline with the law, than any other person actually who is muslim is kicking up this kind of fuss overall ? If this is the case, then isn't the newspaper quite misleading ? Considering that these laws changed in 2010. Who or what instigated this change and was there a direct EU or G8 goals which enabled such laws to be changed in the first place? If so, then I feel ever so sorry for those British Muslims who have to put up with this kind of crap.