Comments by Stephen Martin

Stephen Martin
Member - 13 posts

Let he that is without sin throw the first stone...

Ridiculous!

The only beneficiaries here are the lawyers, as always.

Stephen Martin
Member - 13 posts

It's all very well for some faceless autocrat in Europe to tell people they have to retire, but is be prepared to stump up the pension monies their working beyond 65 would generate? The judgement only covers half the problem, creating another which will have to be sorted by individual governments' social security departments. This decidion will cause those directly affected to apply for degrading means tested benefits, which, in turn, will impact on the increasing amount of welfare being paid from the public purse.
It seems to me like 'Pull up the ladder, Jack, I'm OK'.

Stephen Martin
Member - 13 posts

If this is a serous suggestion, then what further information should we be receiving in relation to our compulsory contributions to National Insurance?These monies are supposed to provide us with NHS Treatment, free at the point of delivery, plus a State Pension - from the age of 65 for men and 60 for women. OK, that is changing, but the point I am making is this: if we are going to be expected to work till we drop, how much of a reduction can we expect in our rate of contribution, since the State will not have to support us for as long as it does now?

Stephen Martin
Member - 13 posts

Yet another quango, costing more huge amounts of taxpayers cash and for what? There are countless chances and opportunities out there, in the real world, for anyone and everyone who has the sheer determination to go out and find them.
Are we seeing here a re-emergence of the politics of envy, designed to give false hope to those who want everything on a plate?
Let's examing one or two real points: this discredited and dangerous government has only two more years to go, or less if we are really lucky, before it is turfed out on its ear. This quango is going to report in a year's time - could that make it deliberate electioneering, for propoganda purposes? Yes, this corrupt outfit is certainly capable of that.
There is already plenty of opportunity for those so disposed to challenge 'equality' in all aspects of life; the results of tribunals are reported each and every day.
So what have we here? A sheer waste of taxpayers hard earned cash which would be far better spent on helping those who are suffering the effects of the disastrous policies of these demented crooks.

Stephen Martin
Member - 13 posts

The lunatics have taken over the asylum - again.

I really do not believe for one single nano second that moderate and sensible Muslims have any wish to impose their religious practises upon the rest of us. The furore is caused by obsequeous individuals trying to curry favour with the extremists.

We are confusing the word integration, ably illustrated by Janey Burton earlier, with the word conformity.

Stephen Martin
Member - 13 posts

This is another classic foot-in-mouth from the clowns in the EU trying to find something to do to pass their time along.
Why, oh why, in these days of consultation and general involvement, has there been no discussion with industry BEFORE the imposition of unwanted and retrograde legislation?
Who benefits from this? Not the Agency workers, who will have less opportunities; not the employers who will lose the flexibility of variable workforces; hardly the EU as there are likely to be more people claiming unemployment benefits due to a lack of availability of temporary work.
So who is going to listen to, and take note of, the results of this survey?
If the EU are so convinced they are right in their proposition, where is the evidence to back it up; where is the justification?
I only hope that, perhaps, one of the EU mystery men (or women) might just read what is being said, take note and act accordingly. However, deep inside, I doubt that very much.

Stephen Martin
Member - 13 posts

Here are the words of Tom Bulford, who writes on financial matters, and expressses my feelings and sentiment far better than I could.

Why is it that every time I read a policy document from this government of ours I have an overwhelming urge to buy a one way ticket to New Zealand? Could it be the patronising tone, the underlying assumption that ministers know what is good for all of us, the incorrect use of the English language, the contradictions, the platitudes… or the thought of all that public money that has been wasted devising such rubbish and the yet more that will be wasted as countless public servants sit around committee room tables working out how to turn it into action?

It is all of these, and more. Having made the mistake of reading ‘Framework for a Fairer Future – The Equality Bill’ on Friday evening I have been thoroughly depressed by it all weekend. I have read all forty pages of it, but you do not need to get beyond page one before the urge to emigrate wells up. ‘Everyone has the right to be treated fairly and to have the opportunity to fulfil their potential,’ the report starts, ‘but equality is not just right in principle.’

Another load of meaningless political drivel

Well, actually it is only ‘right in principle’ because equality is a principle and can never be anything else. If what the government wants to explain is that it will formulate policies that are based upon this principle then it has the full range of the English language at its disposal to do so correctly.

Aside from misuse of our native language, this document is full of the sort of trite statements that flow effortlessly from the mouths of politicians but which, lacking any basis in fact, are utterly meaningless. For example: ‘Equality is necessary for society – an unequal society can’t be at ease with itself, an equal society gives social cohesion.’ I suppose this is what Mao Tse-Tung had in mind when he tried to create an equal society in China.

Or this: ‘Equality is necessary for our economy – a modern economy thrives in a culture of equality which brings employers the widest labour pool, which sees all participate in the labour market rather than being marginalized and excluded, and recognises that diversity makes us outward facing and helps us to compete in a global economy.’

Harriet Harman, whose smiling face is on the cover of this document, may like to think this is true but it clearly is not. The most successful economies in the world at the moment are probably China and India where hard nosed business imperatives rule unhindered by red tape and government sponsored social engineering.

Make no mistake, ‘Framework for a Fairer Future’ is all about social engineering. Harriet Harman will not be content until women earn as much as men, and until employers offer jobs to old people, the fairer sex and to ethnic minorities in direct proportion to their representation in the whole population. The underlying assumption has it that because these groups do not do so well in the labour market as white males, then ipso facto they are discriminated against. This is not necessarily the case but this paper does not even acknowledge the possibility that there might be other causes of inequality, let alone attempt to analyse them.

Harriet Harman is determined to use the public sector as the tool of social engineering. Public bodies will have a new ‘equality duty’ which will, we are told, help them ‘to focus their efforts on outcomes, rather than on producing plans and documents.’ What this means is that the numbers must show that public bodies increase their employment of women, ethnic minorities and the disabled and there are vague threats that legal action might follow if this does not materialize. And in a nasty, insidious manoeuvre, Harriet Harman is not content for public bodies alone to behave in this way. She wants them only to do business with private sector firms that also engage in social engineering. So private sector suppliers to the public sector can expect to receive forms asking them for details about the ethnic background et al of their staff. This is a disgraceful interference into the private sector, and yet another burden upon business people.

What is really sickening about this document is Harriet Harman’s refusal to acknowledge the truth of what she is proposing, and the way in which she tries to make out that she is doing everybody a favour and that all will benefit. So far as the public sector is concerned we are invited to believe that the increase in the proportion of ethnic minority and disabled people in workforces ‘has improved customer satisfaction’. While in the private sector ‘businesses will increasingly recognise the advantages that they can gain from improving their performance on equality so that they can attract and retain talent from the widest possible pool and tap into new markets……. There are clear benefits of workforce diversity…in attracting new business, understanding customers’ needs and filling skills gaps.’ If this is really the case then why not allow commercial self-interest to take its course and achieve these desired outcomes obviating the need for Government interference?

This contradiction is typical of a policy document that is so full of holes that if I was Harriet Harman I would be ashamed to put my name to it. We are told that ‘in the construction industry, 2.5% of workers are from ethnic minorities, whereas the average for the workforce as a whole is 8%.’ OK, so there must be some industries in which representation of ethnic minorities is higher than 8% – does that mean that they are under pressure to employ more whites? Of course not.

And there is another contradiction that is central to the whole debate. It is simply not possible to discriminate in favour of one group without simultaneously discriminating against another. The extract that seems to have attracted most attention is this:

‘The Bill will extend positive action so that employers can take under-representation into account when selecting between two equally qualified candidates.’

Why doesn’t Harman say what she means?

So if you are short of women in your business, and you have a choice between a man and a woman to fill one job, you can pick the woman on the basis that they are underrepresented in your company. The government depicts this as ‘positive discrimination’ but of course the other side of this coin is that somebody – presumably a while male – is being discriminated against and no amount of pussy-footing around the issue can deny this.

Harriet Harman is too gutless to say what she really means. She says that ethnic minorities ‘should get the same job prospects as white people’ and that all should have ‘the opportunity to succeed’. But this is a free country. Everybody already has the same job prospects and the same opportunity to succeed. What does not happen though is that everybody, black or white, old or young, male or female, able bodied or not able bodied, gets the same job or succeeds to an equal degree. Great! This is exactly why most people like living in the UK. What a shame that Harriet Harman is too plain stupid to understand this.

Stephen Martin
Member - 13 posts

Whatever happened to the old addage of being responsible for our own actions? We are all given free will and common sense, so why don't we use these two facets of human nature instead of trying to blame someone else for our fallings?

The extreme extension of all this SHEF training is that we will all be so busy doing safety courses there will be no time for doing the actual work for which we expect to get paid.

Taking responsibility, and accepting it, is not draconian; it is a duty and simply requires the application of common sense, awareness, competence, experience and, yes, professionalism. Why is that so difficult?

Stephen Martin
Member - 13 posts

So those who had nothing whatever to do with the accident are being forced to pay for it with their jobs. There is something in this that doesn't quite add up, or is it me placing too much emphasis on common sense?

Stephen Martin
Member - 13 posts

How absolutely rediculous. I see no reason whatever for fining this business person for selecting a candidate she thought suitable for her business and rejecting others.
If ever there was a reason to think again before starting up in busness, this is it! The "authorities" are so politically correct they will take the side of any squealing whingeing twit that cares to mount a case.
I repeat - ridiculous!

Stephen Martin
Member - 13 posts

We are seeing here, are we not, the introduction of the 11 week contract? I see this as a retrograde step towards the 'tail wags dog' situation of many years ago, which made UK uncompetitve in world market terms.
However, as we now have very little world class manufacturing, perhaps it just doesn't matter.

Stephen Martin
Member - 13 posts

Yet another, tinkering, interferring busy-body trying to make a name for herself. The only criterion necessary to be appointed to any position is the ability to carry it out satisfactorily. Any other method will reduce the effective ness of hte appointment.
It makes me wonder how this person was selected for the job 'she' is 'doing' in the first place.
Steve Martin