I fail to see how the subject being a Muslim has any relevance when reporting a sex discrimination case.
Is the BBC saying that if the woman hadn't been a Muslim she'd have quietly acquiesced to wearing something that was most definitely humiliating and demeaning to her *only* because she was a woman? Is Auntie saying that the lady in question only kicked up this fuss because she was some Muslim weirdo, while a nice, blonde-haired, blue-eyed woman would have done her "duty" and gone along with the unfair dress code?
Am I missing something, or is the BBC not even subtly doing propaganda for the BNP? Is it trying to make up for that little slip of the tongue by one of its reporters the other day? Or is it just that they don't have a clue?
Either way, isn't it time they got their act together?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
"This was reduced by 25% because the members found Ms Lemes's solicitor Joe Sykes did not set out the basis of grievance properly."
How much sh*t is that? If they agreed they had a valid claim and agreed how much that should be, what does it matter how her lawyer laid out the grievance (or even if she had a lawyer in the 1st place).
I know, but I suppose she was lucky 'cos if the grievance hadn't been set out properly, she might have got nothing at all, especially since the employers tried to use pictures of her in a skimpy top (in her *free* time) against her.
I mean, can they really not see the difference between a skimpy top while you're hanging out with your mates, and a tarty dress while you're serving customers in a posh bar and your male colleagues don't have to change uniforms???
Exactly. I wear a kilt when I'm out socially sometimes - with the "traditional" approach to underwear :-) However, if my boss told me to come to work "commando", that'd be a problem.
And you've never flashed me!
Post a Comment