Reform Policies

[MNW67]

Why would he need a choice? Would you ask him if it was ok to call him Sooty? Surely that gives the impression that calling him Sooty is somehow wrong or racist.

I know you don't mean it to be racist. But that is the bit where I wanted @motorbiking's opinion. My gut feeling is that it might make a difference, legally. I'm not talking about your situation, specifically. I'm interested in the law generally and am asking whether that is the sort of thing which might be a factor.

 

[King Billy]

This just shows that racism or pretending to be offended pays money and has nothing to do with actual racism. Sooty would never be offended or call us racist, instead he gives back as much as he gets. There is no malice intended we just simply have a laugh and he is accepted as one of us, the real racists treat people differently and working with Sooty, he is treated exactly the same as any of us. He comes to the pub with us on a Friday and enjoys himsellf and our company. Lesson to be learnt is if you have to watch what you say or walk on egg shells to work with someone then you wouldnt truly accept them as a mate.

Has anyone ever asked him? Has he ever had any choice?

 

[Brigadier]

Doesn't stop anyone trying their luck and bringing a claim though does it. This is the problem with racism, normally it doesnt actually exist in the first place, you need to look for it and then. you know it is not genuine

In the same way MBK can confidently assert that someone is

sh*t at their job

?

 

[King Billy]

You've obviously never worked in the corporate world where discrimination cases suddenly appear when a person is on a PIP or other exit process.

I know of a case close hand where some poor sod on a training course, during the ice breaker, jokingly described himself as god's gift to women (being short, bald and fat) only to find it referenced in a sexual harassment claim a year later. Funnily enough the lady who brought the claim, was on a PIP for being sh*t at her job.

There has to be harassment or racism for the tribunal to order a payout, irrespective of when it occurred or the complaint was brought.
It's very simple: no harassment or racism = no payout.
I would have thought that even the dimmest of lawyers would understand that.

 

[motorbiking]

In the same way MBK can confidently assert that someone is

?

you don't PIP people who are good at their job.

 

[King Billy]

aww bless. thats what lawyers are for.

It isn't the job of the lawyer to decide if there was racism or not. That's up to the decision of the judge/tribunal/jury. etc.

 

[King Billy]

you don't PIP people who are good at their job.

You don't sexually harass people on a training course either. It's a funny old world, init?
I'd ask if it was the same two people involved, but I'm guessing we wouldn't be given an honest answer.

 

[motorbiking]

I know you don't mean it to be racist. But that is the bit where I wanted @motorbiking's opinion. My gut feeling is that it might make a difference, legally. I'm not talking about your situation, specifically. I'm interested in the law generally and am asking whether that is the sort of thing which might be a factor.

The nickname only has to have racial connotations. Of course someone can "tolerate" it for years and still find it offensive.

I found a very old one Buckle and Mitchell v Brook Daihatsu [1999]. "Sooty and sweep"

 

[King Billy]

Answered but this is where it goes with both you and nosey

View attachment 408437

You could answer the question

The wait goes on....

 

[King Billy]

because there is no requirement to prove intent. The person can be perfectly ok with it as being humour and then when he or she finds themselves at risk of dismissal without compensation, due to being sh*t at their job, suddenly the ability to bring an uncapped damages claim against the employer becomes quite tempting. Its 5 minutes work for a half trained lawyer to make the case.

Similarly the accused could refute the allegation, with a lawyer.
Then it's up to the court/tribunal to decide if there's a case to answer.
I thought any half wit lawyer would undersatnd how it works.

 

[Highway Man]

Has anyone ever asked him? Has he ever had any choice?

No need, stop worrying

 

[King Billy]

Where in my example of Sooty is there a need for a payout as you seem to suggest?

You're answering the question that wasn't asked:

He could sue your employer for quarter of a million.

I'll ask again - How can an alleged victim of racism, win a pay-out if there is NO racism?

I'll wait.....

 

[King Billy]

Doesn't stop anyone trying their luck and bringing a claim though does it. This is the problem with racism, normally it doesnt actually exist in the first place, you need to look for it and then. you know it is not genuine

Racism exists in the workplace and many people are compensated for it.
Therefore the decisions of the courts/tribunal prove it exists.

Based on available tribunal and agency data, thousands of people receive compensation for workplace discrimination (including race-based discrimination) annually, particularly through settlements, though formal tribunal wins resulting in payouts are less common.

 

[Highway Man]

You're answering the question that wasn't asked:

Call me psychic, it's comming

 

[Highway Man]

Racism exists in the workplace and many people are compensated for it.
Therefore the decisions of the courts/tribunal prove it exists.

Maybe it does, is that genuine racism or a compensation claim like stubbing your toe on a flag stone type of claim.