Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Refused interview on medical grounds
12 views
Skip to first unread message
one_riff_brian
Nov 22, 2011, 8:05:03 AM11/22/11
to
Here's what happened.
An agency set up an interview for me in a factory where they make
large permanent magnet motors and generators. The receptionist gave me
a checksheet which included the question "Have you got any metal in
your body(piercings, implants etc)?" Well yes, in addition to a
mouthful of amalgam fillings. I broke my leg in 2005, and I've got an
internal fixation in my left knee. They had a little conference, then
came back and told me: "We can't even interview you, it'd just be
cosmetic, we can't have metal in magnetic fields. Health and Safety
you know. Bye-bye" I wasn't happy.
The little research I've done has turned up that the implant is,
subject to checking the records, probably titanium, and safe in an MRI
scanner, as are most implants in the last 20 years.
Was this discrimination on medical grounds- a bizarre case of a non-
existent Health and Safety Issue?
An agency set up an interview for me in a factory where they make
large permanent magnet motors and generators. The receptionist gave me
a checksheet which included the question "Have you got any metal in
your body(piercings, implants etc)?" Well yes, in addition to a
mouthful of amalgam fillings. I broke my leg in 2005, and I've got an
internal fixation in my left knee. They had a little conference, then
came back and told me: "We can't even interview you, it'd just be
cosmetic, we can't have metal in magnetic fields. Health and Safety
you know. Bye-bye" I wasn't happy.
The little research I've done has turned up that the implant is,
subject to checking the records, probably titanium, and safe in an MRI
scanner, as are most implants in the last 20 years.
Was this discrimination on medical grounds- a bizarre case of a non-
existent Health and Safety Issue?
Peter Crosland
Nov 22, 2011, 9:35:03 AM11/22/11
to
"one_riff_brian" <brianh...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:c72cf4af-7984-4e9c...@w3g2000vbw.googlegroups.com...
Much more likely to be a case of no knowledge of the difference between
metals that affected by magnets and those that are not. I suggest you go
back and politely explain this to them.
Peter Crosland
news:c72cf4af-7984-4e9c...@w3g2000vbw.googlegroups.com...
metals that affected by magnets and those that are not. I suggest you go
back and politely explain this to them.
Peter Crosland
Stephen Wolstenholme
Nov 22, 2011, 10:05:02 AM11/22/11
to
in any metal. It does not need to be a magnetic material.
Steve
--
Neural network software applications, help and support.
Neural Network Software. www.npsl1.com
EasyNN-plus. Neural Networks plus. www.easynn.com
SwingNN. Forecast with Neural Networks. www.swingnn.com
JustNN. Just Neural Networks. www.justnn.com
The Todal
Nov 22, 2011, 10:10:11 AM11/22/11
to
"Peter Crosland" <g6...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:uM-dnSjMsfktL1bT...@brightview.co.uk...
take notice, even though strictly speaking they might have a good defence to
such an allegation.
Bernard Peek
Nov 22, 2011, 10:50:02 AM11/22/11
to
On 22/11/11 13:05, one_riff_brian wrote:
> Here's what happened.
>
> An agency set up an interview for me in a factory where they make
> large permanent magnet motors and generators.
Permanent magnets are much less powerful than the superconducting
> Here's what happened.
>
> An agency set up an interview for me in a factory where they make
> large permanent magnet motors and generators.
magnets used in MRI machines. The magnets themselves wouldn't be a risk
for you. But motors and generators can create rapidly changing magnetic
fields that could induce eddy-currents in nearby metal, possibly making
it get very hot.
> The receptionist gave me
> a checksheet which included the question "Have you got any metal in
> your body(piercings, implants etc)?" Well yes, in addition to a
> mouthful of amalgam fillings. I broke my leg in 2005, and I've got an
> internal fixation in my left knee. They had a little conference, then
> came back and told me: "We can't even interview you, it'd just be
> cosmetic, we can't have metal in magnetic fields. Health and Safety
> you know. Bye-bye" I wasn't happy.
>
> The little research I've done has turned up that the implant is,
> subject to checking the records, probably titanium, and safe in an MRI
> scanner, as are most implants in the last 20 years.
if you try to move the metal through the magnetic field it induces
eddy-currents which in turn create a magnetic field around the metal.
The two magnetic fields interact, making it impossible to move the metal
rapidly. Provided you move the metal slow enough you won't have a
problem. But if you throw a piece of aluminium into the magnetic field
it will not fall down immediately but drift down like a leaf in a breeze.
>
> Was this discrimination on medical grounds- a bizarre case of a non-
> existent Health and Safety Issue?
question. Is there a trade body for magnet manufacturers? It may publish
guidance notes for its members.
The legal situation is that an employer is required to make reasonable
adjustments to make the working environment usable by people with
disabilities. The questionnaire shows that they have at least considered
this issue. You could ask them for more details of the hazards but you
may find the information incomprehensible without specialist help.
You could bring out the big guns and start a formal discrimination
complaint but although they haven't given you sufficient information I
don't think it's worth doing that yet. Go back to them and ask to speak
to someone who can explain just what the risks are. Make sure that you
ask them why they haven't made reasonable adjustments. If you aren't
satisfied with the answers consider escalating things by writing a
letter to their chief-executive asking for further clarification and for
proof that it's not possible for them to make reasonable adjustments.
--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com
David McNeish
Nov 22, 2011, 11:55:02 AM11/22/11
to
On Nov 22, 3:10 pm, "The Todal" <deadmail...@beeb.net> wrote:
> You could argue disability discrimination. That would make them sit up and
> take notice, even though strictly speaking they might have a good defence to
> such an allegation.
In particular that the OP hasn't mentioned having a disability (unless
> You could argue disability discrimination. That would make them sit up and
> take notice, even though strictly speaking they might have a good defence to
> such an allegation.
all that metal is actually causing some significant impairment).
The Todal
Nov 22, 2011, 12:15:03 PM11/22/11
to
- they have a physical or mental impairment
- the impairment has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their
ability to perform normal day-to-day activities
For the purposes of the Act, these words have the following meanings:
'substantial' means more than minor or trivial
'long-term' means that the effect of the impairment has lasted or is likely
to last for at least twelve months (there are special rules covering
recurring or fluctuating conditions)
'normal day-to-day activities' include everyday things like eating, washing,
walking and going shopping
People who have had a disability in the past that meets this definition are
also protected by the Act.
Is the presence of metal in his leg a physical impairment? It may not cause
him to limp but it affects the jobs he can do. Is this all about the
disability he had "in the past", ie his knee problem? Ultimately it would
be for an employment tribunal to decide whether he has a disability and
whether he has suffered discrimination, and the employer could be put to
considerable expense defending such a claim.
I suppose the simple question for the employer is, can this person work at
the premises without putting himself and others at risk. If it is true that
metal fittings can heat up, that is probably a good reason for excluding him
from interview.
Yellow
Nov 22, 2011, 3:05:02 PM11/22/11
to
In article <uM-dnSjMsfktL1bT...@brightview.co.uk>,
g6...@yahoo.co.uk says...
Given the nature of the employer's business, is it not more reasonable
to assume that the employer does actually have a pretty good idea what
metals are affected by the equipment he manufacturers, and whether or
not particular implants are a potential issue.
Would it not therefore be a better strategy to go back and inquire how
his specific implant makes him ineligible for the job rather than to
explain to him how magnets and metals work? Because however politely
such an approach is made, it is likely to result in the OP ending up
lower down on the list of potential employees then he already is.
g6...@yahoo.co.uk says...
to assume that the employer does actually have a pretty good idea what
metals are affected by the equipment he manufacturers, and whether or
not particular implants are a potential issue.
Would it not therefore be a better strategy to go back and inquire how
his specific implant makes him ineligible for the job rather than to
explain to him how magnets and metals work? Because however politely
such an approach is made, it is likely to result in the OP ending up
lower down on the list of potential employees then he already is.
Alex Heney
Nov 22, 2011, 6:45:02 PM11/22/11
to
ground for discrimination.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Silence is more eloquent at times than words.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
Alex Heney
Nov 22, 2011, 6:45:16 PM11/22/11
to
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 20:05:02 +0000, Yellow <ye...@please.no.spam.com>
wrote:
Given that he is currently completely off that list, I'm not sure how
he could be lower :)
I don't see much point in him going back to them though, even if he
persuades them to give him an interview, it would just be the
"cosmetic exercise" they referred to initially, and he still won't get
the job.
wrote:
he could be lower :)
I don't see much point in him going back to them though, even if he
persuades them to give him an interview, it would just be the
"cosmetic exercise" they referred to initially, and he still won't get
the job.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
MS-DOS: celebrating ten years of obsolescence
Alex Heney, Global Villager
R. Mark Clayton
Nov 22, 2011, 9:20:02 PM11/22/11
to
"one_riff_brian" <brianh...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:c72cf4af-7984-4e9c...@w3g2000vbw.googlegroups.com...
Get a titanium spoon (alright something aluminium) and put it in a cup of
water in your microwave.
Switch on and notice the large arc emanating from the ends etc. - now
imagine this inside your leg...
Nightjar
Nov 23, 2011, 3:05:02 AM11/23/11
to
On 22/11/2011 15:50, Bernard Peek wrote:
> On 22/11/11 13:05, one_riff_brian wrote:
>> Here's what happened.
>>
>> An agency set up an interview for me in a factory where they make
>> large permanent magnet motors and generators.
>
> Permanent magnets are much less powerful than the superconducting
> magnets used in MRI machines. The magnets themselves wouldn't be a risk
> for you. But motors and generators can create rapidly changing magnetic
> fields that could induce eddy-currents in nearby metal, possibly making
> it get very hot.
....
> On 22/11/11 13:05, one_riff_brian wrote:
>> Here's what happened.
>>
>> An agency set up an interview for me in a factory where they make
>> large permanent magnet motors and generators.
>
> Permanent magnets are much less powerful than the superconducting
> magnets used in MRI machines. The magnets themselves wouldn't be a risk
> for you. But motors and generators can create rapidly changing magnetic
> fields that could induce eddy-currents in nearby metal, possibly making
> it get very hot.
If they make their own magnets, there will also be strong fields
associated with the magnetising process.
Colin Bignell
Nightjar
Nov 23, 2011, 3:05:02 AM11/23/11
to
On 22/11/2011 17:15, The Todal wrote:
....
so it does heat up in a strong magnetic field.
Colin Bignell
....
> I suppose the simple question for the employer is, can this person work at
> the premises without putting himself and others at risk. If it is true that
> metal fittings can heat up, that is probably a good reason for excluding him
> from interview.
An induction furnace is one of the two main methods of melting titanium,
> the premises without putting himself and others at risk. If it is true that
> metal fittings can heat up, that is probably a good reason for excluding him
> from interview.
so it does heat up in a strong magnetic field.
Colin Bignell
Percy Picacity
Nov 23, 2011, 3:55:02 AM11/23/11
to
Nightjar <c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote in
news:RoKdnRRkB5L_NVHT...@giganews.com:
It is clear that between us we have very little knowledge of the
physics of a magnet factory. (Note that an electromagnetic field which
causes sparks from metal also cooks flesh!)
Just to add to the uncertainty, many orthopaedic implants are various
kinds of steel so it is not a given that the OP's plate is non-ferrous.
It would be quite reasonable to ask the firm what its exclusion
criteria are based on, but it is premature to assume that they are
over-cautious.
--
Percy Picacity
news:RoKdnRRkB5L_NVHT...@giganews.com:
physics of a magnet factory. (Note that an electromagnetic field which
causes sparks from metal also cooks flesh!)
Just to add to the uncertainty, many orthopaedic implants are various
kinds of steel so it is not a given that the OP's plate is non-ferrous.
It would be quite reasonable to ask the firm what its exclusion
criteria are based on, but it is premature to assume that they are
over-cautious.
--
Percy Picacity
Norman Wells
Nov 23, 2011, 4:40:02 AM11/23/11
to
R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> Try the following experiment: -
>
> Get a titanium spoon (alright something aluminium) and put it in a
> cup of water in your microwave.
>
> Switch on and notice the large arc emanating from the ends etc. - now
> imagine this inside your leg...
How many jobs involve being inside microwave ovens?
> Try the following experiment: -
>
> Get a titanium spoon (alright something aluminium) and put it in a
> cup of water in your microwave.
>
> Switch on and notice the large arc emanating from the ends etc. - now
> imagine this inside your leg...
Neil Williams
Nov 23, 2011, 5:45:04 AM11/23/11
to
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 02:20:02 +0000, "R. Mark Clayton"
<nospam...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Switch on and notice the large arc emanating from the ends etc. -
now
> imagine this inside your leg...
That's microwave energy. A permanent magnet would not have that
<nospam...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Switch on and notice the large arc emanating from the ends etc. -
now
> imagine this inside your leg...
effect.
Neil
--
Neil Williams, Milton Keynes, UK
one_riff_brian
Nov 23, 2011, 6:00:02 AM11/23/11
to
Thanks for the replies- one little detail- I've got a degree in
Physics, and an A-level understanding of Physics, and I "get" Webers,
Teslas, Gauss, and eddy currents. I've been next to eddy current scrap
metal separators without ill effect. What I *don't* get is how my knee
is a risk in a factory environment, but their motors and generators
are safe once outside the gates, and why their policies, applied
consistently, would exclude anyone with an amalgam filling.
Disability discrimination- would appear to be a dead end on the
"twelve months affecting daily activities" criterion. I've barely
given my knee a thought in the last five years. I'm just too damn
healthy.
The way ahead, I suppose, is to approach the company's HR department
and try to squeeze through their exclusion criteria, having
established exactly what's in my knee.
The agency aren't going to like that. My question is now: how much
trouble can I get myself in by bypassing the agency?
Physics, and an A-level understanding of Physics, and I "get" Webers,
Teslas, Gauss, and eddy currents. I've been next to eddy current scrap
metal separators without ill effect. What I *don't* get is how my knee
is a risk in a factory environment, but their motors and generators
are safe once outside the gates, and why their policies, applied
consistently, would exclude anyone with an amalgam filling.
Disability discrimination- would appear to be a dead end on the
"twelve months affecting daily activities" criterion. I've barely
given my knee a thought in the last five years. I'm just too damn
healthy.
The way ahead, I suppose, is to approach the company's HR department
and try to squeeze through their exclusion criteria, having
established exactly what's in my knee.
The agency aren't going to like that. My question is now: how much
trouble can I get myself in by bypassing the agency?
Periander
Nov 23, 2011, 6:25:01 AM11/23/11
to
On Nov 22, 11:45 pm, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 20:05:02 +0000, Yellow <y...@please.no.spam.com>
> wrote:
>
...
recruitment processes recently (granted all internal to the
organisation I work for) and one in particular springs to mind. I had
a vacancy on my team, it's a desirable position for believe it or not
I am regarded as a good boss and we do engage in some very interesting
work. The vacancy was over subscribed so with a colleague and my boss
we undertook a paper sift before calling anyone in for interview ...
in the end I gave the job to a chap I'd initially binned at the paper
sift stage granted this is a very rare occurrence but the chap really
wanted the job and came and spoke to me after I'd told him he hadn't
performed well enough on paper and impressed me.
OK so this could be seen as me being unfair - that is letting him have
two bites of the cherry whereas everyone else only got the one but I
still think that it was the right thing to do under the circumstances.
---
Periander
> On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 20:05:02 +0000, Yellow <y...@please.no.spam.com>
> wrote:
>
...
> I don't see much point in him going back to them though, even if he
> persuades them to give him an interview, it would just be the
> "cosmetic exercise" they referred to initially, and he still won't get
> the job.
Probably true but not necessarily, I've been involved in a few
> persuades them to give him an interview, it would just be the
> "cosmetic exercise" they referred to initially, and he still won't get
> the job.
recruitment processes recently (granted all internal to the
organisation I work for) and one in particular springs to mind. I had
a vacancy on my team, it's a desirable position for believe it or not
I am regarded as a good boss and we do engage in some very interesting
work. The vacancy was over subscribed so with a colleague and my boss
we undertook a paper sift before calling anyone in for interview ...
in the end I gave the job to a chap I'd initially binned at the paper
sift stage granted this is a very rare occurrence but the chap really
wanted the job and came and spoke to me after I'd told him he hadn't
performed well enough on paper and impressed me.
OK so this could be seen as me being unfair - that is letting him have
two bites of the cherry whereas everyone else only got the one but I
still think that it was the right thing to do under the circumstances.
---
Periander
RobertL
Nov 23, 2011, 7:45:04 AM11/23/11
to
On Nov 22, 3:10 pm, "The Todal" <deadmail...@beeb.net> wrote:
> "Peter Crosland" <g6...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:uM-dnSjMsfktL1bT...@brightview.co.uk...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "one_riff_brian" <brianhughe...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:uM-dnSjMsfktL1bT...@brightview.co.uk...
>
>
>
>
>
"make the sit up and take notice"? Have they done something wrong
then? It seems to me that they were straight with the OP. They could
have wasted his time and not told him the reason. My only complaint
is that the agency should not have sent him for the interview.
As someone else has posted, the metals don't need to be magnetic to
pick up induced currents and cause local heating.
Robert
Message has been deleted
Bernard Peek
Nov 23, 2011, 9:15:03 AM11/23/11
to
On 23/11/11 12:45, RobertL wrote:
>> You could argue disability discrimination. That would make them sit up and
>> take notice, even though strictly speaking they might have a good defence to
>> such an allegation.-
>
>
> "make the sit up and take notice"? Have they done something wrong
> then?
The evidence does not exclude that possibility although it is far from
>> You could argue disability discrimination. That would make them sit up and
>> take notice, even though strictly speaking they might have a good defence to
>> such an allegation.-
>
>
> "make the sit up and take notice"? Have they done something wrong
> then?
proven.
> It seems to me that they were straight with the OP.
straight with him is something that only they know.
> They could
> have wasted his time and not told him the reason. My only complaint
> is that the agency should not have sent him for the interview.
>
> As someone else has posted, the metals don't need to be magnetic to
> pick up induced currents and cause local heating.
adjustment to avoid that happening. Excluding the OP from working there
may or may not be a reasonable adjustment. There is insufficient
evidence to decide.
--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com
Bernard Peek
Nov 23, 2011, 9:20:03 AM11/23/11
to
On 23/11/11 11:00, one_riff_brian wrote:
> Thanks for the replies- one little detail- I've got a degree in
> Physics, and an A-level understanding of Physics, and I "get" Webers,
> Teslas, Gauss, and eddy currents. I've been next to eddy current scrap
> metal separators without ill effect. What I *don't* get is how my knee
> is a risk in a factory environment, but their motors and generators
> are safe once outside the gates, and why their policies, applied
> consistently, would exclude anyone with an amalgam filling.
>
> Disability discrimination- would appear to be a dead end on the
> "twelve months affecting daily activities" criterion. I've barely
> given my knee a thought in the last five years. I'm just too damn
> healthy.
If it prevents you taking the job you want then it is a sufficient
> Thanks for the replies- one little detail- I've got a degree in
> Physics, and an A-level understanding of Physics, and I "get" Webers,
> Teslas, Gauss, and eddy currents. I've been next to eddy current scrap
> metal separators without ill effect. What I *don't* get is how my knee
> is a risk in a factory environment, but their motors and generators
> are safe once outside the gates, and why their policies, applied
> consistently, would exclude anyone with an amalgam filling.
>
> Disability discrimination- would appear to be a dead end on the
> "twelve months affecting daily activities" criterion. I've barely
> given my knee a thought in the last five years. I'm just too damn
> healthy.
disability to be covered by the legislation.
>
> The way ahead, I suppose, is to approach the company's HR department
> and try to squeeze through their exclusion criteria, having
> established exactly what's in my knee.
>
> The agency aren't going to like that. My question is now: how much
> trouble can I get myself in by bypassing the agency?
need to consider whether you are likely to have any future dealings with
them and whether your quite legitimate enquiries might affect their
relationship with the client. Just how important is this particular job
to you? How much effort is it worth to you?
--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com
David McNeish
Nov 23, 2011, 9:50:02 AM11/23/11
to
On Nov 23, 2:20 pm, Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com> wrote:
> If it prevents you taking the job you want then it is a sufficient
> disability to be covered by the legislation.
Covered by what legislation? The Equality Act requires it to have "a
> If it prevents you taking the job you want then it is a sufficient
> disability to be covered by the legislation.
substantial and long-term adverse effect on one's ability to carry out
normal day-to-day activities". The OP hasn't suggested that he is
suffering such an impairment.
Sara
Nov 23, 2011, 11:05:02 AM11/23/11
to
In article <4ecd0077$0$2553$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk>,
peanut-packing factory, but were allergic to peanuts, would I be
considered disabled? What would the factory need to do to get round the
problem?
--
Sara
Bloody weather
Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com> wrote:
>
> If it prevents you taking the job you want then it is a sufficient
> disability to be covered by the legislation.
Interesting - so (for example) if I wanted to be able to get a job in a
>
> If it prevents you taking the job you want then it is a sufficient
> disability to be covered by the legislation.
peanut-packing factory, but were allergic to peanuts, would I be
considered disabled? What would the factory need to do to get round the
problem?
--
Sara
Bloody weather
Jethro
Nov 23, 2011, 8:00:03 AM11/23/11
to
as they could work on radar installations live, whereas they needed to be
shut down for men.
Stephen Wolstenholme
Nov 23, 2011, 8:40:02 AM11/23/11
to
safety regulations with regard to strong magnetic fields. The agency
will act on whatever the company says. It's possibly a filter that the
company do not want to impose themselves.
AAMOI I asked one of my staff about the problem yesterday. She is
qualified in medicine and surgery but had to give up practicing when
she had a brain haemorrhage. Post surgery she now has a large titanium
plate in her scull so she knows a bit about the problems. She says she
cannot have another MRI unless the plate is first removed. She
suggests that there will be similar restrictions with regard to your
implant, MRI safe or not.
Nightjar
Nov 23, 2011, 10:10:04 AM11/23/11
to
On 23/11/2011 08:55, Percy Picacity wrote:
> Nightjar<c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote in
> news:RoKdnRRkB5L_NVHT...@giganews.com:
>
>> On 22/11/2011 17:15, The Todal wrote:
>> ....
>>> I suppose the simple question for the employer is, can this
>>> person work at the premises without putting himself and others at
>>> risk. If it is true that metal fittings can heat up, that is
>>> probably a good reason for excluding him from interview.
>>
>> An induction furnace is one of the two main methods of melting
>> titanium, so it does heat up in a strong magnetic field.
>>
>> Colin Bignell
>>
>>
>
> It is clear that between us we have very little knowledge of the
> physics of a magnet factory. (Note that an electromagnetic field which
> causes sparks from metal also cooks flesh!)
I have visited one, as a customer. There were several restricted access
> Nightjar<c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote in
> news:RoKdnRRkB5L_NVHT...@giganews.com:
>
>> On 22/11/2011 17:15, The Todal wrote:
>> ....
>>> I suppose the simple question for the employer is, can this
>>> person work at the premises without putting himself and others at
>>> risk. If it is true that metal fittings can heat up, that is
>>> probably a good reason for excluding him from interview.
>>
>> An induction furnace is one of the two main methods of melting
>> titanium, so it does heat up in a strong magnetic field.
>>
>> Colin Bignell
>>
>>
>
> It is clear that between us we have very little knowledge of the
> physics of a magnet factory. (Note that an electromagnetic field which
> causes sparks from metal also cooks flesh!)
areas that were marked with notices warning about strong magnetic fields.
> Just to add to the uncertainty, many orthopaedic implants are various
> kinds of steel so it is not a given that the OP's plate is non-ferrous.
discovered they are double vacuum annealed type 316 stainless steel,
which is non-magnetic but, like any metal, not immune from eddy current
heating.
> It would be quite reasonable to ask the firm what its exclusion
> criteria are based on, but it is premature to assume that they are
> over-cautious.
crowns.
Colin Bignell
Bernard Peek
Nov 23, 2011, 11:25:01 AM11/23/11
to
getting a job he wanted. That's sufficient.
--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com
Bernard Peek
Nov 23, 2011, 11:30:10 AM11/23/11
to
it could make. It would probably conclude that there weren't.
--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com
Sara
Nov 23, 2011, 12:00:05 PM11/23/11
to
In article <4ecd1e02$0$2488$db0f...@news.zen.co.uk>,
I'm just trying to get my head around how far this rule goes.
How about someone who's rather clumsy being unable to get a job
decorating wedding cakes?
Or someone who wants to do fine embroidery but their otherwise excellent
eyesight isn't up to the job?
Or someone who would like to be a doctor or a lawyer but isn't
intelligent enough to pass the exams?
Or someone who wants to be photographic model but is rather ugly?
Not being able to do something you want to for a living surely can't
*always* be classed as a disability.
--
Sara
Bloody weather
How about someone who's rather clumsy being unable to get a job
decorating wedding cakes?
Or someone who wants to do fine embroidery but their otherwise excellent
eyesight isn't up to the job?
Or someone who would like to be a doctor or a lawyer but isn't
intelligent enough to pass the exams?
Or someone who wants to be photographic model but is rather ugly?
Not being able to do something you want to for a living surely can't
*always* be classed as a disability.
--
Sara
Bloody weather
Bernard Peek
Nov 23, 2011, 12:35:02 PM11/23/11
to
On 23/11/11 17:00, Sara wrote:
> In article <4ecd1e02$0$2488$db0f...@news.zen.co.uk>,
> Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com> wrote:
>
>> On 23/11/11 14:50, David McNeish wrote:
>>> On Nov 23, 2:20 pm, Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If it prevents you taking the job you want then it is a sufficient
>>>> disability to be covered by the legislation.
>>>
>>> Covered by what legislation? The Equality Act requires it to have "a
>>> substantial and long-term adverse effect on one's ability to carry out
>>> normal day-to-day activities". The OP hasn't suggested that he is
>>> suffering such an impairment.
>>
>> Working is a day-to-day activity. His disability has prevented him from
>> getting a job he wanted. That's sufficient.
>
> I'm just trying to get my head around how far this rule goes.
>
> How about someone who's rather clumsy being unable to get a job
> decorating wedding cakes?
[...]
> In article <4ecd1e02$0$2488$db0f...@news.zen.co.uk>,
> Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com> wrote:
>
>> On 23/11/11 14:50, David McNeish wrote:
>>> On Nov 23, 2:20 pm, Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If it prevents you taking the job you want then it is a sufficient
>>>> disability to be covered by the legislation.
>>>
>>> Covered by what legislation? The Equality Act requires it to have "a
>>> substantial and long-term adverse effect on one's ability to carry out
>>> normal day-to-day activities". The OP hasn't suggested that he is
>>> suffering such an impairment.
>>
>> Working is a day-to-day activity. His disability has prevented him from
>> getting a job he wanted. That's sufficient.
>
> I'm just trying to get my head around how far this rule goes.
>
> How about someone who's rather clumsy being unable to get a job
> decorating wedding cakes?
> Not being able to do something you want to for a living surely can't
> *always* be classed as a disability.
which makes it possible.
--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com
David McNeish
Nov 23, 2011, 12:50:03 PM11/23/11
to
On Nov 23, 4:25 pm, Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com> wrote:
> Working is a day-to-day activity. His disability has prevented him from
> getting a job he wanted. That's sufficient.
No, the activity we're talking about is "being in close proximity to
> Working is a day-to-day activity. His disability has prevented him from
> getting a job he wanted. That's sufficient.
powerful magnets". An inability to do certain specialist types of work
is not a disability.
David McNeish
Nov 23, 2011, 12:55:03 PM11/23/11
to
On Nov 23, 5:35 pm, Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com> wrote:
> It can be if there is a reasonable adjustment that the employer can make
> which makes it possible.
It still has to relate to a "normal day-to-day activity" though (e.g.
> It can be if there is a reasonable adjustment that the employer can make
> which makes it possible.
moving about, writing, going to the toilet), not something peculiar to
a particular industry. If it hasn't otherwise affected the OP's life I
don't see how he can be classed as disabled.
Owain
Nov 23, 2011, 3:10:04 PM11/23/11
to
On Nov 23, 5:00 pm, Sara wrote:
> I'm just trying to get my head around how far this rule goes.
> How about someone who's rather clumsy being unable to get a job ...
> I'm just trying to get my head around how far this rule goes.
> Or someone who wants to be photographic model but is rather ugly?
There are model agencies who specialise in "ugly models" so that's not
necessarily a barrier.
And if you've got good feet you can be a foot model even if you've got
a face like a bulldog swallowing a wasp.
Owain
Alex Heney
Nov 23, 2011, 5:50:02 PM11/23/11
to
I'm not sure where Bernard gets that idea from.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
(A)bort, (R)etry, (P)anic?
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Periander
Nov 23, 2011, 6:10:02 PM11/23/11
to
On Nov 23, 4:25 pm, Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com> wrote:
> On 23/11/11 14:50, David McNeish wrote:
>
...
> On 23/11/11 14:50, David McNeish wrote:
>
>
> Working is a day-to-day activity. His disability has prevented him from
> getting a job he wanted. That's sufficient.
Many many years ago when I was 21 and after learning to fly at
> Working is a day-to-day activity. His disability has prevented him from
> getting a job he wanted. That's sufficient.
taxpayers (and my own) considerable expense I wanted to fly fast jets
for the airforce and drop bombs on Frenchmen ) or Yorkshiremen if the
French didn't want to play) sadly I suffered from the long term
condition of being a virtual alcoholic and the RAF refused, yes
refused to let me fly fast jets even though I really, really wanted
to. They said it was because my disability (addiction) prevented me
form doing so.
Do I have a case to take the RAF to court? Because that's what a
reading of your post above suggests/
---
Periander
R. Mark Clayton
Nov 23, 2011, 7:15:04 PM11/23/11
to
"Neil Williams" <pace...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:almarsoft.2121...@news.individual.net...
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 02:20:02 +0000, "R. Mark Clayton"
<nospam...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Switch on and notice the large arc emanating from the ends etc. -
now
> imagine this inside your leg...
That's microwave energy. A permanent magnet would not have that
effect.
It is not a permanent magnet, it is a whopping great electromagnet that is
<nospam...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Switch on and notice the large arc emanating from the ends etc. -
now
> imagine this inside your leg...
That's microwave energy. A permanent magnet would not have that
effect.
switched on and off. The field is large enough to temporarily reorientation
the nuclei inside atoms, and when they go back to random or are pulsed with
radio waves the detector senses this.
The large switched field will also generate large EMF's in any metal
objects - like the lump of metal in the OP's leg*.
Neil
* An MRI machine uses a powerful magnetic field to align the magnetization
of some atoms in the body, and radio frequency fields to systematically
alter the alignment of this magnetization...
:
....Nonetheless the strong magnetic fields and radio pulses can affect metal
implants, including cochlear implants and cardiac pacemakers. In the case of
cochlear implants, the US FDA has approved some implants for MRI
compatibility. In the case of cardiac pacemakers, the results can sometimes
be lethal,[3] so patients with such implants are generally not eligible for
MRI.
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRI_Scanner
Stuart A. Bronstein
Nov 23, 2011, 7:35:02 PM11/23/11
to
Periander <periander....@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Many many years ago when I was 21 and after learning to fly at
> taxpayers (and my own) considerable expense I wanted to fly fast
> jets for the airforce and drop bombs on Frenchmen ) or
> Yorkshiremen if the French didn't want to play) sadly I suffered
> from the long term condition of being a virtual alcoholic and
> the RAF refused, yes refused to let me fly fast jets even though
> I really, really wanted to. They said it was because my
> disability (addiction) prevented me form doing so.
>
> Do I have a case to take the RAF to court? Because that's what a
> reading of your post above suggests/
You certainly have a case. You will lose if you bring it, however.
> Many many years ago when I was 21 and after learning to fly at
> taxpayers (and my own) considerable expense I wanted to fly fast
> jets for the airforce and drop bombs on Frenchmen ) or
> Yorkshiremen if the French didn't want to play) sadly I suffered
> from the long term condition of being a virtual alcoholic and
> the RAF refused, yes refused to let me fly fast jets even though
> I really, really wanted to. They said it was because my
> disability (addiction) prevented me form doing so.
>
> Do I have a case to take the RAF to court? Because that's what a
> reading of your post above suggests/
--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
Zapp Brannigan
Nov 23, 2011, 7:35:10 PM11/23/11
to
"Periander" <periander....@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:7661fddb-e4b3-4258...@g21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> The vacancy was over subscribed so with a colleague and my boss
> we undertook a paper sift before calling anyone in for interview ...
> in the end I gave the job to a chap I'd initially binned at the paper
> sift stage granted this is a very rare occurrence but the chap really
> wanted the job and came and spoke to me after I'd told him he hadn't
> performed well enough on paper and impressed me.
>
> OK so this could be seen as me being unfair - that is letting him have
> two bites of the cherry whereas everyone else only got the one but I
> still think that it was the right thing to do under the circumstances.
one_riff_brian
Nov 23, 2011, 7:45:02 PM11/23/11
to
On Nov 23, 1:40 pm, Stephen Wolstenholme <st...@npsl1.com> wrote:
> AAMOI I asked one of my staff about the problem yesterday. She is
> qualified in medicine and surgery but had to give up practicing when
> she had a brain haemorrhage. Post surgery she now has a large titanium
> plate in her scull so she knows a bit about the problems. She says she
> cannot have another MRI unless the plate is first removed. She
> suggests that there will be similar restrictions with regard to your
> implant, MRI safe or not.
"Cannot have another MRI".... now, does that mean that it would be
> AAMOI I asked one of my staff about the problem yesterday. She is
> qualified in medicine and surgery but had to give up practicing when
> she had a brain haemorrhage. Post surgery she now has a large titanium
> plate in her scull so she knows a bit about the problems. She says she
> cannot have another MRI unless the plate is first removed. She
> suggests that there will be similar restrictions with regard to your
> implant, MRI safe or not.
unsafe, or that the plate would make it impossible to get a decent
image?
I'll hopefully be looking at my records tomorrow, and retrieving
manufacturers and batch numbers.
"Disabled" is not a word I'd use for a knee that stiffens up a bit
sometimes, but what appears to be happening is that the client are
taking a very minor medical condition and making it into one on very
suspect Health and Safety grounds.
Bernard Peek
Nov 24, 2011, 3:25:01 AM11/24/11
to
for them to make "reasonable adjustments" and allow you to fly safely
then you would have a solid case.
--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com
Nick Leverton
Nov 24, 2011, 4:20:02 AM11/24/11
to
In article <4ecdfed1$0$2501$db0f...@news.zen.co.uk>,
Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com> wrote:
specifically excluded from the DDA, and (if I do RC) presumably still
are under the Equality Act.
Nick
--
Serendipity: http://www.leverton.org/blosxom (last update 29th March 2010)
"The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life"
-- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996
Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com> wrote:
>On 23/11/11 23:10, Periander wrote:
>>
>> Many many years ago when I was 21 and after learning to fly at
>> taxpayers (and my own) considerable expense I wanted to fly fast jets
>> for the airforce and drop bombs on Frenchmen ) or Yorkshiremen if the
>> French didn't want to play) sadly I suffered from the long term
>> condition of being a virtual alcoholic and the RAF refused, yes
>> refused to let me fly fast jets even though I really, really wanted
>> to. They said it was because my disability (addiction) prevented me
>> form doing so.
>>
>> Do I have a case to take the RAF to court? Because that's what a
>> reading of your post above suggests/
>
>I'm repeating what I've said about similar questions. If it was possible
>for them to make "reasonable adjustments" and allow you to fly safely
>then you would have a solid case.
IIRC, disabilities such as may arise from drug or alcohol use were
>>
>> Many many years ago when I was 21 and after learning to fly at
>> taxpayers (and my own) considerable expense I wanted to fly fast jets
>> for the airforce and drop bombs on Frenchmen ) or Yorkshiremen if the
>> French didn't want to play) sadly I suffered from the long term
>> condition of being a virtual alcoholic and the RAF refused, yes
>> refused to let me fly fast jets even though I really, really wanted
>> to. They said it was because my disability (addiction) prevented me
>> form doing so.
>>
>> Do I have a case to take the RAF to court? Because that's what a
>> reading of your post above suggests/
>
>I'm repeating what I've said about similar questions. If it was possible
>for them to make "reasonable adjustments" and allow you to fly safely
>then you would have a solid case.
specifically excluded from the DDA, and (if I do RC) presumably still
are under the Equality Act.
Nick
--
Serendipity: http://www.leverton.org/blosxom (last update 29th March 2010)
"The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life"
-- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996
Message has been deleted
Periander
Nov 24, 2011, 5:15:11 AM11/24/11
to
On Nov 24, 9:45 am, Janet <H...@invalid.net> wrote:
> In article <7793214e-5120-4e5f-85a7-
> c3d313561...@p2g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,
> periander.of.cori...@googlemail.com says...
> Make it a class action. RAF uniform brings me out in a rash.
Oooo I still have a set of Number 2s(*) somewhere, maybe I could still
get in it :-)
(*) That's uniform folks, not what you're thinking
---
Periander
> In article <7793214e-5120-4e5f-85a7-
> c3d313561...@p2g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,
> periander.of.cori...@googlemail.com says...
Oooo I still have a set of Number 2s(*) somewhere, maybe I could still
get in it :-)
(*) That's uniform folks, not what you're thinking
---
Periander
Periander
Nov 24, 2011, 5:20:02 AM11/24/11
to
have a re-read if you can't see the difficulty in supporting your
point of view.
---
Periander
Stephen Wolstenholme
Nov 24, 2011, 6:00:05 AM11/24/11
to
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 00:45:02 +0000, one_riff_brian
<brianh...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 23, 1:40 pm, Stephen Wolstenholme <st...@npsl1.com> wrote:
>
>> AAMOI I asked one of my staff about the problem yesterday. She is
>> qualified in medicine and surgery but had to give up practicing when
>> she had a brain haemorrhage. Post surgery she now has a large titanium
>> plate in her scull so she knows a bit about the problems. She says she
>> cannot have another MRI unless the plate is first removed. She
>> suggests that there will be similar restrictions with regard to your
>> implant, MRI safe or not.
>
>"Cannot have another MRI".... now, does that mean that it would be
>unsafe, or that the plate would make it impossible to get a decent
>image?
>
It's all about the dangers related to induced currents resulting in
<brianh...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 23, 1:40 pm, Stephen Wolstenholme <st...@npsl1.com> wrote:
>
>> AAMOI I asked one of my staff about the problem yesterday. She is
>> qualified in medicine and surgery but had to give up practicing when
>> she had a brain haemorrhage. Post surgery she now has a large titanium
>> plate in her scull so she knows a bit about the problems. She says she
>> cannot have another MRI unless the plate is first removed. She
>> suggests that there will be similar restrictions with regard to your
>> implant, MRI safe or not.
>
>"Cannot have another MRI".... now, does that mean that it would be
>unsafe, or that the plate would make it impossible to get a decent
>image?
>
heat. Implants can get hot. The area should be avoided as in not
scanned.
R. Mark Clayton
Nov 24, 2011, 9:35:02 AM11/24/11
to
"Stephen Wolstenholme" <st...@npsl1.com> wrote in message
news:3u7sc75q5q2vmt34e...@4ax.com...
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 00:45:02 +0000, one_riff_brian
<brianh...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 23, 1:40 pm, Stephen Wolstenholme <st...@npsl1.com> wrote:
>
>> AAMOI I asked one of my staff about the problem yesterday. She is
>> qualified in medicine and surgery but had to give up practicing when
>> she had a brain haemorrhage. Post surgery she now has a large titanium
>> plate in her scull so she knows a bit about the problems. She says she
>> cannot have another MRI unless the plate is first removed. She
>> suggests that there will be similar restrictions with regard to your
>> implant, MRI safe or not.
>
>"Cannot have another MRI".... now, does that mean that it would be
>unsafe, or that the plate would make it impossible to get a decent
>image?
>
It's all about the dangers related to induced currents resulting in
heat. Implants can get hot. The area should be avoided as in not
scanned.
Steve
Indeed
<brianh...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 23, 1:40 pm, Stephen Wolstenholme <st...@npsl1.com> wrote:
>
>> AAMOI I asked one of my staff about the problem yesterday. She is
>> qualified in medicine and surgery but had to give up practicing when
>> she had a brain haemorrhage. Post surgery she now has a large titanium
>> plate in her scull so she knows a bit about the problems. She says she
>> cannot have another MRI unless the plate is first removed. She
>> suggests that there will be similar restrictions with regard to your
>> implant, MRI safe or not.
>
>"Cannot have another MRI".... now, does that mean that it would be
>unsafe, or that the plate would make it impossible to get a decent
>image?
>
It's all about the dangers related to induced currents resulting in
heat. Implants can get hot. The area should be avoided as in not
scanned.
Steve
"Ferromagnetic foreign bodies such as shell fragments, or metallic implants
such as surgical prostheses and aneurysm clips are also potential risks.
Interaction of the magnetic and radio frequency fields with such objects can
lead to trauma due to movement of the object in the magnetic field or
thermal injury from radio-frequency induction heating of the
object.[citation needed]
[OTOH]
Titanium and its alloys are safe from movement from the magnetic field.
"
So the OP might be OK as long as his implant wasn't plated...
Alex Heney
Nov 24, 2011, 6:15:14 PM11/24/11
to
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 08:25:01 +0000, Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com>
That just isn't the way disability is defined.
> If it was possible
>for them to make "reasonable adjustments" and allow you to fly safely
>then you would have a solid case.
But only if he actually had a disability as defined in the law.
I'm short sighted - corrected with contact lenses.
That would (to borrow Periander's example) stop me from getting a job
flying with the RAF, because they require 20:20 vision for pilots (or
at least used to).
But it has virtually no effect on my normal day to day activities, so
is certainly not classed as a disability by the law.
Affecting your day to day activities does not mean affecting your
ability to undertake a specific small range of employments.
The official guidance can be found here:
http://odi.dwp.gov.uk/docs/wor/new/ea-guide.pdf
Note particularly Para D5 on page 32:
=================================
Work-related and other specialised activities
D5. Normal day-to-day activities do not include work of any particular
form because no particular form of work is ‘normal’ for most people.
In any individual case, the activities carried out might be highly
specialised. For example, carrying out delicate work with specialised
tools may be a normal working activity for a watch repairer, whereas
it would not be normal for a person who is employed as a semi-skilled
worker. The Act only covers effects which go beyond the normal
differences in skill or ability.
===================================
wrote:
>On 23/11/11 23:10, Periander wrote:
>> On Nov 23, 4:25 pm, Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com> wrote:
>>> On 23/11/11 14:50, David McNeish wrote:
>>>
>> ...
>>>
>>> Working is a day-to-day activity. His disability has prevented him from
>>> getting a job he wanted. That's sufficient.
>>
>> Many many years ago when I was 21 and after learning to fly at
>> taxpayers (and my own) considerable expense I wanted to fly fast jets
>> for the airforce and drop bombs on Frenchmen ) or Yorkshiremen if the
>> French didn't want to play) sadly I suffered from the long term
>> condition of being a virtual alcoholic and the RAF refused, yes
>> refused to let me fly fast jets even though I really, really wanted
>> to. They said it was because my disability (addiction) prevented me
>> form doing so.
>>
>> Do I have a case to take the RAF to court? Because that's what a
>> reading of your post above suggests/
>
>I'm repeating what I've said about similar questions.
But I don't think it has ever been a correct answer.
>On 23/11/11 23:10, Periander wrote:
>> On Nov 23, 4:25 pm, Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com> wrote:
>>> On 23/11/11 14:50, David McNeish wrote:
>>>
>> ...
>>>
>>> Working is a day-to-day activity. His disability has prevented him from
>>> getting a job he wanted. That's sufficient.
>>
>> Many many years ago when I was 21 and after learning to fly at
>> taxpayers (and my own) considerable expense I wanted to fly fast jets
>> for the airforce and drop bombs on Frenchmen ) or Yorkshiremen if the
>> French didn't want to play) sadly I suffered from the long term
>> condition of being a virtual alcoholic and the RAF refused, yes
>> refused to let me fly fast jets even though I really, really wanted
>> to. They said it was because my disability (addiction) prevented me
>> form doing so.
>>
>> Do I have a case to take the RAF to court? Because that's what a
>> reading of your post above suggests/
>
>I'm repeating what I've said about similar questions.
That just isn't the way disability is defined.
> If it was possible
>for them to make "reasonable adjustments" and allow you to fly safely
>then you would have a solid case.
I'm short sighted - corrected with contact lenses.
That would (to borrow Periander's example) stop me from getting a job
flying with the RAF, because they require 20:20 vision for pilots (or
at least used to).
But it has virtually no effect on my normal day to day activities, so
is certainly not classed as a disability by the law.
Affecting your day to day activities does not mean affecting your
ability to undertake a specific small range of employments.
The official guidance can be found here:
http://odi.dwp.gov.uk/docs/wor/new/ea-guide.pdf
Note particularly Para D5 on page 32:
=================================
Work-related and other specialised activities
D5. Normal day-to-day activities do not include work of any particular
form because no particular form of work is ‘normal’ for most people.
In any individual case, the activities carried out might be highly
specialised. For example, carrying out delicate work with specialised
tools may be a normal working activity for a watch repairer, whereas
it would not be normal for a person who is employed as a semi-skilled
worker. The Act only covers effects which go beyond the normal
differences in skill or ability.
===================================
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Justice is incidental to law and order.
Alex Heney, Global Villager
GB
Nov 24, 2011, 7:45:15 PM11/24/11
to
Periander wrote:
>>
>> Make it a class action. RAF uniform brings me out in a rash.
>
> Oooo I still have a set of Number 2s(*) somewhere, maybe I could still
> get in it :-)
>
> (*) That's uniform folks, not what you're thinking
>
I learnt to fly in one of their Mark 8 gliders IIRC.
>>
>> Make it a class action. RAF uniform brings me out in a rash.
>
> Oooo I still have a set of Number 2s(*) somewhere, maybe I could still
> get in it :-)
>
> (*) That's uniform folks, not what you're thinking
>
A friend of my daughter's was not-quite-cashiered from the RAF. One of his
pecadillos was that for his friend's 21st birthday, he borrowed lots of
animals from the local farmers and set up a petting zoo in his quarters.
Anyway, they all got drunk, and in the morning these animals were all over
the airfield.
On another occasion, they drove a landrover through woods, at night, at
speed. After they crashed, and whilst he was recovering in hospital, they
noticed that he is colour blind, so they grounded him and offered him the
chance to leave rather than be pushed.
Sounds like the drinking culture is still alive and well in the RAF since
your days.
R. Mark Clayton
Nov 24, 2011, 7:40:02 PM11/24/11
to
"Alex Heney" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:ghitc7l3qt1i03nao...@4ax.com...
SNIP
But only if he actually had a disability as defined in the law.
I'm short sighted - corrected with contact lenses.
That would (to borrow Periander's example) stop me from getting a job
flying with the RAF, because they require 20:20 vision for pilots (or
at least used to).
eye as a child they would not let him fly "plenty of two eyed pilots"...
Paul Cummins
Nov 26, 2011, 6:50:02 AM11/26/11
to
We were about to embark at Dover, when m...@privacy.net (Alex Heney) came
up to me and whispered:
> The Act only covers effects which go beyond the normal
> differences in skill or ability.
Needing glasses is not a disability.
Being functionally blind in one eye is.
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
IF you think this http://bit.ly/u5EP3p is cruel
please sign this http://bit.ly/sKkzEx
---- If it's below this line, I didn't write it ----
up to me and whispered:
> The Act only covers effects which go beyond the normal
> differences in skill or ability.
Being functionally blind in one eye is.
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
IF you think this http://bit.ly/u5EP3p is cruel
please sign this http://bit.ly/sKkzEx
---- If it's below this line, I didn't write it ----
S
Nov 26, 2011, 12:35:01 PM11/26/11
to
On Nov 26, 11:50 am, useth...@stedtelephone.invalid (Paul Cummins)
wrote:
wrote:
> We were about to embark at Dover, when m...@privacy.net (Alex Heney) came
> up to me and whispered:
>
> > The Act only covers effects which go beyond the normal
> > differences in skill or ability.
>
> Needing glasses is not a disability.
It most definitely is.
> up to me and whispered:
>
> > The Act only covers effects which go beyond the normal
> > differences in skill or ability.
>
> Needing glasses is not a disability.
Nick Leverton
Nov 26, 2011, 2:05:02 PM11/26/11
to
In article <b397b3ca-eb3b-412b...@q11g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>,
But not by itself under the EqA. Schedule 1 part 1 paragraph 5(3)(a):
"Effect of medical treatment
5(1)An impairment is to be treated as having a substantial adverse effect
on the ability of the person concerned to carry out normal day-to-day
activities if--
(a)measures are being taken to treat or correct it, and
(b)but for that, it would be likely to have that effect.
(2)"Measures" includes, in particular, medical treatment and the use of a
prosthesis or other aid.
(3)Sub-paragraph (1) does not apply--
(a)in relation to the impairment of a person's sight, to the extent that
the impairment is, in the person's case, correctable by spectacles or
contact lenses or in such other ways as may be prescribed;"
Only if the vision impairment is so severe as to be certified or
registered as partially sighted would one then qualify, even if one wore
glasses to help - I believe anyway, this is stated in EHRC guidance notes
"Effect of medical treatment
5(1)An impairment is to be treated as having a substantial adverse effect
on the ability of the person concerned to carry out normal day-to-day
activities if--
(a)measures are being taken to treat or correct it, and
(b)but for that, it would be likely to have that effect.
(2)"Measures" includes, in particular, medical treatment and the use of a
prosthesis or other aid.
(3)Sub-paragraph (1) does not apply--
(a)in relation to the impairment of a person's sight, to the extent that
the impairment is, in the person's case, correctable by spectacles or
contact lenses or in such other ways as may be prescribed;"
Only if the vision impairment is so severe as to be certified or
registered as partially sighted would one then qualify, even if one wore
glasses to help - I believe anyway, this is stated in EHRC guidance notes
Alex Heney
Nov 26, 2011, 5:00:05 PM11/26/11
to
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Let's organize this thing and take all the fun out of it.
Alex Heney, Global Villager
one_riff_brian
Nov 26, 2011, 8:10:03 PM11/26/11
to
Update... Since I've nothing to do all day and all day to do it, I've
had a look at the hospital records and X-rays- I've got an AO buttress
plate and seven screws, and lot numbers from the sterile supplies.
I've contacted the hospital patient liaison office, and hope to find
out the manufacturer and material. What I can't work out is: if metal
is a danger, why *aren't* they excluding everyone with amalgam
fillings? They *are* excluding anyone with a wheelchair, an artificial
leg or a hearing aid.
had a look at the hospital records and X-rays- I've got an AO buttress
plate and seven screws, and lot numbers from the sterile supplies.
I've contacted the hospital patient liaison office, and hope to find
out the manufacturer and material. What I can't work out is: if metal
is a danger, why *aren't* they excluding everyone with amalgam
fillings? They *are* excluding anyone with a wheelchair, an artificial
leg or a hearing aid.
Paul Cummins
Nov 27, 2011, 5:10:03 AM11/27/11
to
We were about to embark at Dover, when s_pick...@yahoo.com (S) came up
to me and whispered:
> > Needing glasses is not a disability.
>
> It most definitely is.
It specifically is not according to the regulations.
to me and whispered:
> > Needing glasses is not a disability.
>
> It most definitely is.
Yellow
Nov 27, 2011, 8:05:02 AM11/27/11
to
In article <36251519-439d-4bf9-964f-
61ad1b...@n10g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>, brianh...@googlemail.com
says...
Perhaps because everyone has fillings they have had to find a way to
deal with the issue.
Perhaps the small size of fillings mean they are OK.
Perhaps everyone has to wear a lead gum shield.
But until you ask the employer, it can all only be lots of perhaps and
maybes because no one except them knows the particular risks of their
business and the mitigation methods and procedures they have put into
place to protect their employees.
What is unlikely is that the employer simply hates people in wheelchairs
or with metal kneecaps and is making up regulations to deliberately
exclude such people from their workplace.
61ad1b...@n10g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>, brianh...@googlemail.com
says...
deal with the issue.
Perhaps the small size of fillings mean they are OK.
Perhaps everyone has to wear a lead gum shield.
But until you ask the employer, it can all only be lots of perhaps and
maybes because no one except them knows the particular risks of their
business and the mitigation methods and procedures they have put into
place to protect their employees.
What is unlikely is that the employer simply hates people in wheelchairs
or with metal kneecaps and is making up regulations to deliberately
exclude such people from their workplace.
Periander
Nov 27, 2011, 7:05:02 AM11/27/11
to
On Nov 27, 1:10 am, one_riff_brian <brianhughe...@googlemail.com>
wrote:
Look, do you have the genuine skills for the job, are you a junkie, do
you have terrible BO or a violent personality disorder and do you
think that you can really do the job well? If it's "yes" to the first
and last and "No" to the others I really would advise what someone
else mentioned earlier in the thread ... go back to them, impress them
with your enthusiasm and see what happens. The very worst outcome is
that they say, "Thanks but no thanks" or ignore you (either way leaves
you no worse off than you are now), the likely option is that they
will give you full details as to why they've disqualified you from the
recuitment process but the best that can happen is that you're in line
for what sounds to be a decent job.
Whatever the outcome you're not going to come out any worse than you
are now.
---
Periander
wrote:
you have terrible BO or a violent personality disorder and do you
think that you can really do the job well? If it's "yes" to the first
and last and "No" to the others I really would advise what someone
else mentioned earlier in the thread ... go back to them, impress them
with your enthusiasm and see what happens. The very worst outcome is
that they say, "Thanks but no thanks" or ignore you (either way leaves
you no worse off than you are now), the likely option is that they
will give you full details as to why they've disqualified you from the
recuitment process but the best that can happen is that you're in line
for what sounds to be a decent job.
Whatever the outcome you're not going to come out any worse than you
are now.
---
Periander
S
Nov 27, 2011, 2:25:01 PM11/27/11
to
On Nov 26, 10:00 pm, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
disability discrimination legislation. Whereas HIV infection and
cancer are specifically included even when they have no symptoms.
> On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 17:35:01 +0000, S <s_pickle2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 26, 11:50 am, useth...@stedtelephone.invalid (Paul Cummins)
> >wrote:
> >> We were about to embark at Dover, when m...@privacy.net (Alex Heney) came
> >> up to me and whispered:
>
> >> > The Act only covers effects which go beyond the normal
> >> > differences in skill or ability.
>
> >> Needing glasses is not a disability.
>
> >It most definitely is.
>
> Not according to the law.
It is a disability whose effects are specifically excluded from
> >On Nov 26, 11:50 am, useth...@stedtelephone.invalid (Paul Cummins)
> >wrote:
> >> We were about to embark at Dover, when m...@privacy.net (Alex Heney) came
> >> up to me and whispered:
>
> >> > The Act only covers effects which go beyond the normal
> >> > differences in skill or ability.
>
> >> Needing glasses is not a disability.
>
> >It most definitely is.
>
> Not according to the law.
disability discrimination legislation. Whereas HIV infection and
cancer are specifically included even when they have no symptoms.
0 new messages