A necessary move - or just another example of political correctness

A necessary move - or just another example of...

Didn't find your answer?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/12560121

There is a threat of quotas beng imposed unless businesses ensure that at least 25% of the board is female.

Is this really what business needs - a system where people are promoted to fill a quota rather than because they are the best person for the job?

I can see how in a firm like Mothercare women would possibly make up the majority of the board, but, I can also see that in a heavy engineering firm or an armaments firm they would probably be a small minority.  Is it the job of government of whatever colour to interfere with how companies run their businesses and who they promote?

.

Replies (43)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

Quack
By Constantly Confused
24th Feb 2011 11:02

So long as it cuts both ways

I worked at W H Smiths for a few years and aside from me there was one man (a manager I admit).

All the supervisors were women, all the floor staff bar me, the other manager...  I was told not long after I had started that the only reason I was hired was because for whatever reason no women had applied for the post this time.

And there must be boards that are over 75% female, do we get to insist that they hire a man?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By blok
24th Feb 2011 11:27

.

This annoys me no end!

What is the UK coming to?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
24th Feb 2011 12:25

.

What is the UK coming to?tooltip();

 

Posted by blok on Thu, 24/02/2011 - 11:27

 

I thought we had got rid of Harriet Harman but it seems her loony ideas live on.

In a few years there will be quotas for femals, for disabled, for gays, for etnic minorities, and for every other "group" you can think of. I wonder where employng the best person for the job comes into it ?

This is, in my opinion, a dangerous idea which will lead to "token females" elected to the board and then ignored as simply "someone the rest of the board have to put up with". 

I wonder, do women really want to get these positions and be the "token woman", part of a "quota", or do they actually want to get there on merit ?  If I was a woman I'd actually feel insulted by this. 

   

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cyrynpen
24th Feb 2011 12:42

PC Gone Mad

I hate all this Political Correctness BS! I'm a woman and I believe that a person (male, female, gay, straight or anything in between) should be promoted because of merit.

Political correctness is now a joke. I mean really, the whole Sky Sports fiasco? Was Andy Gray's comment really that bad. I thought it was quite funny to be honest!! Everyone needs to calm down and obtain a sense of humour.

Thanks (0)
By mwngiol
24th Feb 2011 14:38

Tricky

I honestly think this is a tricky one.

Yes, in a perfect world all boards would be fairly representative of the population and all those on the board would be there on merit.

But we are coming from a very imperfect past where women were very much discriminated against when it came to these kinds of positions and are therefore now hugely under-represented at board level.

So the options we have are to forget the past and wait for things to correct themselves no matter how long it takes (because after all women are just as capable as men and over time it will correct itself, but who can say how long that will take) or do we go for a period of quotas or positive discrimination to give things a helping hand.

If such a quota is introduced it should be no more than a temporary measure, and there should be 'get-out clauses' to avoid firms having to take on anyone below the required standard just to fulfill the quota. Which means it will be very difficult to legislate for in any meaningful way.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By blok
24th Feb 2011 14:41

.

Did you hear about the new law propsed attempting to crack down on the use of "bribery"?

Dont know all the details but I think it would potentially affect the ability of corporates to entertain potential / existing customers.

Seemingly this entertainment would deem to assert undue influence on the relationship and is tantamount to bribery.

Just crazy...

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
24th Feb 2011 15:17

Illegal quotas

 So the options we have are to forget the past and wait for things to correct themselves no matter how long it takes (because after all women are just as capable as men and over time it will correct itself, but who can say how long that will take) or do we go for a period of quotas or positive discrimination to give things a helping hand.

tooltip();

 

Posted by mwngiol on Thu, 24/02/2011 - 14:38

 

Several issues arise from any kind of "quota" or "positive discrimination" or whatever else you care to call it.

Firstly there is no such thing as "positive discrimination" because if it discriminate in favour of women, then clearly that means it discriminates AGAINST men.

Substitute religion, colour, creed, disability, sexual orientation, freemason, people with red hair, or anything else you like, the effect is the same if its positive to wards one group, then its negative towards all others who are not part of that "group".

So, since discrimination is illegal, then it follows that "positive duscrimination" (which is what a quota is) should be illegal.

Isnt it funny how "discrimination", just like "racism" only happen in one direction in the minds of the pc brigade.

 

Secondly, why are there less women at board room level - there is actually a reason for this. As a general rule (and I realise this is a generalisation but no less valid for being one). to reach the board room you need to have many years climbing the corporate ladder. However,  a large number of women (certainly up until maybe 20 years ago) took breaks from their profession to have and raise children. Even after returning to the workforce they were less suitable for positions of responsibility due to constant time off for holidays, childrens illness, etc. 

The women now reaching the point where they might be considered for promotion to the board are from those generations, so are not as advanced in their carreers as their male collegues.  Therefore, not as qualified for promotion. 

 

In my view imposing quotas will simply further strangle businesses and further reduce international competitiveness. 

As a nation, and as businesses, we simply cannot afford the politically correct ideas and social engineering of the people who push these silly schemes, but have nio grasp on the realities of their ideas. 

 

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cyrynpen
24th Feb 2011 15:42

Women Taking Time Off

Not exactly relevant to the current conversation but I don't intend on become a house wife. In fact I intend that HE becomes the house husband!! I earn more than him anyway! :p So I guess I should be as qualified as any other person of my level.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By listerramjet
24th Feb 2011 16:06

political correctness, or just a waste of taxpayers money?

Should there be more females on FTSE boards?  Or any other sorts of boards for that matter?  You might equally ask why there should not be, but why pick on 25%?  And why even worry about it in the first place?  We already have legions of laws supposed to erradicate discrimination - or perhaps Lord Davies thinks these laws don't work?  In which case perhaps they might waste some more money in working out why? 

Thanks (0)
By mwngiol
24th Feb 2011 16:44

Discrimination

"Secondly, why are there less women at board room level - there is actually a reason for this."

There are several reasons. One of the main ones is decades (if not centuries) of discrimination against women (and the same can be said about many ethnic groups etc). This has resulted in an uneven playing field.

So while I agree that discrimination and therefore also positive discrimination is wrong, the only other alternative I can see is to do absolutely nothing to correct the past and level the playing field so that no 'quotas' are considered neccessary. Neither way is perfect but surely something has to be done to remedy a situation which has come about because of outdated views of women.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By justsotax
24th Feb 2011 18:33

Dare I suggest picking the best person for the job....

of course not that would be far too cutting edge.....the only people who lose when they don't choose the best person for the job is the business itself....so I would suggest an oldboys network in a company hierachy isn't sustainable in a modern economy, that said i am sure we could find an exception....

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
24th Feb 2011 18:45

the best MAN for the job

Let's say I was selecting someone to take over my business when I fall off my perch. The very last thing I would accept is some politician dictating to me which "group" I had to pick from.

I quite simply want someone who is obviously capable of running it, technically qualified to run it, and, who would continue to run it in the way I have, with the qualities and ethos I have built into it.

And once I'd considered all that - I'd simply select the best MAN for the job :)

 

 

(OK I'll now wait for the feminists to tar and feather me).

Thanks (0)
By tracybbs
24th Feb 2011 18:57

I think it depends on the company

I think it's best if the board understands the workforce and the customer and therefore sometimes it's relevant to have a mix of sexes, and sometimes it isn't.

That said i do find it slightly amusing that CD's mind went directly to Mothercare when he thought of women on the board!

Thanks (0)
By ShirleyM
24th Feb 2011 19:59

CD

Are all your female employees over 50 and past childbearing age?

I am just interested to know if this bias against women is real, or pretence, or if you are applying double standards.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
24th Feb 2011 22:47

Shirley

Are all your female employees over 50 and past childbearing age?

I am just interested to know if this bias against women is real, or pretence, or if you are applying double standards.tooltip();

 

Posted by ShirleyM on Thu, 24/02/2011 - 19:59

 

What bias ? 

What I am is realistic - and anti political correctness.  I have no problem with women of child bearing age, BUT, as I'm a realist, if I thought one was intending to start a family, then I would certainly not put them in a position where they were indispensible - thats simply good management and taking ALL relevent factors into consideration regardless of what the pc muppets might think (if they are capable of thinking, which I doubt).

Like it or not men and women are different (and I dont mean the obvious).  Physically men are stronger (usually) and more aggresive. Whoever thought sending women in the army to the frontline has never been in a firefight. I've yet to meet a woman who can kill without a second thought, and in a battle that second thought will cost you, and your comrades, your lives. 

Mentally women tend to have a different skill set to men, this is very apparent in a court room, and even in the world of accountancy.  Women tend to pay much more attention to details, whereas men tend to focus more on the overall picture.

As a result they are suited to different tasks, and different aspects of jobs.

So, no Im not biased, yes occasionally I say things "tongue in cheek", and yes I do "discriminate", if, by that, you mean do I take their strengths and weaknesses and their different psychological make up into account.

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By frustratedwithhmrc
24th Feb 2011 23:20

Those who break through Glass Ceilings...

The problem here is not with women directors or some other obscure PC point, the problem here is that there is a market for talent and it pays the appropriate market rate for the talent that is required. It doesn't matter whether the field is teaching, selling pharmaceutical products or cars. The market, through supply and demand, determines the price.

What the government is attempting to do here is dictate that the price of a testosterone filled salesman is less than an HR director.

I am (of course) using parody to make a point. If you want to change UK companies from being male oriented, then you probably have to move them from being sales driven to some other approach. I'm not quite clear what, possibly concentrating on long-term shareholder value or something.

That would do more for women than government quotas. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan "Government is not a solution to our problems, government IS the problem".

Thanks (0)
By ShirleyM
25th Feb 2011 09:01

Men v Women

I don't have children, but have suffered discrimination in the past because employers 'assumed' I would have children.

It seems so many people assume that all women have a 'strong' male who can provide for them, and their children (if they have any), so it is ok to give preference to men. For those lucky children that do have 2 parents, roll on the day where both parents take equal responsibilites for their offspring, and/or employers will accept that men, as well as women, may need to time time off for their children occasionally.

I have no problem whatsoever with people (men or women) being recruited on abilities and talent.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
25th Feb 2011 11:43

Shirley

 I don't have children, but have suffered discrimination in the past because employers 'assumed' I would have children.

tooltip();

 

Posted by ShirleyM on Fri, 25/02/2011 - 09:01

 

Of course you have suffered discrimination - everyone does.  Everyone (even the politically correct brigade) discriminates every day.

Every experience in our lives causes some form of bias.  Buy a Ford car that constantly breaks down and you will be biased against Fords for the rest of your life. Have a bad experience with a blond woman, and you will be biased against blondes. Get food poisoning from an egg - and you will avoid eating them in future. Get bitten by a dog & I guarantee you will develop a fear of dogs. 

It's part of the natural "learning by association" inbuilt into us all. Its how we learn that sticking our hand in the fire is not a bright idea.

And yes - have one female employee mess you about over paternity leave, and you will be biased against women of child bearing age in future.

 

Thanks (0)
By ShirleyM
25th Feb 2011 12:36

Some more than others!

OK - I take your point that everyone suffers discrimination at some point in their life, but some more than others.

However, that doesn't make it 'fair', and despite my faults I do try to treat everyone fairly, and with respect. I also believe (hope) that such outdated views of women will die as each new generation comes along.

I just find your attitude to the law so difficult to understand. If we each ignored the laws that we don't personally agree with then then the UK would be ruled by anarchy.

Edit: You have in the past mentioned that you suffered discrimination because of dyslexia, and that the services gave you the opportunity to show 'what you were capable of'. I was also lucky enough for an employer to give me that much-needed opportunity. I would have thought that experience would make you more likely not to discriminate against others yourself. I guess I was wrong (again!).

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
25th Feb 2011 14:12

Shirley

I just find your attitude to the law so difficult to understand. If we each ignored the laws that we don't personally agree with then then the UK would be ruled by anarchy.

Posted by ShirleyM on Fri, 25/02/2011 - 12:36

 

I dont ignore laws - but I do campaign to change the bad ones. And of course some laws are simply stupid.

If I interview you for a job, and say Im not hiring you because you're a woman - thats illegal.

But if I interview you, and say Im not hiring you because I dont feel you are the right person for the job - thats legal.

Utterly ridiculous.

 

_______________________________________

Edit: You have in the past mentioned that you suffered discrimination because of dyslexia, and that the services gave you the opportunity to show 'what you were capable of'. I was also lucky enough for an employer to give me that much-needed opportunity. I would have thought that experience would make you more likely not to discriminate against others yourself. I guess I was wrong (again!).tooltip();

 

Posted by ShirleyM on Fri, 25/02/2011 - 12:36

 

Exactly where do I discriminate?  What I advocate is taking decisions based upon sound commercial considerations, and whether someone is likely to leave in 2 or 3 years is a perfectly reasonable thing to consider. Just as I would take into account someones technical qualifications, their general attitude and whether they would "fit in" or be disruptive, and 101 other considerations. Lets be honest, sucess at an interview often comes down to whether or not you "like" the candidate. Its not a science, and selecting staff cant be reduced to ticking boxes. 

 

As for the "discrimination" I suffered - actually it was more a case of ignorance as dyslexia was then unrecognised outside medical circles. Apart from the odd spelling mistake it doesn't affect me now, indeed having to overcome it was probably the best thing that happened to me.

 

 

 

Thanks (0)
By ShirleyM
25th Feb 2011 14:35

The following says it all

And once I'd considered all that - I'd simply select the best MAN for the job :)

I thought the above statement meant that you would appoint a man, regardless of who applied for the job. I thought this was discrimination.

Silly me!!!! I have misunderstood again!

Thanks (0)
By mwngiol
25th Feb 2011 14:39

Ignore laws

"I dont ignore laws - but I do campaign to change the bad ones."

I seem to remember you saying more than once that you smoke in your office and no law will ever stop you doing what you want in your own building?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
25th Feb 2011 14:56

.

And once I'd considered all that - I'd simply select the best MAN for the job :)

tooltip(); 

Posted by ShirleyM on Fri, 25/02/2011 - 14:35

 

You need to learn to spot tongue firmly in cheek comments.

The fact I follow it by saying - (OK I'll now wait for the feminists to tar and feather me).- should have given you a clue.

 

________________________________________

 

"I dont ignore laws - but I do campaign to change the bad ones."

I seem to remember you saying more than once that you smoke in your office and no law will ever stop you doing what you want in your own building?tooltip();

 

Posted by mwngiol on Fri, 25/02/2011 - 14:39

 

There's a world of difference between real and necessary laws, and the interferance of politically correct anti-everything facists. As I said, bad law is made by bad governments, and the last government spent 13 years making bad laws, inventing over 3,000 new "offences" in the process. 

Their discrimination laws are, as this thread shows, a prime example of bad legislation made for the wrong reasons. 

The actively encouraged, and indeed ordered, so called positive discrimination to promote the "rights" of assorted minority groups. But, the fact is that positive discrimination in favour of one section of society, is therefore, by definition, discrimination against everyone who is not a part of that minority group. That is bad law, as to avoid committing one crime (by not imposing positive discrimination), you are efectively forced to commit another (by discriminating against everyone else). 

Say for instance you are to use positive discrimination to recruit more gay police officers. Say then that a disable applicant applies and tells you he is "straight". You therefore dont employ him. However, its illegal to discriminate against disabled people (even if they are not gay), so he sues you. Just how stupid is that? Political correctness is simply a modern term for what used to be known as lunacy.

 

 

 

Thanks (0)
By ShirleyM
25th Feb 2011 15:22

I've gone and done it again!

I do have difficulty distinguishing between 'banter' and serious comments, at times!  CD, you too, have experienced the same confusion in the past.

Maybe AWeb can give us a 'banter' smiley to prevent the confusion.

Thanks (0)
By mwngiol
25th Feb 2011 15:51

Interference

"There's a world of difference between real and necessary laws, and the interferance of politically correct anti-everything facists."

So does that mean then that you do ignore laws which you consider to be unreal, unnecessary or interference?

Slave owners used to view abolitionists as interfering do-gooders. Looking back, who was right and who was wrong? The fact is that the world has moved on and most people recognise that everyone has the right to be treated with respect and equality. My point regarding these 'quotas' is that they are far from ideal, but centuries of male-dominated society has resulted in very few women being in top positions. To suggest that this is because women have all decided to stay at home and have babies is rather backward to say the least.

The problem with doing nothing and just leaving nature to take it's course is that it will take decades for a reasonable balance betweeen genders to be achieved. The idea of quotas is to give a push in the right direction and help undo the centuries of discrimination which has led to the current imbalance. I don't think anyone is saying it's an ideal solution. And you can't tell people to recruit women who don't have the required talent or ability, just because they are women. But there are plenty enough women out there with the talent and ability, for it not to come to 'token' female board members.

As far as I see it, it's a choice between 'quotas' and doing nothing. As long as the 'quotas' are temporary then I would prefer that choice over the other.

Thanks (0)
By ShirleyM
25th Feb 2011 16:18

Public attitudes

I was heartened by a TV programme the other night which featured people with facial disfigurements. They showed one young handsome male and another male with quite bad facial disfigurement. The handsome young man was sent into various shops enquiring about jobs, and he got mostly positive reactions about job prospects. The disfigured gentleman was sent into the same shops, and without exception, he was rejected. His abilities and skills were not even considered!

It was suggested that the employers attitude was that the public would not like to be served by someone with a disfigurement.

So, to test public reaction they sent the same two men out on the street giving away hotdogs. The two men were placed about 10 feet apart on the same street. The gentleman with the disfigured face got the best response from the public and gave his hotdogs away much quicker than the handsome man.

So that gave a real good example of discrimination. Most discrimination is based upon fallacy, personal bias (I would hate to use the word bigotry, but it does exist) ..... and lots of assumptions.

PS. the disfigured man came across as a lovely guy that would be a pleasure to work with, and easy to get along with.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
25th Feb 2011 16:28

mwngiol

 But there are plenty enough women out there with the talent and ability, for it not to come to 'token' female board members.

tooltip();

 

Posted by mwngiol on Fri, 25/02/2011 - 15:51

 

So your suggestion is that we replace one form of discrimination (against women) with another form of discrimination (against men).?

 

Thanks (0)
By mwngiol
25th Feb 2011 16:39

C_D

"So your suggestion is that we replace one form of discrimination (against women) with another form of discrimination (against men).?"

As a temporary measure, to remedy an ongoing situation caused by centuries of discrimination the opposite way, and in the absence of any alternative then I'd be prepared to accept it. I'm not saying I like it.

Thanks (0)
By ShirleyM
25th Feb 2011 16:48

Why not?

Why not a little discrimination against men ... we all suffer some discrimination ... only this time it will be legal.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
25th Feb 2011 18:07

.

Why not a little discrimination against men ... we all suffer some discrimination ... only this time it will be legal.tooltip();

 

Posted by ShirleyM on Fri, 25/02/2011 - 16:48

 

Why not indeed.  Under loony Labour abley assisted by Harriet Harperson the ordinary white hetrosexual male became the most discriminated against person in Britain.

Cant discriminate against anyone because of their race - unless of course they are British - then feel free to discriminate.Cant discriminate against anyone because of their sexuality - unless of course they are hetrosexual, then discriminate all you want. (If people like Peter Tatchill get their way being gay will be compulsary)Cant discriminate against anyone because of their disability - but if they are sound of wind and limb, how dare they be healthy, they deserve to be discriminated against.Cant discriminate against anyone because of their religion, except of course those christians, do what you like to them.Cant discriminate against anyone because they take drugs, but smokers are fair game, make them stand out in the rain.

Saying you will "accept" a period of whats laughingly called positive discrimination sounds fine - unless of course you are the one who is left unemployed because a less qualified woman has taken your job simply because she is a woman. 

Morally positive discrimination is no different to discrimination. I wonder how many people really want to be the "token woman" or the "token anything else" come to that?  

 

Thanks (0)
By ShirleyM
25th Feb 2011 18:23

What!!!!

Why not indeed.  Under loony Labour abley assisted by Harriet Harperson the ordinary white hetrosexual male became the most discriminated against person in Britain.

Can you find any supporters for that theory?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
25th Feb 2011 18:36

Not theory

Can you find any supporters for that theory?tooltip();

 

Posted by ShirleyM on Fri, 25/02/2011 - 18:23

 

Its not a "theory" its a fact. Everyone is protected by some form of anti-discrimination law - except the ordinary white British hetrosexual male.  Think about it.

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
25th Feb 2011 18:47

White heterosexual males are the most discriminated against pers

If people like Peter Tatchill get their way being gay will be compulsary

Please tell me this was supposed banter?! I don't even know where to start. Do you have any idea what its like being gay and the discrimination you can face from family and friends, let alone employers and joe public? All the snide comments and the looks. Being put in the same sentence as paedophiles. Being insulted by strangers in the street. Shunned by the church. Having to be careful when you mention your social life at work just in case someone realises that your partner is the same sex and has an issue with you and you end up out of a job.

Maybe being gay should be compulsory so that those that discriminate so freely understand how it feels for a change and realise why sometimes there has to be legislation to protect against it!

And now apparently its a fact that white heterosexual men are the most discrimated against! They're not protected because they are the ones doing the discriminating!

I thought dinosaurs were extinct, obviously not.

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
25th Feb 2011 19:01

.

I  thought dinosaurs were extinct, obviously not.tooltip();

 

Posted by Flash Gordon on Fri, 25/02/2011 - 18:47

 

How do you make the mental leap from someone saying that a group should not get special treatment - to your conclsion that because you dont think they should get special treatment therefore you must discriminate against them ?

Thanks (0)
By ShirleyM
25th Feb 2011 19:01

False comparison

Its not a "theory" its a fact. Everyone is protected by some form of anti-discrimination law - except the ordinary white British hetrosexual male.  Think about it.

They don't need anti-discrimination because they constantly get positive discrimination ... the same thing that you say should be denied to women!

I have thought about it and come to a totally different conclusion than yours.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
25th Feb 2011 22:22

.

They don't need anti-discrimination because they constantly get positive discrimination ... the same thing that you say should be denied to women!

tooltip();

 

Posted by ShirleyM on Fri, 25/02/2011 - 19:01

 

What "positive discrimination" ?  This really is a myth put about by feminists. 

The simple fact is that there are less women than men in the workforce to begin with as, despite what you might think, there are still large numbers who chose to be housewives.  Plus at any given time another chunk of the female workforce is on maternity leave.  So, if women form a smaller percentage of the workforce, then of course statistically less will reach the top. 

And given those facts, I have always employed a disproportionately high percentage of women (over 50%), and no I dont pay any less to women than men, so exactly how do you figure that I discriminate? 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By David160
27th Feb 2011 03:36

European court to rule on gender discrimination by insurance com

Next week, I think, the European court will rule on a case about whether insurance companies can discriminate on the basis of gender. Insurance companies have, in the past, had an exemption from the general rule of no discrimination partly because they have a huge amount of data showing the precise effect discrimination has on risk outcomes.

If the court, as seems to be expected, rules such discrimination illegal; will this in future also apply to colour, race, sexuality, disability, age etc.? Insurance companies discriminate on the basis of risk; so outlawing sexual discrimination is a form of indirect discrimination; so does this mean that other forms of indirect discrimination by them could be made illegal? What about life insurance? Will an 80 year old pay the same premium as a 20 year old?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
27th Feb 2011 09:27

Motor Insurance

I understand this is specifically aimed at sex discrimination in motor insurance.

We have a client with twins.  They passed their test within days of each other, both bought virtually identical 1000cc Corsa's and insured with the same company.  The girls cost £1,000, the lads cost £1,500.  How can that possibly be right?  

The other problem with motor insurance is that the so called statistics used by the insurance companies are themselves discriminatory.  They will tell you that men are twice as likely to have an accident as women. However, what they fail to say is that men average four times as many miles per annum than women, so, per mile driven men are less likely to have an accident.

Its the old, old thing - you can make statistics prove anything, and I suspect that the statistics used by insurance companies were compiled by a woman :)

What WILL be interesting is after the court ruling whast will happen to insurance premiums.

Will womens premiums go up to the level of mensor, will mens premiums be reduced to the level of womens.

Anyone want to bet which way they move ?

 

Thanks (0)
By ShirleyM
27th Feb 2011 10:08

Oh dear

I doubt very much that women would be wholly responsible for determining insurance rates (just a bit of banter I know!).

And you are quite correct ... statistics can be used to prove anything .... such as white heterosexual males being the most 'discriminated against' people in the UK. You lose all credibilty with that statement!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
27th Feb 2011 10:56

Shirley

And you are quite correct ... statistics can be used to prove anything .... such as white heterosexual males being the most 'discriminated against' people in the UK. You lose all credibilty with that statement!tooltip();

 

Posted by ShirleyM on Sun, 27/02/2011 - 10:08

 

My point by that comment was that "Mr Average" ie white hetrosexual male is the only group in Britain that does not have any kind of legal protection from discrimination. There are anti discrimination laws protecting every other "group" whether they are women, gay, ethnic minority, religious minority, etc - but nothing "protecting" white hetrosexual males. 

 

As an interesting aside (if not very scientific) I couldnt resist this "survey" in todays paper - according to a "survey" -

Mr Average - will spend 10,585 hours in the pub, 11 years in front of the TV learn to cook just four meals in his lifetime.will sleep with nine partners over a lifetime waste one month looking for socks.Each year he will spend £570 a year on designer clothes, £1,144 on beer,more than £2,001 shopping online, £2,189 on gadgets £417 eating out.Says sorry 1.9m times Has four per cent more brain cellsmen are on average 30 per cent stronger than women, have four per cent more brain cells weighing approximately 100 grammes more and have better distance vision and depth perception.Mrs Average:Will spend 8.5 years of her life shoppingWill spend more than £43,000 on cosmeticsHas four times as many brain cells connecting the right and left sides of the brain

Of course, the fact that men have better distance vision and depth perception than women obviously makes , men better drivers :) 

 

 

Ok over to you Shirley - I'm off to find my tin hat as I think I might need it :)

 

Thanks (0)
By ShirleyM
27th Feb 2011 11:42

I've said my piece

I don't think I need to say any more :)

Thanks (0)
avatar
By cymraeg_draig
28th Feb 2011 09:54

.
I've said my piece

I don't think I need to say any more :)

Posted by ShirleyM on Sun, 27/02/2011 - 11:42

 

According to the above survey you should be too busy shopping (probably for cosmetics) to have time answering here :) 

Thanks (0)
By ShirleyM
28th Feb 2011 10:01

.... or maybe ...

.... out motoring (at high speed of course) and crashing into innocent victims, so that I pay a higher car insurance  :)

Thanks (0)