So we are saying wealth is directly linked to age, now? Whatever next ?
I think a reasonable person of charity might apply a means test, but using age as a proxy for means is
not reasonable and propounds the wrong message about whether we as a society are serious about outlawing age discrimination.
I fully understand the sentiments behind the laudible acts which GAPAN is trying to promote, but that's no excuse for not redefining schemes like this to fit with the law. It sends all sorts of confusing messages about what our society really stands for in 2008.
Why not say in the criteria something like:
"Because of the minimum age for CPL applicants of 21 and the need to make the training from PPL to frozen ATPL/IR continous, we can each year only consider applications from those aged 18 or over who will generally be at least 19 when they commence the training.
In addition, the scheme was launched to assist someone each year of otherwise limited means on to the path of achieving their dream of becoming a commercial pilot. The application process will therefore also be means tested in a similar way to applications for local authority funding for university education."
No mention then of a maximum age, and no harm done. The law is about encouraging alternatives to, frankly, lazy outdated stereotyping based on age.
Well that's how I see it, anyway
PS That "reasonably appears to the person doing the act" phrase is bloody awful English to appear in a law of the land, I grant you
... does that mean that an unreasonable person merely has to demonstrate that it was reasonable to assume that in his unreasonable state of mind he might be expected to reach the conclusion he did and is therefore not guilty, M'lud??