Free Cash For Wasted Trips?

[higthepig]

A woman who flew halfway around the world for a 13-minute interview then denied the job because Army bosses were determined to hire a man has won £35,000 for 'hurt feelings'.

Teacher who flew to Brunei for 13-minute Army interview wins £35,000 - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/5016184/Teacher-who-flew-to-Brunei-for-13-minute-Army-interview-wins-35000.html)

Quite often I have flown halfway round the world courtesy of HM Forces, every time my feelings have been hurt, do you think it would be worth making a claim?

[Squirrel 41]

If the Telegraph story is accurate, then good for her.

And I trust that the "officers" who set up the sham interview will be stumping up for the £35k and the legal fees. :*

Oh, thought not. Accountability anyone?

:ugh:

S41

[Gnd]

Bunch of idiots - they deserve all the c**p they get for that. How do idiots still think they will get away with it - keep the evidence. I hope the GOC saves his coffee when they next chat.

[davejb]

It almost certainly wasn't 'sexism', it was simply that there was an 'internal candidate' who the interview board knew and liked, so they were (very, and unreasonably) heavily biased against the unknown outside candidate. Had she travelled 20 miles and had expenses reimbursed it'd be a non-story, the panel - if they'd had any brains - should have come up with some questions that the internal candidate would have been likely to answer better, then religiously recorded what was said - end of complaint, they could claim that 'surprisingly' Mr X interviewed better so got the job.

It happens - I've been on a panel that selected a surprisingly good outsider against a well known and liked internal candidate, and whilst convinced the right candidate was selected I still felt like a complete s**t for doing so.

[brit bus driver]

Speaking outside court, 53-year-old Miss Shelford said: "I am delighted by the outcome.

I bet she f***ing is. I went to an interview once and didn't get the job...I feel very disheartened...£35k please....

[XV277]

So, have a crap interview, don't get the job then claim compensation for 'sex discrimination'.

There is a reason we have interviews - the best qualified on paper is not always the best qualified for the job.

[Grabbers]

She was/is 53 and called Valerie :confused:. Not the best candidate for any job. Probably fat too! Who wants that?:ugh::ugh:

[Rossian]

Grabbers of course is a slim,young Adonis with several degrees who is THE ideal candidate for any job you care to name.

Did you actually THINK about what you just wrote at that last post? I don't believe that anyone could write such cr*p in the 21st century. Below despicable.
The Ancient Mariner

[Grabbers]

Rossian

It may be unpalatable but there is a fair chance that a number of interviewees have been rejected on grounds of looks or age. Why would this job be any different?

Oh, would it be because HM Forces is a progressive 21st Century employer with absolutely no track record in such things as bullying, racism, sexism or ageism?

Anyway, what do you know? You're 67!

[exscribbler]

Grabbers - do tell us about the wide range of job interviews you must have attended. Of course you may include the successful ones and, if you wish, let us into the secret of your undoubted success.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

67 as an age or 67 as an IQ............ I can only imagine the Ancient Mariner looks and feels well on his 67 years on this planet where as the young upstart Mr grabbers, posting in the guise of someone who is thick as mince is not coming across that well.

Mrs SFFP does this interview thing for a living and the law says best person for the job, end of. If you don't abide by this very simple premise then best you have a cast iron feckin reason for disobeying it or, like the Barmy Army in Borneo, you will get right royally hooped at the subsequent tribunal.

[Pontius Navigator]

I have been on the outside looking in at a recent charlie uniform in the recruitment stakes.

A good candidate was sifted out but no reason given but the guess is age. A prefered candidate, yup, the one who would have got the job, dropped out as he got a better offer.

Then one candidate was not invited to do the selection tests although that was not a show stopper -really?

When HR finally scored and failed to tell the interviewees in sufficient time to attend the interviews. Doh!

I got shafted that way once too, should have gone to tribunal. I got the letter inviting me to interview on a Friday with the interview the following week. Only thing was, the letter had been signed off 2 weeks earlier. When I asked for a different date I was told that that was the only date available for one of the panel.

As it happened that person was my boss. When I asked him he told me they asked him if that date was suitable - he could have done any date. Conspiracy.

[Al R]

I don't understand the reasoning behind the decision.

If she's 53, she's hardly likely to be attractive and want to leave to have a child. So what possible grounds could the army have for justifiably not choosing her? :confused:

[Grabbers]

Morning Princesses,

I retract the comment about Valerie probably being fat. I still stand by the fact that although she was probably well qualified to do the job, the British Army most likely discriminated on other grounds. Surely no one can be that naive to think that the most qualified gets the job every time. And as for my comment about being 67, sheesh.:ugh:

[c130jbloke]

And as for my comment about being 67, sheesh.

Accurate though :}.

[The Helpful Stacker]

How did they come to the conclusion it was 'sexual discrimination'?

Surely if anything its purely a case of 'its not what you know its who you know' and the job was given to a pal at the golf club or something?

Wrong it may be but sexual discrimination? How was that charge proved?