Free Cash For Wasted Trips?
Thread Starter
Free Cash For Wasted Trips?
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'.
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?
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
S41
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?
S41
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 58
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St Annes
Age: 68
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Mostly here, but often there
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speaking outside court, 53-year-old Miss Shelford said: "I am delighted by the outcome.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: at the end of the bar
Posts: 484
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
There is a reason we have interviews - the best qualified on paper is not always the best qualified for the job.
Unworthy and demeaning
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
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
Join Date: May 2004
Location: England
Posts: 473
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Yorkshire
Age: 80
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: May 2004
Location: England
Posts: 473
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
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?
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?
