The Employment Appeal Tribunal tell me that there is seating for about 10 people in their Courts. Obviously these affairs are high in entertainment value!

They will endeavour "to put in a few more chairs" if I give them some warning. So, who's coming?

Let me know here.

Please, don't let anybody feel a moral obligation to come. This really will be a dry legal arguement of interest only to the lawyers involved (except the outcome, of course, and I'll post that as soon as I can). Having said that, for my sake, it would be great to see some of you guys there.

Uncle I

I have made a note to come on the first day. So put a towel down for me if you could please.

I'll also be there for the 17th :ok: BStuff, surely you'll be there first with the towel :}

Cheers

Whirls

I'll put it down the night before.:}:}

That part must be some interesting reading!

Give'em Heck Ian!

You prove one person can make a difference in this ol' World!:D

Not yet SASless, but watch this space.

Cancel Any Aviation that might be of use
 

I plan to be there on the 18th .......... if you are sure it will go to a second day!


:uhoh:

Good luck at the Appeal Hearing, Ian!

Good luck Ian, wish i could be there. But you do now you will have the suppourt of so many people. Get 'em:D

Coorung,

I have no doubt it will go to two days but PM me with your mobile and I'll let you know if it doesn't happen.

Thanks for all the mesages of support chaps, it really does help.

Ian

Not quite the same I know but a victory nevertheless :ok:

BBC NEWS | UK | Air traffic firm ruled 'ageist'

Cheers

Whirls

Whirls,
Great news actually. :ok: It proves things are actually changing...

Never too old for air traffic control - Transport - Management Today

Air traffic controllers discover that even public safety concerns can't trump age discrimination laws...
NATS, the body in charge of the UK’s air traffic control system, has been found guilty of age discrimination after refusing to hire a 50-year-old man. Nats had attempted to argue that it was only trying to provide a safe service for the public – but not surprisingly, the tribunal ruled that its policy of not hiring anyone under the age of 35, on the grounds that people get steadily worse at the job thereafter, wasn’t really in keeping with anti-ageism rules. Fancy that.

In some ways, you can see where Nats is coming from. Air traffic control is one of those professions where you really want people to be on top of their game, given that the alternative is big lumps of aeroplane crashing into each other in the skies above our airports. People want to be confident that their air traffic controllers won’t make mistakes – so if Nats says that people under 35 perform better in the role, we’re sure there’ll be plenty of nervous fliers willing to take them at their word. On the other hand, quite how they expected to get away with this is beyond us. Unless we’re missing something, Nats appears to have argued that this guy was wrong for the job because he was less physically able, less likely to pay back his training costs, and less safe, solely because of his age. Breaches of the age discrimination law don’t get much more blatant than that.

Anyway, the tribunal was having none of it, ruling that their policy was ‘irrational’, ‘confused’ and ‘arbitrary’. Which is fair enough – quite why an extremely healthy 36-year-old with perfect vision should be less suitable for the job than an extremely short-sighted and unhealthy 34 year-old is a bit hard to see. The tribunal also warned that this culture of ageism could be hard to eradicate, and this is an important point: when the people at the top are setting policies like this, everyone in the organisation is taught to think that discriminating on the grounds of age is acceptable. That won’t suddenly change overnight.

Nats will presumably now have to bring in some kind of standard aptitude test (like that of the RAF) to make sure that all applicants are screened equally. Chances are that they’ll probably still end up hiring 98% of the same people they would have done before, after expending considerable amounts of time and taxpayers’ money on a new set-up. Still, the lesson of this little episode is that there’s no good excuse for age discrimination these days; even dark warnings of planes falling out of the sky won’t legitimise bending the rules. So companies need to make sure they shape up – both in terms of policy and practice...

The Age Old problem
 

Ian

Just to say I'd like to be with you at the EHRC hearing on 18th/19th
... Is it first come first gets a seat?

I'd like to cover the item with a further LOOP article.

Its good to know you now have the EHRC big gun lawyers to balance the CAA's ditto. However will any further evidence be presented or is it effectively just a factual revue/possibly challenge of the Kingsway decision?

Take care,

Dennis K

Good luck Ian,


Mickjoebill

Dennis, the hearing is on 17th/18th, not 18th/19th.

Ian, what time's kick-off?

Cheers

Whirls

I'm sorry to have to report that I have withdrawn my Appeal.

We were due for a preliminary hearing yesterday (tuesday) to sort out some administrative details and on monday the Equality & Human Rights Commission advised me that, on thorough assessment of all the evidence, they concluded that our chances of success at Appeal were worse that 30%. That being the case they wished to withdraw to avoid further costs to either side.

I had to decide whether or not to continue alone at very short notice. There are two major considerations in reaching the conclusion I have. First, if I fail at Appeal I create a legal precedent making it very difficult for anyone else to bring a successful action after me; as it is the ET's judgement sets no such precedent. Second, by continuing in the knowledge that I had little chance of success the CAA could have made a good case for seeking costs from me. I would estimate those to be tens of thousands of pounds. Much as I'd like to sacrifice my home and what few assets I have I can't do it on a 3 to one shot. I made a condition of my withdrawal that no order for costs to date would be sought.

It goes without saying that I am deeply disappointed with this turn of events. I had thought the EHRC were fully appraised of the situation when they took me on but, of course, it took weeks for their barrister to fully brief himself and he did not finish doing so until the weekend just gone.

On the bright side I would have continued as a litigant in person oblivious of the implications of failure for future litigants so perhaps it's for the best.

Thanks to all of you who have given moral and especially financial support. Whirlygig has a full set of accounts if anyone wants to see where all your money went.

Finally I hope one of you out there will pick up the baton I've dropped and run with it. I made loads of mistakes in representing myself and it's clear to me that my cause is just even if my execution was crap. Please talk to me if you are the one to take this on, I have a wealth of advice from my own mistakes.

Once again, sorry.

Ian

Gutted to hear that Ian and so disappointed for you after all the work you've put.

Cheers

Whirls

Ian, I would like to add my thanks to you, for all your hard work and dedication in trying to change this unjust piece of legislation. If you are ever out and about in Suffolk I would like to buy you a beer (or 2).

Really sorry to hear that news, Ian! I'm sure it was a tough decision to take, especially when caught a little on the back foot, as it were. Speaking from some fairly bitter personal experiences at the hands of the State, it's hard not to feel sometimes that you're just being ground down. However, as you say, the work you've done won't be for nothing as it will surely be of benefit to others who may follow.

At a time time of increasing life expectancy and a growing clamour about the ability of the state (just pick your country) to provide for its more senior population, it scarcely seems credible that a sector of the workforce that is both highly qualified and subject to regular and reasonably rigourous medical scrutiny is being forced into what in any jurisdiction is effectively early retirement.

Well done and thanks again for all your efforts!

22