Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

making allowances for mental illness

Employment and Discrimination Law

Re: making allowances for mental illness

Postby atticus » Sat May 21, 2016 5:46 pm

As you wish.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19704
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: making allowances for mental illness

Postby Hairyloon » Sat May 21, 2016 5:53 pm

atticus wrote:An example - just one of too many.

Post 1, by me
atticus wrote:
Hairyloon wrote:You appear to be suggesting that stupidity is a class of impairment that should be exempt from the Act. Could you please define that class?

Certainly. It is a class of characteristics that does not come within those defined in the Equality Act 2010 as "Protected Characteristics".
...
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10016
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: making allowances for mental illness

Postby atticus » Sat May 21, 2016 6:07 pm

Thank you. That is helpful.

It appears that I was asked to define the class of exemption that should be exempt from the Act, and that that is what I did.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19704
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: making allowances for mental illness

Postby Hairyloon » Sat May 21, 2016 10:10 pm

atticus wrote:It appears that I was asked to define the class of exemption that should be exempt from the Act, and that that is what I did

You are getting worse: all exemptions should be exempt, that is what the word means.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10016
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: making allowances for mental illness

Postby atticus » Sat May 21, 2016 11:01 pm

I take it that you had that in mind when asking me to define the class of exemptions.

There are no exemptions from the Act; it applies in respect of certain specifically defined "Protected Characteristics". If one of those characteristics is not present, the Act does not apply. That is not a matter of "exemption" - which is pretty much what I said. At least we are now agreed.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19704
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: making allowances for mental illness

Postby Hairyloon » Sat May 21, 2016 11:35 pm

atticus wrote:You asked the question...

And you still have not answered it.

But perhaps I have not been fair: the entire thread is about making allowances and I have failed to do this, for that I apologise, and I will try again to ask the question.

To define a class, one needs to set out the characteristics of the members of that class which distinguish it from non-members.
You have defined "stupidity" as a class of impairment.
What are the characteristics of the impairment that puts it in the class which you have called stupidity?

For bonus points, explain what it is about the characteristics of the impairment that cause them to be exempt from the act.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10016
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: making allowances for mental illness

Postby Hairyloon » Sun May 22, 2016 12:06 am

atticus wrote:I take it that you had that in mind when asking me to define the class of exemptions.

No Atticus I have never asked you to define a class of exemptions, I asked you to define the impairments which you considered should be exempt. You began this thread by stating that the Equality Act does not apply to people who suffer from stupidity.
Stupidity is a mental impairment, it has a long-term adverse effect on the sufferer's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities like thinking or walking and talking at the same time. Whether that effect is substantial depends upon the severity of the stupidity, but you omitted that qualifier thus excluding stupidity as a whole.
We covered this in depth in the section you deleted: I assume that is the main reason you deleted it.

There are no exemptions from the Act; it applies in respect of certain specifically defined "Protected Characteristics"...

So when I said:
"You appear to be suggesting that stupidity is a class of impairment that should be exempt from the Act..."
and you said:
"Certainly..."
What was it that you were trying to say?

If one of those characteristics is not present, the Act does not apply. That is not a matter of "exemption" - which is pretty much what I said.

I am not seeing any resemblance between that and what you said before. Perhaps you could clarify?

Hairyloon wrote:You are getting worse: all exemptions should be exempt, that is what the word means.

At least we are now agreed.

Yes.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10016
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: making allowances for mental illness

Postby atticus » Sun May 22, 2016 5:27 am

Hairyloon wrote:You appear to be suggesting that stupidity is a class of impairment that should be exempt from the Act. Could you please define that class?


You appear to think that in the above you asked me to define "stupidity".

At the time - more than 6 months ago - I took your request that I define "that class" as a request to define the class of impairment that should be exempt from the Act.

So that there can be no doubt, my definition of that class was not intended to be, and is not, a definition of "stupidity".
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19704
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: making allowances for mental illness

Postby Hairyloon » Sun May 22, 2016 7:27 am

atticus wrote:
Hairyloon wrote:You appear to be suggesting that stupidity is a class of impairment that should be exempt from the Act. Could you please define that class?


You appear to think that in the above you asked me to define "stupidity".

At the time, more than 6 months ago - I took it as a request to define the class of impairment that should be exempt from the Act.

Having previously set that class to be stupidity then defining the class defines stupidity. It is the most basic of logic: if {this} equals {that} and {that} equals {something} then {this} equals {something}.
Or more specifically:
Stupidity is {this}. Define {this}.
I take it that you have somehow found some way to interpret it another way. Perhaps you could explain how it is that you came to do that?

Let us put that aside for a moment and look again at your definition and test it:

"{It} is a class of characteristics that does not come within those defined in the Equality Act 2010 as "Protected Characteristics"."

Consider a characteristic: say for example blue eyes.
Blue eyes is a characteristics that does not come within those defined in the Equality Act 2010 as "Protected Characteristics". It meets your definition, therefore it belongs in the class of {it}.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10016
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: making allowances for mental illness

Postby Hairyloon » Sun May 22, 2016 9:44 am

atticus wrote:So that there can be no doubt, my definition of that class was not intended to be, and is not, a definition of "stupidity".

It may not have been intended to be and I agree that it is not, but there can be no doubt that it was put out as one.

Could you perhaps now answer the question that was asked so very long ago?

Can you define that class of characteristics which you are calling "stupidity"?

Incidentally, that line was not part of your post when I originally answered it. It is very bad form to edit one's post after it has been replied to.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10016
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

PreviousNext

Return to Employment

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron