Thursday, October 19, 2006

'Veilure' Is Not An Option.

After reading this, I immediately ordered Mrs. Chalk to cover up in preparation for work tomorrow and am rubbing my hands with glee at the prospect of an £1100 payout. Hoorah!

I would also like it noted that I was the first to refer to this debacle as the 'Veils for Cash' scandal.

18 comments:

Jean said...

I know it's the obvious question, but why does she get £1100 when they've just said that she should be sacked?

sisyphus said...

Because according to government guidelines/interventions/rules every one is potentially "a victim" (cf. PC Copperfield's A Copper's Blog). Apparently, all you have to do is claim you are from a persecuted minority (nothing old fashioned like evidence required), then throw in the equivalent of an invoice for hurt feelings and it's payday.

Anonymous said...

utter nonsense.
i work with three muslim teacher (two female) and all three of them are shaking their heads at this - all this veil stuff plays into the hands of the bnp etc. it's cultural, not religious for goodness'sake. but even if it was religious, it shouldn't be allowed.

three of the windows in my classroom are cracked and it rains in through the sills when the wind's up. i reckon a thousand pounds would probably fix it. not that i teach in this area but you know what i mean.

Anonymous said...

I'm thinking of suing my LEA. I don't trust them to care for, nurture or educate my children properly because of the way they run their schools, so I spend half my salary on fees for them to attend a local private school.

In return, my bosses in the LEA mock me for being a "posh bastard" and my future career prospects are limited.

I feel incredibly hurt. And so do my children.

Cynical

Anonymous said...

I'm deaf so someone covering their face might as well be a statue to me.

Pepperpot said...

As I understand it, the judgement was not that she was a persecuted minority but that she had been badly treated by the school. I'm OK with people getting compensation for being the victims of bullying or victimising management. And I'm OK with the tribunal ruling that asking someone to remove their veil to do their job is not religious intolerance per se.

The thing that annoys me is the way that a case that has taken months to come to trial suddenly made the national news because the press saw it as an opportunity to keep the Jack Straw story on the boil, thereby giving voice to extremists on both sides.

Tattieheid said...

I agree with Pepperpot but i feel the tribunals judgement was a bit illogical. I agree with their judgement on the religious/ethnic discrimination question but fail to see how they could then arrive at a judgement of victimisation. I think perhaps they were reacting to the intervention of the Press and Politicians who should have kept their noses out of it.

Ged W said...

How can she possibly have been treated badly by the school?

All they have done is to carry out an action which the court has judged to be correct. It's just the usual 'I'm a victim', 'I'm being bullied' culture that leads automatically to a payout.

The press have every right to report on matters such as this and thank god they do. Let's make the most of it and join Frank's wife.

Heather said...

The reason this case took so long to come to court is that the courts have better things to do than deal with endless ridiculous appeals by people who can't do their job.

How much has this whole affair cost the taxpayer? The cost of employing someone else to cover her whilst she took long term sick leave then again whilst she was disputing her suspension, the legal aid bill for her appeal (and no doubt future ones), the court time and to really kick the taxpayer in the teeth, the ludicrous compensation that she gets at the end of it all.

Anonymous said...

A deaf person wouldn't have a hope of being able to lip read her. Ah well stuff the deaf kids, they're considered a less important minority.

Anonymous said...

Ok so we (taxpayers) have no doubt funded her tribunal costs does anyone know who funds the appeal costs?

If she loses at the appeal (i.e. if they uphold this decision) then I do not see why we (taxpayers) have to fund that, surely she must be made to meet the appeal costs if she loses????

Someone tell me this is so

Anonymous said...

I just found this

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6068408.stm

The highlights are

"Her critics will point to her decision not to wear it during her job interview.

A week ago, during a BBC interview she was asked directly whether she wore the veil at her interview. She hesitated and then replied: "Do I have to answer all the questions?"

When pressed again, she admitted she had not worn the veil but insisted she did not realise she was going to be interviewed by a male."

OK someone tell me how she got all the way from home to the interview room without ever coming into contact with a male.

The more I read about this case the more I see an opportunist here who is seeking either publicity or money (or both).

When are we going to scrap this compensation culture and say 'No' to people like this.

Would it be acceptable for Western women to dress how they want to dress in Muslim countries? Would they get a payout?

Cases like this just make me see red

Anonymous said...

"When pressed again, she admitted she had not worn the veil but insisted she did not realise she was going to be interviewed by a male."


So if she so strongly believes in wearing a veil why did she go ahead with the interview when she realised it was a male.

She is a charlatan

Will said...

As taxpayers we will be funding her to make one or possibly two (if she goes to Eurpean Court of Human Rights) appeals against this decision, then no doubt paying her some more compensation for the terrible victimisation she has suffered by being asked to dress in a way that makes it possible for her to carry out her job. It's a real shocker all right

Anonymous said...

I hope all genuine teachers also noticed that the BBC and most of the Press is incapable of distinguishing between 'teacher' and 'teaching assistant', and that the woman herself kept referring in last night's BBC news interview to 'when I'm teaching'. So IS there a difference or do teaching assistants actually teach classes?

Neil K said...

I shall be wearing my motorcycle helmet whilst teaching after half term in order to collect my £1100 bonus. Presumably you still get paid whilst suspended?

Anonymous said...

I shall be wearing a gas mask and intend to spend my £1100 on a skiing holiday at Christmas.

Phil said...

I will also be joining in, dressed in a 'Hannibal Lecter' mask. My £1100 will enable me to replace the rotting window frames at the rear of my house, thankyou very much.