Our thanks to Elizabeth for this recent piece in the Mail.
—————————-
If you’d like email notifications of our new blog pieces, please enter your email address in the box near the top of the right-hand column and click ‘Subscribe’.
Our YouTube channel is here, our Facebook channel here, our Twitter channel here.
If everyone who reads this gives us £5.00 – or even better, £5.00 or more, monthly – we could change the world. You can support our work by making a donation here.
Justice for Men & Boys 
Actually the ruling does give good advice. Mr. Legge represented himself and tried to take a protected belief line. Whereas in employment law he could have taken a “sex” line, that he was discriminated against or treated less well than a woman because he is a man. Even better if he had encouraged one of the men he believed had been discriminated against in the processes he was managing, to be a complainant. So had he “whistle blown” about direct sex discrimination and then been sacked he might have had a case. In my dreams a or some wealthy men (or indeed women) will fund the sort of legal advice//support groups that exist (often funded by taxpayers) so that men too can be supported with such cases.
” ‘It has to be seen that [he] was a Senior Manager; in particular intelligent and if he had stood back and looked at the whole thing objectively he would have realised on the factual matrix of his claims, they simply had no reasonable prospect of success.”
Had he informed the man, in 2020, that he had been told not to employ after due process in order to alow a less qualified female candidate, that man would have had a good case at that time. Or had he informed HR or the Board of his concerns at the time. He would have laid a marker because in fact, if true, that was unlawful. Although one doesn’t want to line the pockets of lawyers, you do need them.
LikeLike
Women bringing claims to the employment tribunal receive huge payments, on the basis of the most tenuous of complaints of “discrimination” (see Wendy Williams v MOD, Birmingham employment tribunal, £560,000 and Rebecca Kalam v West mids police, Birmingham employment tribunal, £830,000).
Yet, where a man brings complaints of discrimination, he is forced to pay tens of thousands of pounds to the very people who have discriminated against him.
It is no wonder that very few men bring claims of sex discrimination to the employment tribunal, let alone are “allowed” to win. The only case that I am aware of is Furlong v Cheshire police.
I assume that many men do not bring claims, because they assume (probably correctly) that the “system” is biased and discriminatory against men and in favour of women, or they are unaware that men are afforded (in principle) the same “protections” under the law as women – the protected characteristic, is “sex”).
this Environment Agancy case has parallels with what I have experienced, whilst working for a large apublic sector (government) body.
some of the particular discrimination, that I have personally experienced in the public sector:
a female dominated HR department that has been described as engaging in “institutional misandry”.
Myself being paid substantially less than women for doing exactly the same work.
the “gender pay gap” being used as a reason for paying women more than men, and for recruiting or promoting less qualified women into the higher paid positions.
(Note: it is unlawful to pay a man less than a woman for doing the same work, but it is NOT unlawful to pay women less than men ON AVERAGE).
rigged / biased performance reviews that give preferential treatment to women and “male allies” to give them higher bonuses and pay rises.
rigged / biased “competency based” interviews (using subjective criteria rather than objective criteria) and the promotion or recruitment of women who do not hold the qualifications required by the positions over men who do.
short listing women for interview despite not holding the required qualifications, and then appointing them into the position over better qualified men who do hold the required qualifications.
Women being provided with more training and development (a form of pay that leads to higher pay), and then this being used to claim that they are “better” and more “deserving” of recruitment or promotion into the higher paid positions, or bigger pay rises and bonuses.
positive discrimination and quotas being used to give preferential treatment to women on an almost unlimited basis, but the company calling this “positive action” and “targets” to disguise the discriminatory intent (positive action and targets are lawful, positive discrimination and quotas are not.
Using “equity” to give preferential treatment to women and minorities, but calling this “equality”.
Serious sexual harassment by a male manager towards another man, about which nothing was done. This within the same company that has penalised men for “sexual harassment masquerading as banter”.
a grievance system that discriminates in favour of women and against men. rewards and preferential treatment being given to women who make complaints, but victimisation and harassment of a man who made complaints.
It is apparent that the (taxpayer funded) employment tribunal offers no protection whatsoever for men who are being discriminated against, and if anything the employment tribunal further discriminates against men who bring claims of discrimination.
I am not sure what, if anything, can be done to raise awareness of this issue, or to elicit any form of change, so that the tribunal system gives fair and equal treatment to men who make complaints of discrimination.
LikeLike
James, many thanks. Would it be OK with you if I posted a new piece with your comments? Let me know what name (if any) you want me to attribute it to. I could simply attribute it to “James Vegan Royal Crescent”. Thanks.
LikeLike
Hi Mike, that is fine by me.
Regards,
James
LikeLike
Thanks James, posted:
LikeLike