Eton

123468

Comments

  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    I find it odd that Eton of all institutions should be taking action on the grounds of Equality.
  • Kwesi wrote: »
    I find it odd that Eton of all institutions should be taking action on the grounds of Equality.

    Maybe they need a concrete example of irony to use as a teaching aid?
  • The private education sector has to try very hard to justify its existence. The real reasons it exists won't do for public consumption.
  • Apparently they now have a diversity champion, or equivalent.

    But @KarlLB has it right. It's not the fact that Knowland holds these views or that he propagates them in private, it's that he's aired them in public and we proles can see behind the curtain.
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    "Grievously hath Caesar answer’d it," in Knowland's case, respecting his views on women, but how many females do his honourable judges admit to Eton's classrooms?
  • Kwesi wrote: »
    . . . but how many females do his honourable judges admit to Eton's classrooms?

    Twenty, according to this 2017 Guardian article. All of them teachers (i.e. Knowland's former colleagues). He must have been really fun for them to work with.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    edited December 2020
    Kwesi wrote: »
    how many females do his honourable judges admit to Eton's classrooms?
    AIUI girls apparently do better in single-sex educational settings, while boys don't. But then as I suggested earlier the problem with the public schools isn't that those who cannot afford them are missing out on a superior education.

  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    I bet he welcomed the discipline.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Russ wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    You have in the past expressed the opinion that a business can decline to transact with anybody on the suspicion, based on ethnicity, that they may cause trouble.
    We have indeed discussed these issues previously. You tend to express your views in terms of striking a reasonable balance between the interests of the parties involved.

    That doesn't satisfy me. I believe that such a judgment is too corruptible. That you will tend to find in favour of those you sympathise with. I look instead for clear principles that are applicable to everybody.
    Simplicity may be a virtue in human-generated rules: but you claim to believe ethics is objective, and therefore what does or doesn't satisfy you is irrelevant.
    I don't see why clear principles applicable to everybody that favour people that you sympathise with is less corrupt. When you bake your sympathies in at the start that means that one has to go back to square one to get the sympathies out, rather than question the particular application.
    In any case, the idea that we can get a set of clear ethical principles that don't need discretion in application is silly. Every set of principles complex enough to deal with real life generates cases that need discretion in application.
    Consent you say justifies all, so that if an employment contract stipulates that the employee shall not engage in any public discourse displeasing to the employer even outside work hours then by your previously professed principles the employee by signing such a contract has justified the stipulation.
    Seems only fair that anyone accepting such a clause should get paid extra for doing so. If someone wishes to waive their right to a private life in exchange for more money and status, then why not ? Doesn't prevent anyone from asserting the existence of such a right.

    There may be some jobs (?judge?) where being known to have opinions of one's own and a life outside the job is detrimental to performance in the job. Teacher isn't one of them.

    If they're not being paid more for accepting such a clause, well you know I count abuse of monopoly power as a wrong...
    That's something of a climbdown. You said that it is wrong to abuse power by making the exercise of that power dependent on people conditional on whether or not they agree with the content of your discourse. You didn't put in any caveat about it being fine to do so if you pay people extra.

    No, I don't know that you count abuse of monopoly power as a wrong: when I've questioned you on this in the past, your objection has suffered the death of a thousand qualifications; it turns out that you merely object to people cooperating with the intention of doing someone else down. (The clear principle applicable to all people you appeal to is tailored to express your lack of sympathy with trade unionists, rather the other way around.) You said that monopolies that arise without collusion are fine, and that if the owner takes advantage of the monopoly for profit or their personal convenience that isn't abuse.
    However, in this case we are not talking about monopoly power but about whatever the going market rate is: as has been said on this thread, this kind of clause is standard practice. You have previously expressed the opinion that if it seems only fair that anyone accepting a particular type of clause should get paid extra, that does not have any normative validity: only the going market rate has any normative status.

    (I'll note incidentally that saying, as you do in a later post, that you don't trust Marxists to teach professionally but that you give them the benefit of the doubt until proven wrong presupposes that teaching is a profession in which being known to have opinions of one's own may be detrimental to one's professional performance.)
    (The innocent until guilty standard is a contradiction of practical reason: if the employer dismisses the employee then presumably the employer should equally be considered innocent of unjust dismissal until proven guilty.)
    No contradiction. To condemn the employer for an act of unfair dismissal you have to demonstrate rather than merely speculate that they have acted on the basis of a merely speculated rather than demonstrated failure on the part of the employee to carry out the job to the standards expected.
    That is to say employers effectively have the right to dismiss anyone who cannot demonstrate that the employer dismissed them improperly: employees are effectively to be treated by employment tribunals as guilty as charged by the employer unless they can prove themselves innocent.

  • RussRuss Shipmate
    Dafyd wrote: »
    That is to say employers effectively have the right to dismiss anyone who cannot demonstrate that the employer dismissed them improperly

    By your logic, highwaymen have the "effective right" to rob anyone who cannot prove that they've been held up at gunpoint.

    You're saying that people have an "effective right" to do whatever they can get away with. Can't argue against that.
    Seems trivially true - a different way of saying the same thing.

    People in all walks of life sometimes get away with things they shouldn't get away with.

    If people can get away with making false claims they have an "effective right" to make false claims. Does this tell us anything ? Other than that we'd all like to see a world where people's genuine rights are effectively respected ?






  • Russ wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    That is to say employers effectively have the right to dismiss anyone who cannot demonstrate that the employer dismissed them improperly

    By your logic, highwaymen have the "effective right" to rob anyone who cannot prove that they've been held up at gunpoint.

    You're saying that people have an "effective right" to do whatever they can get away with. Can't argue against that.
    Seems trivially true - a different way of saying the same thing.

    People in all walks of life sometimes get away with things they shouldn't get away with.

    If people can get away with making false claims they have an "effective right" to make false claims. Does this tell us anything ? Other than that we'd all like to see a world where people's genuine rights are effectively respected ?

    The thing is, that's not @Dafyd 's logic.

    It's yours. And he doesn't agree with it.
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    ... that you give them the benefit of the doubt until proven wrong presupposes that teaching is a profession in which being known to have opinions of one's own may be detrimental to one's professional performance.)

    That seems to be the general presumption in this case, but let's think about that.

    We can first distinguish opinions that are directly job-relevant from opinions in general. No widget-maker is likely to want to employ someone whose views on widget-making are very different from their own. Extreme opinions about the process of teaching may similarly be detrimental in a teacher.

    When it comes to more general political opinions, it seems to me that there are legitimate concerns around indoctrination - about the possibility of a teacher teaching their opinions as fact.

    But in both cases, the mere holding of an opinion does not necessarily affect teaching performance - professionalism involves holding private convictions on one side, and charges of unprofessionalism in the classroom require evidence.

    The current case is ISTM less about professional performance than about public relations. If an academy wants one of their teachers to star in a promotional video for the college then whether that teacher is widely known for something else may be relevant.

    What I'm uneasy about here is the notion that the PR department should run the business...
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    edited December 2020
    Russ wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    That is to say employers effectively have the right to dismiss anyone who cannot demonstrate that the employer dismissed them improperly

    By your logic, highwaymen have the "effective right" to rob anyone who cannot prove that they've been held up at gunpoint.

    What an utterly bizarre comparison. How on earth you can actually believe it makes sense to compare an ongoing employer/employee relationship with an encounter with a stranger engaged in criminal activity, I've no idea.

  • Russ wrote: »
    What I'm uneasy about here is the notion that the PR department should run the business...
    When the whole business model depends on PR it makes sense. When it comes down to it, the whole notion of public schools (UK usage - so those you pay lots of money to send your kids to) is a business built upon spin that these are much better schools than your local state comprehensive.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Russ wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    That is to say employers effectively have the right to dismiss anyone who cannot demonstrate that the employer dismissed them improperly
    By your logic, highwaymen have the "effective right" to rob anyone who cannot prove that they've been held up at gunpoint.
    Not for the first time you appear to have difficulty with the difference between criminal and civil law. In fact, you confuse them consistently.

    It's not the task of the victim of the crime to prove they've been held up at gunpoint. It is the state's task to prove that and it employs the police to do that. While the highwayman can get away with it if it can't be proven, there are a body of people whose job is to prevent that from happening.
    The police, however, do not routinely intervene in employment disputes on the side of the ex-employee. The state is there a neutral arbitrator.

    Given you consistently advocate applying the criminal law standard to civil cases, do you propose abolishing the civil law altogether and having the police investigate all civil cases?

  • Also, this is being presented as an issue of Free Speech, but there's also the point that the video demonstrates that Knowland struggles with statistics, and seems to have difficulty in interpreting information.

    He has used illustrations which don't match up with the topic (e.g. the section on C16th witchcraft is illustrated with a photograph of four modern teenage girls wearing jeans - possibly in the hope of making subliminal associations).

    Some of his illustrations could have been created effortlessly using Powerpoint, but instead he has written on photos in block capitals in red ink. By recollection, my kids were using Powerpoint for school presentations as soon as they were in secondary school - they would have been marked down for this. Surely Eton aims higher than this?

    His examples of "masculinity" are largely drawn from films, such as 300 and television. He seems to blur the lines between fact and fantasy. It is not difficult to draw comparisons between Trump and Knowland, in that Knowland seems to think that the truth is whatever he says it is. When challenged, he isn't saying "oh, hang on, I may have mis-interpreted that", he's doubling down and shouting that it isn't fair, he's right and everyone else is being mean and nasty to him.

    My kids went to a bog standard state comprehensive; I would have been dismayed if the quality of teaching had been this poor. Possibly Knowland is a great teacher when he sticks to his own subject; but this video is not a good advertisement for the quality of teacher provided by Eton.
  • North East QuineNorth East Quine Shipmate
    edited December 2020
    I would have been dismayed if the quality of teaching had been this poor.

    In fairness it was sometimes this poor - but usually for a reason e.g. the German teacher was off sick, was being covered by the Spanish teacher, who spoke no German, and the class ended up watching episodes of Spongebob Squarepants in German. But at least I wasn't paying for that! If I sent my kids to Eton, I would hope for better, and Knowland's poor quality video wouldn't fill me with confidence regarding the quality of teaching.

    At least Spongeboben und Patrick was innocuous.
  • NEQ I suspect that your aspirations for your kids’ education is entirely different from those of the majority of parents ( read fathers) who send their sons to Eton. They would largely not worry about the quality of education ; the right connections are the main aim.
  • ...so Eton's "superior" education is an education in believing yourself to be superior?
  • Looking at the current (Old Etonian) incumbent of 10 Downing Street, I'd say "YES!"
  • North East QuineNorth East Quine Shipmate
    edited December 2020
    I can't help comparing the bluster, grandstanding, sweeping statements and lack of attention to detail in Knowland's video, and the bluster, grandstanding, sweeping statements and lack of attention to detail of our PM.

    To quote Private Eye - could they be related?
  • When it comes down to it, the whole notion of public schools (UK usage - so those you pay lots of money to send your kids to) is a business built upon spin that these are much better schools than your local state comprehensive.

    Public schools usually have smaller classes, and fancier facilities, and more/better extracurricular activities. The state system has a large number of first-rate teachers: I wouldn't in general expect better teachers in a public school than in a reasonable state school.

    Someone upthread mentioned that a lot of what you're paying for is "better" pupils, for certain values of "better". If you want your kids to be surrounded by other children with the "right" sort of accents that will happily join them on skiing holidays, you'll want a public school.

  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    It doesn't take a genius to work out that an educational system is about class, status and power, as is access to all sorts of things. Amongst those things is quality of academic education, and I don't think we should kid ourselves that the state system is as good as that in the public schools. Eton and the like offer a privileged education for privileged people, educating some well beyond their natural capabilities, as Cameron and Johnson demonstrate. Knowland's views are seemingly a risible caricature of their ethos, but more honest that his Etonian critics posing as advocates of social enlightenment, inclusion, and meritocracy.

  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    edited December 2020
    Kwesi wrote: »
    Knowland's views are seemingly a risible caricature of their ethos, but more honest that his Etonian critics posing as advocates of social enlightenment, inclusion, and meritocracy.

    Are they necessarily doing that? Firing someone for bringing reputational damage to a business just requires an appreciation of how the business looks to the public, you don't necessarily have to hold those views yourself.
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    Kwesi" Knowland's views are seemingly a risible caricature of their ethos, but more honest than his Etonian critics posing as advocates of social enlightenment, inclusion, and meritocracy.

    chrisstiles:. Are they necessarily doing that? Firing someone for bringing reputational damage to a business just requires an appreciation of how the business looks to the public, you don't necessarily have to hold those views yourself.

    I'm not sure we are at odds here. Perhaps it depends on what you understand by the "that" which they are "doing'. The operative word in my post was meant to be "posing".
  • Kwesi wrote: »
    Kwesi" Knowland's views are seemingly a risible caricature of their ethos, but more honest than his Etonian critics posing as advocates of social enlightenment, inclusion, and meritocracy.

    chrisstiles:. Are they necessarily doing that? Firing someone for bringing reputational damage to a business just requires an appreciation of how the business looks to the public, you don't necessarily have to hold those views yourself.

    I'm not sure we are at odds here. Perhaps it depends on what you understand by the "that" which they are "doing'. The operative word in my post was meant to be "posing".

    They don't necessarily have to be posing to be using the damage limitation lines they are running with.
  • Kwesi wrote: »
    Amongst those things is quality of academic education, and I don't think we should kid ourselves that the state system is as good as that in the public schools.

    I received an excellent academic education in the state sector, my wife received a mediocre one in the private sector (though not a public school). It's very difficult to say whether individual performance is down to school or other aspects of upbringing. Chances are that most Etonians have had their path set long before they take the entrance exam, and would do similarly well at other schools. In my experience students who are academically capable at 18 are those who were academically capable at 13.
  • You do get late bloomers - those who decide to knuckle down, those whose home life improves, those who genuinely have a lightbulb moment - and also those who peak early and burn out, go off the rails for one reason or another, or just genuinely rose to their potential.

    The best place for them all is a state school where streaming between abilities is viable.
  • Leorning CnihtLeorning Cniht Shipmate
    edited December 2020
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    The best place for them all is a state school where streaming between abilities is viable.

    I'm not sure I see the connection. Do you mean a comprehensive school (so that you can "recover" kids who would have failed an entrance exam, but then bloom later) rather than a selective school? 'cause I'm pretty sure that streaming is viable in all kinds of schools.

    What you'd like to achieve with streaming is a small-enough ability range within the classroom that the lessons and whole-class presentations go at an appropriate rate for everyone. That more or less sets the number of ability streams that you need to have in each cohort, which in turn (given economic realities) determines a minimum size for your school. If you have a selective school, you can have fewer streams, and so a smaller school, at the cost of a wider range in your bottom stream. (Because of the people that showed early promise, but don't develop at the same rate as their peers.)
  • No selective schools. No private schools. Just schools.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    You do get late bloomers - those who decide to knuckle down, those whose home life improves, those who genuinely have a lightbulb moment - and also those who peak early and burn out, go off the rails for one reason or another, or just genuinely rose to their potential.

    The best place for them all is a state school where streaming between abilities is viable.

    I think setting works better than streaming; I was good at STEM subjects but pretty poor in humanities.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    You do get late bloomers - those who decide to knuckle down, those whose home life improves, those who genuinely have a lightbulb moment - and also those who peak early and burn out, go off the rails for one reason or another, or just genuinely rose to their potential.

    The best place for them all is a state school where streaming between abilities is viable.

    Streaming is problematic (ever met anyone who was good at English but rubbish at maths?) Setting is better but the research is divided about impact on attainment; the main gain is in teacher well-being.

    Of course in a small school neither is possible. Currently my school teaches the first two years of secondary together. :neutral:
  • I mean, yes: setting and/or streaming, and in a large enough school to make it possible.

    We're not reinventing the wheel here - we know how to do this, and that it works. It is also a problem that throwing money at will genuinely solve. If the school is smaller out of necessity, then we can just hire more teachers. Or generally, hire more teachers and resource them better, and stop them from having to collect a bazillion statistics for the senior management team.
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    Doc Tor:. It is also a problem that throwing money at will genuinely solve.

    ...A principle that might be applied right across educational provision.
    It would be instructive to know the range of investment per pupils/students at all age levels from nursery to tertiary education, including relativities within the state sector and between nominally similar institutions e.g. universities and colleges. (I would also want to include exposure to wider cultural experiences, theatre, opera, the arts and experience-enhancing vacations). We might start with the issues raised by Marcus Rashford, which are a national embarrassment and disgrace.



  • Latest figures are £5k/yr per secondary school pupil, £3.75k/yr per primary (there is more for the 'pupil premium' children). I'm guessing that has to cover all costs - teaching staff, TAs, admin, heat and light, plant, consumables, the lot. Food is either at cost or subsidised, I think.

    By comparison, Eton is £42.5k/yr.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    No selective schools. No private schools. Just schools.


    /tangent

    This is the model of Finnish education - all schools are state schools - except, contra what you said in a subsequent post, the system avoids streaming as much as possible. The result is Finland's consistent placing in the top three or so for PISA rankings. Curiously, Finnish students spend relatively few hours on homework, especially compared to the South Koreans (the highest, I think), Japanese, and Singaporeans. The success of the Finnish system is the result of a number of other factors, as well, some of which are culturally specific and couldn't be grafted onto the British systems.

    end of tangent/
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    Russ wrote: »
    What I'm uneasy about here is the notion that the PR department should run the business...
    When the whole business model depends on PR it makes sense.

    It makes sense that any business in a competitive market should make some effort to manage its public image. It's unsurprising that the college would prefer that its staff not be associated in the public mind with any activity or opinion that runs contrary to the image of Eton that they choose to portray as part of their marketing.

    The question, ISTM, is how far an employer can reasonably go in restricting the private life of their employees in pursuit of that aim.

    Looking for principled answers that don't depend on how much you agree or disagree with the opinions in question, of course. Or the industry in question, for that matter.

  • But, the whole point is that if someone splashes the name of their employer around (especially only to gain some level of 'authority' from that association) then that's moved beyond the pure "private life of their employees". This whole episode falls into an in-between world. At one end, it's not about what he's actually been teaching the students in class or any other activity undertaken on school grounds or using school equipment. At the other end, it's not just personal views expressed anonymously without making any connection to his position at the school. The first of those is obviously entirely something the school can take action over. The last of those would probably only involve the school if it was illegal and resulted in a conviction (and, even then it might only need to be involved if the crime was in that realm of 'potential danger to vulnerable people', sharing indecent images or something).

    But the whole thing is that he posted a video that expressed unacceptable views (in a poorly produced manner) in which he makes clear from the beginning that he's a teacher at Eton, and no amount of "these are my views, not those of the school" disclaimers removes that association. He's there creating an initial view that this is an intelligent, educated man that one of the best schools in the country (as generally perceived) has employed to teach students; that's a mantle of authority he's deliberately chosen to wear to give his views more credence. And, having done that he's associated the school with his personal views. This was something he chose to do, this isn't something that the media dug up while he tried to maintain a suitable distance between his personal views and his job.
  • Russ wrote: »
    The question, ISTM, is how far an employer can reasonably go in restricting the private life of their employees in pursuit of that aim.

    Looking for principled answers that don't depend on how much you agree or disagree with the opinions in question, of course. Or the industry in question, for that matter.

    I don't think you can come up with a universally applicable rule, especially one that's completely independent of the facts. For example, I'd argue that "the industry in question" matters a great deal in this case. Schools are supposed to impart knowledge/wisdom. As such, having teachers publicly advocate crankery or conspiracy theories, especially if it's done in conjunction with touting your affiliation with your employer as evidence of expertise, would seem to be prima facie evidence that a school wasn't very good at it's primary function. We've already discussed whether or not Eton should be willing to employ Holocaust deniers. I'd argue that claiming women are all childlike simpletons who use their low cunning and feminine wiles to manipulate helpless men falls into a similar category as insisting there's a international Jewish conspiracy to manufacture evidence of the Holocaust in order to manipulate nations.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    Russ wrote: »
    Looking for principled answers that don't depend on how much you agree or disagree with the opinions in question, of course. Or the industry in question, for that matter.

    I don't think you can come up with a universally applicable rule, especially one that's completely independent of the facts. For example, I'd argue that "the industry in question" matters a great deal in this case.

    Agreed. And I'll note that we don't in general apply this "the industry doesn't matter" rule of Russ's. People who work with children or vulnerable people are required to have an enhanced background clearance. Someone who fails that check wouldn't be able to work as a teacher, but would be OK working as a machinist, or a middle manager in a telesales company. I'll agree with Crœsos that there's a set of legal behaviours and opinions that renders someone unsuitable to be a teacher (or priest, or scout leader, or ...).


  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    If the school is smaller out of necessity, then we can just hire more teachers.

    I may as well note here that some children do better in small schools, where they can know everyone by name, so there are reasons other than @Arethosemyfeet's geographic constraints that mean that someone might prefer a smaller school for their children. It's unlikely that a small school would be able to support the same range of subjects as a larger one - at least, not in a traditional class setting. I'd be surprised if @Arethosemyfeet's school was able to offer the choice of German or Mandarin Chinese to its pupils, for example.
  • In fairness I don't think our thousand-strong mainland partner school offer either of those. Our former headteacher managed staffing so that our students could meet entry requirements for pretty much any tertiary education course, so that while they may not always have been able to study what they wanted they could study what they needed.
  • In fairness I don't think our thousand-strong mainland partner school offer either of those. Our former headteacher managed staffing so that our students could meet entry requirements for pretty much any tertiary education course, so that while they may not always have been able to study what they wanted they could study what they needed.

    There's a fair amount of philosophy of education encoded in that want vs need statement at the end, isn't there?

    I wonder if, following everyone's enforced experience with remote learning, schools like yours might end up with more options for remote classes for less popular subjects. The catch with trying to do that is it makes timetabling rather a challenge, but it might be achievable.
  • In fairness I don't think our thousand-strong mainland partner school offer either of those. Our former headteacher managed staffing so that our students could meet entry requirements for pretty much any tertiary education course, so that while they may not always have been able to study what they wanted they could study what they needed.

    There's a fair amount of philosophy of education encoded in that want vs need statement at the end, isn't there?

    Only in so far as it determines what colleges and universities set as entry requirements. That was the need to which I was referring.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    In fairness I don't think our thousand-strong mainland partner school offer either of those. Our former headteacher managed staffing so that our students could meet entry requirements for pretty much any tertiary education course, so that while they may not always have been able to study what they wanted they could study what they needed.

    Which takes us back to the position here until some time after I left school. State government high schools in many country areas only taught until the Intermediate level, that is 3 years secondary education. Most students throughout the State finished their education at that level. It was near impossible for the State school system to offer the remaining 2 years until matriculation exams in many towns; the numbers of students just did not justify the cost. So students would attend a boarding school in a larger country town, or one in Sydney. The other choice was private boarding and attending a day school but I'd imagine the costs would be about the same.
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    But, the whole point is that if someone splashes the name of their employer around (especially only to gain some level of 'authority' from that association) then that's moved beyond the pure "private life of their employees".

    Agreed.

    Crœsos wrote: »
    Russ wrote: »
    Looking for principled answers that don't depend on how much you agree or disagree with the opinions in question, of course. Or the industry in question, for that matter.

    I don't think you can come up with a universally applicable rule, especially one that's completely independent of the facts. For example, I'd argue that "the industry in question" matters a great deal in this case.

    Sorry, my comment should have read
    "Don't depend on how much you agree or disagree with the opinions. Or how much you approve or disapprove of the industry".

    There may indeed be relevant differences between different jobs, in the extent to which you give individuals the benefit of doubt. But these should be issues that are clearly understood on both sides at the point where a new employee is taken on.
  • I don't want to provide links, but there has been worse going on in that place in a photography club with another member of staff - and how that escaped the notice of his fellows beggars belief. Any search for "Eton abuse" will show a variety of reports.
  • Russ wrote: »
    There may indeed be relevant differences between different jobs, in the extent to which you give individuals the benefit of doubt. But these should be issues that are clearly understood on both sides at the point where a new employee is taken on.

    You keep using phrases like "benefit of doubt" and "innocent until proven guilty" which seem totally irrelevant in this case. The basic facts are not in dispute by any of the parties involved. There's no doubt and we don't need to presume anything.
  • Russ wrote: »
    The question, ISTM, is how far an employer can reasonably go in restricting the private life of their employees in pursuit of that aim.

    So for clarity you don't think (as you seemed to do in other threads) that an employer has ultimate freedom to set the terms of employment as they feel free and that there should be some regulation around these?
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    For what Etonians really believe see Jacob Rees-Mogg re UNICEF assistance to London children.
Sign In or Register to comment.