Compo for seeing the queen

Mickeymac

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2010
Messages
38,668
The Equality Commissioner threw more light on this last week on Radio Ulster. He suggested that there was a lot more to the case than was suggested. The story was broken in Parliament by that scoundrel Ken Magennis who used parliamentary privilege to name Mr Hegarty. The Equality Commissioner also suggest that that was unfair because Mr Hegarty has no right of reply in view of the fact that his settlement included a confidentiality clause, which prevented him from explaining the context.


I have been following up on this since the story broke sir and from what I have seen is critics of such portraits being removed NOT taking the bother to read up on the fair employment legislation which exists in the North of Ireland, apparently the NIO done their homework and acted accordingly.
 


McTell

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
6,416
Twitter
No
The Equality Commissioner also suggest that that was unfair because Mr Hegarty has no right of reply in view of the fact that his settlement included a confidentiality clause, which prevented him from explaining the context.
//

Fair does, but isn't it a part of the old-style secretive Brit empire civil service to hide everything away?

If it's public money I want to know what it's spent on.

Part of the problem with our revolution in 1922 in the south was that the entire civil service carried on, bar 2 that were fired, and kept that secrecy going, only to suit themselves.

In the USA everything is out there in public, if it was paid for by the taxpayer.
 

raetsel

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 5, 2017
Messages
8,040
Fair does, but isn't it a part of the old-style secretive Brit empire civil service to hide everything away?

If it's public money I want to know what it's spent on.

Part of the problem with our revolution in 1922 in the south was that the entire civil service carried on, bar 2 that were fired, and kept that secrecy going, only to suit themselves.

In the USA everything is out there in public, if it was paid for by the taxpayer.
I fully agree.
What the Equality Commissioner was effectively saying was that a portrait of the queen wasn't the problem. It was how it was used, or more correctly, misused.
As a result of this episode, I learned of an episode at a mid-Ulster civil servants' Christmas office party a few years ago where a party hat was placed at the top of a portrait of the queen, directly above her head. Apparently quite a fuss was made about it afterwards and the staff received a bit of a lecture on proper behaviour.
The point is that portraits of the queen are common in government offices. If that case was as simple as Ken Maginnis suggested and it was as easy as he suggested to increase your bank balance by £10K then there'd be an avalanche of claims.
 

Dedogs

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 17, 2012
Messages
6,215
Seems to me that if we ever have unity, we will have to pay 10,000 compo every time a belfast TD comes to Leinster House and sees portraits of Collins and Dev.
and 20 k for anyone that has to lissen to mary lou or joan burton!!!!! :) :) :)
 

Dedogs

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 17, 2012
Messages
6,215
I have been following up on this since the story broke sir and from what I have seen is critics of such portraits being removed NOT taking the bother to read up on the fair employment legislation which exists in the North of Ireland, apparently the NIO done their homework and acted accordingly.
a mate in fairness fair employment means gettin paid for your work its not gettin compo for seein the queens picture.....
 

recedite

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2010
Messages
1,540
Read the article again a bit more objectively. You missed the bit about the litigant being unable to defend himself by telling his side of the story, or for that matter the department providing an explanation as the agreement was the subject of a confidentiality agreement. Therefore the story has not been reported in a balance way, as it cannot be.
It is perfectly obvious that there was much more to this than a simple photo of the queen, considering that they are pretty common in civil service offices. Only a clown would believe it was as simple as it was portrayed by that bigoted bollix Magennis, who is a well known fool.
There is nothing there we didn't already know.
Which is why I said about the commentator "He actually hasn't thrown any more light on it".

BTW, re the litigant, "unable to defend himself" is one way of putting it.
Another way of putting it is "he is saying nowt, while wallowing in his hush money"
 

raetsel

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 5, 2017
Messages
8,040
There is nothing there we didn't already know.
Which is why I said about the commentator "He actually hasn't thrown any more light on it".

BTW, re the litigant, "unable to defend himself" is one way of putting it.
Another way of putting it is "he is saying nowt, while wallowing in his hush money"
Well considering that you admit that you know nothing, don't you think it is a bit idiotic to come to unfounded conclusions based upon your own prejudices.
I'd have thought it far more sensible to listen to the Equality Commissioner's intervention, (he clearly knows more than he can say) and read between the lines, and at least come to the conclusion that you don't have the information to judge.
Furthermore it is quite obvious that any civil servant who took a case simply based on having to work in an office where there was a portrait of the Queen would be laughed at. A British cabinet minister signed off on this. Are you suggesting that she is a fool?
It is obvious that your knowledge of Northern Ireland isn't up to speed. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
 

death or glory

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 1, 2012
Messages
18,830
Well considering that you admit that you know nothing, don't you think it is a bit idiotic to come to unfounded conclusions based upon your own prejudices.
I'd have thought it far more sensible to listen to the Equality Commissioner's intervention, (he clearly knows more than he can say) and read between the lines, and at least come to the conclusion that you don't have the information to judge.
Furthermore it is quite obvious that any civil servant who took a case simply based on having to work in an office where there was a portrait of the Queen would be laughed at. A British cabinet minister signed off on this. Are you suggesting that she is a fool?
It is obvious that your knowledge of Northern Ireland isn't up to speed. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Here Ratarse,
At least he admits he knows nothing unlike yourself rather than base your conclusion on your sectarian bigotry.
You tell him to listen to the equality commissioner, who by the way says nothing about the details of the case, you tell him to read between the lines.
It is clear you have a one sided nationalist agenda.
The facts are there plain to see, a British government civil servant got 10 000 Great British pounds for having to look at images of the Queen in British government buildings.
There is none so blind as those who will not see.
 

raetsel

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 5, 2017
Messages
8,040
BTW, re the litigant, "unable to defend himself" is one way of putting it.
Another way of putting it is "he is saying nowt, while wallowing in his hush money"
By the way, I should add that this comment is classic, anonymous online trolling of another human being, with the same right to privacy that we all have.
You clearly know sweet f.a. about him, but still feel compelled to post nasty, unfounded comments. It is shameful, corner-boy behaviour.
 

Mickeymac

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2010
Messages
38,668
By the way, I should add that this comment is classic, anonymous online trolling of another human being, with the same right to privacy that we all have.
You clearly know sweet f.a. about him, but still feel compelled to post nasty, unfounded comments. It is shameful, corner-boy behaviour.

Maybe is is envious of the fact someone used his head and the law of the land to legally extract a free holiday out of the system.😂😂😂😂
 

raetsel

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 5, 2017
Messages
8,040
Maybe is is envious of the fact someone used his head and the law of the land to legally extract a free holiday out of the system.😂😂😂😂
There's a serious issue here Mickey, not least because bigots and idiots are suggesting that this man made a spurious claim, without a shred of evidence.
It is obvious that there must have been some not very subtle bullying going on here, probably prolonged harassment in a hostile environment, and whatever the complaint was, it had to be proved. Considering that thousands of nationalist civil servants have worked in offices where portraits of the queen were and still are present, it is preposterous to suggest that Maginnis's mischief-making version, which he offered while skulking behind parliamentary privilege, is remotely close to the truth.
However if you were working in an office where your boss or others behaved in a passive aggressive way towards you where odd things which made you uncomfortable occurred, and then you started arriving at your desk every morning to find a portrait of the queen sitting on it, that would be considered gross harassment by any reasonable standard, assuming you were from a nationalist background and the harasser was a unionist.
Knowing how sectarian harassment in the workplace has happened over the years I'm suggesting that something like that happened in this case.
I actually know of a Catholic woman who got a civilian job in the police in the Mid Ulster area after the Troubles, who was targeted by a policewoman stationed there. The policewoman made a point of walking past her when nobody else was within hearing distance and whispering things like "Fenian bitch" at her. It went on for months. She complained but her bosses could do nothing without proof. She, (the victim) eventually accepted a move to another station. She didn't seek, or receive any compensation by the way.
 

Mickeymac

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2010
Messages
38,668
There's a serious issue here Mickey, not least because bigots and idiots are suggesting that this man made a spurious claim, without a shred of evidence.
It is obvious that there must have been some not very subtle bullying going on here, probably prolonged harassment in a hostile environment, and whatever the complaint was, it had to be proved. Considering that thousands of nationalist civil servants have worked in offices where portraits of the queen were and still are present, it is preposterous to suggest that Maginnis's mischief-making version, which he offered while skulking behind parliamentary privilege, is remotely close to the truth.
However if you were working in an office where your boss or others behaved in a passive aggressive way towards you where odd things which made you uncomfortable occurred, and then you started arriving at your desk every morning to find a portrait of the queen sitting on it, that would be considered gross harassment by any reasonable standard, assuming you were from a nationalist background and the harasser was a unionist.
Knowing how sectarian harassment in the workplace has happened over the years I'm suggesting that something like that happened in this case.
I actually know of a Catholic woman who got a civilian job in the police in the Mid Ulster area after the Troubles, who was targeted by a policewoman stationed there. The policewoman made a point of walking past her when nobody else was within hearing distance and whispering things like "Fenian bitch" at her. It went on for months. She complained but her bosses could do nothing without proof. She, (the victim) eventually accepted a move to another station. She didn't seek, or receive any compensation by the way.


My take exactly Raetsel on the whole sorry thing, this guys version of events would blow the wholesale criticism he has unfairly received and would put unionist abuse of the British parliamentary privilege to the fore again and label Lord MeGuinness once again as the fool and mischief maker he obviously is.

It's sad really that the victim of all this is subject to a confidentiality clause in his settlement.
 

McTell

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
6,416
Twitter
No
//
However if you were working in an office where your boss or others behaved in a passive aggressive way towards you where odd things which made you uncomfortable occurred, and then you started arriving at your desk every morning to find a portrait of the queen sitting on it, that would be considered gross harassment by any reasonable standard, assuming you were from a nationalist background and the harasser was a unionist.
Knowing how sectarian harassment in the workplace has happened over the years I'm suggesting that something like that happened in this case.
//

I get all that, but in the real business non-civil-service world you diffuse.

So you point to the pic and say something that will needle him but not a lot. Maybe he can't work without an elderly lady standing over him like his mammy.

It seems that post-unity some Dup-UUP type TDs will be elected, and why not, but I don't want them fussing about pictures in leinster house. As it is we will have to pay for the assembly (as well as the Dail and a share of the EP) for a few years at least.

I don't want this kind of crack to seem normal. It only happened because NI is a tad abnormal.
 

raetsel

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 5, 2017
Messages
8,040
I get all that, but in the real business non-civil-service world you diffuse.

So you point to the pic and say something that will needle him but not a lot. Maybe he can't work without an elderly lady standing over him like his mammy.

It seems that post-unity some Dup-UUP type TDs will be elected, and why not, but I don't want them fussing about pictures in leinster house. As it is we will have to pay for the assembly (as well as the Dail and a share of the EP) for a few years at least.

I don't want this kind of crack to seem normal. It only happened because NI is a tad abnormal.
It's not easy to win a case in the Fair Employment Tribunal though. Maginnis seems to be suggesting that they are adjudicated upon by fools which is rather ironic, given that he is such a buffoon himself. In a normal democracy he wouldn't get a job as a janitor in the HoL. :)
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top