xkcd
Morgan to Unicef UK: If a care is asked to yield a cafe, staleness she go?
Unicef UK: It is genuine that is this Bill becomes accumulation as it is, a edifice someone could ask a blackamoor to yield the cafe, but the bill would attain that request unlawful.
Morgan To Vera Baird: If a care is asked to yield a cafe, staleness she go?
Vera Baird: NO
Morgan to Equalities Office: If a care is asked to yield a cafe, staleness she go?
Equalities Office: It is not for us to provide a yes or a no respond to a hypothetical questions as you hit requested.
I'm so tempted to move this post with .. imagine a anxiety where..? ;-)
So here we go, backwards to the Equalities Bill slog. Whereby, dear reader, we've had the Forces of Enquiring Minds, battling with the Forces of Brick Wall (Government division) for Quite Some Time.
Last week, we thought we hit a fissure on digit of the bricks, when Vera Baird QC, MP, Solicitor General, finally replied to the question on every our lips with a rattling firm:
\"NO\"
But when asked to quantify this statement, refused to carry on the email discussion, and directed me to ask it via the Equalities Office. Which I did. Letter here.
The Equalities Office replied, yesterday, the period after Parliament went into Summer Recess. Coincidence, I'm sure.
This is their full reply:
Dear Ms Gallagher,
I am responding to your e-mail of 12 July to Vera Baird QC MP and your subsequent e-mail of 15 July to GEO enquiries. I justify that you were sent a standard state to your previous requests for clarification on what endorsement breastfeeding mothers module hit low the Equality Bill which did not respond every your questions.
Turning first to your e-mail of 12 July, the Equality Bill, which applies to England, Cambria and Scotland, makes dead clear that breastfeeding mothers are protected from favouritism in traffic to supplying of services to the public, whatever their baby's age. So a blackamoor who is breastfeeding her child in a edifice or on a bus cannot licitly be asked to leave, or intend off, for that reason.
I believe that the subdivision in the Bill which caused you anxiety was subdivision 16(7) which introduced a \"reasonableness\" effort which was intended to be utilised to judge whether favouritism had taken place. We listened to representations by fascinated stakeholders and discern that this subdivision would hit had the unintended event of potentially allowing favouritism against pregnant women or newborn mothers if this could be shown to be reasonable. Therefore on 9 June, we tabled amendments to clauses 16 and 17 of the Bill which prohibit pregnancy and relationship favouritism - digit of which was to remove subdivision 16(7). These amendments were briefly debated on 16 June and agreed, and thence today stand conception of the Bill. We believe that these amendments module improve legal clarity without any venture of a expiration of endorsement and module equal a convey to the level of endorsement given low the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (as amended).
You specifically asked for an respond to the question \"if she is asked to yield the premises by a mortal in dominance staleness she go?\" It is not for us to provide a yes or no respond to a hypothetical question as you hit requested. However, if this was in a café for instance, the mortal asking a blackamoor to yield because she is breastfeeding would be performing unlawfully. It would thence be unstoppered to the blackamoor to contest the café owner. However, if for any conceive she did not want or change unable to do this, she could bring a claim of favouritism against the café owner.
With regard to you 15 July e-mail, at your request, we hit noted that you do not hold the Bill. With regard to the Bill making it outlaw to turn a blackamoor away from a edifice for instance because she is breastfeeding, this is what is covered by subdivision 16 (now subdivision 17 in the Bill as republished on 7 July. This crapper be accessed electronically from the following link: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmbills/131/09131.i-vii.html).
As and when the Bill is enacted, before it comes into law, counselling module be produced to explain what the Bill means and module cover matters such as these. You should be aware however that the country 3B of the Sex Discrimination Act which makes relationship favouritism outlaw already protects a breastfeeding care in the same artefact as subdivision 17 of the Bill does. It is this that we are making clearer in the Bill.
I wish this provides the clarification that you seek.
Yours sincerely,
Kate Stasik Government Equalities Office
Let me take you finished that:
July 12th, I ask this question, to Vera Baird:
\"Could you gratify confirm that low the supplying of Clause 16 in the proposed Equalities Bill, that if a care who is breastfeeding in England & Cambria is asked to yield premises providing her with goods or services, she staleness leave? I do not wish to center an respond that states you conceive that as it is (note IS, not module be) an offence to do so, no mortal in dominance on those premises would ask a care to do so. I’m not fascinated in that response. I’m fascinated in the respond to the question: if she is asked to yield premises by a mortal in authority… staleness she go? The respond is either a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’: if that helps you narrow down and formulate your response.\"
July 15th, Vera replies:
\"NO\"
July 15th I reply:
\"Thank you. At small we're effort somewhere.
I'm sorry to say, I couldn't wager your acknowledgement that I do not hold the Bill.
Could you today gratify explain where in the Bill it explains the recourse available to the care refusing to yield the premises when asked to do so? This needs to be passed on to mothers who hit been asked to leave, so they know what to say if the mortal in dominance states the police module be titled if they respond to yield the premises.
As other honored sources involved in the Bill existence formulated, such as UNICEF UK, has expressed that yes, low the accumulation the care would hit to leave, you crapper understand ground it is so imperative to intend the content correct from the highest source.\"
July 15th Vera replies with 'take it to the Equalities Office'. I do.
July 22nd Equalities Office replies:
\"You specifically asked for an respond to the question \"if she is asked to yield the premises by a mortal in dominance staleness she go?\" It is not for us to provide a yes or no respond to a hypothetical question as you hit requested. However, if this was in a café for instance, the mortal asking a blackamoor to yield because she is breastfeeding would be performing unlawfully. It would thence be unstoppered to the blackamoor to contest the café owner. However, if for any conceive she did not want or change unable to do this, she could bring a claim of favouritism against the café owner.\"
Do state the continuation of the Government distinction - it's outlaw for them to ask a care to leave. Do state I asked them NOT TO SAY THIS TO ME, as I knew that respond and was not fascinated in it.
Do state the refusal to respond the question asked. Again.
Complete refusal to actually respond the damn question.
Anyone would conceive I was asking the most pertinent question, the artefact they score and club and respond to respond it.
Apart from Vera, of course. Who has replied in a artefact that cannot be quantified, verified or understood. Well, she is a lawyer.... isn't that so unfair to lawyers? It feels stingy to lambast every lawyers, on behalf of Vera. I 'll try again.
Well, she is an MP... isn't that so unfair to MPs? Harrumph. We hit rattling beatific MPs employed for their constituents.... let's hit another fissure it it.
Well, she is an Government Minister... isn't that so unfair to Government Ministers?
Probably Not. But still feels mean.
Okay, try this... well, she is Solicitor General.
Yeah, that works.
*sigh*
Also rattling cute how they filled the respond up with lots of things I'd not asked. I especially likeable the \"I believe the subdivision in the Bill which caused you most anxiety was 16(7)...\" That's an amazing amount of telepathy at work there! Exceptional. You don't conceive they meet shoe-horned it every in, to attain to look at how reasonable they are in listening to concerns? Notwithstanding it's not a anxiety I'd raised with them at all? Yes, I conceive so to.
HOWEVER.
However...
Don't woman discover on what's rattling important in this reply. What's actually feat to attain it easier for MPs to today place actual push on about effort answers. Don't woman the bits THAT ARE REAL GIVE AWAYS:
\"You should be aware however that the country 3B of the Sex Discrimination Act which makes relationship favouritism outlaw already protects a breastfeeding care in the same artefact as subdivision 17 of the Bill does. It is this that we are making clearer in the Bill.\"
\"Therefore on 9 June, we tabled amendments to clauses 16 and 17 of the Bill which prohibit pregnancy and relationship favouritism - digit of which was to remove subdivision 16(7). These amendments were briefly debated on 16 June and agreed, and thence today stand conception of the Bill. We believe that these amendments module improve legal clarity without any venture of a expiration of endorsement and module equal a convey to the level of endorsement given low the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (as amended).\"
There is no newborn protection. There is no newborn protection. Repeat after me: there is no newborn protection. When the Bill came discover of committee, Clause 16 became Clause 17. That's ground she's conversation about Clause 17 existence what is already in the Sex Discrimination Bill.
Nothing in the Bill is 'new'.
AND
\".... the Equality Bill, which applies to England, Cambria and Scotland, makes dead clear that breastfeeding mothers are protected from favouritism in traffic to supplying of services to the public, whatever their baby's age.\"
So... once again, the whole six-month fallacy nailed. Despite the briefings to MPs, despite the discussions in committee. They are continuing to respond questions without dwelling on the schism of how mothers claim after the event, depending on the geezerhood of their babies. But it's so important they've place these digit points - no newborn protection, meet a clarifiying of existing protection, and no geezerhood bounds - into this response.
Although, of course, they've kept to 'premises'. Still no endorsement in open spaces Mums, meet somewhere where there are premises and beatific and services. Another little adroitness of hand - beatific at it, ain't they?
I'm feat to intend this content backwards to the MPs who are employed with their constituents on this - Alastair Burt, saint Hughes, Cheryl Gillan, Annette Brooks and Ed Davy. I'll also wager if the tabled questions by Cheryl hit been answered.
Unicef UK: It is genuine that is this Bill becomes accumulation as it is, a edifice someone could ask a blackamoor to yield the cafe, but the bill would attain that request unlawful.
Morgan To Vera Baird: If a care is asked to yield a cafe, staleness she go?
Vera Baird: NO
Morgan to Equalities Office: If a care is asked to yield a cafe, staleness she go?
Equalities Office: It is not for us to provide a yes or a no respond to a hypothetical questions as you hit requested.
I'm so tempted to move this post with .. imagine a anxiety where..? ;-)
So here we go, backwards to the Equalities Bill slog. Whereby, dear reader, we've had the Forces of Enquiring Minds, battling with the Forces of Brick Wall (Government division) for Quite Some Time.
Last week, we thought we hit a fissure on digit of the bricks, when Vera Baird QC, MP, Solicitor General, finally replied to the question on every our lips with a rattling firm:
\"NO\"
But when asked to quantify this statement, refused to carry on the email discussion, and directed me to ask it via the Equalities Office. Which I did. Letter here.
The Equalities Office replied, yesterday, the period after Parliament went into Summer Recess. Coincidence, I'm sure.
This is their full reply:
Dear Ms Gallagher,
I am responding to your e-mail of 12 July to Vera Baird QC MP and your subsequent e-mail of 15 July to GEO enquiries. I justify that you were sent a standard state to your previous requests for clarification on what endorsement breastfeeding mothers module hit low the Equality Bill which did not respond every your questions.
Turning first to your e-mail of 12 July, the Equality Bill, which applies to England, Cambria and Scotland, makes dead clear that breastfeeding mothers are protected from favouritism in traffic to supplying of services to the public, whatever their baby's age. So a blackamoor who is breastfeeding her child in a edifice or on a bus cannot licitly be asked to leave, or intend off, for that reason.
I believe that the subdivision in the Bill which caused you anxiety was subdivision 16(7) which introduced a \"reasonableness\" effort which was intended to be utilised to judge whether favouritism had taken place. We listened to representations by fascinated stakeholders and discern that this subdivision would hit had the unintended event of potentially allowing favouritism against pregnant women or newborn mothers if this could be shown to be reasonable. Therefore on 9 June, we tabled amendments to clauses 16 and 17 of the Bill which prohibit pregnancy and relationship favouritism - digit of which was to remove subdivision 16(7). These amendments were briefly debated on 16 June and agreed, and thence today stand conception of the Bill. We believe that these amendments module improve legal clarity without any venture of a expiration of endorsement and module equal a convey to the level of endorsement given low the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (as amended).
You specifically asked for an respond to the question \"if she is asked to yield the premises by a mortal in dominance staleness she go?\" It is not for us to provide a yes or no respond to a hypothetical question as you hit requested. However, if this was in a café for instance, the mortal asking a blackamoor to yield because she is breastfeeding would be performing unlawfully. It would thence be unstoppered to the blackamoor to contest the café owner. However, if for any conceive she did not want or change unable to do this, she could bring a claim of favouritism against the café owner.
With regard to you 15 July e-mail, at your request, we hit noted that you do not hold the Bill. With regard to the Bill making it outlaw to turn a blackamoor away from a edifice for instance because she is breastfeeding, this is what is covered by subdivision 16 (now subdivision 17 in the Bill as republished on 7 July. This crapper be accessed electronically from the following link: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmbills/131/09131.i-vii.html).
As and when the Bill is enacted, before it comes into law, counselling module be produced to explain what the Bill means and module cover matters such as these. You should be aware however that the country 3B of the Sex Discrimination Act which makes relationship favouritism outlaw already protects a breastfeeding care in the same artefact as subdivision 17 of the Bill does. It is this that we are making clearer in the Bill.
I wish this provides the clarification that you seek.
Yours sincerely,
Kate Stasik Government Equalities Office
Let me take you finished that:
July 12th, I ask this question, to Vera Baird:
\"Could you gratify confirm that low the supplying of Clause 16 in the proposed Equalities Bill, that if a care who is breastfeeding in England & Cambria is asked to yield premises providing her with goods or services, she staleness leave? I do not wish to center an respond that states you conceive that as it is (note IS, not module be) an offence to do so, no mortal in dominance on those premises would ask a care to do so. I’m not fascinated in that response. I’m fascinated in the respond to the question: if she is asked to yield premises by a mortal in authority… staleness she go? The respond is either a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’: if that helps you narrow down and formulate your response.\"
July 15th, Vera replies:
\"NO\"
July 15th I reply:
\"Thank you. At small we're effort somewhere.
I'm sorry to say, I couldn't wager your acknowledgement that I do not hold the Bill.
Could you today gratify explain where in the Bill it explains the recourse available to the care refusing to yield the premises when asked to do so? This needs to be passed on to mothers who hit been asked to leave, so they know what to say if the mortal in dominance states the police module be titled if they respond to yield the premises.
As other honored sources involved in the Bill existence formulated, such as UNICEF UK, has expressed that yes, low the accumulation the care would hit to leave, you crapper understand ground it is so imperative to intend the content correct from the highest source.\"
July 15th Vera replies with 'take it to the Equalities Office'. I do.
July 22nd Equalities Office replies:
\"You specifically asked for an respond to the question \"if she is asked to yield the premises by a mortal in dominance staleness she go?\" It is not for us to provide a yes or no respond to a hypothetical question as you hit requested. However, if this was in a café for instance, the mortal asking a blackamoor to yield because she is breastfeeding would be performing unlawfully. It would thence be unstoppered to the blackamoor to contest the café owner. However, if for any conceive she did not want or change unable to do this, she could bring a claim of favouritism against the café owner.\"
Do state the continuation of the Government distinction - it's outlaw for them to ask a care to leave. Do state I asked them NOT TO SAY THIS TO ME, as I knew that respond and was not fascinated in it.
Do state the refusal to respond the question asked. Again.
Complete refusal to actually respond the damn question.
Anyone would conceive I was asking the most pertinent question, the artefact they score and club and respond to respond it.
Apart from Vera, of course. Who has replied in a artefact that cannot be quantified, verified or understood. Well, she is a lawyer.... isn't that so unfair to lawyers? It feels stingy to lambast every lawyers, on behalf of Vera. I 'll try again.
Well, she is an MP... isn't that so unfair to MPs? Harrumph. We hit rattling beatific MPs employed for their constituents.... let's hit another fissure it it.
Well, she is an Government Minister... isn't that so unfair to Government Ministers?
Probably Not. But still feels mean.
Okay, try this... well, she is Solicitor General.
Yeah, that works.
*sigh*
Also rattling cute how they filled the respond up with lots of things I'd not asked. I especially likeable the \"I believe the subdivision in the Bill which caused you most anxiety was 16(7)...\" That's an amazing amount of telepathy at work there! Exceptional. You don't conceive they meet shoe-horned it every in, to attain to look at how reasonable they are in listening to concerns? Notwithstanding it's not a anxiety I'd raised with them at all? Yes, I conceive so to.
HOWEVER.
However...
Don't woman discover on what's rattling important in this reply. What's actually feat to attain it easier for MPs to today place actual push on about effort answers. Don't woman the bits THAT ARE REAL GIVE AWAYS:
\"You should be aware however that the country 3B of the Sex Discrimination Act which makes relationship favouritism outlaw already protects a breastfeeding care in the same artefact as subdivision 17 of the Bill does. It is this that we are making clearer in the Bill.\"
\"Therefore on 9 June, we tabled amendments to clauses 16 and 17 of the Bill which prohibit pregnancy and relationship favouritism - digit of which was to remove subdivision 16(7). These amendments were briefly debated on 16 June and agreed, and thence today stand conception of the Bill. We believe that these amendments module improve legal clarity without any venture of a expiration of endorsement and module equal a convey to the level of endorsement given low the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (as amended).\"
There is no newborn protection. There is no newborn protection. Repeat after me: there is no newborn protection. When the Bill came discover of committee, Clause 16 became Clause 17. That's ground she's conversation about Clause 17 existence what is already in the Sex Discrimination Bill.
Nothing in the Bill is 'new'.
AND
\".... the Equality Bill, which applies to England, Cambria and Scotland, makes dead clear that breastfeeding mothers are protected from favouritism in traffic to supplying of services to the public, whatever their baby's age.\"
So... once again, the whole six-month fallacy nailed. Despite the briefings to MPs, despite the discussions in committee. They are continuing to respond questions without dwelling on the schism of how mothers claim after the event, depending on the geezerhood of their babies. But it's so important they've place these digit points - no newborn protection, meet a clarifiying of existing protection, and no geezerhood bounds - into this response.
Although, of course, they've kept to 'premises'. Still no endorsement in open spaces Mums, meet somewhere where there are premises and beatific and services. Another little adroitness of hand - beatific at it, ain't they?
I'm feat to intend this content backwards to the MPs who are employed with their constituents on this - Alastair Burt, saint Hughes, Cheryl Gillan, Annette Brooks and Ed Davy. I'll also wager if the tabled questions by Cheryl hit been answered.
Watch This Space.
0 comments:
Post a Comment