Have To Be Very Careful What I Say Here.,..

[susanwells]

.. or I`ll find myself prosecuted too. I know that on the whole people on here don`t share my beliefs and this isn`t actually about those. Today the Diocese of Hereford was fined £47,000 in a case funded by the Gay Rights group Stonewall. A man applied for a job and was questioned during the interview about his sexual behaviour. He has sued for discrimination. er, the job he applied for was as a YOUTH worker. I do know paedophiles are often looking for young girls but I would think that a person looking to work with the young might expect to be asked questions on what seems to me a somewhat relevant issue.
Clearly not.

[TheOldhamWhisper]

What exactly is the link between being Gay and being a paedophile?

I'm quite disappointed by your attitude in this day and age and your post is no less discrimanatory than the the people who felt they needed to ask the question in the first place.

[Win2Win]

What happens in the bedroom between me and my mates has nothing to do with what I do with kids :rolleyes: :doh :ooo

It the day & age we live in Susan, you can't hold anything against anyone....in fact to abide with European Law I've had to employ a mute to handle the phone calls......

[presto]

i don't know why people still bother questioning sexuality in job interviews, they know it can get them in trouble (case above) so why even ask. If he had a past conviction for being a pedo then it would appear in a background check which i am sure a youth worker would get. If he was gay then it's up to the one interviewing to make a decision (i assume it was pretty odbvious if he asked the question), to make a decision - unless they have a darn good reason for not employing gays (i,e, youth workers for the KKK etc... though i suppose that is wrong in reality, but IMO understandable to protect the individual) then he should be punished, just like not employing someone because of skin colour etc....

I work in the catering industry - full of lezzers and gays (the place i work has 6 :yikes: ) and they work just as hard as anyone else, so i personally have no problem with that, despite whatever personal oppinion i may have.

[TheOldhamWhisper]

...I work in the catering industry - full of lezzers and gays (the place i work has 6 :yikes: ) and they work just as hard as anyone else, so i personally have no problem with that, despite whatever personal oppinion i may have.

I wonder if the question would even have been asked if the person had been Lesbian? Unlikely.

[GlosRFC]

I agree that a persons sexuality shouldn't be relevant for employment. And, to be fair to Susan, given the propensity of our clergy to disappear behind the pulpit with any boy under the age of 14 I should've thought it was a pertinent question to ask in these circumstances.

Or look at it another way. Let's assume that a person (Mr X) is employed as a youth worker by a diocese and, in 10 years time, this diocese becomes embroiled in a major scandal when Mr X appears in court to face allegations of molesting kids in his care. The press, public, and politicians would be screaming out loud to know why he was employed in such a position of trust around vulnerable young people in the first place?

So I can understand why the question was asked at the interview, even if those questions can't, and shouldn't, be asked nowadays.

[Win2Win]

What he should do is ask all the guys if they are a lesbian, and the girls if they are homosexual. They'd just think he's a bit cuckoo, and correct him with the right answer :wink

I take it he'll appeal against the £47,000 though, as it does seem a bit steep, you get less than that if you do molest a child :headbange

[sparkyminer]

Perhaps, expanding on what Glos says. They were afraid of the competition.:D
I thought we had CRB checks to ascertain wether someone was dangerous to work with vulnerable groups.
I don't obviously know any details but my guess is he didn't get the job. Would this have happened if he'd got it?:)

[scaaty]

I think he was perfectly justified in suing - as Oldham has said, it's paedophiles who molest kids, not gays. His sexual orientation was totally irrelevant.

[Jonny2621]

Ignoring the rights and wrongs of the question itself, £47,000 is an absolute disgrace. Tell that to an 18 year old squaddie who has just lost a leg in Iraq and gets a pittance in compensation.....;fire

[tophatter]

I cant see the link between being gay and a potential child abuser. Most abusers are hetrosexual men, known to the child and very often a relative or the parent himself.

I dont know the full context of the case though and will not just jump to kneejerk reactions. The law is in place, the case was heard, the claim was awarded.

I know certain factions will try in the media to use the award as a lever to stir up feelings of animosity to suit their agendas but the basic fact remains that whoever links homosexuality to child abuse is barking up the wrong tree and therefore is probably more interested in promoting their long held views, no matter how irrrational, against homosexuals than been intrested in protecting children.

[Street cry]

Really depends upon what is meant by "sexual behaviour" is that question designed to ascertain whether he is a homosexual or not, or whether he has any previous leanings to an interest in minors (no vegy not sparkyminer)
Although it is unlikely anyone would admit to having shall we say an unhealthy interest in children past or present surely it would be remiss for that not to be included in the interview.
I would have thought that the question would be there by design to cover the bases for potential risks to children and not to make a judgement on homosexuality. It sounds like the applicant took it the wrong way (pardon the pun) I think that is what Susan was saying and if i was going for a job with kids i would expect to be questioned about my sexuality.

[tophatter]

The question of whether he was gay or not should not come into play surely when applying for a job. Been gay has no link to been a child molester so to ask it is leaving yourself open to accusations of discrimination. If he was asked if he was a child molester that may be different but then there would be no case to answer as regards discrimination. He was obviously asked the question in relation to his entirley legal sexual orientation.

If I went to for a job and was asked such a personal question I would be outraged. The inference of asking the question was surely that the person who asked it was implying that he would be less likely to trust a gay man with young people than another man. why ask it otherwise? If he had answered he was straight then it would have made it more likely he got the job even though the facts say that is not the case.

It was a discrimination case and the judge obviously saw it as a breach. To try and turn it into a moral debate is crazy, the employment law was broken.

[TheOldhamWhisper]

...Although it is unlikely anyone would admit to having shall we say an unhealthy interest in children past or present surely it would be remiss for that not to be included in the interview.
I would have thought that the question would be there by design to cover the bases for potential risks to children and not to make a judgement on homosexuality...

There are CRB checks in place to establish if the person could be a potential threat to vulnerable groups (not just children).

[TheOldhamWhisper]

Ignoring the rights and wrongs of the question itself, £47,000 is an absolute disgrace. Tell that to an 18 year old squaddie who has just lost a leg in Iraq and gets a pittance in compensation.....;fire

The £47,000 was a fine, not compensation. I hope that the person involved does push for compensation on top of all that - it might make the next bigot think carefully before asking the question.

[GlosRFC]

Now, now...I'm pretty sure that this wasn't a case of bigotry. It's probably a few old dodderers from the local diocese with no experience, or appreciation of, modern employment legislation asking a question that they innocently thought might best protect their church.

Compensation would be a tad harsh...compensation for what? Hurt feelings? Breaking a false nail in a fit of rage? Crying into his beer after being turned down for the post?

[Jonny2621]

The £47,000 was a fine, not compensation. I hope that the person involved does push for compensation on top of all that - it might make the next bigot think carefully before asking the question.

£47k as a fine is bloomin stupid too frankly, totally out of proportion with the situation and as Glos says what is the compensation for ?

The whole thing is just ridiculous and a waste of the legal system's time.

Not surprised to see a radical group like Stonewall behind this; I knew there would be an 'agenda' somewhere here as usual......

[tophatter]

Well of course Stonewall have an agenda, they are single interest action group.

There are loads of such groups on all kinds of issues.

The agenda of stonewall, as far as I can see, it is to promote the fight for gay rights. Its not a hidden agenda, and they went through the legal system and won the court case. No discrimination means no court case.

[GlosRFC]

Talking of single interest action groups, I was approached on Saturday by a group of people representing Greenpeace. Before denouncing their woolly-headed thinking and lack of proper scientific grounding in all of their political posturing, I asked them if they could tell me the most effective and efficient way of eliminating co2 emissions - apart from some tiresome (and ludicrous) arguments about banning 4x4's, encouraging more cycling, and reducing air travel...not one of them could tell me what it was!

And people still donate to these clueless idiots.

[Jonny2621]

Well of course Stonewall have an agenda, they are single interest action group.

There are loads of such groups on all kinds of issues.

The agenda of stonewall, as far as I can see, it is to promote the fight for gay rights. Its not a hidden agenda, and they went through the legal system and won the court case. No discrimination means no court case.

Oh OK :)

[Win2Win]

International Greenpeace does some good, such as bringing attention to Japan's illegal whaling fleets, dolphin fishing, etc, but the stay at home member's are only in the 'club' so they get a nice badge!!

[counterfeit]

The whole issue is a nonsense. How the hell the most notoriously paedophile friendly organisation in the world can have the cheek to ask about sexual orientation is beyond me. These are men for whom sexual frustration has only one outlet - choir boys!

As it happens my mother is gay (so is her girlfriend :)) and has worked with children all of her adult life. She would be appalled to think that her sexual orientation automatically makes her a paedophile in certain eyes.

[Onlyforfun]

Is it really too much to expect that an organisation can prefer to hire people who's ideals match those of the organisation. Investment banks don't have to hire communists, halal butchers don't have to hire Jews so why do we discriminate against Christian churches?

[susanwells]

The Diocese of Hereford is Anglican .. over 60% of C of E priests are now women and almost all male anglican priests are married... so the remark abot choirboys is way off mark. The only celibate priests are now RCs and they are having to put their house in order in a big way on this matter. But in fact it could easily have been a non-church organisation employing a youth worker and asking about their sexual orientation. The fact that it was an anglican diocese isn`t relevant here..
One of the problems is and always has been that gay or non-gay paedophiles have always been cunning and clever at getting to work with youngsters and it is a serious problem. People who want to molest children oftenb try to work with them. I honestly do not see why anyone should object - let alone sue, for being asked that question in the context of the job they were looking for. If they were going to be a doctor or a train driver or a construction worker or a financial director it would have no relevance and be a wrong question to ask. But in this context I think it important. There are paeds. of both persuasions. If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear and why on earth, especially now when everyone is so sensitive about child protection, should anyone object to a very relevant question.
Also, I did not say that gays do not work as hard as non-gays, nor did I say I had any problem with people being homosexual. I don`t. I just feel in this context it should not have been a question to cause outrage .. let alone a fine of 47,000. I have an acquaintance who is a senior doctor and often on job selection panels... where the sexuality of the doctor is of no relevance. He is militantly anti-gay - comes from a very narrow evangelical sect which makes me feel ashamed to be a Christian - and though he never dares now to ask about sexuality says he and a like-minded colleague (there are more of them about than you might think) usually get their way by not employing the gay on some other grounds. There are always plenty of good candidates apparently so no one noticeds.. oh and how does he know they are gay, you may wonder ? He says he just does. Hm. Now that is prejudice of the worst kind. I actually had a lovely gay gynaecologist once...he said many women found his gayness reassuring !!!

[mathare]

But the point is there are police background checks that have to be passed for anyone working with children so the interviewer went outside the proper channels and asked questions they had no right to.

[Win2Win]

....the interviewer went outside the proper channels and asked questions they had no right to.

Welcome to our free country :rolleyes:

Pass me another choirboy, this ones full :yikes: Sorry Susan....:peeky

[scoobydoo]

Can someone please explain to me why asking the question means anything at all in the quest to filter out abusers? If they are so cunning...they're hardly going to say "yes....I sure do love young boys and Im going to enjoy myself here....see you on Monday morning!", are they? :doh The question is meaningless in the sense that if they are abusing :censored:...they are going to say what you want to hear arent they? The only thing you can rely on in these kind of jobs is the Police checks in my opinion...

[Jonny2621]

International Greenpeace does some good, such as bringing attention to Japan's illegal whaling fleets, dolphin fishing, etc, but the stay at home member's are only in the 'club' so they get a nice badge!!


A bit like the divvy CND badge wearers when I was at Uni, what a sad, listless bunch they were..... they loved the badge and the right-on 'club' as they saw it but ask them about the fundamental issues and they knew ZIP.

[mathare]

It depends a lot on how the question was phrased Scoobs. In my mind it was out of order to ask anything of that nature but questioning their sexual behaviour could be anything from sexual orientation (gay, straight, bi etc) to how adventurous the candidate is (outdoors, dogging, S&M etc) and many more things. Conclusions could then be drawn (jumped to) from the candidate's answers without having to even bring up the subject of underage sex and child abuse.

[MattR]

I suppose they could have asked if in general their sexual partners were over 5 foot tall. Though I guess that would still leave dwarves (if that isn't too non pc to say now :rolleyes: )

I don't really think that it is something that should be required to be answered in a job interview, and as Scooby says, if they had anything to hide they'd just lie anyway so it's a bit pointless in this case.

I remember a few years back at a previous job where we had to conduct interviews from time to time, the things you couldn't bring up in an interview seemed never ending. You were almost left with, "When can you start?" :ermmm

[piggy]

as i understand it the candidate was asked what his sexual orientation was, what relevence was there to ask this question? i say none, peadophiles are peodophiles not gay or straight.

[Win2Win]

Nice debate Susan :thumbs

Cutting it down, it seems that the general consensus is that he shouldn;t have asked it anyway.

Put yourself in the place of the interviewee, if you went for a job interview and they asked you what you got up to in the bedroom, what would you think/say?

....But also the fine is way high, and it should be more about education, than a large fine.

[Onlyforfun]

In a Groucho Marx kinda way you have to wonder why a homosexual would want to work for an organisation that disapproves of homosexuality in the first place. :lickme

Plenty of other opportunities to work with kids in the public sector where "alternative lifestyles" are actively encouraged.

[counterfeit]

Put yourself in the place of the interviewee, if you went for a job interview and they asked you what you got up to in the bedroom, what would you think/say?



It depends I suppose. If I was going for an interview for a part in a porn film, there might be some relevance. No relevance if it was for a job as a lawyer. Highly relevant however if the interview was for a wardrobe fitter.