- U.K.: Recruitment firm told ad for “reliable workers” would discriminate against the unreliable [Telegraph]
- “Against Civil Gideon (and for Pro Se Court Reform)” [Benjamin Barton (Tennessee), SSRN, via Legal Ethics Forum]
- Sewn-in “Made in USA” suit-label figures in tell-all book by John Edwards aide [WSJ “Washington Wire”, Hotline On Call] Did Edwards, great denouncer of M.D.s’ errors, propose getting a doc to fake DNA results? [Charles Hurt/N.Y. Post]
- Lucky cops! There just happened to be $672K in the car they stopped and they plan to keep it [Freeland] “The Forfeiture Racket: Police and prosecutors won’t give up their license to steal” [Radley Balko, Reason]
- Family and Medical Leave Act doesn’t cover faith-healing trips that include a vacation aspect [Michael Maslanka, Texas Lawyer]
- “Dangerism” — how society constructs what’s supposedly dangerous for kids [Free-Range Kids]
- This is one of those links buried deep in a roundup that hardly any readers will actually get around to clicking [Chris Clarke]
- Update: Landlord’s suit over critical Twitter post dismissed [Cit Media Law, AP/Chicago Tribune, Business Insider (court sides with defense argument that so much of it’s just “pointless babble”); earlier here and here]
-
And: Did the press jump the gun with its report that it’s now lawful to import haggis into the U.S.? A letter to Andrew Sullivan says nothing has been decided yet, though the ban seems to be under review.
Filed under: advertising, civil gideon, forfeiture, John Edwards, libel slander and defamation, pro se, Twitter, United Kingdom, workplace
7 Comments
1. My, you don’t even begin to scratch the surface of the schadenfreude in those Edwards links.
2. This is a comment about how much I appreciated clicking the Clarke link.
Ted Frank
Cleveland, OH
The UK’s labor policy seems to be designed to work by encouraging satirists to take up more productive careers.
The UK employment ad story has happened before.
Even from a PC perspective prohibiting the use of the word reliable in a job ad doesn’t make any sense. I can’t imagine what group of people they are trying to protect from “discrimination”.
In both this case, and the Moriarty case, it seems to be the problem of especially dim intake workers at the Jobcentre who misinterpreted the command “No discriminatory advertisements.” As few are foolish enough to submit a “men-only” or “whites-only” ad, the intake worker’s imagination about the command runs wild.
[…] first I thought this was from The Onion. Speaking of Overlawyered, they cite this article from the London Telegraph: Nicole Mamo, 48, wanted to post an advert for a […]
“I can’t imagine what group of people they are trying to protect from “discrimination”.”
That’s easy: the unreliable. Why they are a protected class is another question.